for me it most definitely has to be "scissor sisters" awful, appalling, nails down the blackboard, cover of "comfortably numb"!!!

re: steve slinger-yep, awfull!! another example of tits and bums replacing musical talent?
without reason and jezebels alibi- those "covers" were both so bad couldn't watch them all the way through!! yeeuch!! :-(
without reason-that has to be bad-american pie is a naff song to start with! lol!! :-))
keef-way too much information there!! lol!! :-))
square 1-(fortunately?) can't find it- had a lucky escape, there, i feel??? and i bet there were no cowbells!! :-/

out on bail-too right!! AWFUL cover (awful "group"!!) the "charts"? don't get me started!! :-/

de greasy-i rather like the antipodean version of stairway?? what else would one expect an australian to do with it? however-read on!!
blues slickers/ruins big hell yeah!! to both of those comments!! into room 101 they go!!along with miss givens!! :-))

anthem-yes they did!! mind you-some would say oasis murder most songs they do? "quiet riot"'s cover of "noize" much better? even sounds a bit like noddy in some places? great guitar work too!! :-) into the room they go!! :-))

on the edge- roflmao!! i reckon if they carry on the way they are doing they may murder each other? what's YOUR "worst" ?? :-)it goes into nwb's "room 101"

fab eggs--oasis are, indeed, "grat"! gratutious to requirements that is!!we've already had a "beatles", with all the derivative drivel that copied them during the late sixties, driven by commercialism, do we really need another one? as for the beatles themselves??? not a patch on the rolling stones, and, yes, they,also, did do a bit of plagiarising!! to brilliant effect too, considering the ethos at the time they first started playing.
so, i'm afraid, "oasis" covers stay in nwb room 101, along with willian shatner and patti smith! :-/

Stones v Beatles is a daft debate- they are different totally- Stones developed into true rhythm and blues band- hardly ground breaking either- Beatles are on there own I love them both!"
mmmm! perhaps. however-at the time it seemed one subscribed to one of two camps-either caught up in the (undoubted) hysteria generated by the beatles publicity machine, generally aimed at young girls,along with such "classic" bands as "herman and the hermits" or "freddie and the dreamers", who, don't get me wrong, had a place in the music scene at the time, but could, surely, never seriously, be considered to contributing to the musical database? or, the only widely available alternative at the time, the likes of the stones, as you say, continuing the tradition of r&b, the yardbirds, small faces and others, who played music rooted in the r&r and blues based genre , enhanced with a contemporary edge. i think it's fair to say, the stones raised issues through their songs (sex/angst/establishment) that the beatles tended to shy away from, concentrating instead on the "romanticised" view of life through their music? so-question remains-do we really NEED another beatles? i think not!! :-))
oh! and "kiss/stones/ace"???? groannnnn!! :-)))