View Full Version : Why are blur so much better than oasis?
Killfacer
19th March 2009, 13:19
Discuss.
Klepto
19th March 2009, 13:22
Oasis truly speak for their (my) generation. I prefer blur.
Sam_b
19th March 2009, 13:45
Because Graham Coxon is/was a better songwriter.
Pirate Utopian
19th March 2009, 14:05
Because almost anything is better than Oasis.
Angry Young Man
19th March 2009, 14:29
They both suck. They really do. Suede are the best band from the Britpop era
Invader Zim
19th March 2009, 15:01
They both suck. They really do. Suede are the best band from the Britpop era
No. Just, no. I like Suede, but there were plenty of bands better than Suede.
As for this contest, Blur were a better band. No question. Blur made five good albums during the bri-pop era (1989-1997), which I date from The Stone Roses debut album to Blur's self titled album. None fantastic, but all really good solid albums, but with a couple of shit songs on each. Oasis made two great albums and then actually killed the era in music by releasing Be Here Now. The greatest disappointment in music in my lifetime. For that reason, and that reason alone, Blur are a better band. They were consistantly good Oasis just couldn't keep it up.
brigadista
19th March 2009, 15:32
oasis were a beatles tribute band- blur mediocre -the best was stone roses
Hegemonicretribution
19th March 2009, 15:37
Oasis presented themselves as encompassing some kind of social revolution....their message was 'there is a way out.' They stood against despair and stuff apparently, but they simply were not that good.
Too many Oasis songs are identical. For example Don't look back in anger and Whatever are virtually identical but in diffent keys. Try strumming the chords to Don't look back in anger, and then start singing whatever...
Blur are just far more enduring. Lyrically they are cleverer, musically they are more inventive, and whilst at the time I thought Blur's image was shit compared to Oasis, with hindsight I realise that I was very very wrong. Blur are still kind of cool now, oasis aren't.
Also I saw Oasis live in 2004 and they were terrible. One of the worst live bands I have seen. Considering the ammount of crowd pleasers and sing-alongs they have this is just unforgivable.
As for suede, they were good, but then again so were supergrass to a similar degree.
Pulp for the win; different class=gold.
Picky Bugger
19th March 2009, 15:48
I will loosely quote the the fantastic Jarvis Cocker - "The endearing legacy of Brit Pop is the untucked shirt and that is not a good thing" (Something like that)
Brit Pop was too hollow alright there were some good songs written but it wasn't going to last as it had no point.
I've got to say though Definitely Maybe was a very good album, just a wall of pure sound.
The Stone Roses are NOT Brit Pop they Pre-dated it...
brigadista
19th March 2009, 15:50
I will loosely quote the the fantastic Jarvis Cocker - "The endearing legacy of Brit Pop is the untucked shirt and that is not a good thing" (Something like that)
Brit Pop was too hollow alright there were some good songs written but it wasn't going to last as it had no point.
The Stone Roses are NOT Brit Pop they Pre-dated it...
still better than any britpop but i like gorrillaz....:)
Klepto
19th March 2009, 18:19
The Stone Roses are NOT Brit Pop they Pre-dated it...
...and they seem heavily influenced by krautrock from fifteen years earlier
(youtube.com/watch?v=rBHunxDalLo). I like The Stone Roses.
Pogue
19th March 2009, 19:19
The Spice Girls.
Picky Bugger
19th March 2009, 20:03
...and they seem heavily influenced by krautrock from fifteen years earlier
(youtube.com/watch?v=rBHunxDalLo). I like The Stone Roses.
Yeah they do sound quite a lot like Can which is nice but that all I will say as I don't want to take another thread hostage talking about Krautrock :p.
The Stone Roses were a very good band, shame they got a bit Santana(ish) in the end and by that I mean some of the songs sounded like a guy wanking off a guitar just for the sake of it.
Killfacer
19th March 2009, 22:02
Lyrically they are cleverer, musically they are more inventive, and whilst at the time I thought Blur's image was shit compared to Oasis, with hindsight I realise that I was very very wrong. Blur are still kind of cool now, oasis aren't.
I reckon this is the crux of it. Have some rep for definatively answering one of lifes burning questions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.