Yoko puts John Lennon's bloody clothes from the night he was shot on display...

Fiddy Ono

I don't care about the Beatles US popularity vs. Oasis's. Hell, the Beatles aren't even close to being among my favorite bands and some of their songs really annoy me, but you can't deny the influence they've had on a lot of future music. Like for instance Chemical Bros, which ol' Noel sang for occasionally, owe bigtime to songs like Tomorrow Never Knows.

Again, COULD be that I haven't heard enough Oasis to form an opinion, but Noel came off as a whiner and their songs didn't amaze me. I'd say the things Damon Albarn has done in Blur and Gorillaz is much greater and more interesting than Oasis.

Yoko Ono sucks.
Oasis sucks.
John Lennon rocks.

Now that I had the misfortune to hear Oasis I can verify that they do indeed suck.

Wow you are insane if you think that video sucks.

Listen to this from Lennon


Lennon sounds like shit compared to Noel. The only possible thing you could say he may have been better at is song writing but its debetable how much he actually wrote anyway.

You listened to that and still believe Noel has a better voice and is a better singer than Lennon?

Best post in this thread. I too, am very baffled by the comparisions to Oasis. It comes up every time a thread is created related to The Beatles. I only ever see the comparisions here. I guess that shouldn't be surprising given that this is GFY after all. I unfortunately can't stop from cliking on threads that catch my eye like this. I just come here to for biz threads mostly.

LOL wow...nice way to completely change the debate all of a sudden. So vocal and instrumental talent? K, here's your instrumental:



And for singing, I guess a Whitney Houston, Elvis, maybe Sinatra?

Yes, it's about the SONGS, which is why people have been comparing THE BEATLES to OASIS, and yes, despite that acoustic video of Wonderwall, there is no comparison sorry to say. Oh yea, and Oasis would have probably sold more albums if Noel's recorded voice sounded anything like that. Instead, it sounds whiny kthx.

1. This wasn't a thread comparing Oasis to the Beatles. Topic says nothing about it.

2. There's but one person who is at the heart of making any Beatles thread about how Oasis is "better".... he goes by 'Blazed'.

Glad I was here to clear this up for some of you. :D

Oasis have sold plenty albums, they are in top 3 biggest bands in the world and all of that without America. The only reason they are not big in America anyway is because from the start they have been vocal in the fact they do not like Americans. They never went begging trying to break America like the beatles did.

Yes it is about the songs and take the top songs from Oasis and compare them to any band and you wont find much better. Wonderwall, Dont look back in anger, Champagne supernova, live forever etc. Some of the best songs ever written. It really doesnt matter anyway when the beatles generation dies out nobody will give two shits about them.

That is so weird for me

When a band has achieved lasting greatness and earned their place in history (like the Beatles have) one doesn't have to go around arguing with people to try to prove it. True greatness doesn't need convincing.

You jumping into every music-related thread knocking your head against a wall isn't doing your cause or the band you're obsessed with any justice. Quite the opposite in fact, as all you end up doing is making yourself look foolish, over and over and over again.

In the interest of maybe getting this thread a little bit back to where it was,

I was a huge Beatles fan back when they were still together (I was 8 or 9 when they broke up) I would still consider myself a pretty big fan and somewhat knowledgeable about their music and culture.

I used to hate Yoko and believe that she had nothing special, but over the years, I've come to understand her a little bit better. I believe that Yoko Ono is an incredibly intelligent and multitalented individual. She has for more than 40 years produced artwork and other visual or media-based projects designed to elicit strong responses from people. Much of her work shocks, offends or angers, while other work just causes confusion, or even delight and amusement.

I am convinced that her decision to display the clothing and personal effects that John was wearing when he died is, as she said, about reminding people in a very visceral way about gun-related violence. And I think that going to see that exhibit would almost certainly cause anyone seeing it to perhaps think a little more carefully about violence. We as a society are so desensitized to violence that a lot of us don't place much value on seeing it. Seeing the bloody clothes of a loved and admired musician who was, himself, one of the most outspoken peace activists can't help but make an impact on people viewing it.

I would seriously doubt that money plays any significant role in this.

Pretty cool of her to do that, i'd like to go check it out

This is the kind of input I was hoping for in this thread.

Good post.