Join the debate and drop your thoughts on Oasis below. Looking back in anger?

2:06 They had a "Quoasis" t-shirt around 95. Quality chat lads, subscribed 👍

I was 20 when they released Definitely Maybe. I love each album, still enjoy listening to any of them. I saw them at Heaton Park last year & also in 2009, at the City of Manchester Stadium (now known as the Etihad) a few years earlier. I don’t feel any need for Liam to interact with us, or for them to release new songs. Is ‘Standing on The Shoulder of Giants’, not shoulders - are many fantastic songs on that album such as Who Feels Love?, Gas Panic, Where Did It All Go Wrong?, Roll It Over & Sunday Morning Call.

Their first 2 albums were fantastic. Thought be here now didn’t deserve the criticism it got. After that I switched off for the next few albums then, they released shock of the lightning off their last album dig out your soul which I thought was not bad. The last great British rock band. Platinum status and the fact their comeback tours are sold out says it all

What a cracking episode and  debate ! Takes you back in time for a short while 👍🏻

It was a pretty meteoric rise in a very short period. I’d agree that Oasis are defined by many as having 2 great albums but I’m surprised that Masterplan wasn’t mentioned. An album of B-Sides but some of Noels best work in my opinion. Acquiesce, Talk Tonight, Fade Away, The Masterplan, Half The World Away…..

Platinum all day long. You didn't even take into account the b-sides they threw away, which should've been album songs. Also, the masterplan b-sides album they did release.

7th attempt.

😆I do like it when you guys start to see where I might come in on what you are saying. Not only does it make me laugh, it keeps you on your toes.😁
To that end, the comment about the awful band name was indeed churlish from our resident Fred Perry Mod, who this week is dressed more like his personality than ever - screen interference. 🤣
I think Stephen's punishment should be to go Google "worst band names of music artists that have chart hits", as well as read:
Louder Than War's article on the worst band names, as that will have him repenting putting Oasis in the same category. ;)
Also, commenting that Oasis began the year before they released any records is just downright silly. 1993? Sheesh. 1994 was their start as far as anyone beyond Manc city was concerned.
But I suppose anyone can be churlish. Should I, for example, hold against them the loutish and dangerous behaviour of their fans at concerts, which I have witnessed first hand? I could go into detail but it isn't really relevant and shouldn't detract from their music record - but that said, I do think they are just a wee bit responsible for it. They were, as we say now, influencers.
A good debate. Definitely saw both sides of why each of yous went for either club or platinum.
The stats do indeed put them in platinum. The No1 albums and top 5 albums went well beyond their debut album and what is for most a usually troublesome second album. When a band's second album becomes their best, both at the time and in retrospect, as the best selling UK studio album in history (surpassed only by two compilation albums from other greats), you know you have something special here.
As Rodney said, there was a cultural phenomenon around Oasis. I remember 1995 as their year - at least until Alanis Morissette came along - but as great as Jagged Little Pill was, it didn't have the bar staff in my regular boozer keeping five bar gates of how many Oasis songs got played on the jukebox, as my friends and I sank our pints and then popped outside to see if we could spot the Hale-Bopp comet.
They were worldwide, but they didn't translate as well as some did in the US. Their record there is respectable rather than great, with only a few singles charting at all, just one making top 10. The albums did better - a few top tens, but no No 1s of any kind. It begs the question, is the worldwide thing that strong? Are recent tour stats about nostalgia?
It's a good question. There is no real new music, and what there has been has come from them as solo artists. Their own rehashed albums have done surprisingly poorly in the last few years, suggesting that their time could be up and they were more a 90s band than some are inclined to think.
So what better a time for a reunion, to rejuvenate interest. But where is the new music to go with it? Is there that much of a new audience, or is it mostly an over 50s crowd going to gigs? These are unanswered questions.
Originality: It's clear (and somewhat admitted) by Gallagher that The Beatles heavily influenced the music. And in terms of originality, I want to mention what I still regard as my favourite Oasis track, "She's Electric". The very end and the 'La-la-las' are literally lifted from the melody at the end of "With A Little Help From My Friends". Some of the lyric is actually from a BBC TV kids show theme. I still love the song and it's largely original if not entirely original. Can't say that about many or any songs where I can point to two bits of literal lifting.
I therefore regard Oasis as not dissimilar in this regard as The Beatles, who were a bit better at being "inspired" rather than plagiarising, but both bands got in trouble for it, to a degree. So the same criticism about being derivative can also be thrown at The Beatles, at least for their early music, but I think both bands took what had come before and made it their own.
Another issue is the falling out and how it should be viewed. I can name another band that had a spectacular falling out that did for them. The Beatles. And when you think of it, most bands actually struggle to stay together for any length of time without fallouts, so is this really different and should it have any bearing? I might agree that it was a 🙄fallout, but at least they kept it together for a decade. I really don't think it should be a factor here, because such a fallout is more the norm than the exception.
Continuing the comparison, The Beatles did however develop and change far more. The criticism of Oasis being "samey" is valid, but not however that strong. I agree that there was not a lot of deviation, and over their initial ten years - which was more than The Beatles had together - they didn't change style that much, nor very noticeably, but oddly enough the Beatles influence included a degree of variety. Champagne Supernova for example, from "What's The Story...", did not have an equivalent early Beatles track and was more reminiscent of their later hippy period.
The Beatles also had four decent singers though, whereas Oasis had two, and I think that plays a large part in the criticism, especially as the singer for Oasis was mostly Liam. In a sense, it's an unfair criticism, but there is still a musical outcome there that warrants the point being raised.
I think one of your problems here with the decision is timing and not knowing if we are to see some new music, because that could follow in the not too distant future and sway views in either direction. Will it be the same? Will it have evolved? Will it be any good? Will it come at all?
This is why this debate could be premature.
But as you have had it, where are we at?
At the end of the day, I am more a Gareth than the rest of yous, so I would look at this objectively and say that the criticisms are not strong enough to take away from the stats and the influence and live gig experience (although as I say, that experience could be too 'Madchester'). I think right now, they do deserve to go into the vault and at Platinum.
My problem is, as indicated, this decision could be premature. It is unclear if Oasis are a great band or a great 90s band (whose success did also go into the early 2000s) whose music has fully stood the test of time. There are weaknesses in the case and there are indications that their appeal is not as timeless as some may believe, and it may still be too soon to tell, particularly with the reunion. So this call is an "as things stand" call which could be subject to change.

Cracking episode. I loved the Britpop era although I preferred pulp and suede but oasis were and are massive.My sons love them . I saw them in 2008 and thought great concert but sorry not my favourite.
Some brilliant songs and albums without a doubt but il lost my way with oasis over last year's fiasco with tickets. Just pure greed . Have to be platinum for me though as they are simply huge

Plenty of great songs.Noel says himself when the drugs took over and the albums suffer.It's all money

First two albums great no doubt but after that it was a long slide downhill.
To think they compare themselves to the Beatles..

I agree it's a terrible name. Totally unimaginative and boring it sounds like a lounge group on a cruise ship in the 70s also the name has been used before more than once long before they came along.

Noel sings Dont Look Back In Anger, Half the World Away, Talk Tonight, Little By Little, with Liam on Acquiese. These guys dont have nearly as much a clue about Oasis as think.

Thug Rock.

A good argument put forward. Interesting comment re Liam as a frontman.

They get unwarranted stick couldn’t be two sets of style and music from the first single supersonic to the last single falling down. The people’s band

Too obvious and desperate attempt here.