Quote:
Originally Posted by 4llurb4s3
1. now tell me, was it a good album then?
|
Like I said , I beleive it to be the worst they'd released up till that point
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4llurb4s3
2. no, but throughout the whole statement, you were leaning towards oasis. now tell me, who do you prefer?
|
Why does it have to be so black and white? I think Blur are a better albums band and Oasis are the better live band.
Quote:
3. you said that Blur was the media favorite, and im saying no, oasis were the media favorite for a few reasons.
|
And i'm saying yes , Why? because I read those magazines at the time
Quote:
1. they were more popular = more media coverage
|
Yes they got that media coverage AS A RESULT of their popularity. Not like Blur who were regually in the indie press ever since their debut single scraped into the lower reaches of the charts. There are two types of bands that featured in weekly music publications. Bands that are in there because the writers want them in there , regardless of record sales. Think of them as a kind of pet project. Examples: Elastica , Menswear , Suede , and yes Blur were one of those bands too to start with.
And there are bands in there who they are forced to cover to sell papers because they are popular Examples : Oasis , Kula Shaker , Ocean Colour Scene
You see how it works now?
Quote:
2. they were the biggest band in the world at that time 3. they released the top selling albums. even METALLICA (ooooooh) said that blur were a bunch of pansy prettyboys and that oasis were superior, now who are the metal fanboys going to lean toward.
|
Slayer probably , I wasn't aware of the great Oasis/ Kerrang love in.
Quote:
4. NME wasnt the only music magazine at the time, and no, damon albarn was not best friends with the editor, they just knew eachother well.
|
No it wasn't but it was the leading weekly and had a lot of influence. And the editor and Albarn cooked up the whole Blur vs Oasis thing , it was Blur who moved release dates to clash with Oasis , not the other way around.