Here Today... Gone To Hell!

I saw a discussion about this topic in the Strokes' new album thread, and it's something that's been on my mind for a while.? People always deify Kurt Cobain, saying that he helped combine the aggression of punk with the melody of The Beatles.? But except for Nirvana's big hit singles, I think that's mostly horseshit.? If you've ever listened to a Nirvana album, you'll know that roughly half the songs on each are unbearable filler - screaming noise that's only slightly more catchy than an Anal Cunt song.

In my opinion, the REAL band that combined punk attitude with pop melodies was Oasis.? Clearly, The Beatles are one of their biggest influences.? But they have way more melody than Nirvana ever did.? Almost every song that the band writes has a relentlessly catchy tune to it.? Oasis has a bit of a punk influence, but rather than letting it overwhelm the actual songs, like Nirvana did, they incorporate it into their music so that it becomes melodic rock with an undertone of balls-out aggression.? Just compare an Oasis throwaway like "Thank You For The Good Times" to Nirvana's unbelievably shitty "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through The Strip".

Noel Gallagher is the REAL songwriter of the 90s.? While Nirvana released only a few albums (which were really only good for the singles), Oasis is still going strong in 2006.? As far as I'm concerned, Nirvana is a band that wrote a dozen or so incredible songs, but padded their albums with shitty filler.? It's been said before, but I'll say it again - if Cobain hadn't blew his brains out, he would have nowhere near the iconic status he enjoys today.

Definitely Nirvana. Oasis are way too overrated. Firstly, Nirvana always had more energy in their music. Oasis seem very dull and boring and the Gallaghers tried far too hard to get their bad girl reputation. Kurt Cobain thought sometimes annoying was very experimental interms of his music (as shown by Unplugged 1993). Kurt Cobain had a more entertaining side to; i find him very humourous.

I don't think it makes any sense to compare the B-sides. If Oasis are stupid enough to throw away an above average song, it's their problem.

Wow, that's comparing two of the most terrible, overrated bands ever. It's hard to decide which one's worse. I'll say Oasis is worse because Nirvana came earlier and had a slightly more unique sound, even though both bands copied their contemporaries and dumbed down the music.

Oasis are by far a better band, I fuckin hate Nirvana, so overrated. Simple shitty 3 chord music the way people buy all this Cobain bullshit sickens me

How the hell can u compare such different bands ???

If Oasis died in a plane crash after playing Knebworth in 96, they would have gone down in history as the greatest rock n roll band of all time. Says it all really, Nirvana are a good band, thats all.

Oasis are the band that defined the 90's.

They're two of the 90s' biggest bands, but Nirvana tends to have more critical respect.  I was also comparing them on the basis of how both were reputed to combine punk attitude with pop melodies.  In my opinion, Oasis did it a lot better.  They simply have better songs, and a collectively stronger catalogue.  Nirvana also relied more on cover versions; that's pretty much what their Unplugged album was all about.


Nirvana's live performances definitely had more energy, I'll concede that.  But in terms of the music?  Oasis's songs are both generally catchier and hard rockin'.  And if you want to talk about entertainment value offstage, it's always a good laugh to read about the Gallagher brothers getting into a brawl and having crazy drunken antics.  They're like one of the only bands these days that lives the unrepetant rock lifestyle - sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.  Nirvana tried to destroy that image, which is one of the reasons I resent them.  Oasis kept it alive.

well said mattman.

funny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir3dllyI0qY&search=nirvana%20live%20end%20jam%20rare%20concert

oasis last album destroyed any respect i had for them. it was terrible.

oasis were good but tbh i think they were the more defining in the UK. i dont think they hit the rest of the world the way nirvana did.

i like both bands but im not majorly into them.

Lol funny indeed. Kinda long clip though.. they shoulda cut it in half and got straight to the beat down!

I vote for Nirvana.

It's all a matter of opinion, really.  I like music that filters raw emotion - like, Nirvana - however, i also like a good melody, a simple chord progression and catchy music, much like Oasis.

I don't know what you're saying that Nirvana has "too much filler" or "relies too much on covers" because the albums Nevermind and In Utero i love mostly every track: again, all matter of opinion, and i don't think those albums had a cover on them.  (And if you're speaking about Unplugged most artists do covers on that show).

"While Nirvana released only a few albums (which were really only good for the singles), Oasis is still going strong in 2006."  Well what do you expect, Kurt Cobain died!

"It's been said before, but I'll say it again - if Cobain hadn't blew his brains out, he would have nowhere near the iconic status he enjoys today."

I'm sure if Noel Gallagher or another member of Oasis had died when they were popular they would be considered the next Beatles or something now.

