|
||||||||
Blur V. Oasis |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 181
|
for me its gotta be Oasis.....more classics and anthems. more attitude. more entertaining
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,572
|
They were both great bands, and Blur still are. I've followed them both since their early days. seeing them live a number of times but I'd say over the course of both bands lives Blur have produced the more interesting body of work while Oasis had the bigger, more fun tunes, Oasis though failed to better their debut album while Blur showed improvment and broadened their musical horizons more over their career. I find myself going back to listen to Blur more, but I still have lot of affection for Definitely Maybe. Both soundtracked good times for me, so I'm not going to choose as it would be ike a parent choosing a favourite child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,112
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,885
|
Blur are a better band by a long way.
Oasis had a good first album, and a decent second album, but then went into rapid decline, and even at their best they were never that innovative. Blur were always a far more experimental band, with much more variety, and they have reinvented themselves several times over. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,167
|
Apart from both being British and big at the same time, I didnt see how you could compare them other than in sales. Oasis were the rock and roll outfit, looking to hit arenas and take the world by storm. Blur were more indie, almost more comparable in tone to Radiohead than Oasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,134
|
Quote:
Apart from both being British and big at the same time, I didnt see how you could compare them other than in sales. Oasis were the rock and roll outfit, looking to hit arenas and take the world by storm. Blur were more indie, almost more comparable in tone to Radiohead than Oasis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
Liked them both but Oasis have two iconic albums that'll excuse the pun will Live Forever.
Bands like Oasis only seem to come around every 20-30 years. Nobody has got near to touching them since '95. These new bands need to get their acts together instead of trying to be trendy and clever. Both Oasis and Nirvana were unstoppable due to the sound they created and their ability to capture the vibe of the people at that current time. We need that to happen again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The land of the dead
Posts: 721
|
Oasis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,224
|
It's 20 years since the battle of the bands and as a 13 year old I only really got interested around 96-97 - more so in Oasis at that time but Blur too. I guess I was a bit too young to get the whole rivalry thing - it just seemed to me to be an exciting time for music in general - why the need to hate each other? Of course there was Pulp too, Radiohead and plenty of good songs by many others. Other than the odd catchy pop song, I hadn't paid too much attention to music at that point.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:57.


