Oasis or Blur?

[Thimble Keegan]

I loved Britpop and consider it my time!

Back in the day I would go with Oasis everytime but once Britpop died out and you started looking back I realised that Blur were probably the better band and more talented musically.

Oh and a great shout for Shed 7...I always liked them...

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Rustington BHA

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I loved Britpop and consider it my time!

The Mixer, The Dublin Castle, that club under The Worlds End. Great times.

 

[Thimble Keegan]

The Mixer, The Dublin Castle, that club under The Worlds End. Great times.

We actually had a pretty decent indie club in Worthing believe it or not! It was called the Factory and it was small, dingy, had sweat running down the walls & served it's beer in cans...The interior was also designed by Jamie Hewlett...

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Rustington BHA

 

[Lady Gull]

Liked Oaasis - but
The Verve - bitter sweet symphony holds a special place in my musical heart xx

 

[SK1NT]

Blur....

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

What was the gimmick?

The gimmick being Phil Daniels on the albums Parklife and Think Tank.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Damon Albarn and his nauseating Chas n Dave impression just wasn't my idea of music. To me Blur were just a gimmick act with no substance.

Yes EXACTLY! Blur just aren't a musically credible band in any way imho; there is absolutely no substance to their music whatsoever - from their flimsy attempt at Madchester with 'There's No Other Way' through to comedy songs like 'Country House.' It would be like admitting to liking One Direction in today's terms. As mentioned above, bands like Suede and Pulp from that era were operating on an entirely more discerning musical level, while Blur and Oasis were for Top of the Pops-loving tweenagers. The main thing in Blur's favour, and that helped drive them up the charts, was that they had two of the sexiest blokes on the planet in Damon Albarn and Alex James.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The gimmick being Phil Daniels on the albums Parklife and Think Tank.

I guess so, and dont forget Red Ken on The Great Escape.

PS was he on Think Tank?

 

[Simster]

on reflection


Pavement

They were a cracking band, but not exactly "Brit" Pop!

As for Blur or Oasis, it depends how you judge them. Oasis made two fantastic albums that were as good as anything you could listen to at the time, but turned absolute shite. Blur's albums were all decent, but didn't hit the same heights as Oasis, although they didn't plumb the depths either.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I loved Britpop and consider it my time!

Back in the day I would go with Oasis everytime but once Britpop died out and you started looking back I realised that Blur were probably the better band and more talented musically.

Oh and a great shout for Shed 7...I always liked them...

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Rustington BHA

I'm with this, '95 - '97 I would have been Oasis all the way, but their inability to craft a decent album after 'What's The Story' leaves them trailing, while Blur went onto create some fine albums. Stack both bands albums next to each other, and while 'Definitely Maybe, and What's the Story' might clinch best album out of the 2, for quality and a continual development over a long period Blur win hands down for me.


p.s. I cannot agree with the inclusion of Shed 7! A couple of good hits a great band does not make.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes EXACTLY! Blur just aren't a musically credible band in any way imho; there is absolutely no substance to their music whatsoever - from their flimsy attempt at Madchester with 'There's No Other Way' through to comedy songs like 'Country House.' It would be like admitting to liking One Direction in today's terms. As mentioned above, bands like Suede and Pulp from that era were operating on an entirely more discerning musical level, while Blur and Oasis were for Top of the Pops-loving tweenagers. The main thing in Blur's favour, and that helped drive them up the charts, was that they had two of the sexiest blokes on the planet in Damon Albarn and Alex James.

Not musically credible? No substance. The first album was a bit 'flimsy' but it is well documented that the record company put pressure on them to make a baggy album. That said it still had some excellent material on it. But what followed were 3 gloriously British pop albums and then a variety of stuff. And by saying Blur do not have musical credibility you are also saying Damon Albarn doesn’t. And this simply does not hold given the incredibly wide range of music he has made, and the incredibly wide range of critically acclaimed musicians he has performed with.

PS I'm going out running to '13' now.

 

[Flex Your Head]

Who takes the title of the best 90's indie band?

