Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Oasis vs Blur

Oasis or Blur?

  • Total voters
    86
Alright, I reckon we can do this. Yeah, I like that one best! That was easy.

I don't get the next bit. Why am I challenging them, and to what? Can't we settle this some other way?

Or? Or what? What are we oring? Is this the first bit or the last bit? Can you put it in curly braces with an else?

Either way, I'm not sure what it has to do with either of our preferences.

I don't think I am saying that at all, but if I'm honest, I don't really know what that is.
 
For me it's a comparison of their peak output. Parklife is a genuinely very good album that I still like, much better than the singles from it, mainly due to the variety in it and ability to be successful away from obvious pop. What have Oasis got that matches that?
 
Fine, off we go again. It seems reasonably accepted that a lot of what both bands produced, either at the very beginning or the end, was a bit toss. Hence what I choose to judge them on is their output at their musical peak. For Blur that's Parklife. For Oasis I guess it's Definitely Maybe.

So Parklife then. Tracks like 'This Is A Low' and 'Jubilee' hint at a much broader range of ability than the title track or the other singles. Overall it's reasonably varied and not all obvious pop, and I reckon it's representative of what the band and its members went on to do.

I asked the question, and not rhetorically, as to what have Oasis got that matches that. DM seems to follow a fairly solid formula without the same display, and again the same seems to be true of the subsequent output.

If I'm challenging anyone to anything, which apparently I have to do in order to express an opinion, it's either that this isn't true, or that it's not the important factor.
 
Twas onitialy Oasis, got loads of their CDsnshit. tons. Me & my mate Stu bonded cozovem. I miss him.
 
it's a dumb fucking dichotomy, but for what it's worth Oasis have always been neanderthal retro-fuckwits, and Blur - despite a lot of wrong moves - have been constantly inventive and interesting. An infinitely superior band
 
Always preferred Oasis for the tunes and the live shows.

Blur were more innovative but I disliked more tunes than I liked with them.
 
El Jefe said:
it's a dumb fucking dichotomy, but for what it's worth Oasis have always been neanderthal retro-fuckwits, and Blur - despite a lot of wrong moves - have been constantly inventive and interesting. An infinitely superior band
Click to expand...

Their most "interesting" period was when they gave Coxon leeway to ape American indiepunk. They wouldn't have made it if they came from North Carolina.
 
twistedAM said:
Their most "interesting" period was when they gave Coxon leeway to ape American indiepunk. They wouldn't have made it if they came from North Carolina.
Click to expand...

I do think there was a bit of double standards about them - I recall when Moden Life is Rubbish came out and they issued all these statements about hating US alternative rock... Move on about 5 years and suddenly they're copying said same music.

Still, they're infinitely better than Quoasis, probably the worst band ever to become really really massive along with Ash.

I'm not just saying that either - I remember hearing early Oasis singles on the Evening Session and thinking they were just a totally substandard pub indie band like you'd hear at the Bull and gate on some typical evening, and thinking wank wank wank, and then they got massive and I was like :hmm: :eek: WTF
 
Kanda said:
For me, being of an impressionable age at the time, Oasis meant so much more to me... Noel in his basement learning guitar and making something of himself v's Damon, who was going to art college funded by his folks... Noel had to succeed to make anything of himself, Damon had avenues and funding. So at the time, I identified with Oasis more, they needed it, Damon didn't did he? it wasn't the be all and end all. I agree Damon has done fucking well since, but back then, for me, Oasis meant a great deal. It was empowering.
Click to expand...

Hotspur.

Who gives a fuck about what funding they had :confused:

If that's the basis, Kurt Cobain's a much better example of someone who came from a working class background and made music which was actually interesting and good.
 
HobgoblinMan said:
Oasis certainly were a major part of the whole zeitgeist, but when the smoke cleared, Blur showed themselves to be far and away better than Oasis ever were. They, especially Oasis, were, no doubt, really important culturally (they changed the way men dressed, had their haircut and even the way some walked). But looking back, the whole, yeah I'm fookin' working class hero, fook the lot of ya cos we're real, just looks a bit embarrassing now.
Click to expand...

Yup. My dad's from a very working class Hackney Wick east end background, has never had much money but loves his classical music, and he thinks Oasis are laughably bad, and would utterly laugh out of town anyone who tries to excuse their ridiculously shite attitudes, yeah we're going to be wankers and defend it by saying we're working class, etc. On the other hand, he's not really a rock fan, but does agree that Blur do appear to have some kind of talent, and said it was impressive that albarn wrote his own Chinese opera etc.
 
upsidedownwalrus said:
I do think there was a bit of double standards about them - I recall when Moden Life is Rubbish came out and they issued all these statements about hating US alternative rock... Move on about 5 years and suddenly they're copying said same music.
Click to expand...

Oh I forgot about the embarassment of the Rollercoaster tour. I did actually feel sorry for them trying to compete with Dinosaur Jr. In boxing parlance that bill was a mismatch.
 
If you're one of those musical snobs who sneered at Nirvana cos they 'couldn't play' then I can understand the 'shit' bit, but 'boring'?

Absolute Hotspur
 
I agree with upsidedownwalrus.

Not that I am a massive fan or anything, but Nirvana at least had a lot more substance about them, when you peel away the hype.

I just wish they had done more songs that sounded like 'territorial pissings' and less gloomy grunge.
 
Dillinger4 said:
I agree with upsidedownwalrus.

Not that I am a massive fan or anything, but Nirvana at least had a lot more substance about them, when you peel away the hype.

I just wish they had done more songs that sounded like 'territorial pissings' and less gloomy grunge.
Click to expand...

:D

Negative Creep?

Aneurysm (one of the greatest songs ever recorded)?
 
I would probably prefer to listen to Nirvana than either Oasis or Blur. That probably says a lot about me.

I don't even like Nirvana that much.
 
Live Forever is a perfect, timeless pop song.

Nothing Blur did will last. No soul. Middle class wankers playing at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Oasis – popularity with young men
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
357
Views
7K
BigMoaner
BigMoaner
ska invita
60s + 70s music videos, from the age before MTV
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
3K
blossie33
blossie33
Orang Utan
Badass Vocoder/Talk Box Tunes
2
Replies
46
Views
799
Indeliblelink
Indeliblelink
ska invita
Limited vinyl release only, no digital no streaming no rips
Replies
21
Views
317
ska invita
ska invita
starfish2000
Venue Suggestions: London & Bristol
Replies
9
Views
303
jimbarkanoodle
J
Back
Top Bottom