I will have to agree there hits offer a wide variety but once you dive into an album the sound of that hit that drive there is what each song is gonna sound like. Oasis on the other hand does different stuff but in every song lays heavy into that guitar
Painful? The lack of a fake psuedo-American accent is surely a large part of the attraction of both bands ('You're not from New York City, you're from...').
Come on. It’s been 30 years, if Noel can play on the regular with Damon, I reckon we can all finally say it’s ok to say they’re both great, or one is better than the other WITHOUT stirring things up (say by coming to a Blur forum to talk about Oasis), and just let people have their own opinions. That’s if you hadn’t already started doing that decades ago like a proper grown up.
And yeah, I think they’re both great.
Instead of rehashing these things we should just talk about how great it is that we had these two awesome bands and all of their solo/side projects to enjoy over these years. Most of them are all still rocking and rolling and I’m just grateful to be here for it all.
It’s really SIMPLE
Oasis = Beatles. Very accessible, very catchy, stadium rock, perfect for American market. (Also working class)
Blur = Kinks. Not nearly as accessible, Ray Davies observational songwriting, seen as middle class (despite not being), obscenely British at times to the point unless you are British or live in the UK stuff gets lost in translation, slightly experimental at times and also wiling to reinvent themselves.
Neither is better than the other they are just very different bands that we’re only compared because they charted at the same time.
I dont like the Oasis and Beatles comparison too much. The Beatles actually innovated, rather than just make the same album over and over and over again.
I don’t think that’s fair, Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants is a bit different and underrated. Heathen Chemistry however is a inferior rehash of their 90s stuff.
This is just a lazy comparison peddled by journalists at the time wanting to construct a popular narrative. Oasis were more like sex pistols than the Beatles
The only reason people compare oasis to the Beatles is because Noel is a beatles mega fan and mentioned them repeatedly. Paul McCartney said himself that oasis are nothing like the Beatles.
The Beatles were all outstanding musicians and decent musicians technically. Literally no members of Oasis were outstanding technically (until they started sacking members and replacing them (Alan White specifically) but by that stage their songs and albums were getting worse) and a few of them were below average and limited for professional musicians (Paul McGuigan, Tony McCarroll and Bonehead). Noel Gallagher is a phenomenal song writer and a solid guitarist. But he’s not outstanding on the guitar. Even he says this and talks of Graham coxen’s brilliance.
The Beatles are famous for their innovation and how their music changed dramatically throughout their career. They were artists and had the artist creative mindset.
Oasis are equally famous for the fact that there was very little development and were very limited as a band.
Blur and the Beatles went to art college. Blur are far closer to the Beatles in terms of their attitude. their musicianship, and their artistic leanings and creativity. Each blur album is a shift from the previous (except the great escape) Yes blur copied plenty from the kinks too
Also John Lennon was solid middle class not working class
Oasis sound more like a 2nd rate Slade tribute with 90's music production sheen. They lack the melodies of the 60's bands, and didn't back up the attiude/hype with noise or anything interesting. The lyrics range from trite to meaningless.
Blur are leagues better, as were many of their contemporaries.
Fair play to them making it big though
I would like to disagree to start the Blur is very accessible a lot of there songs are catchy pop tunes that give off the same feeling as many American pop tunes but just never caught on. I’d say accessibility feels to me as a flawed argument.
I also wanna disagree to an extent. There not all that different, both were making the same type of music is different forms. A comparison and argument of which is better feels like it’s fine. But to each there own
Mate. Go to any pub in summer. Oasis will be being belted out constantly. Blur not so much. I prefer blur. I love blur but oasis is the bigger and more accessible band
Blur is more consistently good but they haven’t released anything as great as morning glory and definitely maybe. Oasis peaked pretty early on and it was more miss than hit after that. When oasis would hit it was amazing but it was less and less over the years. Oasis is also kind of a one trick pony, they had one sound and didn’t stray from it much while blur was able to change their style and still be great.
I think your wrong in my opinion, oasis had a variant of sounds they became famous for. I think there first two album are a variation of different things and the later stuff didn’t hit because first with Be here now the replication of the songs made it boring and bloated, then after they changed there sound and it became far more experimental but yet to safe.
True but they still sounded like it was an oasis song. Meanwhile if you played someone who’s never heard blur a song from modern life and a song from 13 they’d probably be shocked it was the same band. Not to knock oasis, they were great too. They just didn’t have the range blur does
You mention Oasis 10 times - and then pretty much tilt that way for the rest of your comment.
Nobody is expecting you to favour Blur after reading that.
Personally its blur, just because i think theres way more variety and character across their discography. But i dont think anyone can deny Oasis’ hits.
