Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

[Molecules]

Originally Posted by boo boo

No let's be fair, a lot of britpop bands have built a steady reputation of having trash talking douhebags for frontmen, Oasis weren't the only one.

Even as a Blur fan, Albarn has had his definitive assh*le moments, but at least he's talented, what the hell is Liam's excuse? And at least Jarvis is likable in his assh*le demeanor, I can't say that Earth Song incident didn't make me lol.

So I disagree about Oasis being the only jerks from that movement, but I will say they're the only ones I have a problem with.

I don't dislike britpop as much as I make out, I'm sure there were some more great bands that came out of it, but Blur were the only one of the big four I really care about, though I have some respect for Pulp and Seude too even though it's not my thing at all, they're talented musicians, Butler especially.

Britpop paved the way for a lot of music, which is mostly a good thing. But let's not forget that this is the movement that gave us f*cking Nicky Wire and Pete Doherty, so yeah, if I trash talk about britpop a lot, that's the goddamn reason.

the pigeon-chested trash-talking business was just a class thing. Blur played at being working class for a couple of albums but they never fooled anybody and there was an underlying element of class war about the whole NME 'ALL-OUT POP-O-GEDDON' nonsense. It didn't harm anybody at the end of the day (the best publicity you could ask for?) and it was entertaining to have some characters with good tunes in the charts, as opposed to gaggles of bland muppets.

PS: Elastica roolz

[Mojo]

I was the perfect age to get caught up in the massive media circus surrounding the Oasis and Blur rivalry when I was younger. I remember for some strange reason you HAD to pick a corner in school, you HAD to like one more than the other and be on one side of the fence. It seems stupid now but whatever. I was always firmly on the Oasis side of the fence. I preferred the music they were putting out back then and I preffered the very working class, rock and roll anthems of Definitely Maybe to the colourful, middle class, often tongue in cheek pop songs Blur were crafting but I enjoyed both bands a lot. As soon as I grew up just a little I started to resent the media coverage both bands were getting as they continued to take shots on one another and the fact that Blur and Oasis became Britpop and pretty much every other British guitar driven band at the time was treated as second rate and their existance and involvement in the movement was either undermined or completely ignored.

I had Parklife on cassette which I still have, I just have it on CD now too and I liked The Great Escape at the time too. Yes, I know, before anyone says anything.

Definite yes for me. Blur were a big deal for me when I was a kid and played a big part in me even getting into any music at all. As I grew wiser I realised the quality of the likes of Modern Life Is Rubbish and 13 and realised Blur were about much more than the infectious pop music I had enjoyed in the mid-nineties and it is that diversity between records that probably held my interest to the present day.

EDIT: It would appear that I have used my 1000th post to vote for Blur

[Double X]

Originally Posted by Molecules

For ages I assumed that nobody outside of the UK and Europe had heard of Blur, or would be capable of enjoying them if they had; but the Last.fm figures were a big surprise and I've met lots of Young Americans online who are just getting into them, which perhaps shows that their appeal is not completely local.

Makes sense, because for awhile, Blur recycled the ideas of the Jam and the Kinks, who never made it big in the US.

I like the Great Escape the most, but Blur was my favorite for awhile.

[boo boo]

Blur never really made it big in the US. I don't think they got much notice until the late 90s, Song 2 was a big hit here as well as Coffee & TV but that was pretty much it. If I remember correctly Modern Life is Rubbish didn't even make the US charts at all.

I never understood why this Blur vs Oasis feud went on like it did, I mean I understand why the media hypes these things and that it was good publicity for these bands, but what I want to know is why in the f*ck would anyone be on the Oasis team? And how anyone in their right state of mind could declare Oasis the winners.

[Mojo]

Oasis were the first band I really ever got into. Before that I liked very little music at all, and most of it is not anything I would even consider listening to now. I've always preferred Oasis to Blur. I can respect the fact that Blur evolved, they experimented, they changed their sound and of course you aren't gonna find many bands who are the completre opposite of Blur in that sense. Oasis liked the way they sounded and didn't really care to change it much, the differences between records are very small and very subtle. I don't think that makes Blur better than Oasis, but it's one of the main arguments I hear.

I don't really care which band people prefer, as I said in my last post there was so much more to Britpop than Blur and Oasis and they were both successful in their own right despite being very different and so it's not really fair that they get compared so much.

I loved Oasis because they sounded fresh (note I said fresh and not original. I know Oasis have never been original), they came with a cocky, arrogant swagger to both their music and their behaviour which was cool to a 10 or 11 lad and they were the first English band I was ever able to really get excited about from the start and grow up with. A band that kids my age could point to as their own after years of American dominance when it came to mainstream rock music. At that age, in school, Oasis were cool. Oasis were a cool band to like and thanks to how impressionable kids are break times were spent discussing whether people liked Oasis or Blur, almost as if you couldn't like both of them. I like their last album but in general Oasis' material has greatly decreased in quality over the years but it was mainly their first 2 records and a ton of stellar B-sides that put me firmly on the Oasis "team" as you put it.

On the other hand Blur were much more consistent and made more good records though, even if I don't like any of them as much as Definitely Maybe and Blur were definitely a band I grew to respect a lot more once I got older and more tolerant to different kinds of music. Back in 1995/1996 I think it was really easy to lean more towards Oasis though, they were red hot, their output hadn't started to falter yet and really it just came down to whether you wanted something a little more diverse or poppy or you wanted something a little more rock and roll.

[dac]

A slight yes from me. Parklife and Modern Life are just so damn good.

[S. Flavious Mercurius]

My question would be why they deserve to be in before Oasis?

[dac]

*popcorn ready

[Akira]

Originally Posted by S. Flavious Mercurius

My question would be why they deserve to be in before Oasis?

Why not?

Plus, the nominations aren't done in any set order.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by S. Flavious Mercurius

My question would be why they deserve to be in before Oasis?

Because Blur are awesome and Oasis are horrible?

I think that might have something to do with it.