Originally Posted by Paloma

After all The Stone Roses only had two albums (one of which was abysmal), but would you argue that Oasis is better because they had more albums?

Originally Posted by Dotoar

No, I would argue that Oasis is better, period.

(Yes! There you have it, an unpopular opinion!)

Originally Posted by Paloma

Are you ****ing kidding me, what have Oasis even done that could surpass them? The Gallagher brothers would sell each other's testicles to come up with anything as good as this:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Yeye, Oasis may be derivative as hell, but stuff like "Live forever", "Supersonic" and "Don't look back in anger" are britpop masterpieces, and I'm not budging an inch on this one.

Originally Posted by Paloma

Don't Look Back in Anger is a great song, but I think it's reaching to call it a britpop masterpiece.

This is a britpop masterpiece

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Now we're talking! Blur > Oasis, but that's another story. (As is the fact that Ray Davies is the father of all things britpop, so Kinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blur > Oasis).

Originally Posted by duga

I think Damon Albarn has proven over the years just who are the more talented songwriters. Oasis blows.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

PULP > Remainder of britpop, excluding Blur.

The Importance of Being Idle is a great song, but ultimately, Oasis owe a great deal of their material to the discographies of others.