The difference between Oasis and Radiohead, according to Bono

Posted On March 3, 2025March 3, 2025

Oasis and Radiohead were the two faces of British rock music in the 1990s, and when you think about it, that’s truly bizarre. Noel ‘n’ Liam’s mob colonised the former half of the decade with their pints-in-the-air terrace anthems that meant absolutely nothing but felt like absolutely everything. Thom’s bunch came to prominence in the latter half of the decade and were the absolute opposite. A group of insular, sullen weirdos whose music was thoughtful almost to a fault, creating some of the most intense, vital rock of the decade out of their gut-churning paranoia and dread.

It makes sense that a figure like Bono, the face of rock music from the previous decade, would be able to read both of them like a book. Not just because he fronts a band that was comfortably the biggest in the world for two decades, but because, in a way, he’d been both of them at their peak. After all, the misty-eyed epics of The Joshua Tree and The Unforgettable Fire paved the way for Oasis’ skyscraping street poetry. It’s no secret that Noel Gallagher is a U2 fanboy, and that sense of scale is all over his band’s music and his songwriting.

Then in the early 1990s, U2 decided to shake things up. They decided to pop their pomposity bubble with aplomb, facing down themselves and the world at large with a critical eye and making some of the most progressive music of their entire career to boot. That mix of stadium rock influences from techno and trip-hop, and a withering mistrust of the modern world came together in the form of 1991’s Achtung Baby. An album that might as well be known as Ok Computer but fun.

So, having been in both positions, Bono was able to relate to both of these bands. In an alarmingly candid interview with Greg Kot for the Chicago Tribune, he argued his case as to why Oasis were actually the more revolutionary band out of the two. To be clear, he had immense respect for both of them, saying that Oasis “brought ambition back into songwriting” and Radiohead “proved how elastic a band could be with melody and guitar.” However, his criticism is not about the music and more about their place in the industry.

As anyone with a casual understanding of both bands can work out, only one of them actually played the game. By embracing their popularity and being celebrities, Oasis were able to have a bigger impact on the world of rock and roll. As Bono puts it “Oasis came around and they weeded out progressive rock-it is… [they] got a band to promote itself.” Whereas Radiohead shied away from all that and lessened their own impact. In fact, Bono criticises U2 for seemingly disappearing up its own arse creatively by saying they’d “Kid A’d” themselves.

In the interview, he says, “Radiohead just looked at the pop machine and the machinations of pop and just said, we don’t have it in us, we don’t have the energy, to have our way with that. I don’t hear [Radiohead’s] Thom Yorke singing on the radio. I want to hear Radiohead, an extraordinary band that they are, on MTV. I want them setting fire to the imaginations of 16, 15, 14 year old kids. I was 14 when John Lennon set fire to my imagination.”

Does he have a point? Annoyingly enough, I think he does. The Manic Street Preachers, a better band than all three depicted here, had the same attitude when they started out. The band did a truly absurd number of interviews for anyone who’d have them, especially if the audience were young. While it did lead to the band doing things like arm wrestling sheep puppets for Irish kids TV, they did it because they believed in their message and wanted it to affect the youth of today.

The counter-argument is obviously that Radiohead aren’t a band for kids, so why would they play the fame game if they don’t have to? I think the answer comes down to whether you see artists as having an obligation to their audience. It shows that Bono, a consummate showman and ‘Good Catholic Boy’, would believe that artists have a deeper responsibility than just making art. Meanwhile, Radiohead is all about the music. However, looking at both acts in 2025, and you’ll see something quite startling.

Radiohead are still among the world’s music elite having done precisely what they want their entire career. U2 have been in a decades-long musical rut, chasing their own tail musically to try to capture a mainstream audience, rapidly leaving them behind. Sure, Bono’s lot might sell more tickets, but they’re selling those tickets to Vegas residencies because no-one gives a shit about the music they’re making today. Meanwhile, people wait with bated breath for a Radiohead record because of their artistic integrity.

In Radiohead and Oasis, Bono saw two different ideals. One has little to say but the spine to say it, and one has too much to say for comfort. In his career, he’s tried to find the happy medium between both. Today, he finds himself, unfortunately, as neither.

Related Topics