Meanwhile in the middle of the Britpop explosion you had Radiohead making a masterpiece called The Bends in 1995 who became the best British band from then on.
@@MarcoGosatti42 No, definitely not, the classically over depressed rich college boy music was not as good as Oasis or Blur lol. Especially considering no album, yes not even Ok Computer, reached the level of success and consistency that What's The Story Morning Glory reached, and that's a fact, the numbers back it up. What did Radiohead ever "revolutionise", they didn't introduce depressing music, or are we forgetting about Nirvana earlier on in the 90's? They just brought back depressing music in a more futuristic way, which was ironically what Blur and Oasis were making fun of, was the at times overly depressing music (I love Nirvana) that could be heard during the rise of grunge
I have to say thoug, i dont think blur and oasis really hate eachother, i think it was just an act pushed by their labels to sell more records and see who could beat the other one.
@@zulemacardoso1626 Except that isn't true, because Oasis stayed consistently the same from the start to the end of their career, their style ironically doesn't change much, it's the same format of Noel singing like 80% of the songs and Liam singing like 80% of the songs, in their own tones. This is the basic excuse for "Oasis found much more success and weren't one hit wonders", which some people refuse to accept for Blur, who got demolished in the long run, but I still like Blur as well, it's just the facts.
Oasis only boomed cause they were a beatles rip off, which was pretty popular at the time. Blur on the other hand explored different genres and also weren't that full of themselves. I love both bands, but blur wins.
Blur are musically miles ahead of Oasis and have put out consistently good Albums, but Oasis had the biggest peak 95-97.. they arrived just at the right time and their attitude, antics along with singalong drunken anthems just appealed to people after a decade of new romantic, sugary pop and then Euro Dance baggy stuff.
@@liamgallagher9803 xd I am guessing you are a oasis fan since your name and pfp is oasis-related. You being a groupie doesn't make facts untrue, fanboy.
Oasis had 2 great albums followed by mediocre crap that sold because they normally had a fight or some drama before the launch of the album and it made the paper. Blur got better and better and well we can safely say have the far greater output not including their solo stuff which also wipes the floor with the Gallaghers... Gorillaz, TGTBTQ, Coxon solo etc.. Robbie would have smashed Liam also.
Guys like Damon Albarn and Thom Yorke took their musical path very seriously and always absorbing many influences under their sleeves, while the Gallagher brothers had their ego stuck up their arses and The Beatles worshipping.
They have multiple great albums afterwards, what lol? It's like it's just that you guys want to hate on the more popular and evidently significantly more successful band. I love how you have to factor in completely irrelevant crap when talking about Oasis vs Blur, Gorillaz have NOTHING to do with the two BANDS, that's a completely different band that Damon went to afterwards, AFTER Oasis factually won. Also, with bangers that were widely successful (more successful than Blur's second most popular song) like Stand By Me, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, etc, that appeared in their later albums, how could you say they were "bad"? They factually won, but why can't people like both?
Me encanta oasis pero eso no les quita lo arrogantes que eran 😏, parecía que les hacían un favor al recoger los premios, cero humildad, pero creo que nos acostumbramos a verlos así, los hermanos gallagher eran sinónimo de soberbia, aunque eso no les quitaba que hacían buena música 👍
Blur are the better band and more talented musicians/songwriters. Oasis had the biggest peak 95-97 they were everywhere. Robbie would most likely smash Liam...if it had ever happened then or now.
If you are talking specifically about Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory I cannot disagree, but when talking about the balance of an entire career including the members' solo or side projects, Blur ends up doing better.
@@murilosouza4369 But that makes zero sense, because we're clearly factoring how well each BAND does against each other, not what the individuals did beforehand, during or after the rock bands duration lmao. Bringing in irrelevant factors like Gorillaz just shows a hilarious level of cope, because that isn't Blur, that's Gorillaz, different band and not involved BETWEEN the discussion of Oasis vs Blur as BANDS, not individuals. When you compare and argue whose better between Nirvana and Pearl Jam, I don't go and say "well Nirvana are better anyway because Dave Grohl went and made Foo Fighters", it's a completely different topic that brings in an external factor. Gorillaz dictated the success of Damon, not the band of Blur. Oasis did significantly better, and whilst I also like Blur it's just the facts
@@hughsmith7489 But I'm not conditioning my analysis solely based on the members' solo careers and side projects, I've included the bands' discography themselves. Oasis may even have two masterpieces (Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory), but there are other albums that despite having high points, are merely ok. Meanwhile, Blur, despite having only one great work (Parklife), still has a discography which is very cohesive, has practically no bad material and ends up lasting longer. Solo careers and side projects are just the icing on the cake in this comparison.
@@sonicyouth7177 That joke would make sense if Oasis weren't the extremely influential and much more popular and successful band, with multiple songs (not just one) to actually solidify their fame. Their main song is actually known by its name, not as the "woo hoo" song
Oasis won this Battle, but Blur won the war. Twenty-five years later, Blur's discography remains great, and they are mostly known for their music legacy; while Oasis' can only be really proud of their first two albums, and are better known for fights and insults. I keep loving all those times, and call myself a fan both of Oasis and Blur, but the truth is the truth. Oasis ganó esta batalla, pero Blur ganó la guerra. veinticinco años después, la discografía de Blur sigue siendo genial, y son conocidos sobre todo por su legado musical; Oasis sólo puede presumir realmente de sus dos primeros discos, y son conocidos más que nada por peleas e insultos. Sigo amando aquellos años, y me sigo declarando fan tanto de Oasis como de Blur, pero la verdad es la verdad.
