U2/Oasis - Who wobbled The Beatles the most?

Summary below:

Wobble years:

U2 - 87
Oasis - 95

Catalogue:

U2 - 6 albums.
Oasis - 2 albums.

Critical acclaim:

U2 - Huge acclaim for TJT, live shows & earlier albums.

Oasis - Acclaim for first 2 albums after recovering from Blur defeat.

Bands own comments:

U2 - Bono & McGuinness both mentioned The Beatles in 87.

Oasis - Constantly spoke about The Beatles in 95. 

Other peoples comments:

Oasis constantly compared to The Beatles. In height of 90's Beatlemania after the Anthology.

Comparisons made after U2 followed The Beatles onto the cover of Time Magazine.

Other similarities:

Oasis and The Beatles very static on stage.

Oasis & The Beatles have more than one singer.

Oasis songs sound very Beatles esq. Noel said he nicks all of there stuff.

U2 - 4 men. Each album went in a different direction. They experimented.

Other reasons for The Beatles wobbling:

U2 were the worlds best live band.

U2 were a young band and seemed very tight knit. Could dominate for the next 20 years.

Oasis constantly in the media. Often due to bust ups between The Gallaghers.

Worldwide hugeness:

Oasis not big in America.

U2's TJT number 1 in America for 9 weeks.

I would have wobbled more from U2.

A bigger catalogue & when the pressure was on after Live Aid, they delivered.

Also a better live band, more tight knit,  experimental & bigger in the vital American market.

'What's the Story' was a bit of a slow burner. 'Roll with it' lost to Blur. But then the next two singles were big hits & suddenly Oasis were heading Cool Britannia while simultaneously comparing themselves to The Beatles.  But with only 2 albums Noel would have to produce another 10 great songs quickly.

The Beatles broke up in 1970.

John Lennon was killed just a few weeks after u2 released their debut album.

I think it is fair to say The Beatles were not 'wobbled' in any way shape or form by u2 or oasis.

They are of different times and frankly worlds.

The Beatles broke up in 1970.

John Lennon was killed just a few weeks after u2 released their debut album.

I think it is fair to say The Beatles were not 'wobbled' in any way shape or form by u2 or oasis.

They are of different times and frankly worlds.

Thanks for bringing some common sense to this ridiculous thread.

The 70's had the likes of T Rex, Abba and Led Zep being compared to The Beatles.

Led Zep did get critical acclaim but were not a singles band. T Rex & Abba were not album bands.

U2 were the whole package. An album band that also had hit singles & critcal praise. There live shows enhanced there hugeness.

Ditto Oasis who seized the ' Cool Britannia' moment to modestly continually compare themselves to The Beatles in 95. Although they were not a great live band & had a small catalogue.

For me Macca, George & Ringo would have wobbled more in 87.

U2 let The Beatles off the hook a bit. A longer stint at Wembley Stadium in 87 & another JT in 89 would have had the Fabs on there knees saying 'we're not worthy'.

Both were possible but U2 wanted to play around the UK instead of at one place in 87. They remained huge with R&H but the film & album got criticism.

For me Macca, George & Ringo would have wobbled more in 87.

U2 let The Beatles off the hook a bit. A longer stint at Wembley Stadium in 87 & another JT in 89 would have had the Fabs on there knees saying 'we're not worthy'.

Both were possible but U2 wanted to play around the UK instead of at one place in 87. They remained huge with R&H but the film & album got criticism.

The Beatles weren't a touring band.  Had there been a reunion tour by the Beatles in, say, 1988, it could have been the biggest tour of all time.

Hey hey we're the Beatles
and people say we monkey around
but we're too busy touring
this crazy old world around
yeah yeah yeah

we'll put you in the ground
yeah
yeah

yeah

Quote from: Zoo adam on October 22, 2024, 12:11:26 AM

For me Macca, George & Ringo would have wobbled more in 87.

U2 let The Beatles off the hook a bit. A longer stint at Wembley Stadium in 87 & another JT in 89 would have had the Fabs on there knees saying 'we're not worthy'.

Both were possible but U2 wanted to play around the UK instead of at one place in 87. They remained huge with R&H but the film & album got criticism.

The Beatles weren't a touring band.  Had there been a reunion tour by the Beatles in, say, 1988, it could have been the biggest tour of all time.

Touring without Lennon?

They were barely able to produce two new songs in 94.

Quote from: Tumbling Dice on October 22, 2024, 06:13:30 AM

Quote from: Zoo adam on October 22, 2024, 12:11:26 AM

For me Macca, George & Ringo would have wobbled more in 87.

U2 let The Beatles off the hook a bit. A longer stint at Wembley Stadium in 87 & another JT in 89 would have had the Fabs on there knees saying 'we're not worthy'.

Both were possible but U2 wanted to play around the UK instead of at one place in 87. They remained huge with R&H but the film & album got criticism.

The Beatles weren't a touring band.  Had there been a reunion tour by the Beatles in, say, 1988, it could have been the biggest tour of all time.

Touring without Lennon?

They were barely able to produce two new songs in 94.

They could have done it when George was still alive even though they didn't want to tour without Lennon.  Paul McCartney's solo tour of 1989/90 sold nearly 3 million tickets around the world.

Folks wouldn't have been that much interested in new material although any new material would have been a bonus.

I am the eggman, (Ooh)
They are the eggmen, (Ooh)
I am the walrus,
Goo goo g' joob.

Is anyone arguing this band should be taken seriously?

They could have had Yoko Ono to replace John Lennon in the 80's
 It could have been huge and bigger than the Oasis reunion tour.

Oasis were continuously compared to The Beatles in 95. In the UK. For various reasons. Often by the Gallaghers themselves.

Doubt that made The Beatles wobble. With there catalogue compared to Oasis's two albums.

U2 were compared in
87 due to there general hugeness & acclaim of there albums & live shows. They were huge enough to follow Jacko & Madonna into the cinema in 88.

They could have had Yoko Ono to replace John Lennon in the 80's
 It could have been huge and bigger than the Oasis reunion tour.

Do you think Paul would have let Yoko sing 'Hey Jude'?