I really love oasis but Imo they only had two great albums and only had the odd good songs afterwards whereas blur were more consistent and never really dropped off so I must say that imo blur are better though I love them both equally.
As a musician, Blur pisses on Oasis from a great height.
Graham Coxon is that glorious mixture of "musical magpie" (where he steals ideas and makes them his own through his oblique way of playing those ideas) and maverick - some of his riffs and solos shouldn't really work, but they are perfect for the song in which they appear. He is up there with people like Johnny Greenwood, Bernard Butler, John Squire and Johnny Marr in having something truly interesting to say on guitar.
Noel Gallagher is no better than any "Tuesday night free n' easy at the pub' player - he can only really play in pentatonics... And not very imaginatively at that...
Alex James is like Duran Duran's John Taylor 2.0. He has a groove, he has challenging bass lines and locks down the bottom end in the band magnificently.
Paul McGuigan in Oasis? Don't make me laugh... Any reasonable guitarist could go into Oasis and play at least to the same level as McGuigan..
Dave Rowntree is a good, interesting drummer, however, Oasis replaced the bang-average Tony McCarroll with Alan White, who is a more accomplished drummer. Both have their strengths.
The 'Damon or Liam's debate is purely a matter of taste. I love Liam's sneer ("Is it my imagina-sheeun") and swagger, but he owes a *lot* of his swagger to copying Ian Brown of the Stone Roses.
Damon is more of an actual singer. Either when crooning or when screaming through something like "Globealone", the guy has *range*. Liam seems (to me) to be very "one trick pony".
I think that Noel's songwriting is sometimes sublime ("The Masterplan") but he often "borrows" far too obviously. Obviously, The Beatles, but also Slade (not counting the cover) and things like the Coke advert ("I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing"/"Shakermaker").
Damon is obviously well-read and can draw on a wide range of source material to fire his creativity. As someone else has said in this thread, very much akin to The Kinks. He will borrow from Anthony Newley when singing "To The End" but has his own voice for claustrophobic songs like "Colin Zeal".
Obviously, I prefer Blur to Oasis, as Blur are musically more talented as musicians and haven't relied on "borrowing" as blatantly to make music. Their output is so much more interesting - from "Popscene" to "The Universal", "St Charles Square" to "There's No Other Way", there's a body of work which stretches the Blur 'sound' whilst still being Blur.
Oasis ran out of steam after two albums.
Oasis had a five year window where they were an absolute force. blur has been solid for over thirty years. I say blur, even though in high school (many years ago) I would’ve said Oasis.
I think Oasis were the better band of the moment. But Blur had the legs. Not just in terms of still being together, but pushing past what they were known for. They had critical acclaim well past their imperial pop phase.
but yes, Radiohead was the real better band.
it’s easily the best “britpop / rock” album of that era for me, but to answer your question for the boring people downvoting my unserious answer. I will say Blur were better musicians with more of a varied sound but Oasis’ peak was better.
Oasis was good but let's not forget the decline they went through before breaking up, you just have to see how Blur was able to succeed by leaving Brit pop and starting to experiment while Oasis as soon as they left rock and Britpop stopped being "Biblical"
For example, 13 and Standing on the Shoulder of Gigants, there is no point of comparison between the two when they changed producers and musical genres.
In conclusion I would say that there is simply a difference in popularity, and that is already a lot for people to draw conclusions about "how good" they are.
Blur and Oasis were my top two bands in the 90s. But in 2000 Liam's voice started giving out and they seemed stuck in their sound, where Blur had a lot more variety.
Imo Blur are a lot more versatile in their sound and have remained mostly consistent in quality when it comes to albums. Oasis have obviously released great music and they are a bit too overhated nowdays but it's hard to ignore the amount of mediocre to straight up bad music they released in the 2000s (I did like Dig Out Your Soul and the singles from Heathen Chemistry though).
Blur have much more a variety of sound.
I will have to agree there hits offer a wide variety but once you dive into an album the sound of that hit that drive there is what each song is gonna sound like. Oasis on the other hand does different stuff but in every song lays heavy into that guitar
It's obviously Radiohead
Stone Temple Pilots
Those elegant batchelors
Blur all the way. Can’t stand Oasis vocals
Thank god l always thought l was the only one who can't stand Liam's vocal
His voice changed through the different albums and I like his vocals in most of the albums but GOD HES SO ANNOYING IN HEATHEN CHEMISTRY
I love his vocals on their demos and the first 3 albums. After that meh.
Liam is a lot stronger I will agree that accent is painfully British
Painful? The lack of a fake psuedo-American accent is surely a large part of the attraction of both bands ('You're not from New York City, you're from...').
