Oasis v Beatles debate...

Few things for me. The Beatles are probably my favourite band, which is interesting, because I'm one of these insufferable 6Music dads, who immediately doesn't like someone as soon as they become popular So for the biggest band of all time to be my favourite band, is a bit weird.

I think they innovated like no other band, personally. I often think about their body of work. Their entire recording career spanned just 7 years. That's nothing. For me personally, as good as their songs were 63-65, they were still doing a lot of covers, and their songwriting wasn't particularly prolific. Then Rubber Soul came out. In just FOUR YEARS, they created Rubber Soul, Revolver, Yellow Sub ST, Peppers, The Beatles, Abbey Road and Let It Be. Just utterly phenomenal body of work in that time. The volume, quality and eclecticism of their songwriting during that time, I personally think is unmatched. This period coincided with their decision to quit touring. They could have played on the moon if they'd wanted. At the absolute pinnacle of their powers, they quit playing live to concentrate on the records.

I often try to find comparisons, in terms of other bodies of work over a similar period. Kinks 66-70 is very very close for me. So is Prince 82-87. Bowie 69-72. But they all had much longer careers, with very average material following those peak periods (IMO). This is also why I'm such a huge Radiohead fan by the way. I don't think anyone in the history of music has produced such consistent quality, over such a long period. I think Thom Yorke is one of the best songwriters of all time.

As for Oasis though. Genuinely not mocking the OP, but to put them even in the same universe for me, is a bit like trying to compare Barry Bannan with Leo Messi I reckon I could easily think of 50 bands/singers I would put before Oasis. Probably more. All about opinions though, innit.