However, i do agree with you on some of the things you said.

you can say whatever you want about nirvana. but you have to admit that they were a true rock n' roll band, and they lived it. we could wish that they were more bands like nirvana or guns nowadays.
the only one who is holding the rock n' roll flag right now is manson.

nirvana were anti rock n roll. how does that make sense.

i mean their attitude was what rock n' roll is/should be about

I prefer Oasis by a long way. They are one of the bands i grew up with.

Nirvana i think maybe the most overated band ever. They had some good songs but nothing to rave about the way they were.

I really think Noel doesn't get the credit he deserves mainly coz his brother is an idiot at times and they have both been labelled as the same. . . He has written some true anthems. and songs that will be around for years to come.

I think its an amazing thing to see and hear 60,000 people sing 'Don't Look Back In Anger' and 'Wonderwall' back at the band at gigs and festivals.

Oasis have had continued sucsess. And just like bands like Coldplay, U2 and no doubt the Arctic Monkeys people will always be ready to critasize but if they continue with the sucsess they have then maybe people should just have respect for them even if their not your favourite band.

Oasis brought guitar rock back in the uk

Oasis were bigger than nirvana ever did in all their carreer , even during the "nevermind" erea.
The fact is Nirvana were bigger than Oasis in the U.S, but in Europe and in the rest of the world, Oasis were more successfull than Nirvana.

"What's the story morning glory" (Oasis) sold 20 million copies. I was in high school by that time, and they were a fucking huge phenomenon! every fucking day they were getting bigger and bigger and bigger. They were the biggest band in the world. They were almost as big as GN'R 87-93 erea. that was crazy. So yeah, definitely bigger and better than Nirvana.

a fucking great video oasis video on the biggest musical TV show in France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9gSqF0l-dw
That is Rock n' Roll! Zack (the drummer) goes nut! Oasis is a much more powerfull band than Nirvana. They sound LOUDER.

 :yes: : ok:

Oasis wrote "Master Plan" and "Talk Tonight". They win.

Nirvana made 3 brilliant albums, they win.

Fuck this shit.  Blur win.

Both vastly overrated bands.  Oasis maybe defined the 90's in the UK but I don't think they were the best band, not original at all.  Blur, Manic Street Preachers and Prodigy own Oasis.  Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Pantera owned Nirvana.

Both bands managed 'anthem' status for some of their songs, but neither was consistently good enough to deserve the praise they received.  Oasis' first two albums were great (and b-sides album Masterplan) but have been releasing mostly crap music for 10 years.  Nirvana's success is owed largely to a couple of big songs and Kurt's suicide.  You can't tell me that they are as good as Alice in Chains, if you think they are listen to Jar Of Flies and Dirt.  Musically AIC beat Nirvana hands down in every respect.

I prefer Oasis because they made some cool R'n'R songs and were a lot more 'anthemic' than Nirvana.  Probably only required that line but I thoughth I'd add the rest anyway  :hihi:

nirvana wins, Hands down. Oasis suck the big nana. IMO

Oasis wrote some fantastic and insanely popular rock songs, although they were terribly derivative of other artists, The Beatles and T. Rex among them.

Nirvana owed a lot to other bands as well (such as the Pixies, with the loud/soft dynamics), but Nirvana definintely popularized a totally new sound, broke down musical barriers, and woke the world up to "alternative" rock.

Both solid bands, but in terms of leaving a legacy behind, it's Nirvana all the way.

That's a very unrealistic thing to say, even though I like some of Oasis' work.

If we're comparing bands here, there were many better bands in the '90s than Nirvana and Oasis, IMO. Alice In Chains, Metallica's '90s albums, Megadeth, Pantera, Faith No More and of course Blur.  : ok:

I prefer Oasis, when definately mabye came out i fukin loved them. Im not a huge fan of their last album though.

I dont mind nirvana, i just think they're the most over rated band in the history of music, i hate how music journalists mention kurt cobain in the same breath as john lenon, kurt couldnt tie john lennons boot laces.

Oasis hands down. Definitely maybe and Morning Glory piss all over Nirvana. I don't know how may times i've done this, but this is what I love about Oasis. I put on Definitely Maybe when i'm going out drinking and the next day I put on Morning Glory when i'm tired and hungover.

I used to think that but in all honesty I don't think Blur is as good as Oasis.

I'd pick Oasis over Nirvana by a long shot.  I don't hate Nirvana, never have but I do think they are the most overrated band in history. Oasis is more dynamic, more versatile and alot better in my opinion.

