platty'squiff

amen to that - "Brighty" was such a nob during that match ... prior to MON the BBC's coverage was out and out anti Villa, IMO ... anyway, I digress!

fair enough - I just recall that when he scored the late late equaliser in the cup last year that Motty made a big deal about him really enjoying that as he and his family are SHA fans ...

However, I think Micah Richards should be high on Villa's list although I feel Chelsea may get him!

even more unlikely that he will come to us as I believe he comes from a family of Bluenoses ...

If he did sign and played alongside Juan Pablo, the strike partnership would cause a few problems - mostly for commentators!

Of course music is about passion - but my point essentially that Oasis didn't move on (and are a bit limited in their scope)- they were great in 94/95 then just did the same thing again and again.

Yes, it'd be ace if Coxo returned (Think Tank has its moments and the last Coxo album was really good, but they're better off together) ...

When it comes to the terrace-rush (in musical terms), I think you can't beat prime era Slade or Mott or maybe even the Sweet...

The difference is, like it or not (13 in particular - not a fave of mine), Blur moved on, experimented and took on other musical ideas. Oasis are basically the same band they were in '94 (without the tunes). So, yes, I would say Blur were better musically.

PS. I agree, SFA are ace!

"Dont get me wrong, I am a massive fan of the Stone Roses, but they do not provide as wide a range of songs as Oasis do. "

Erm, have you ever ever ever heard any semblence of any other music in Oasis other than basically late 60's to mid 70's rock??? The only thing that distinguished them from say, O.C.S. (although they had better tunes!)was the compressed "Sex Pistols" production on the first album (which can be ascribed to Owen Morris who was doing the same thing with the early Ash stuff).

The Roses obviously listened to punk, funk, rock, pop, soul, hip hop, house, dub and reggae - that's what made them great.

Oh crikey, where do I begin?

At the beginning!

Cigs & Alc - Get It On

Shakermaker - I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing

Whatever - All You Need Is Love

Morning Glory (song) - the One I Love

Don't Look back In Anger - Imagine

Hello - hello hello It's Good To Back (credited)

Step Out (I think it's called that - B side to Don't Look Back) - Uptight (credited - originally destined for Morning Glory album but pulled due to worries about paying Stevie Wonder et al)

Stand By Me - All The Young Dudes

I could go on...

As for "the limited diversity of the Stone roses Tracks", well, the day Oasis can take in the breadth of influences of the Roses (from Sly And The Family Stone, Cymande and Lee Perry to Byrds, Beatles and Led Zep) is the day I (probably) start buying their records again...

Even releasing a single (irrespective of whether it is or isn't the worse thing on the album) that's such a clear rip off is pretty crap (if it had been a B-side it wouldn't have been quite so bad).- it is quite amazing that Noel's only had to credit other songwriters on a couple of other occasions...

Don't you think, for example, that it's more than a bit crap (and shortchanging the fans) that after 2 or 3 years away the best they can come up with is Street Fighting Man (Lyla)?

you're right about their influences not just being the Beatles as most detractors say. Slade in particular are a very strong (and excellent) one and I liked the way they picked up the baton from the Roses (although they will never have the breadth of scope) in '94. But they could never have come up with a Fools Gold, Bye Bye Badman or I Am The Resurrection...

Many many many bands knocking out epic singalong ladrock. Embrace etc.

You can't seriously believe that Oasis are unique? I used to be a very big fan (had all the singles up to D'You Know What I Mean) but they just became so repetitive and I got sick of Noel recycling old tunes...

As for them representing the "complete range of rationally acceptable music today" - crikey!

If you have the complete range of Oasis albums, you have the complete range of rationally acceptable music today

From, err, 70's rock to 70's rock?

I'll agree to disagree ... and 13 is self indulgent rubbish....

|Bloody hell - double post! SORRY!

Whisper it, but Def Maybe is a wee bit overrated - I loved it at the time but there's too much karaoke plagarism on it (Cigs & Alc - TRex, Shakermaker - Like to Teach The World etc.) . Parklife is MUCH better.

Whisper it, but Def Maybe is a wee bit overrated - I loved it at the time but there's too much karaoke plagarism on it (Cigs & Alc - TRex, Shakermaker - Like to Teach The World etc.) . Parklife is MUCH better.

To be honest the only truly original tune Noel ever wrote was Live Forever and maybe Wonderwall... I'm surprised he's not been in court more often!

No-one's given a decent answer as to why they think Oasis are better. If you ever wanted an example of why Blur are better, it would appear that the Kinks have been a big influence on Noel's writing for Oasis' latest. Erm, didn't he realise Blur were doing that 11 years ago!

Blur could never cut it live, Albarn's a terrible singer away from the studio! They did a couple of good albums (currently disowned by the singer himself), Oasis have gone through their dip and are back on track while Albarn admits he's knackered without Coxon.

Oasis are still one of the most entertaining bands around, just wish the Roses reformation rumours were true, now that would be worth seeing!

well, I have to disagree - watching some bloke monkey around disinterestedly (aping the singer of some other infinitely superior group) while the other 4 just stand there doesn't constitute entertainment for me - and I've seen them 3 times.

I've seen Blur 3 times also and not only are they a great deal more fun - they've also got more musical ideas in their collective pinkies then Noel's got in his whole record collection ...

Definitely Maybe's good though - the best Slade/T Rex/Pistols/Beatles/Stones Album ... ever

Isn't Nobby captain of Peru?