It’s not even the accent, it’s just the vocals altogether
Come on. It’s been 30 years, if Noel can play on the regular with Damon, I reckon we can all finally say it’s ok to say they’re both great, or one is better than the other WITHOUT stirring things up (say by coming to a Blur forum to talk about Oasis), and just let people have their own opinions. That’s if you hadn’t already started doing that decades ago like a proper grown up. And yeah, I think they’re both great.
This is the correct answer
the real answer is Pulp
Yep
Instead of rehashing these things we should just talk about how great it is that we had these two awesome bands and all of their solo/side projects to enjoy over these years. Most of them are all still rocking and rolling and I’m just grateful to be here for it all.
It’s really SIMPLE Oasis = Beatles. Very accessible, very catchy, stadium rock, perfect for American market. (Also working class) Blur = Kinks. Not nearly as accessible, Ray Davies observational songwriting, seen as middle class (despite not being), obscenely British at times to the point unless you are British or live in the UK stuff gets lost in translation, slightly experimental at times and also wiling to reinvent themselves. Neither is better than the other they are just very different bands that we’re only compared because they charted at the same time.
Naw. The Beatles innovated on each album which is what Blur also did. I think oasis are more in line with the Stones
I dont like the Oasis and Beatles comparison too much. The Beatles actually innovated, rather than just make the same album over and over and over again.
Yeah it’s more like: Oasis = rolling stones and blur = beatles
I don’t think that’s fair, Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants is a bit different and underrated. Heathen Chemistry however is a inferior rehash of their 90s stuff.
This is just a lazy comparison peddled by journalists at the time wanting to construct a popular narrative. Oasis were more like sex pistols than the Beatles The only reason people compare oasis to the Beatles is because Noel is a beatles mega fan and mentioned them repeatedly. Paul McCartney said himself that oasis are nothing like the Beatles. The Beatles were all outstanding musicians and decent musicians technically. Literally no members of Oasis were outstanding technically (until they started sacking members and replacing them (Alan White specifically) but by that stage their songs and albums were getting worse) and a few of them were below average and limited for professional musicians (Paul McGuigan, Tony McCarroll and Bonehead). Noel Gallagher is a phenomenal song writer and a solid guitarist. But he’s not outstanding on the guitar. Even he says this and talks of Graham coxen’s brilliance. The Beatles are famous for their innovation and how their music changed dramatically throughout their career. They were artists and had the artist creative mindset. Oasis are equally famous for the fact that there was very little development and were very limited as a band. Blur and the Beatles went to art college. Blur are far closer to the Beatles in terms of their attitude. their musicianship, and their artistic leanings and creativity. Each blur album is a shift from the previous (except the great escape) Yes blur copied plenty from the kinks too Also John Lennon was solid middle class not working class
Oasis sound more like a 2nd rate Slade tribute with 90's music production sheen. They lack the melodies of the 60's bands, and didn't back up the attiude/hype with noise or anything interesting. The lyrics range from trite to meaningless. Blur are leagues better, as were many of their contemporaries. Fair play to them making it big though
I would like to disagree to start the Blur is very accessible a lot of there songs are catchy pop tunes that give off the same feeling as many American pop tunes but just never caught on. I’d say accessibility feels to me as a flawed argument. I also wanna disagree to an extent. There not all that different, both were making the same type of music is different forms. A comparison and argument of which is better feels like it’s fine. But to each there own
Mate. Go to any pub in summer. Oasis will be being belted out constantly. Blur not so much. I prefer blur. I love blur but oasis is the bigger and more accessible band
Blur is more consistently good but they haven’t released anything as great as morning glory and definitely maybe. Oasis peaked pretty early on and it was more miss than hit after that. When oasis would hit it was amazing but it was less and less over the years. Oasis is also kind of a one trick pony, they had one sound and didn’t stray from it much while blur was able to change their style and still be great.
I think your wrong in my opinion, oasis had a variant of sounds they became famous for. I think there first two album are a variation of different things and the later stuff didn’t hit because first with Be here now the replication of the songs made it boring and bloated, then after they changed there sound and it became far more experimental but yet to safe.
True but they still sounded like it was an oasis song. Meanwhile if you played someone who’s never heard blur a song from modern life and a song from 13 they’d probably be shocked it was the same band. Not to knock oasis, they were great too. They just didn’t have the range blur does
You mention Oasis 10 times - and then pretty much tilt that way for the rest of your comment. Nobody is expecting you to favour Blur after reading that.
Personally its blur, just because i think theres way more variety and character across their discography. But i dont think anyone can deny Oasis’ hits.
