Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Blur or Oasis

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    tipptom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    CPTM wrote: »
    Here's 17 that come to mind straight away without thinking too hard. I challenge anyone to put together a set list of blur songs that would be more entertaining than this.

    Don't look back in anger
    Champagne Supernova
    Wonderwall
    Cast no shadow
    Cigarettes and Alcohol
    All around the world
    She's electric
    Some might say
    Rock and Roll star
    Slide away
    Talk tonight
    The master plan
    Roll with it
    Live forever
    Little by little
    What's the story morning glory
    Hey Now
    You forgot fuc*in in the bushes
    Everyone knows it,they just don't know that they know it.


  • Options
    #33
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    I always thought oasis had more hits. In the 90"s i much preferred oasis (might have been a little biased, got my hands on plenty of vip tickets), blur just didn't have the same energy. It seemed like all the edgey guys and girls liked blur to be different.

    Both are great bands though. I have to buy more blur albums.


  • Options
    #34
    GRACKEA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 129 ✭✭GRACKEA


    I have to say Blur. Oasis had some good songs and lyrics were definitely their strong point but a lot of their music was samey. Blur had way better range and as someone else said, originality.


  • Options
    #35
    Ursus Horribilis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Ursus Horribilis


    It's a bit like comparing The Beatles and the Rolling Stones all over again though, isn't it? Apples and oranges. The Beatles were the ones who were ultimately more creative and groundbreaking than the Stones but both were good at what they did. They were different sorts of bands though.

    Oasis were a more straightforward sort of band while Blur took some unusual meanders. Both are fine but I prefer Pulp :)


  • Options
    #36
    KGC
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭KGC


    GRACKEA wrote: »
    I have to say Blur. Oasis had some good songs and lyrics were definitely their strong point but a lot of their music was samey. Blur had way better range and as someone else said, originality.

    Oasis' peak moments (94 - 96) were probably higher but over career Blur were more creative.....although Noel has branched out a bit in the last few year.
    Never would say lyrics were Oasis strong point though.
    Two top bands though!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ibFoxer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭ibFoxer


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »


    (The real answer is to the OP is Suede anyway)

    A hundred times this.


  • Options
    #38
    allap
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭allap


    I would say overall Oasis. Plus I like Noel Gallagher's solo stuff


  • Options
    #39
    Decuc500
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭Decuc500


    Blur were much more creative and original than Oasis.

    Compare Parklife to Think Tank. They were continually reinventing their sound.

    I saw Blur in McGonagles in 1991, one of the first gigs I was at. Damon Albarn hanging upside down from the ceiling while singing.


  • Options
    #40
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Parklife was like a novelty song.


  • Options
    #41
    firemansam4
    Registered Users Posts: 1,688 ✭✭✭firemansam4


    For me it was Oasis.

    Listening to the radio over the last year I have heard several oasis classics being played, but I can't remember the last time I heard a blur song.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    pjdarcy
    Registered Users Posts: 292 ✭✭pjdarcy


    Ursus Horribilis wrote: »
    It's a bit like comparing The Beatles and the Rolling Stones all over again though, isn't it? Apples and oranges. The Beatles were the ones who were ultimately more creative and groundbreaking than the Stones but both were good at what they did. They were different sorts of bands though.

    Yeah but Keith Richards is in The Stones and everyone knows that he's the coolest man in the world. Also, somewhat selfishly, The Beatles keep dying whereas The Stones appear to be immortal :)


  • Options
    #43
    lertsnim
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭lertsnim


    I like both but think Suede is better.


  • Options
    #44
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,835 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    Oasis never had an album as good as Parklife or 13 (as much as I loved definitely maybe) and Blur never had an album as bad as Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.

    Graham Coxon is a better guitar player than Noel and and Damon's a better songwriter.

    Radiohead are better than both though


  • Options
    #45
    Tammy!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Tammy!


    I'd say they hate being asked about it still...well maybe not Noel Gallagher so much :D





  • Options
    #46
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    marketty wrote: »
    Fr. Damien your tea is ready!!

    I'll be in in a minah (swoosh hair)


  • Options
    #47
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Man Vs ManUre wrote: »
    I was always Oasis, even if they turned to sh1t after Be Here Now.

    Mixed Blur better songs more variation in style layered lyrics - but no umph and bite

    Oasis - one trick ponies - Noel Gallagher had no one to push him to keep the writing standard up after two albums.
    He admits himself that he felt like he 'wrote about all he had to say at that point.
    He had no inspiration, no motivation.
    Plenty of umph and bite in the band though.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #48
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Oasis never had an album as good as Parklife or 13 (as much as I loved definitely maybe) and Blur never had an album as bad as Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.