Oasis for me

Can you define 'indie band' please?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

For me Oasis are forever the band of 94-97. Everything post then I ignore...

So it's easy to say it's Oasis for me. They had the attitude and swagger whilst Blur where just art school pretentious, IMO. Oasis have the best individual songs and the best album. Blur have nothing in their catalogue to compare to Definitely Maybe. None of the blur albums ever really grabbed me. At best they were quite good with the odd top song on them.

With hindsight I can admit that blur were probably the better musicians and Damon Albarn-smug, annoying cockflick that he is-is a genuinely talented man. Oasis 94-97 still piss over anything he did with blur and since.

Edit: I'd like to chuck the manics in to the mix too. Four fantastic albums in the 90's, only let down by This is my truth, tell me yours.

And Radiohead. They released two of the best albums ever in the 90's.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes EXACTLY! Blur just aren't a musically credible band in any way imho; there is absolutely no substance to their music whatsoever - from their flimsy attempt at Madchester with 'There's No Other Way' through to comedy songs like 'Country House.' It would be like admitting to liking One Direction in today's terms. As mentioned above, bands like Suede and Pulp from that era were operating on an entirely more discerning musical level, while Blur and Oasis were for Top of the Pops-loving tweenagers. The main thing in Blur's favour, and that helped drive them up the charts, was that they had two of the sexiest blokes on the planet in Damon Albarn and Alex James.

Are you simply analysing Blur's output '91 - '95? Post The Great Escape, I thought Blur, 13 and Think Tank were their best work. They were what, 20, 21 when they wrote their first album, hardly defines them as artists when they wrote a further 6. Out of all the Brit Pop bands, it is really only Blur that managed to reinvent themselves and develop a sound that left that era behind. As for no substance, Albarn then went on to create Gorillaz, which while not everyone's cup of tea is a great sound.

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

I guess so, and dont forget Red Ken on The Great Escape.

PS was he on Think Tank?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Tank_(Blur_album)

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can you define 'indie band' please?

A band signed to an independent record label, and not one of the major music corporations.

Or at least that is what it used to mean. Oasis were originally signed to Creation Records, while Blur were with Food Records.

 

[blockhseagull]

Not really much competition... Oasis had two great albums and then gradually got worse.

Blur on the other hand, (Great Escape apart) constantly reininvented themselves and continued to make great albums.

Anyone who thinks Blur had no substance can only ever have listened to a couple of albums or just singles because they have produced brilliant and new music where as Oasis continued to make the same songs over and over again

 

[Doha]

Oasis by far.

 

[Mellotron]

Yes EXACTLY! Blur just aren't a musically credible band in any way imho; there is absolutely no substance to their music whatsoever - from their flimsy attempt at Madchester with 'There's No Other Way' through to comedy songs like 'Country House.' It would be like admitting to liking One Direction in today's terms. As mentioned above, bands like Suede and Pulp from that era were operating on an entirely more discerning musical level, while Blur and Oasis were for Top of the Pops-loving tweenagers. The main thing in Blur's favour, and that helped drive them up the charts, was that they had two of the sexiest blokes on the planet in Damon Albarn and Alex James.

Way to ignore about 60% of their legacy.

Oasis were better in the early days, however by the end of both bands Blur couldn't even see Oasis in their rear view mirror, and were FAR more musically credible than Oasis who slowly became a 3rd rate-pub-band/Beatles-tribute etc.

13 and Think Tank are fantastic albums.

 

[weststanduppercheerleader]

Blur...I was always Blur. I love Oasis but Blur were always my favourite. I saw them at the Brighton centre back in '97 and their performance on the Brits a few weeks ago reminded me (as if I needed reminding!) why I love them so much. Their slower songs are better, although there's always a time and place for the more bouncier tracks such as 'charmless man' and 'song 2'.

To the End has to be right up there with one of my favourites, amazing song with some great lyrics.

I also believe Damon Albarn is by far a much more talented musician than Noel, as the way he reinvented himself with the Gorillaz was awesome.