Oasis or Blur?

Jonny Arson

I can't possibly count the amount of times I've had this debate with people. It popped up the other day yet again. Now I both love Oasis and Blur but Oasis are my idols and will always be No. 1. Oh bring back 1995!

So as a certain Fr. Daymo would say ''Oasis.... or Blur?''

DerekD Goldfish

The anwser to the question always has been and always will be Pulp

Third_Echelon

Oasis have always been 'my band'... yeah 1995!

Blur are without a doubt better musicians though...

tinkerbell

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

The anwser to the question always has been and always will be Pulp

*sings* I wanna live like common people ..

Mr E

Oasis for me (DM and WTSMG were classic albums). Although having downloaded the 4 leaked tracks from Don't Believe the Truth, I'm fearing another Heathen Chemistry... 2 were good, but 2 were below average....

Guy:Incognito

Got to be Oasis all the way.

quarryman

weird i've been thinking about this recently.

back when Morning Glory came out you couldn't have pried the [cassette] from my hands. everything was perfect. in-your-face lippy Manc band with catchy anthemic songs with lyrics even i could remember (and sing to).
Then i found the B-sides and tbh it was even better. Talk tonight? Masterplan? They really had 3 albums worth of songs after releasing only two. Outstanding.

Meanwhile Blur were mincing around. Really doing their best not to get dragged into the rivalry that the Gallaghers were only ever going to amplify. Songs were "meh" at best. Country House seemed like pap. Charty crap. Song2 though was a wake up call. "2 minutes eh?" From then on those guys seemed to improve on everything they'd released previously. Tender, coffee and TV Beetlebum. So back i went to sample everything else. "Universal ye say?"

As Blur knocked out increasingly impressive singles (to which they were a lot better at than Oasis) so did their rivals go into freeefall. Bought Be Here Now the day it came out and despite really trying, really trying, that was the end. The rate Oasis ingested coke mirrored the descent in the quality of released material. Follow 3-ish more albums- nowt.

Picked upThink Tank last year and it beats the pants off anything Oasis have spat out over the last 5 years. A proper complete album.

Play a random Oasis track now, then play any Blur track.
Which sounds better?
A lot better?

Tis Blur for me.


<end Dougal style rant> -he prefered Blur didn't he?

Drummer

There never really was any competition. Other than that the media created. They were 2 totally different types of band.

1. Blur - their music was varied and had some depth. However was lil too poppy and soft at times. Otherwise, was pretty decent.

2. Oasis - their music was harder and more rock-n-roll. However most the time it was just chang-chang guitar riffs and Liam screaming like a lil-girl-ratting-to-her-parents-on-one-of-her-siblings into the mic.

U want real music ? - check out Guns n Roses !!!

D'associashun

Blur are without a doubt better musicians though...

Most bands are better musicians than Oasis. But Oasis had songs that 99% of other bands couldn't get within a light year of. It's not about the technical proficiency of the musicians. It's about the songs.

Play a random Oasis track now, then play any Blur track.
Which sounds better?

Blur were a good band but they were not in the same league as Oasis.

miju

without doubt Oasis were and still are my favorite band outta the 2 of em, I agree with
D'associashun alot of ppl (in particular other musicians) slate Oasis and their musical profiency again you can be the best musician in the world and still write utter ****e songs.

It is all about the qaulity of the song not the playing. There's a thing I like to say when playing ability comes up and thats "some of the best songs ever written have no more than 3 or 4 chords in em and are simple tunes much like alot of Oasis tunes)

radiospan

IMHO, Blur are better than Oasis.

I could never see Liam Gallagher forming a experimental-ish Gorillaz type side-project. Granted, one of them did vocals for Death in Vegas (or was it Dirty Vegas), but I like how Damon Albarn is willing to break the indie mould, and to try out different styles (remixing for Cornelius and Massive Attack, for example).

Drummer

Yes - it isnt necessarily the technical proficiency of the music that makes a song good - its more like feeling and depth. Some of the pop songs out today are well written, but lack feeling. They are so superficial. Also, if we wanted music purely for technical proficient, would we all be listening to classical music.

Bungalow Bill

Personally I am a big fan of both bands who were unique and great both in their own way. I love Think Tank and Heathen Chemistry because while yeah it is certainly not their greatest output IMO its still leagues ahead of anything a band like Snow Patrol could ever put out. Thats the great thing about them is their ability to write songs like nobody else can. 'I can see a liar' for example is an appaling Oasis song, crap lyrics and a prettty crap tune but because its fast, loud and has Liam Gallagher belting out the vocals if it came on at a party it would still sound mega.

In answer to the question I would have to choose Oasis as they were the first band I loved except the beatles of course but blur are great.

treefingers

blur for me.

their output has just got better and better over the years, whereas the opposite has happened for oasis.

13 and think tank are far ahead of anything oasis has brought out. and i used to like oasis - like others here one of the first bands i really got into.....

Bungalow Bill

treefingers wrote:

blur for me.

their output has just got better and better over the years, whereas the opposite has happened for oasis.

13 and think tank are far ahead of anything oasis has brought out. and i used to like oasis - like others here one of the first bands i really got into.....

Why do you think that?? I really believe that the better songs on Think tank are the softer ones which are only really considered alternative because of the multitude of pointless sounds that are layered over them :rolleyes:

quarryman

treefingers, your Top Artist on Audioscrobbler is scarily similar to my listening tastes.

Why do you think that?? I really believe that the better songs on Think tank are the softer ones which are only really considered alternative because of the multitude of pointless sounds that are layered over them

i don't get this statement. Are you saying the songs are good or bad?

Bungalow Bill

quarryman wrote:

treefingers, your Top Artist on Audioscrobbler is scarily similar to my listening tastes.



i don't get this statement. Are you saying the songs are good or bad?

I just think that a large amount of criticism if thrown at oasis because of the simplicity of some of their songs making them not particularly cool to like anymore. But think tank is seen as this crazy, experimental album. While yes some of it is weird, those parts are **** (see: Moroccan Peoples Revolutionary Bowls Club, gene by gene, brothers and sisters). It is the regular type songs on this album that make it good but they are produced in a crazy way which goes a large way to shroud their simplicity and popiness. This in turn makes it more 'alternative' and apparantly carries more cred if you think it is better than all of oasis' output which it is clearly not.

Mossy Monk

2 totally different types of music for me

quarryman

Bungalow Bill wrote:

I just think that a........ better than all of oasis' output which it is clearly not.

good points. i never thought that about think tank.

OT again:

Bill did you copy my "Biography:" part in my profile?
Very coincidental considering:

1. This thread.
2. Where we got our usernames.

Spooky :eek:

*Angel*

Oasis

Bungalow Bill

lol that is funny

nah I didn't nick it though i've never seen you on here before, I don't really post that much anymore. but hey, great minds....