Last night was a bit of a Blur

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

the county borders greater London, an its less than an hour out of the city centre. but i can understand what your saying.

[sifi]

the county borders greater London, an its less than an hour out of the city centre. but i can understand what your saying.

[adustlandfairytale]

Nibble Nibble.

Stop biting people

[VCK]

Ah, the timeless Blur vs. Oasiss debate!

Tough one to call for me, both have written some timeless tunes. In terms of consistency Blur were the better band, as Oasis have released some gash in their later career, and that Glasto '09 performance is the greatest I've seen by any band - and I've watched the likes of Radiohead, Metallica and Morrissey before, acts reknowned for being brilliant live - but I think Definitely Maybe is better than any of Blur's albums (not a slur on Blur as they've released some brilliant stuff, just personal preference)

Can we settle this 17 year old topic once and for all, by saying that Pulp are better than both?

[rexclark]

Can we settle this 17 year old topic once and for all, by saying that Pulp are better than both?

[joe1990]

Totally agree.

Edited December 18, 2011 by joe1990

[gazza_20]

absolutely not, that's just fuel for the fire haha. i will admit pulp are far superior to blur, Jarvis is the man. VCK saying blur have wrote some timeless tunes.... come on, really??

i don't no how you think for example county house or girls and boys are timeless.in my opinion they sound very dated now, never mind in another 30 years. how on earth you can ever relate to those gash lyrics is beyond me.

i live in a house, a very big house in the country. o yer great stuff, every one can understand that i don't think lmfao

[joe1990]

IMO, Blur are possibly more talented musicians, Oasis have better songs but while Pulp come in, he is the man, amazing front man

[jump]

over all, threw the early to late 90s liam had one of the best voices this nation has witnessed, in a very long time. also iv heard liam twice this year live, and he's sounding very good to be truthful.

vocals for blur don't even come anywhere near

Noel Gallagher's guitar work/ singing/ song writing/ is in every way better than anything blur has done. even tho he may of borrowed the odd bit from The Beatles, it still takes allot of skill to do what he's done. i didn't see anyone else doing what oasis have done an executed it so perfectly.

the only thing blur had what oasis didn't was more money.

& at the end of the day i love you all.

[thetime]

Joe your giving blur examples from there early work, which i wasn't personally into. Apart from the odd track. But then they started to develop in the late 90s and produced wonderful music. Classics such as beetlebum, tender, coffee and tv, no distance left to run.

Used to love oasis first 2 albums, but then they forget how to write great albums and basically they couldn't develop there sound like blur and radiohead could. Basically they came a caricature what the band was all about, even the breakup is a bit forced for a big reunion tour in a couple of years.

So where i stand is oasis far better until 1995, then the likes of blur, radiohead, pulp wiping the floor with them. Even embrace wrote better tunes than oasis since the late 90s.

Edited December 18, 2011 by thetime

[joe1990]

Joe your giving blur examples from there early work, which i wasn't personally into. Apart from the odd track. But then they started to develop in the late 90s and produced wonderful music. Classics such as beetlebum, tender, coffee and tv, no distance left to run.

Used to love oasis first 2 albums, but then they forget how to write great albums and basically they couldn't develop there sound like blur and radiohead could. Basically they came a caricature what the band was all about, even the breakup is a bit forced for a big reunion tour in a couple of years.

So where i stand is oasis far better until 1995, then the likes of blur, radiohead, pulp wiping the floor with them. Even embrace wrote better tunes than oasis since the late 90s.

Edited December 18, 2011 by joe1990

[Gingo]

Remember when this topic was titled Blur vs Oasis - who were the better band?

Me neither.....

[jump]

unfortunately i still have to disagree.

the Masterplan (1998) is a great album, one of favourites. B sides or no B sides its still up their as a top album in my view. its just not as overly popular with the masses as the first two, for me that makes it even better, its a really fresh sounding album, with a balance just right. (also on their is a great live version of i am the walrus)

Don't Believe The Truth (2005) in my opinion the second best album they have ever done, simply because.. to pull out an album of that quality, i believe is absolutely remarkable when i will admit they weren't exactly in there vintage years.

even now, Noel who was with oasis for the best part of 15 years, goes solo and goes straight to number 1 with his album, also going platinum in the process, just showing he still has the ability of a top singer/song writer.

ill admit not everything oasis has done has been great, but to say after 95 they crumbled in my view is just plain wrong

[joe1990]

It shows he's popular not that he's a quality musician, the two are different things.

[mrtourette]

surly in order to be a popular musician, you have to be a quality musician?

Edited December 19, 2011 by mrtourette

[gazza_20]

surly in order to be a popular musician, you have to be a quality musician?

[joe1990]

Oh dear oh dear. Talk about digging your own grave.

Think of who is top of the single and album charts at the moment and let us know if you think they're quality musicians.

[mrtourette]

They make music. The definition of a musician is irrelevant as it's subjective and changes from person to person. The point remains that you can't judge quality based on popularity, otherwise Coronation Street and EastEnders would be the best things on television every Christmas and Titanic would be one of the best films ever made.

Edited December 19, 2011 by mrtourette

[joe1990]

They make music. The definition of a musician is irrelevant as it's objective and changes from person to person. The point remains that you can't judge quality based on popularity.

Edited December 19, 2011 by joe1990

[mrtourette]

What they are to you doesn't really matter outside of your opinion, which is why "a is better than b" arguments on the internet are retarded because nobody can ever be proved right or wrong. When you try to use popularity as proof that a is better than b you just look stupid because popularity doesn't prove anything.

[Gingo]

never are they musicians two me, they are told what to sing, their told what to wear, their told when to sleep, eat, what to say, there just puppets for men in bored meetings rubbing there hands with joy.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Gingo

[rexclark]

McFly are competent musicians, doesn't make them any less shite though.

[2rare2die]

Blur seem like a very popular choice on here for a R+L headliner, so by your own logic i guess you've just undermined your original argument lol

[mrtourette]

Does that mean that every unpopualr line-up is actually really good?

[2rare2die]

Sorry, that was aimed at joe1990, i didn't really make that clear