Oasis or Blur?
By gnuehc
@gnuehc (41)
December 7, 2006 7:17am CST
So, it's the mid-90s and one of the greatest battle of the bands in pop history is taking place. Oasis and Blur fight it out for number 1 in the UK charts. Blur wins, therefore becoming the official kings of Brit-pop. But do you think Oasis should be more deserving of this crown? Discuss...
11 responses
@anyablue (363)
• United States
27 Dec 06
I think Blur won that title fair and square. Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Oasis too. But Blur had so much variety in every thing they did during the '90s. Not one of their cds sounds like the next. They were totally open to experimenting with genres, sounds, and topics, and equipment. Oasis is just good at creating a single rock sound. How many times has Noel Gallagher admitted to ripping off a riff or idea from someone :)
1 person likes this
@kotee2 (46)
• Chile
18 Jul 09
Blur.
I like Oasis a lot more though, I even went to one of his concerts. And I think their songs are anthms, but how do I say it?...they haven't done anything new since 1995, plus their songs are very simple.
Blur in the other hand has songs that are much more complicated musically speaking, and they passed through a lot of styles.
@Galena (9110)
•
28 Feb 07
Blur by a long way.
better musically, more imaginative, more fun, and quite a lot better looking too. hehe.
and lets face it, Oasis don't have their original line up either, so you can't claim a victory on that front.
every blur album is different from the others. you can't say that about bland old boring oasis.
@eriktuz (32)
• Philippines
9 Jan 07
Blur. even though they disbanded. their great music lives on.
but isn't this an old news? i mean their are newer bands in the waving through the UK charts such as bloc party, franz ferdinand, the ordinary boys, etc etc.