Russia Is Number 1 How did Oasis win the war? In terms of popularity? Sure, but even Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift are popular, doesn’t mean their music is good. Oasis’ post-Morning Glory discography is relatively mediocre. Not a single good album. Whereas Blur proved everyone that their Britpop success was not just a fluke, evolving into true artists, releasing one good album after the other, never sounding the same, and always receiving the highest praise from both critics and fans. Albarn even outdid himself later on with Gorillaz. Whereas Coxon is still regarded as one of the best and most creative guitarists in the world nowadays. I really like Oasis, they have some great songs, but Blur are on a completely different level.
@@pringlescan1914 Do You really need the insult to defend your ideas. Pity for this. Maybe in England, or Russia, people's got this crystal clear. I don't think so. My feedback is Oasis made it greater on fame, but Blur did it on music. They are still respected artists. Oasis... well, the Gallagher Bross, are still recording good albums on their own, but not so good selling, and definitely outside the main stream. Are They respected as artist? I think not much. Always repeating themselves. And Noel being assailed by funny informal accusations of plagiarism. If not for their fans, they would be completely out of music media, while Damon Albarn had the balls to create something really new and exciting, sell millions, and keep critics mostly on his side. If Oasis come back someday, there would be great spectation, but not for their music. Bets would be on how many fights, or how much time until they asshamingly split again. And still I'd love it to happen, of course, because as I said before, I'm a fan.
José Francisco Solís Yes you spoon, and to start oasis and blur Brit pop and it was the battle of Brit pop not the battle of Spain or where ever the f*ck you’re from and in England Oasis are the clear winners. I’ll admit it blur have a few good songs but it’s only a few where as oasis first 3 albums almost Everysong is an instant classic even the b sides are. Oasis first 3 albums have the biggest cultural impact on British music since the Beatles and that’s a fact. It is true at first blur did sell more albums but that was at the beginning in the 90s oasis have overwhelmingly surpassed blur now. And I ain’t here comparing there other caress after there bands you numpty I’m talking about oasis and blur. There are many RU-vid videos on who won Brit pop and every video says Oasis so do your research and I know what I am talking about since I am from England ask any teenager or kid what do You think about blur , they will go who ? But ask them oasis they’ll go they’re amAzing class , there music has and will stand the testimony of time whereas blur has two popular British songs that have stayed park life and song 2
Their songs are very well crafted in my opinion. Graham uses the guitar in various types of creative ways and Alex inputs a lot of cool bass lines. Blur is the best band of the Blur category.
What makes someone great in the field of arts? I guess people really overrate a lot of stuff, but sometimes for the wrong reasons. It becomes more like a plastic discussion, sometimes nonsense, like some "apples are better than oranges" kind of debate. I think that Blur deserves their credit, their albums from 1993-1999 are full of great moments and creative music representation. Very original stuff. I guess the popularity brings some sort of distorted way of digesting art, mainly music. I used to listen The Auteurs, Pulp, Kula Shaker, Teenage Fanclub, and a lot, lot more of british things. My dad sometimes imported CD's for me. I'm from Brazil, and even though I've studied and respectfully and openly listened to lots of britpop era material, At least I was free of a pre-conceived notion of some bands, except knowing that some of them were popular in mid 90's. I remember listening to every second of Blur's 13 album in my Walkman under my blanket when I was a child and it was very special to me, it was just music, creative music. It wasn't overrated lads that girls screams to cause they're "beautiful" and put posters on the bedroom in a poser-way, y'know? It was just absorption of art, and cool sounds. Oasis is great, kind of a more direct Gibson-driven modern rock n' roll, which is something that I find very unique too, even when minimalistic, still it's Oasis, still it's very recognizable. Noel Gallagher usually play distorted full chords, while Graham usually creates some specific guitar inputs for the song. For example, observe the guitar line of "Charmless Man" by Blur and "Roll With It", by Oasis. When I was a teenager I didn't get why people were so fond of Oasis, I thought that were a lot of others complex bands to pay attention to, but now, at 24 yrs old, I see that this type of argument is bullshit. I have my small collection of Oasis albums, and I truly like and respect the music. About the Beatles, for me it's impossible to imagine that you are living in 1967, buying and listening to Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, White Album or any of these post 1965 albuns for the first time and not thinking that it was lots of groundbreaking, emotional, sometimes raw, sometimes aggressive and beautiful music in these albums. There's nothing like The Beatles. I guess some people hate it because it's to much "popular" even though those critics normally don't have knowledge of half of the Beatles catalog. Some people hate it because they have a preconception that the band only talk about love. Some people hate it cause they don't see what is special about songs that don't sound like Ariana Grande. I guess that in order to absorve music and music concepts, you first have to be open to it. I've first listened to The Doors when I was a child, but just when I was a teenager I really understand what was special about that tapestry of minimalistic blend of instruments together. Hammond Organs playing bass-parts, very creative guitar lines, and great compositions. Before that it was just a 'okay' band to me. By the way, thanks for the polite replies, sorry for my shitty english and pardon for the long text.
Wanker band 1 vs wanker band 2 Tbh ive only listened to blur and their best songs arent even britpop. Rock, bossa nova, whatever genre The Universal is. Oasis cant sing and they proved it. Wonderwall is kinda alright tbh, but i only know of it through Jay Z.
the gallagher brothers are tories? are you serious right now? the notoriously working class gallagher brothers are tories? is being a tory now synonymous with “someone i don’t like” ? the gallagher brothers grew up in a council estate in manchester. they grew up in a labor house and have endorsed labor candidates publicly. in fact noel endoresed fucking tony blair at the brits! (he later went on to regret that lmfao) but not middle class swanky blur? the obvious tory voter representatives?
