Jump to content

Blur Vs Oasis


SammyD

Blur Vs Oasis  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Blur Vs Oasis

    • Blur
      33
    • Oasis
      51


Recommended Posts

"Better musically?" - sounds like chin-stroking to me! I'm not saying Blur aren't talented (though less so since the mighty Coxon left), but they don't inspire imo the same passion and upandat'em rush that Oasis have, where you're not really listening for a sus 7th, but something to lose yourself in. Still, each to their own, it's always good to talk to people who get passionate about music as well as football!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course music is about passion - but my point essentially that Oasis didn't move on (and are a bit limited in their scope)- they were great in 94/95 then just did the same thing again and again.

Yes, it'd be ace if Coxo returned (Think Tank has its moments and the last Coxo album was really good, but they're better off together) ...

When it comes to the terrace-rush (in musical terms), I think you can't beat prime era Slade or Mott or maybe even the Sweet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Better musically?" - sounds like chin-stroking to me!

Okay, so now we're all forced to define our terms - what exactly are we arguing about here? Does 'better' mean 'more record sales'? Or bigger audiences? In that case Oasis win, and the Oasis fans shouldn't be arguing at all, because the facts speak for themselves. Except it seems that the Oasis fans are the ones shouting the loudest...

They're entirely different bands. In the same way that The Stones could never hope to rival the sheer volume of music composed by Lennon/McCartney (plus George and the odd song by Ringo), nor can Blur compete with the fact that most people prefer a 3-note singalong to an arguably more sophisticated sound. Oasis fans paradoxically distance themselves from 'pop' (preferring 'rock' as a term) yet Oasis themselves churn out nothing but 3-minute pop songs (and a succession of increasingly mediocre albums). And I mean pop songs in the nicest sense of the word!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blur are far, far better...

I'm such a fan of Think Tank and 13...

Their earlier stuff is pretty good (not such a fan of the Parklife album tho'... prefer Great Escape - ooh, controversial!)... and Oasis's early stuff is pretty good too... but Oasis seem to have released the same song over and over again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coxon was the real driving force behind Blur. All of the best Blur songs were his numbers. I hated it when Alburn did that horrible fairground music. However, Blur have always been a band to experiment and change the sound of each album.

Liam is an idiot. Rotten fused with Lennon. Noel has written some classic songs that will outlast anything that Blur have done.

The problem is how can you determine which band is better when they are completey different.

Its like Stones v Beatles, Clash v Pistols, Roses v Mondays all bollocks really.

p.s. Dont type Blur quickly it ends up coming ou as Blue. AAAAARRRRGGHH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus wept, I've been away a week and it seems I've come back to VT a decade earlier, read the first two pages and gave up

Definately Maybe the best Debut Album ever? - not f***ing likely - its a decent album but its not even the best debut album by a band from Manchester

Blur could never cut it live, albarn can't sing? - Ever seen Oasis Live, that just about sums up Liam if you ask me

Both bands have had their moments, both bands are also full of s***, neither come close to being the best band ever so why this ancient debate I don't know. The Blur vs Oasis thing was both bands record companies wet dream, free publicity for all. It was media driven and totally irrelevant

Just for the record Blur have by far and away the better body of work, out of the two bands. However Oasis have the best tunes, make of that what you will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
God, the 90's was so much better than now wasn't it.

Everything was better in the past. The older you get the more you believe it.

In reality things wouldn't change if people didn't think the new thing was better. Football today is not a patch on the past apparently, some people would have players wearing massive leather boots with a ball that absorbed water and could kill you if you head it too much on pitches knee deep in mud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer 90's football too.

But I think it is true with music.

There is just nothing about now that will define the current generation.

After about 2001/02 and the whole emergence of Libertines, White Stripes, The Strokes, there has been nothing.

What you got now? SLimehouse? Razorshite? The Spooks (kooks)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, the 90's was so much better than now wasn't it.

Everything was better in the past. The older you get the more you believe it.

In reality things wouldn't change if people didn't think the new thing was better. Football today is not a patch on the past apparently, some people would have players wearing massive leather boots with a ball that absorbed water and could kill you if you head it too much on pitches knee deep in mud...

Wigan fans, from last week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oaks in 'missing blatant pun' alert :P

Eh BOT, Oasis for me by a Country Mile. Always annoyed me that the ONE good song Blur released was the one that won them the 'battle of the charts' battle with Oasis at the time. Country House. Great song (and video!!) but I was an Oasis man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â