Blur are far better than Oasis



fyl2u said:
The other times it will have been the same situation: someone else will have mentioned one of them first or I will have googled it to remind myself.

I know one is Noel and one is Liam but I have no interest in remembering which is which because they're not a band that's ever on my radar normally.

Bands are only important to people who think they're important. Oasis don't fall into that category for me personally. They're part of a scene I have no interest in at all.

Iron Maiden are one of the most important British rock bands in history. Could you tell me their original lineup without googling it?

What about Deep Purple?

Who were John Coltrane's bandmates on his classic A Love Supreme?

What about Herbie Hancock's bandmates on Headhunters?

I don't know why it bugs you so much that I don't have that one piece of information memorised and tend to forget almost instantly after being told each time. I JUST DON'T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEM TO REMEMBER.


:lol:

Poppies were amazing man. Give over!


Probably not the greatest album of the era but it had some cracking moments. Happy, Grey Cell Green, Kill Your Television... Absolute classics.


Not true in the slightest but if it helps you feel better about me not liking Oasis, suit yourself.
Click to expand...

Still don't believe you.
 
fyl2u said:
So you can't answer any of those questions then?

I'M OUTRAGED THAT YOU PRETEND YOU DON'T KNOW IRON MAIDEN'S ORIGINAL LINEUP!!!
Click to expand...

Those bands or artists you mentioned are far more niche and haven't had anywhere near the mainstream media coverage of oasis in the last 25 years.
There's loads of bands or groups I have zero interest in that i can name the members of. Some of them I dislike massively. Still know their names though.
I certainly wouldn't lie about it.
 
What A Waster said:
Those bands or artists you mentioned are far more niche and haven't had anywhere near the mainstream media coverage of oasis in the last 25 years.
There's loads of bands or groups I have zero interest in that i can name the members of. Some of them I dislike massively. Still know their names though.
I certainly wouldn't lie about it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't lie about it either. Your key words there are "mainstream media". I haven't had a TV licence or TV feed into my house in years, I don't listen to music radio, I get all my music from targetted searches on YouTube or Spotify or Bandcamp and my TV shows from Netflix where I certainly don't sit watching shows about Britpop or Oasis. They're just not a band I ever come across anywhere except the odd thread on here.
 
Blur were art school cockney nobheads.

Oasis were class.

Both have some good songs and albums, but oasis were better.
fyl2u said:
Let's face it, neither Blur or Oasis nor any of the "Britpop" bands are fit to lace to the boots of the proper British indie/alternative bands that came before them in the late 80's/early 90's.

And compared with the bands coming out of America at the same time they were around, Blur and Oasis were absolute trash.
Click to expand...

All about opinions, but british bands of the 80s and early 90s were in the main shite
 
Last edited:
fyl2u said:
Well, we'll agree to disagree. There's plenty of polished turds in music history. I heard a story about Tiffany for example, who had a hit in the 80's with "I think we're alone now". The producer or engineer, I forget which, was telling us she was the worst singer he'd ever heard and it took forever to get the vocals down and took so much editing and polishing that they thought they would go insane.

While I was working at Olympic, we had Embrace in recording an album at one point. Their vocalist would spend an entire day recording the vocals for a single song, after which their keyboard player would take that song up to a programming room and spend a week putting it in tune by manually editing it with Autotune. As a side note, that daft sod singer was so up himself he would only record his vocal parts wearing boxer shorts and nowt else, which I could happily ignore if he was any good. :lol:


Blue, you say?
;)
Click to expand...
By your theory bands would just become more and more successful .The Stones have all the money in the world and cant sell an album these days .Oasis had more available than ever on those last albums no one bought .Its the songs,bit of good timing,bit of luck etc .Unfortunately I nearly bopped to "I think we're alone now" on Saturday at a dreadful 80s night .The song has outlived the singer and her shortcomings and people still seem to like it .No Neds songs on
 
Was always Blur for me. Biggest reason was couldn't stand hearing Liam sing. Probably why I really like the song Half the World Away.
 
JAZZMANB said:
By your theory bands would just become more and more successful .The Stones have all the money in the world and cant sell an album these days .Oasis had more available than ever on those last albums no one bought .Its the songs,bit of good timing,bit of luck etc .Unfortunately I nearly bopped to "I think we're alone now" on Saturday at a dreadful 80s night .The song has outlived the singer and her shortcomings and people still seem to like it .No Neds songs on
Click to expand...

OK, granted, it was an overly simplistic argument I was making there and you do make some good points. Like you say, there are many other things that affect quality, you're right.

For example a lot of bands (not all) when they first start out they take more notice of their producers and A&R executives when writing and recording an album, but once they get a certain point they think they know better and so they're less inclined to take notice of this advice and some will even start employing "yes men" rather than producers who will stand up to them and say "no, that's bollocks, do this instead".

There's also the fact that often a band will have spent years writing and touring and throwing away songs they don't like anymore before getting to the point where they record their first album, whereas they'll have maybe six months to a year to write and record their subsequent ones, and so the quality dips for them from then on. Obviously this isn't the case for all bands but it is something I've heard bands saying in the past when they've been accused of releasing albums that didn't stand up to their debuts.

Like you say, timing is a factor, and yes if a band captures the vibe of the times in the right way they'll get a lot more publicity and airplay which leads to more people hearing them and therefore more people buying their music. For a lot of people in the mid 90's Oasis did that, fair play. For me, not in the slightest, but to be fair I'd also mostly moved on at that time from indie/alternative into heavier rock and metal and was more a follower of that scene for a good while before revisiting indie/alternative so much again as I had in the early 90's.

Oh, and Ned's' debut album God Fodder was released in 1991 so I'm not surprised you didn't hear any of their stuff on an 80's night. ;)
 
JL1985 said:
Thread title says it all really.

More creative and progressive. Blur’s sound evolved over the years whereas Oasis didn’t.
Click to expand...
They have certainly aged better .Oasis songs now are a bit karaoke for me and the image with the hair and clothes is a bit daft .

Bit like old teddy Boys thought they were cool in the 80’s but looked a bit silly .
 
Blur have 'Sing' one of the greats and as ya mature you note Albarn's songwriting and when you play music, for shuwa.

The Universal as well.


Oasis?; Don''t Go Away's alright I suppose.
 
fyl2u said:
While I was working at Olympic, we had Embrace in recording an album at one point. Their vocalist would spend an entire day recording the vocals for a single song, after which their keyboard player would take that song up to a programming room and spend a week putting it in tune by manually editing it with Autotune. As a side note, that daft sod singer was so up himself he would only record his vocal parts wearing boxer shorts and nowt else, which I could happily ignore if he was any good. :lol:
Click to expand...
Him from Embrace is piss, like, true.
Bad, bad.
 
Blur were good and it took some balls to change ..... the only problem was their different sound was poor by comparison imo. It's a catch 22 situation either carry on playing the same way till half your fans get tired like oasis or try a different sound which immediately puts off half your fan base.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top