OASIS better than The Beatles? Only if you've drunk a few too many lagers and sung too many choruses of Wonderwall down at your local. The servants better than the masters? Sometimes, yes, but not this time. Don't believe the hype revel in it, glorify it, enjoy it if you will, but don't believe it. Oasis could never be as good as The Beatles because everything they do has been predestined by The Beatles.
The Gallagher gang is in thrall to the greater power of the Fab Four, and this is what drives them, motivates them, makes them great. But not greater than The Beatles. Not even equal. When that bang over has faded and your croaky voice has returned, then perhaps you might see things with a clearer eye. You might begin to realise that saying Oasis are better than The Beatles is like saying that Green Day are better than The Clash. Or that Alice In Chains are better than Led Zeppelin.
So how did this myth of Oasis being the new Beatles take hold of the public consciousness? Was it perhaps because of the similarities between Noel Gallagher's songs and those of Lennon and McCartney? Was is the fact that every Oasis gig features at least one Beatles song in its set list?
Let's not fool ourselves the only reason we even compare Oasis to The Beatles is that we've been prompted to every step of the way. Noel Gallagher extrapolates on his future in terms of The Beatles's albums, predicting that he will write his own Revolver or White Album. Liam goes on Top Of The Pops in full beard and Lennon specs, and mimes the piano part of Don't Look Back In Anger, which sounds uncannily like Imagine. Let's get this straight Oasis are manipulating us. They're making sure that we connect them in our minds with The Beatles at every turn, and, once the link is forged, Oasis can ring that bell anytime they want, and we will respond with Pavlovian predictability.
