platty'squiff Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Blur could never cut it live, Albarn's a terrible singer away from the studio! They did a couple of good albums (currently disowned by the singer himself), Oasis have gone through their dip and are back on track while Albarn admits he's knackered without Coxon. Oasis are still one of the most entertaining bands around, just wish the Roses reformation rumours were true, now that would be worth seeing! well, I have to disagree - watching some bloke monkey around disinterestedly (aping the singer of some other infinitely superior group) while the other 4 just stand there doesn't constitute entertainment for me - and I've seen them 3 times. I've seen Blur 3 times also and not only are they a great deal more fun - they've also got more musical ideas in their collective pinkies then Noel's got in his whole record collection ... Definitely Maybe's good though - the best Slade/T Rex/Pistols/Beatles/Stones Album ... ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarjei Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Although I'm no huge fan, it's Blur for me. I think Oasis' music is boring and I'll rather listen to The Beatles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernVillain Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I too have seen both bands live, & I'd rather watch Oasis every time! I go to a gig to hear good music, not to watch some mockney clearing in the woods jump around - if he stayed still, he might be able to keep in tune! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 OASIS. Blur are shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 I'm a huge fan of Oasis, but Blur are far more a progressive band, trying many different genres throughout their career.... they are a far better musically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 mmmm Difficult choice. Oasis have by far the better stand out songs but Blur have tried to keep their music interesting wheras Oasis have gone backwards (until DBTT ). Noel's problem was he used too many great songs as b-sides, he would have been far better keeping some of those gems back for future albums. Oasis would not be mocked by some as they are today if he had done that. Until DBTT I would have gone for Blur but, Oasis nick it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 Blur, Oasis were good but Blur were (and still are) "the shit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted May 31, 2005 VT Supporter Share Posted May 31, 2005 Blur are far more a progressive band, trying many different genres throughout their career.... they are a far better musically. Mr.Rogers sums it up perfectly for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenda Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 This week 10 years ago a certain song called 'Common People' landed like a bullet straight in at number 2 in the charts (a decade on with a fcuking frog at number 1, Jarvis and his group knew only too well that you don't get any respect with a top of the popper). This zeitgest-chomping masterpiece, the anthem of the decade, pissed over the battle that was 'Roll With It' and 'Country House' - both terribly average songs, 3 months later. More tellingly, 10 years on, the album from which said song comes from,Different Class, sounds fresher, more entertaining and sharper than the 'big two's albums Morning Glory and The Great Escape combined. All were released in October 1995, only Pulp's stands up today, though Morning Glory isn't too far off. If you're to go back a year to 18 months the three come head to head again with arguably their best works - Blur's Parklife, Pulp's His'n'Hers and Definitely Maybe by Oasis. It's tougher to call in this battle but whereas Blur and Pulp went on to produce bolder, more adventurous music that rewarded repeated listening (Blur's self-titled '97 opus, Pulp a year later with the majestic 'This Is Harcore'), Oasis managed to spend a shed-load of money on an album barely fit for Oxfam's bargain basement - the tuneless dirge that is 'Be Here Now'. So in answer to the question - Blur. But Pulp is the ultimate answer of course, with Supergrass, Elastica (their debut) and Suede (first two albums) also highly commended. Maximo Park, Kaiser Chiefs, Art Brut et al. though all decent in their own right, just don't draw the same excitement do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted June 1, 2005 VT Supporter Share Posted June 1, 2005 Blur V Oasis? I don't know who's better.... .... but am happy so long as they beat the ever-loving snot out of each other. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_av Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Oasis hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platty'squiff Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 No-one's given a decent answer as to why they think Oasis are better. If you ever wanted an example of why Blur are better, it would appear that the Kinks have been a big influence on Noel's writing for Oasis' latest. Erm, didn't he realise Blur were doing that 11 years ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I think this is a poll to find out whose more liked....... At the end of the day people have their opinions, but I don't think that it's as easy as that, as both bands are completely different, I never understood, where all this came from, apart from releasing a single on the same day. Face facts, Blur have been around much longer, released twice as much material, and IMO are far, far better musically, where as OASIS have written some great anthems, and their best ablum was the Masterplan (a collection of 'b' sides). These band cannot be compared, as they are completely different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadPirateRoberts Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 No-one's given a decent answer as to why they think Oasis are better. If you ever wanted an example of why Blur are better, it would appear that the Kinks have been a big influence on Noel's writing for Oasis' latest. Erm, didn't he realise Blur were doing that 11 years ago! Although I much prefer Blur, I don't see how Noel admitting that he's influenced by the Kinks shows that they're crap. Surely every band goes through stages of being influenced by different bands. For example, Blur were influenced by the Kinks during Parklife/The Great Escape, by Pavement during the Blur album and by African music on Thinktank. If you listen to the last three Blur albums there's barely any Kink-esque stuff on there. Anyway, none of this excuses Oasis from being unable to write a decent tune since Morning Glory (and come on, admit it, that includes the new album!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platty'squiff Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 To be honest the only truly original tune Noel ever wrote was Live Forever and maybe Wonderwall... I'm surprised he's not been in court more often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 No-one's given a decent answer as to why they think Oasis are better. If you ever wanted an example of why Blur are better, it would appear that the Kinks have been a big influence on Noel's writing for Oasis' latest. Erm, didn't he realise Blur were doing that 11 years ago! I did. The Album Definitely Maybe is better than anything Blur has done. It was an album that difined a generation in this country. It was an album people belived in, and Blur has never given us music like that. Just maybe poppy tunes. Since then Oasis have struggled. Even Morning Glory was only half a good album. But that album was so good it shadows anything Blur has done, and ive been a bit of a fan of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platty'squiff Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Whisper it, but Def Maybe is a wee bit overrated - I loved it at the time but there's too much karaoke plagarism on it (Cigs & Alc - TRex, Shakermaker - Like to Teach The World etc.) . Parklife is MUCH better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platty'squiff Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Whisper it, but Def Maybe is a wee bit overrated - I loved it at the time but there's too much karaoke plagarism on it (Cigs & Alc - TRex, Shakermaker - Like to Teach The World etc.) . Parklife is MUCH better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platty'squiff Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 |Bloody hell - double post! SORRY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Parklife much better??? You having a laugh?? Cigs and Alc stole a riff and Shakerhemaker is poor but the album with Rock and roll star, Live forever, Columbia, Supersonic, Slide Away and Married with children. Parklife is not even the best Blur album. If you had said Blur or even 13 you had a bit of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts