Which is better

which is better

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yP1wtIfs8lg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Virgin Radiohead vs Chad Oasis
This is fact

This

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DAY69

oa

...

left one of course, DID YOU EVER LISTENED TO WONDERWALL??

DAE PLAY WONDEEWALL ON GUITAR??

right and it isn't even close

I choose OKC as well but it is quite close though. Both are overrated mellow indie pop rock albums from the 90s. It's just that one is considered better because it's a tiny bit more alternative.

>mellow
It's considered better because it's the best, pham

What's the Story is once generic rock with the same basic 4chord verse-chorus structure. OKC at least attempts to do a lot of interesting things in terms of sound and songwriting. It's really not even close. OKC is a much more solid album which still manages to sound somewhat fresh but the Oasis album sounds dated as fuck.

Since both bands became completely irrelevant after those albums, I'd say they're equal.

Left is one of the best albums ever made. Right is boring mid-to-slow tempo shit with no memorable melodies.
>mellow indie pop rock albums
t. only heard Wonderwall and Champagne Supernova

>boring
>tempo even being a criticism
>no memorable melodies
yowzer

oasis is just radiohead if they only released creep lmao. aside from wonderwall (a literal meme), they're completely irrelevant outside the uk

>they're completely irrelevant outside the uk
ok

Colossal anthems for blokes versus soycore for cucks. Idk op, you tell me.

typical fucking soyboy reddithead fan with zero knowledge of music. i'd take the arpeggio in wonderwall over radioshart's entire discogrphy tbqh

>""""""interesting""""""
a word for clueless faggots

Better how?

OKC is more enjoyable personally but that isn't objective at all I'll grant. It certainly still holds up, it's timeless whereas anything by Oasis sounds pretty distinctively like the time and place it came from.

OKC is somewhat experimental, it's not completely out there and still has a lot of "catchy" tracks but at least they're trying things out.
I get that you know all this and are just trying to bait people, but I'm bored and there may be people who have never given radiohead a try becasue of these stupid threads we have hourly it seems now, and they're missing out.

theyre both shit

radiohead and oasis plebs need not reply

what the fuck Hungary

>unkle adams
>wholesome
>never gives up
>been in the game for years
>releases new content all the time
>fantano got so scared of him he apologized for dissing his song
>multi-talented - when he's not rapping he's making money on the side as a TV salesman

>6ix9ine
>got rated 3 by fantano (lol)
>only released one mixtape
>knows nothing about the rap game
>will probably give up as soon as he hits adversity
>watched unkle adams videos for motivation
>is unironically a pedo

remind me why people give a fuck about this rainbow pedo again?

Ye but who'd win in a fight?
Oh wait oasis would win that as well.

Tom York BTFO

What is interesting about OKC?

Pablo Honey

Kid A is better than both of those, alright?

OKC acting as a doorway ushering in all of alternative rock's best new ideas and an eternal middle finger to dadrock

Oasis is literally dadrock revival

Lush and expressive harmonies, complex rhythms, electronic, jazz and classical influence etc.

What's The Story (Morning Glory) isn't even Oasis beat album, this comparison is stupid

Be here now

why are the gallagher brothers spamming the thread with all this shit

GO TO BED NOEL

Oasis. WTSMG is probably one of the best albums of all time unironically

(WTS)MG? 100%

Not even comparable. WTSMG and The Bends would be a more apt comparison.

>suddenly pop charts and sales matter
the state of this board

Oh so you mean it's like a Krautrock record but WAY WAY less concise

it has songs that i enjoy listening to, to put it simply

I know the cool answer is Radiohead, but the correct answer is Oasis.

>Oh so you mean it's like a Krautrock record
Like which one?

whichever one was less popular is the Sup Forums choice. if OKC was much more critically acclaimed and sold more units than WTSMG then Oasis would be the consensus

I haven't listened to either in ages, but I know if I was asked to choose the one I'd want to listen to right now would be the Oasis album.
I used to think that OKC gave me a particular sense of contemporary (circa 1997? yeouch...) alienation; now I just see it as temperamentally depressive. Radiohead went onto better things - Amnesiac has more sonically interesting content on it, and In Rainbows even beats it as a coherent artistic statement. hell, Jonny Greenwood's soundtrack work beats OKC.
Wonderwall - no contest

Let's see any Oasis song with the complexity of Paranoid Android.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

He wrote that Oasis were irrelevant outside the UK.

