Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Oasis VS Blur

Oasis VS Blur

  • Oasis

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • Blur

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Total voters
    14
Oasis are better technically, but are whiny and lack emotion. Music by numbers if you will.

Damon isn't a great singer*, by anyone's definition of the word but their sound and style make them a much better band to play and listen to.



*That's not saying he can't sing, because he can.



Anyway, the real answer here is that the Stereophonics are the best britpop band, but that's not what you asked!
 
They both sucked, maybe had one or two decent songs but the majority of them were terrible. In fact, most of the britpop era was total rubbish.
Fortunately we had Nirvana and Hard Rock artists to keep us entertained.
 
I agree Neal, love the phonics! Also kudos to the manic's, the La's, lightning seeds, the verve, the charlatans and obviously the stone roses. All incredible bands but oasis and blur is the biggest battle.

And for all you britpop haters...

 
When I made my last comment I forgot Pulp existed, they're good. That "awwwwwwl ver peepuwl, so manny peepuwl" song actually triggers me.
 
Blur are more consistent and can be a little quirky at times, but the hindu times, wonderwall and champagne supernova are great songs!

can't understand how people can describe songs like

[youtubevid]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQVIIWq9gIQ[/youtubevid]

and
[youtubevid]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSLPbl8Nigk[/youtubevid]

as dull..
 
You could not have picked two worse examples of their back catalogue.

Oasis were the band you listened to if you wanted to be cool back in 1996. Blur have the more varied back catalogue and much better side projects.
 
Rock bands in the 90s? Absolutely! I love Radiohead.

Ahem... I like a few songs by each, but never would call myself a fan. However, I would go for Blur on the variety in sound. Oasis go for the "we're loud, brash and write offcuts of lyrics that sound deep and meaningful but make no sense when you actually listen" approach.
 
Hindu Times is OK I guess, quite standard for Oasis. But On Your Own is ****, should have put Coffee and TV or similar. :p

But yes, all about the Phonics really. And unlike the other two they're still going strong. Mind you Noel's High Flying Birds are actually pretty decent (and probably better than Oasis). Try What a Life, Soldier Boys and Jesus Freaks, Riverman and The Dying of the Light.
 
DelPiero said:
They both sucked, maybe had one or two decent songs but the majority of them were terrible. In fact, most of the britpop era was total rubbish.
Fortunately we had Nirvana and Hard Rock artists to keep us entertained.
Click to expand...

See, I too remember the period as a boon due to the fantastic output from bands like NIN, Fear Factory, Machine Head and White Zombie.

Then the next generation (Minor_Furie) told me without any doubt that such music was considered by his generation as "Dad Rock". This puts the prior mentioned bands plus Coal Chamber, Sepultura and Pantera in the same bracket as 80's Dad Rock I consider middle of the road, like Phil Collins era Genesis and Dire Straits.

With this in mind and in this context, Britpop like Blur and Oasis must sit lower than Dad Rock; making it essentially sub-dad rock. Like such 80's classics as Shakin' Stevens, Chas'n'Dave, Showaddywaddy and The Cult.

This could be why I didn't really like it at the time and why nobody listens to it today - except ironically ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top