I am the walrus
It can sound stranger, but I am not the walrus is not one of the best songs from the beatles. Noel Gallagher made a fantastic version, easier to be easier than the beatles´version.
- ridli, madrid, Spain, 27.01.2006
|Click on the cover for listening
||Click on the cover for listening
Comments about I am the walrus:
|Fans screamed so loud at Beatles gigs - Fact|
The amps due to technology restrictions at the time weren't loud enough to overcome this - Fact
Oasis are good - Opinion (widely believed)
Beatles are good - Opinion (even more widely believed)
If you take all this into account well done Oasis for having some culture but aren't Beatles the true geniuses (John Lennon) for writing it in the first place?
If they could perform it live i'm sure they would have but fans were going so crazy that it was a mere impossibility.
- Bowers, Warrington, England, 09.12.2010
|That Oasis version sounds dreadful and I like the band. If you vote that over the Beatles, you must be deaf.|
- Petunia, Cambridge, England, 08.12.2010
|The Beatles are my favorite group and Oasis is William's. So IAMTHEWALRUS by BEATOOS (The Beatles) is better|
- Katherine, Fort Worth, United States, 04.09.2010
|Ya gotta love the sweet reasonableness that fandom brings out in this list of comparisons of the true originals and the wannabes.|
Oasis made a huge impact, but what is the point of covering so unique a piece of music as this? I Am the Walrus is by, of, and is owned by John Lennon.
- Rob L., Vancouver, United States, 26.08.2010
|I'm fed up of people slagging off Oasis on here. They're not even my favourite band but they have made 3 universally acclaimed albums that I bloody love.|
Be Here Now is pretty good aswell. I prefer the Oasis rockier version of this song but I'm not saying they're a better band overall you moronic Beatles fanboys.
get a grip.
- Ben, Milton Keynes, England, 01.06.2010
|The Beatles' original version is not only better executed vocally and instrumentally, but also has much more depth and an incredibly impactful, surreal quality. Not to mention the Beatles' did that in 1967. Honestly, you have got to be high on ecstasy if you think the Oasis version is somehow important. |
Also, don't say that the Beatles' "couldn't" play this song live. They were too busy exercising their genius. It would be as if Albert Einstein were no Physicist, but instead an Engineer. Like Einstein, the Beatles had better aims to focus on than the practical side of their trade. They were theoretical masters.
- Allen, Gainesville, FL, USA, United States, 19.03.2010
|Actually the beatles stopped playing live after they realised that none of the fans could hear them and they couldn't even hear themselves over the noise of the screaming fans as in the 60's the amp's they used were aweful. So anybody who thinks the oasis are better than the beatles needs their head looking!|
- David, Middlesbrough, England, 01.03.2010
|Oasis Sucks. They are not even on par with Crowded House, let alone the Beatles.|
- Rod, Chicago, United States, 20.02.2010
|Everyone is arguing over this thing when both the beatles original version and the oasis version were both really good. I know that oasis does this song live and it sounds really good.. something the beatles never did. All you people who are spitting out these beatles facts need to remember the beatles probably stopped touring because they couldnt do the shit live.. afterall.. they arent pink floyd now. |
- Rob Cooney, Philadelphia, United States, 27.01.2010
|Oasis made this song 10X better than The Beatles version.|
- Graeme, Glassow, Scotland, 22.01.2010