    Graham Coxon is a better guitar player than Noel and and Damon's a better songwriter.

    Radiohead are better than both though

    Radiohead are great funeral music so much joy and hope in thier songs....

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #49
    Tammy!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Tammy!


    Radiohead were in their own class. You wouldn't even think to compare.

    I'd say it annoyed Blur to be associated with Oasis and Oasis just played on it more with the media and hype of it. I think they are both good and very different bands.


  • Options
    #50
    Welsh Megaman
    Registered Users Posts: 71,644 ✭✭✭✭Welsh Megaman


    Definitely Northern Uproar.


  • Options
    #51
    Sorry about that
    Closed Accounts Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Sorry about that


    At the time (early 90's), I was all about Oasis, loved them. Now though, the Blur music from then sounds better than ever. "For Tomorrow", "There's no Other Way", are stunning songs that I never tire of listening to, while I absolutely never listen to Oasis; their music brings back fantastic memories, but it doesn't sound as good this time round. Also, in hindsight, Albarn was a budding genius, the Gallaghers were just charismatic scowly one trick ponies.

    Pulp were just rubbish.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,309 ✭✭✭whomitconcerns


    Oasis all the way from day 1


  • Options
    #53
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,226 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    I was more Oasis back in the day but they've aged badly imho. Blur have a lot of shíte, (country house is fúcking woeful) but I'd still listen to their gems now.

    TLDR; Blur


  • Options
    #54
    antodeco
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 13,425 ✭✭✭✭antodeco


    I was a huuuuge Oasis fan back in the day. Be here now was the last of their good stuff (bar a very small handful of songs later on).

    Now, however, I massively appreciate some of the music Blur have made. One of my mates even told me he'd never expect to hear me saying that.

    I was also a massive Catatonia fan (probably biggest in Ireland I'd say!). Listening back now, alot of their stuff wasn't great, but the persuasive nature of being a teenager, obviously tainted my admiration for them back then.


  • Options
    #55
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    Wheety wrote: »
    I like both :-)

    You're not allowed to like both. Pick one and get off that fence


  • Options
    #56
    KGC
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭KGC


    Peace in our time...............
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7zDW5ORUI


  • Options
    #57
    Ian OB
    Registered Users Posts: 361 ✭✭Ian OB


    Welsh Megaman wrote: »
    Definitely Northern Uproar.


    Steady on, next thing somebody will start eulogising Cast!!


  • Options
    #58
    KaneToad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭KaneToad


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    Very subjective these but go on...

    Stereotypes
    Song 2
    End Of A Century
    Lonesome Street
    Trouble In The Message Centre
    On Your Own
    Coffee & TV
    Entertain Me
    There's No Other Way
    Bettlebum
    Popscene
    It Could Be You
    For Tomorrow
    Tender
    Chemical World
    The Universal
    To The End


    (The real answer is to the OP is Suede anyway)

    The Oasis list would be far more widely known. Not a fan of either band but know each of Oasis tracks listed but only a few of the Blur ones.

    For me, it was Sleeper all day long.


  • Options
    #59
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    lertsnim wrote: »
    I like both but think Suede is better.

    Suede??
    They were mainly a great marketing trick.
    They were hyped up cleverly before they even released any music.

    https://www.timeout.com/sydney/blog/ten-astonishing-facts-about-brit-glam-group-suede-031116

    '1992 cover of Melody Maker proclaimed them the ‘Best New Band in Britain’ before they had officially released any music.'


    It was well done though.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #60
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,220 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    NewbridgeIR wrote: »
    Looking at their whole careers - Blur, much more consistent and better albums.

    But Oasis had better B-Sides. The 1994-1998 era is full of gems.

    It is kind of like a Mardona v Ronaldo (Portuguese) argument.

    Mardona was the short really bright flash and burnt out fast = Oasis

    Ronaldo long career it is almost assumed the goods will be produced - changed style over time could vary thier play = Blur

    I can remember how Blur used to have this internal struggle amongst the band between guitar based songs, pop type songs, and electronic based songs.
    They could also do Paul Weller-ish type songs.
    So on reflection there was a bit of everything from Blur - depending on your taste.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    tipptom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,219 ✭✭✭tipptom


    Not sure if Oasis have stood the test of time.
    If they made a comeback they would sell out for weeks but I think the crowd would be made up of a lot of Garth Brookes/c/w fans,not exactly rock and roll is it?


Advertisement