If complexity is the only thing that counts then Dream Theater must be 10 times as good as Radiohead (doesn't matter that they really are)

>complexity only means technicality

Oasis is proper ladcore, you can listen to it when going, while at the pub and back at your birds place.

Radiohead is for the kid in the back whose into philosophy and has severe iron deficiency and a startling obsession with anime and watching rain.

complexity ≠ quality
that said, I see your point that the song takes you for a journey - but if you didn't like the places it took you, what fucking good is it?

>complexity ≠ quality
True, but complexity has more opportunity for quality than simplicity

Nice try though

Also
>but if you didn't like
Not what we are discussing

actually since this board is contrarian, the answers are reversed

it's cool to like oasis and also cool to shit on radiohead nowadays

>complexity has more opportunity for quality than simplicity
more like complexity has more opportunity for novel variation than sticking to formula - but if the formula works you need to pay attention to the ways that you can fall flat by ignoring it in a pop form
as for not liking it not being a valid objection, we're talking pop rock here - not Bartok. it's like you're making the case that Paranoid Android is aesthetically important and I need to regard its complexity separately from whether this pop single is enjoyable on its own terms.
I'd argue this James Brown cut is more complex than the Paranoid Android Cantata:
youtube.com/watch?v=yP1wtIfs8lg

>but if the formula works
Then you need to break the formula because it will become contrived
>by ignoring it in a pop form
Irrelevant. These are rock bands.
>it's like you're making the case that Paranoid Android is aesthetically important and I need to regard its complexity separately from whether this pop single is enjoyable on its own terms.
Cool story but you never showed me an Oasis song as complex as Paranoid Android. Try again?

Both are ripping off The Beatles but Radiohead were at least smart about it. Oasis is literally imitating their mid-era sound and slathering it in overblown Leckie-esque 90's production. No thanks.

I already summed up my opinions concerning OP's A/B test here:
Amnesiac≈In Rainbows>Morning Glory>OKC
we agree that Radiohead's high points were higher than Oasis', but in my view OKC wasn't one of them - the only songs on there I like are No Surprises and Electioneering.
you want to make a case for Radiohead's glory? pick one of their later, higher, peaks, instead of taking a stand to support a song I consider overwrought and unpleasant.

>complexity has more opportunity for quality than simplicity
and in simplicity shows the master. have another free cliché. I'd like to see the day when Thom Corke comes up with a better melody than Live Forever. Oh right, he can't.

But user, the melody doesn't matter. As long as it is complexed it's great.

Oasis is just really loud rock music for dumb oafs to get wasted to.

Non sequitur
>and in simplicity shows the master.
Statistically less probable

>Non sequitur
ok

left. But definitely maybe is better than both of those choices. And it's also better than anything radiohead has put out

...

Why are people on Sup Forums so insecure about admitting radiohead isn't completely generic? You can think they're overrated if you want, but if you are trying to say Paranoid Android just sounds like any other radio alt-rock hit you're trying way too hard to be contrarian.

literally there isn't an album better than right one and you know well that's true

Jesus calm down Liam. The Bends literally overshadows Oasis' entire career and that's a well known fact. There's a reason nobody cares about them anymore.

OKC but to be honest they're very different albums and each has its own merits

calm down there pleb. Lots of bands are better than radiohead. Like oasis

modern life is rubbish > ok computer > definitely maybe > parklife > the bends
>whats the story > different class > blur > great escape >his n hers > coming up > urban hymns > elastica

also every album is 8+/10

of course you're right - it's rated #1 best of all time on RYM/Sonemic
even Best Ever Albums - the list aggregator - places it on the top
argument over: OK Computer is the greatest album of all time, and if you disagree you're factually wrong

>#1 in a bunch of literally who countries
top kek

Pablo Honey

oasis is tunes for u an the blokes to get sloshed and sing to down at teh pub after a night of mashing on slags at the club

radiohead is art to be appreciated

What are you talking about? Krautrock is the antithesis of complex rhythms and harmonies. Also most Krautrock uses extended prog song structures whereas OKC is mostly pop music, so if anything OKC is more concise.