Just saw another article about both these bands who heralded the charts in 1995.

But which band was the best and reasons why

Oasis, when I was drunk back then, Blur otherwise. Far more interesting band.

I liked Blur when they were a shoegazing band with songs like Sing and She's So High. Otherwise have to give it to Oasis. There's just more structure and consistency. They also made it in America.

Early oasis were really great imho, i know blurs are good but they never created a track that i warmed too the way i did with oasis.

I only listened to Oasis........never listened to Blur

I haven't followed it since then either but is it fair to say that the members of Blur have been more musically interesting since the mid 90s than the Gallaghers who just seem to have stood still and keep on churning out Oasis-lite stuff ?

that's my impression anyway

Pulp.

Don't forget the Verve too - brilliant interesting group and lead vocals from
Richard Ashcroft

Between Oasis and Blur, Blur were/are miles better. Oasis were/are a pack of dickish louts.

But Pulp is the best answer.

I agree but there was something different about Oasis compared to Blur even though I loved both bands. I only really warmed to Oasis music from mid 90s onwards.

Would love a reunion for the Gallagher brothers but can't see it happening in the future.

Blur are the far more accomplished band.

But.. I don't think they've written a song that resonates with people anywhere near as much as "Don't look back in Anger."

In fact I don't think any band in the last 20 years has.

Blur introduced me to The Kinks, so I will always be grateful for that.

Blur had the odd good song but those first 2 Oasis albums (plus their B-sides album) were on a whole other plane to anything Blur produced.

Oasis did tail off quicker than Blur though after '97, I guess Blur sort of remained more consistent all along (at their own level). But Definitely Maybe/Morning Glory just wiped the floor with them - and their early b-sides also hit them for six.

I've always seen it as a bit of a no-brainer personally. Noel was by far the superior song-writer at his peak.

I like them both but if I had to pick the best 30 songs from the 2 bands, about 25/26 would probably belong to Oasis. They were stupendously prolific before they burnt themselves out.

I bought the Blur single at the time, but went on to be a bigger fan of Oasis.

the first couple of oasis albums were great, and most of the bonus cd single tracks were great too. it just started going downhill sharpish from the fourth album onwards

blur on the other hand, I thought the albums were a bit patchy but they had some really great tracks and didn't go down the pan quite like oasis. and damons side project stuff like the gorrilaz was interesting too, although some wasn't particularly good. the post oasis solo stuff wasn't very good though

I'd vote Oasis.

I like both but prefer Oasis. The first few albums (including Be Here Now, whilst it is incredibly overblown and they were clearly off their heads when they made it I actually really like it, there are some great tunes on it) and their b-sides are great whereas I find Blurs albums to be a bit patchy. Even the later Oasis albums still had some good tunes on even though they went down hill a bit.

Of that time though Pulp were the best band around by a mile (even though they'd done loads before that time, that was when they came to prominence). Pulp are actually probably my favourite band of all time.

A fellow Be Here Now fan! Yay!

Blur!
Oasis..I meant Oasis.

In my opinion Oasis were better and had more of a cultural impact. They changed as a band when Gem and Andy joined which probably wasn't for the best. Dig Out Your Soul was a decent way to bow out though,

I totally agree. And their b sides were much better than most other bands album tracks.

Like both bands but much prefer Oasis.

The mid nineties was such a great time for British music

They were both incredible and I'm fed up of threads of who was best. You realise it really was a golden era.

Sorry to go off topic a little but the real question is that why are none of the new up and coming indie acts today as good? Noel Gallagher made a good point in his interview spot on Lauren Laverne's recent show about "Whatever happened to Rock'n'Roll." When the Britpop acts and Nirvana became the biggest selling acts in the world in the 90's all the Major labels bought out the indie labels, then when the indie labels stopped having hits they sacked everybody and you lost all the talent scout network that found the next Sex Pistols or Smiths or Stone Roses.

He blames this for why there hasn't been a major British indie band since the Arctic Monkey's generation of bands. Fair comment if you ask me.

The song Country House was actually about The owner of Blurs record company moving to a big house in the country after selling the Independant company to a major.

i think it's because kids today have far so many more things to do these days than back in the 80s when indie music was at it's peak. there's the internet, video games, multi channel tv, smartphones, wifi, 3g, so many things to do instead of sitting around being bored and unhappy and making someone want to learn an instrument and a skill. ironically kids would spend more time now playing pretend plastic instruments on video games than would have taught them to play a real instrument properly

theres also much more variety of music genres now and people can sit with a computer and make music with limited skill, but that would often lead to dance or hip hop style music instead of guitar based indie. you can make that type of music on literally an ipod or laptop or even mobile phone, on your own. no need for a rehearsal room and trying to find a drummer and bass player and singer and get everyone together in the same place at the same time to jam

There are bands about though. As you say Arctic Monkeys are probably the last band to get really big and to be fair they're pretty exceptional. I'm not sure an "indie" band will ever be as commercially successful as kids just seem to be into different things. I don't think that's in any way down to a lack of talent about but the medias fault in what kids get rammed down their necks. I go to loads of gigs and see lots of great bands.

To be honest though, does it really matter? If people want to find good music they'll look. Take a band such as The Cribs or to a lesser extent, someone like Frank Turner, two of my favourite artists, both have recently released their sixth albums, both are touring soon and selling out venues, I'm not sure it matters that they're not constantly on the TV or known by everyone.


There are some of us! I can completely see where Noel is coming from when he says it's the sound of a bunch of blokes off their head on coke but despite all the self indulgance but for me there are at least 7/8 tracks that stand up as good as their other stuff.