You must choose one, and only one

You must choose one, and only one.

Oasis, I like honest hacks more than liar pseuds

Nope I'll choose both because music isn't a contest

blur obviously

Oasis:pleb
Blur:patrician

The Oasis/Blur battle was kind of ridiculous; neither of them sounded alike. It was drummed up by the press, during a time when the charts were everything. Both bands played into it because it was good press, and both Albarn and the Gallagher Bros were competitive and liked the bantz.

I'm in the blur camp; they were a bit more interesting musically; Coxon's guitar playing in particular was brilliant; who the fuck comes up with that shit?

I've gained an appreciation for Oasis over the years; Noel Gallagher wrote some of the best arena-rock anthems ever recorded. I think Wonderwall is a bit overrated though

Pulp

How does Sup Forums feel about Coxon's solo work?

It's a mixed bag for me. Spinning Top was his best so far.

>I think Wonderwall is a bit overrated though

That's what everyone says. I used to think that as well when I got into their music. After years I started to realise that it's pretty patrician for a hit song. The strings and the drum work of Alan White in the track are excellent

Blur, Caramel is a great track.

Its not the best but solid
I love both bands but blur. Way more depth/variety

No. I discovered both bands on the same compilation album from 1996 where both Country House and Roll With It was on, and fell in love with both bands at the same time so I refuse to choose.

Better:

>Singer: Oasis; Liam Gallagher is one of the best rock vocalists ever imo. It's amazing, when he speaks, I can't make out a fucking word he's saying. When he sings, it's clear, but gritty, even with that nasally midrange.

>Guitar: Blur - It's not like he's super technical, he's not a shredder, he doesn't solo, but no one on Earth plays guitar like Graham Coxon.

>Bass: Gotta give it to Blur. Alex James has some pretty neat grooves. Girls and boys is a banger.

>Drums: draw.

As far as songwriting, both did different things. They were both Pop-Rock, Blur was more focused on the pop aspect, and Oasis, straight Rock. Both had brilliant moments.

Blur were a bit more willing to try different things though. They really went out there with 13. It was a ballsy move actually, even on the heels of the self titled, and it worked out really well.

I will say this about Oasis, it takes serious talent to write Arena Rock, and not have it be shit. Noel wrote A+ loud pop rock bangers in his heyday.

I choose neither.

I think both Coxon and Albarn are great, but they're at they're best when they work together.

Pulp>blur>oasis
I haven't heard suede yet.

can i have neither

Well, I haven't listened much to either band since college, but probably Blur. They had a wider range of influences and a much wider output. And quite frankly, though their albums could be hit and miss sometimes, they were much more consistent in delivering quality (especially with the singles) than Oasis ever were after the first two albums.

Not that I hate Oasis, they were always just more one dimensional and completely expended themselves about a decade before they actually broke up.

Britpop bands (especially Blur and Oasis) get way too much shit on this board from edgy teenagers, though in the rest of the music world, both are overhyped (every fucking indie kid back in the day even in America took sides in the Blur v Oasis thing). Some of the other Britpop bands like Suede and Pulp put out very good stuff. The Verve's britpop era stuff is decent but their early psych/shoegaze era was better. Outside of that there's some gold to be found among the piles of trend-hopping mediocrity that came up in the wake of (mainly) Oasis in the mid-late 90s.

obviously Blur

Deez dubs confirm Blur to be patrician

Fuck