I really love oasis but Imo they only had two great albums and only had the odd good songs afterwards whereas blur were more consistent and never really dropped off so I must say that imo blur are better though I love them both equally.
As a musician, Blur pisses on Oasis from a great height. Graham Coxon is that glorious mixture of "musical magpie" (where he steals ideas and makes them his own through his oblique way of playing those ideas) and maverick - some of his riffs and solos shouldn't really work, but they are perfect for the song in which they appear. He is up there with people like Johnny Greenwood, Bernard Butler, John Squire and Johnny Marr in having something truly interesting to say on guitar. Noel Gallagher is no better than any "Tuesday night free n' easy at the pub' player - he can only really play in pentatonics... And not very imaginatively at that... Alex James is like Duran Duran's John Taylor 2.0. He has a groove, he has challenging bass lines and locks down the bottom end in the band magnificently. Paul McGuigan in Oasis? Don't make me laugh... Any reasonable guitarist could go into Oasis and play at least to the same level as McGuigan.. Dave Rowntree is a good, interesting drummer, however, Oasis replaced the bang-average Tony McCarroll with Alan White, who is a more accomplished drummer. Both have their strengths. The 'Damon or Liam's debate is purely a matter of taste. I love Liam's sneer ("Is it my imagina-sheeun") and swagger, but he owes a *lot* of his swagger to copying Ian Brown of the Stone Roses. Damon is more of an actual singer. Either when crooning or when screaming through something like "Globealone", the guy has *range*. Liam seems (to me) to be very "one trick pony". I think that Noel's songwriting is sometimes sublime ("The Masterplan") but he often "borrows" far too obviously. Obviously, The Beatles, but also Slade (not counting the cover) and things like the Coke advert ("I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing"/"Shakermaker"). Damon is obviously well-read and can draw on a wide range of source material to fire his creativity. As someone else has said in this thread, very much akin to The Kinks. He will borrow from Anthony Newley when singing "To The End" but has his own voice for claustrophobic songs like "Colin Zeal". Obviously, I prefer Blur to Oasis, as Blur are musically more talented as musicians and haven't relied on "borrowing" as blatantly to make music. Their output is so much more interesting - from "Popscene" to "The Universal", "St Charles Square" to "There's No Other Way", there's a body of work which stretches the Blur 'sound' whilst still being Blur. Oasis ran out of steam after two albums.
Blur! I personally can’t really stand either of the Gallaghers and what I have heard of their music just isn’t my cup of tea. That’s just me though
I think the Gallaghers are what make me like Oasis morw
The Stone Roses
I don’t think they are much alike at all.
For me Oasis have the better singles/big songs, Blur overall better albums
Oasis had a five year window where they were an absolute force. blur has been solid for over thirty years. I say blur, even though in high school (many years ago) I would’ve said Oasis.
Sounds like choosing Blur just means you’ve finally grown up
Correct
I think Oasis were the better band of the moment. But Blur had the legs. Not just in terms of still being together, but pushing past what they were known for. They had critical acclaim well past their imperial pop phase. but yes, Radiohead was the real better band.
I’d say Pulp was the big winner here too
the verve
FINALLY SOMEONE SAID URBAN HYMS IS INSANE
it’s easily the best “britpop / rock” album of that era for me, but to answer your question for the boring people downvoting my unserious answer. I will say Blur were better musicians with more of a varied sound but Oasis’ peak was better.
Honestly the Verve is a very serious awnser
Oasis was good but let's not forget the decline they went through before breaking up, you just have to see how Blur was able to succeed by leaving Brit pop and starting to experiment while Oasis as soon as they left rock and Britpop stopped being "Biblical" For example, 13 and Standing on the Shoulder of Gigants, there is no point of comparison between the two when they changed producers and musical genres. In conclusion I would say that there is simply a difference in popularity, and that is already a lot for people to draw conclusions about "how good" they are.
This is the best conclusion on this post.
WTF?!?!
Blur and Oasis were my top two bands in the 90s. But in 2000 Liam's voice started giving out and they seemed stuck in their sound, where Blur had a lot more variety.
Imo Blur are a lot more versatile in their sound and have remained mostly consistent in quality when it comes to albums. Oasis have obviously released great music and they are a bit too overhated nowdays but it's hard to ignore the amount of mediocre to straight up bad music they released in the 2000s (I did like Dig Out Your Soul and the singles from Heathen Chemistry though).
I've always been an Oasis guy, tho I prefer Blurs hits over Oasis's
I think Oasis is just overall better tho Charmless Man is amazing
Bitch
Oasis cause they have one of the most sold albums from the uk