Oasis were a once exciting band that should've split up after their second album. Which is one more than the Jesus and Mary Chain. so there.

oasis are one of my guilty pleasures. i don't really listen to them but i have a bunch of thier cds (some i never even listened to). i enjoy some of their stuff though. it just depends on my mood.

fookin oasis and were gonna take ova the fookin world!

noel gallagher amuses the hell out of me

and i do love "champagne supernova"

that's about it

I really dislike Oasis, but I still enjoy some of their songs; Live Forever and Don't Look Back In Anger. Noel can be pretty amusing, but Liam is just annoying.

do people still get upset by Oasis?
wow

I liked them as a kid.......

they're crap
and wankers
and i don't give a flying fuck about the cunts
don't even know why i bothered losing twenty seconds of my precious time with this reply


ignore it

yeah, just about every top 40 band on the radio for the past ten years solid. but I agree, Oasis sucks so bad it hurts my feelings that they were so successful as an artist band, they were like a mellow version of greenday [ie, faker then fake]

I think the problem with Oasis wasn't that they were faker than fake, it was more that they're entirely earnest about what they're doing, utterly convinced that what they were doing was entirely right. The abject lack of imagination and the coke-fuelled period of artlessness was why we hate them now. This is, of course, a British perspective. Manchester has millions of cunts like the Gallaghers. In fact, they're practically moderate, bean-curd eating hippies from Ealing by comparison to some proper Manc lads.

but Oasis was suppos3ed to be the second coming of songwriting genius like the beatles!


ha ha ha!!!!!!

It's interesting that of the people who acknowledge liking a few Oasis songs, "Champagne Supernova" is almost always mentioned as being one of them. For me, that was the song that sealed the deal as far as hating them. "Don't Look Back in Anger"--while being rather derivative--was not bad for me at a time I was still forming my musical tastes. But every time Champagne "Supernover" (god, that annoyed me) came on the radio, I knew it was going to be, like, 6 minutes until something else would come on. I just didn't feel like it was interesting or good enough to warrant going on for as long as it did. But to each his own.

can't stand oasis. they say theyre so influenced by the beatles, but then why does every oasis song sound the same? at least the beatles grew and developed as a band as they went on. Oasis just keep making the same boring shit.

Oasis never looked like they were having a good time.
why would I want to listen to aband that obviously is not enjoying themselves at all?\

I'll give you Rock 'n Roll Star, but Champagne Supernova makes me physically ill.

Along with Suede, they're a band that condensed absolutely everything they had to give into the first song of their first album, creating one fantastic moment followed by a career of turgid shit.

Supersonic was a genius debut single and one that I still listen to now. I remember taping them when they appeared on The Word and breaking the tab on the cassette. Once they replaced the curly haired drummer though, things started going rapidly down hill. You sensed an element of professionalism creeping into their once shambolic freshness. And once Bonehead went, well they'd just turned into an industry by then. But they're seemingly fire proof. You know that in the event of a nuclear strike, they'll still have an album out the following October, and it'll still sound exactly the same as Heathern Chemistry, only more so.

Yeah, Champagne Supernova is a long yawn. Why all the sudden discussion about Oasis, anyway?

Champagne Supernova is a quality tune. It's one of the few post E Rock n Roll records that actually makes me feel like I've just dropped one - albeit a shit smacky one, bought off some dodgy ragga in Tottenham.

I think I'll put some Oasis.