Not that this matters but for anyone who thinks Nirvana is anywhere near as popular as Oasis than you must've been living in a  cave the last 10-15 years.

save urself, they both suck, in my honest opinion......and yes, Cobain may have not been in the iconic position he is now if he hadnt burned out before fading away....but his death put a bullet hole in the very music he was the forerunner for, its depression became even more depressing and even Billy Corgan seemed to comment that 'it took the wind out of everyones sails'

In my personal opinion, anything that glamourises suicide shouldnt be adhored or respected, its just plain evil

Love em both, but I gotta go with Oasis!? Oasis has got some great material, not just there radio hits.? The last Oasis album was phenominal, greatly exceeded my expectations.? Heathen Chemistry in my opinion was there weakest album, and yet there is still 3 or 4 gems in there.? Nirvana has some classic material, but besides Nevermind & The Unplugged album, I cant stand to listen to any of their other albums straight through.

I'm a huge fan of both of these bands but I listen to Oasis much, much more than I do Nirvana.  I was a fan of Nirvana before Kurt died and before that it was always Pearl Jam VS. Nirvana... who are the "grunge" kings??  It just pisses me off that when Kurt was still alive, not everyone thought they were the greatest thing in the world.  Right after he died, things changed and everyone jumped on his nuts.  Like I said, I do like Nirvana but it's just a shame that the death of someone, makes a band so much better than any other band, in a lot of peoples opinion.  I am going to say Oasis wins this one, hands fucking down.  I don't know how many Oasis fans here actually go and try to find all the Oasis songs that they can, such as the b-sides, demos and unreleased shit, but those that do, know that Oasis is one fucking great band.  There is so much more AMAZING music than just the MAIN albums that they release.  Here's a little info that can go with this topic: The first time Oasis played 'Hey, Hey, My, My' by Neil Young, was in Seattle. Kurt Cobain had written at the bottom of his "suicide" note that, "It's better to burn out than to fade away..." , which of course are lyrics from the song.  That may be a coincedence, but I don't think so. I'm such a fucking nerd for even knowing that.

oasis by a mile!!

Nivarna were the most over  hyped up band ever!!

 :)

This really isn't true. Kurt, if anything, was looked at as the 'king' of grunge, and was the most popular rock star of the time. Heck, Time magazine wanted him & Eddie Vedder on the cover of their magazine. He didn't 'invent' alternative music, Jane's Addiction had a hit with "Been caught Stealin' a year before, RHCP had "Suck my Kiss' out, and 'Under the Bridge' was sure to be another hit, Soundgarden had 'Rusty Cage' and AIC had 'Man in the Box'... but for some reason, Kurt was chosen as the cover boy.


Why there's a comparision to Oasis I have no idea, can't even compare the two.. Nirvana is a top band, along with Beatles, Pearl Jam, Stones, Who, etc.. Oasis are a 2nd tier band, like Black Crowes, Offspring, INXS etc.. Good, but not the Greatest.

Before Nirvana: :no:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKg4CqyCMk

After Nirvana: :yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM1ibgLIgas





Any questions??

The first time Oasis played 'Hey, Hey, My, My' by Neil Young, was in Seattle. Kurt Cobain had written at the bottom of his "suicide" note that, "It's better to burn out than to fade away..." , which of course are lyrics from the song.? That may be a coincedence, but I don't think so. I'm such a fucking nerd for even knowing that.

I was at that show dude, and Noel dedicated that song to Cobain. I believe it was the anniversary of his death. I was pissed off though, as I wanted to hear Oasis's cover of My Generation not Hey, Hey, My, My.

Quite how anyone can compare Oasis with Nirvana its like comparing a Orange to an apple

There are totally differeny. Live with it

oranges are waaaay better than apples.

You take that back! You take that back now!! :rant:

This example is BRILLIANT! : ok: :beer:

Both bands are different, but the problem is that the people that dont know nirvana's catalogue or b-sides tend to criticise or generalize nirvana's catalogue into just screamy / noisy songs. Sure, there are quite a few of them, but less known compositions such as do-re-mi, old age and the rest of the 93-94 stuff are more acoustic / pop / beatlesque songs. 

Say what you wanna say, but nirvana did indeed change the face of music. Rock N Roll cliche's ( sex, drugs, etc ) that once were considered cool are now taken as a joke ( pete doherty , cobain's own wife courtney love, paris hilton,  even our own axl ).

And, Nirvana's progressive music evolution is clear. From the raw sound of bleach in the late 80's to the pop side showcased in mtv's unplugged in new york in late 93, i can clearly ( and not to compare with them but, ) make a connection with the beatles, who went from i wanna hold your hand to sgt peppers. As far as a mainstream listener like me knows, oasis has gone downhill in their releases and ( again, for a mainstream listener like me ) the only song that still has regular play is wonderwall, when nirvana's lithium, come as you are and most of the unplugged songs still get air time.

I dont know what band is better, but my favorite is nirvana.