"Oasis sucks" generates 2,580 hits on Google.

[LoZoccolo]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22oasis+sucks%22&btnG=Search

"Beatles suck" generates 9,990.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22beatles+suck%22&btnG=Search

Score one for Oasis.

[Swede]

1. Oh cool,an Oasis thread.

Started by LoZoccolo,no less.

[Left Is Write]

2. That doesn't mean that Oasis doesn't suck harder.

It just means that more people care enough about the Beatles to talk about them online.

[Mutley]

3. It's more fun to make that comparison with Google Fight.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=&word2=

:D

[LoZoccolo]

4. Oasis wins!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Oasis&word2=Beatles

[Mutley]

13. ...

:P

I almost can't believe it. :o

[Burma Jones]

18. Not if you include the word "band" in the search

you know, so you eliminate Water Coolers and references to green spots in the desert.....

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Oasis+Band&word2=Beatles+Band

[LoZoccolo]

21. I have never heard them referred to as "The Oasis Band".

I know there's "The S.O.S. Band", but I've never heard of "The Oasis Band".

[Burma Jones]

26. No, not "Oasis Band" - Oasis and Band

You Should try Bush vs. Jesus......

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

5. it would generate more if done around '96

oasis' career has imploded to the point that most people don't take the time to decide whether they suck or not.
now 'creed sucks' which is a more contemporary denouncement of a crap band generates 886,00 hits, far outpacing the small number of music illiterates who hate the beatles to piss off their boomer parents

[LoZoccolo]

6. That is a trick question.

There was no Google in 1996.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. yes, but if there was is what i'm saying

a band's total sucktitude must be taken in the context of how much their being shoved down your throat at the time

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

8. other sucks searches:

other sucks:
kid rock-7,890,000
american idol-3,090,000
hootie-158,000 (imagine this number in 95)
john mayer-920,000

[tigereye]

14. the thing is

and I know my name will be merde for saying so, but Mayer actually has some blues chops....or at worst blues interest...

I do agree with your tautology about "sucking=shoving down one's throat" factor.

[LoZoccolo]

9. That is speculation.

If you do a search from January 2005 until now on the phrase "score one for Oasis", you will find that the Beatles are so far behind in points that it confirms the Google numbers.

[Archae]

10. Big (bleep)-ing Deal!

"Steve Miller Band sucks" got 1,620,000 hits! :P

[no name no slogan]

20. WOW. Google knows all.

And further validated my own theory about the suckitude of the Steve Miller Band. Ah yes, today is a very good day indeed.

[JVS]

11. You can't argue with empiracal evidence!

[Susang]

12. I would...

If I knew what the hell empiracal meant. ;-)

[JVS]

19. It's like empirical, but without validity

Perfectly cromulent word ;-)

[XNASA]

15. I dispute your evidence. Here are my google search findings.

"Oasis Sucks" - 2580 hits
"Beatles Sucks" - 33 hits
"Roxy Music Sucks" - 5 hits
"Eno Sucks" - 4 hits
"Emo Sucks" - 101,000 hits

"U2 Sucks" - 9950 hits

Now what have you to say?

[LoZoccolo]

17. You are not disputing my evidence.

"Oases suck" - 0 hits

Misspelling things is a tactic of Beatlist propaganda.

[billyskank]

16. Wouldn't that be because The Beatles are far, far more famous?

:shrug:

[Left Is Write]

28. Yes, and something like this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5124526&mesg_id=5124658

[flvegan]

22. "The Beatles suck so much less than Oasis does..." is probably

75% of those 9,990, or at least something akin to that.

[DrDebug]

23. But Oasis has more vomit

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22oasis+vomit%22&btnG=Search
53

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22beatles+vomit%22&btnG=Search
52

[KFC]

24. Actually, according to your links, the Beatles have more vomit

From the second "oasis vomit" hit

The top 10 are as follows:

1 Radiohead "OK Computer"
2 U2 "The Joshua Tree"
3 Nirvana "Nevermind"
4 Michael Jackson "Thriller"
5 Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"
6 Oasis "Definitely Maybe"
7 The Beatles "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
8 Madonna "Like a Prayer"
9 Guns n' Roses "Appetite for Destruction"
10 The Beatles "The White Album"

[LoZoccolo]

30. This does not hold up to scrutiny.

If you look at the entries for Oasis:

Badly Drawn Boy, Old Nas, Victory Automatica Too $hort, Oasis, Vomit Machine, Talking Heads, Tommy Guererro, Memnon

A list of bands.

Oasis Vomit Heaps Of Flesh. Arsebreed Vaginal Butchery, Ripping Chainsaw Orgasm Munching The Rotten Red Hot Chili Peppers.

This appears to be a list of songs by some sort of death metal band, and death metal bands hate all other music, that is why they destroy music. This is simple adolescent nihilism. And not only that, when I click on the page there's no mention of Oasis. Perhaps this is a search engine error, or some sort of ripoff tagging scheme.

However, turn to the Beatles' entries:

It made the Beatles vomit before their stadium shows. It kept Barbara Streisand from performing for over a decade.

It made the Beatles vomit before ...

I assume these are the same two things. And they are about stage fright.

Oasis had so little stage fright that Liam Gallagher flicked off the audience on at least one occasion. The picture used to be on Wikipedia but was taken down. And most people would testify that the act was in character.

Score one for Oasis.

[ComerPerro]

25. I still don't understand. If Oasis is so great, why do they

and their fans have to constantly compare themselves with the Beatles?


And, BTW, the reason you return a lot of hits for "The Beatles suck" is because there is a certain "counter-coulture" element of our society, whose memebers define themselves by being "different" from the mainstream (interestingly enough, in the same way everyone else like them does".


So, a lot of the "beatles suck" hits are probably from wanna-be independants who hate things just because they are cool.

Plainly said, its cool to say the Beatles suck.


Trust me. Oasis sucks hard.

But just because I think so doesn't mean I would waste time or effort on a website where I could tell people what they already know (or at least suspect) about a very obsucre and insignificant British band from the mid-90s.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Beatlist propagandists are engaged in a campaign of talking points.

They have been funded by rock establishment traditionalists. To show you how entrenched the elitism of this priveledged oligarchy is, read an album review in the rock establishment press. Then ask yourself how many people think about rock and roll that way. There is a clear agenda which is not acclimated by the rock fan rank-and-file.

If Oasis was strictly a band from the nineties, they would not be at the end of every AT&T commercial as they are now. No, they are for all generations.

[khashka]

27. Oasis does suck!

So what did you expect?

Khash, veteran of the Blur/Oasis War.

[sendero]

29. If you scale that number..

... by fan count or records sold, Oasis comes out looking like the stinkers they are. Blur rules.

[Cascadian]

31. I liked Oasis at the beginning.

I have fond 90's memories and Oasis were a part of it. However, I did stop listening to them once they started getting too big for their britches. Their first 2 CD's were great but I could not get past "Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants". I still listen to their older stuff though whenever I want to think back of the 90's.


John

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

33. What about "Blur sucks"-'oasis sucks' rival?

incidentally, oasis peaked with Morning Glory and then went into commercial and critical. while blur's sales have dropped somewhat, they've maintained more of their fanbase-and are getting ood reviews. not to mention that damon is kicking ass in gorillaz