|
||||||||
Blur V. Oasis |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,330
|
Blur V. Oasis
Just saw another article about both these bands who heralded the charts in 1995.
But which band was the best and reasons why |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the southstand
Posts: 87,670
|
Oasis, when I was drunk back then, Blur otherwise. Far more interesting band.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,137
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,847
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,406
|
Pulp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,330
|
Quote:
Don't forget the Verve too - brilliant interesting group and lead vocals fromRichard Ashcroft |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,957
|
Between Oasis and Blur, Blur were/are miles better. Oasis were/are a pack of dickish louts.
But Pulp is the best answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,330
|
Quote:
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.
Would love a reunion for the Gallagher brothers but can't see it happening in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 479
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,406
|
Blur introduced me to The Kinks, so I will always be grateful for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,413
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Derby
Posts: 7,366
|
I bought the Blur single at the time, but went on to be a bigger fan of Oasis.
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Martin Fowler
Posts: 11,362
|
I'd vote Oasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,721
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Derby
Posts: 7,366
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,034
|
Blur!
Oasis..I meant Oasis. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,403
|
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,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,413
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 629
|
Like both bands but much prefer Oasis.
The mid nineties was such a great time for British music |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,230
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,130
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,035
|
Quote:
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,721
|
Quote:
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. 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. Quote:
A fellow Be Here Now fan! Yay!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:39.



