|
Post by matt on Jul 21, 2021 16:54:17 GMT -5
Blur are a strange band and I genuinely can't make my mind up on them. I really disliked them around the time of 2006/07 when I discovered Oasis. Then I was a tribal, petulant teenager who supported Oasis like a football team. But slowly, with songs like The Universal and For Tomorrow (which I still adore), I came to like them and I fell in love with Modern Life Is Rubbish in 2009.
Turned into a big fan in 2012, loved Under The Westway. Then their new album The Magic Whip came out which I thought was so-so and over the intervening years they've just faded into.... nothing. And I don't listen to them now.
They will come up on shuffle and I will keep them on, but I realised that nothing of their work really emotionally grabs me. Damon is a great stylistic artist, he's got a great vibe and that peaks with Demon Days. But nothing touches the primitive soul in me like the heartfelt stuff Noel writes. It's head over heart, and ultimately, that's not what music is about for me. It's got to bring out unconscious feelings deep within that I didn't know was there. Blur doesn't do that.
That and the bass player's a knob.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jul 21, 2021 17:10:10 GMT -5
I feel much the same way. Some great tunes in Blur's discography, their Best Of is iconic, but none of it hits me in the way that the music of so many of their contemporaries - from Radiohead to Oasis to Nirvana - continues to do. And a fair chunk of their album tracks are just flat-out bad, to me. I feel like Damon didn't perfect the cartoonish vibe until he dived into it with Gorillaz, so albums like 13 worked best, where they didn't focus on those sounds as much. Overall, I'd say they were certainly a good band, but certainly not a great one.
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jul 21, 2021 17:17:58 GMT -5
Damon hit the nail on the head here.
|
|
yogurt
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 363
|
Blur
Jul 21, 2021 20:56:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by yogurt on Jul 21, 2021 20:56:55 GMT -5
They are vastly overrated imho. A few great tunes, but not a great and distinctive sound and very irregular albums, if you ask me. I think Oasis' legacy is much stronger and the distance augments every year. Of course, I am talking about Oasis' peak period, but that is what history will remember Interesting, I’d say they had a much more distinctive sound than Oasis. Well maybe Oasis had the more distinctive vocalist, but musically I feel Blur had a more distinctive sound, especially Graham Coxon’s guitar playing. A lot of really interesting chord progressions in Damon’s writing too. I guess it depends how you look at it. They kind of evolved their sound rather quickly, a bit like Radiohead. The Blur self titled in 1997 sounds nothing like the great escape in 1995, musically speaking. So in that sense, I understand why it could be seen they don’t have a distinctive sound. Although many people see that as a plus. The way some people felt the oasis sound grew stale. I think Blur’s legacy in tact, their comebacks were huge, headlining festivals all over the world and huge gigs of their own. I don’t think anyone truly cares about the rivalry now. Both bands have legacies that stand up because their music stands up. I think Damon having another outfit in Gorillaz that’s arguably even bigger has kept Blur very credible. He hasn’t had to milk Blur for a few quid. Maybe the same reason Oasis are still well regarded, essentially it doesn’t exist anymore, so no more poor albums added to the body of work and if they ever play again, It’s because they want to and not need to. It helps a lot, I’d still consider Damon Albarn as a better songwriter than Noel Gallagher, I just think he’s extremely gifted, his versatility while still keeping a very high standard of work is near enough unrivalled. Well I guess “better” might not be the right word. I agree with Damon that Oasis were better at expressing themselves, which probably led to a bigger attachment between fans and band, although if you go to a Blur gig, it exists too. There’s just a level of creativity, diversity and overall in Damon’s body of work that I consider to be above Noel Gallagher’s capabilities for the most part.
|
|
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 4:11:27 GMT -5
Post by Parka Flames on Jul 22, 2021 4:11:27 GMT -5
Damon hit the nail on the head here. Definitely. He's got some serious piano chops too has Damon!
|
|
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 4:18:29 GMT -5
Post by andymorris on Jul 22, 2021 4:18:29 GMT -5
Blur records are good, but they could have been way better with bsides on instead.
Still, a few classics : Great Escape (yes this one, even it's hated), Blur S/T, 13 are amazing records. Before that and Think Tank a bit hit or miss. The last one was nice too.
But overall : unique sounds (oh yea they do have that), unique guitar work (Coxon), great vocalist.
Verdict: great band. But not for everyone, i agree. Maybe too english for some people ?
Their biggest mistake was not opening the songwriting more to Coxon. He's making one hell of a solo career in very different styles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 5:28:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2021 5:28:14 GMT -5
One of the greatest British bands of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Aman on Jul 22, 2021 8:43:35 GMT -5
They are vastly overrated imho. A few great tunes, but not a great and distinctive sound and very irregular albums, if you ask me. I think Oasis' legacy is much stronger and the distance augments every year. Of course, I am talking about Oasis' peak period, but that is what history will remember Yeah. I like some of their stuff, but there's something missing from Blur. Don't love any of their albums.
|
|
|
Post by Aman on Jul 22, 2021 8:45:10 GMT -5
I would never listen to Blur because I felt like that would make me disloyal to oasis. But last year I got into them deep and have listened to all the albums/ B sides. I feel like they are a great singles band but some of the albums as a whole are tough to sit through. Not sure if that’s a common belief about them but that’s how I feel. And I think 13 is hugely overrated. And Great Escape era is underrated. Yeah, I'd describe them as a singles band more or less. A lot of filler in their albums even at their peak.
|
|
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 12:50:35 GMT -5
Post by Headmaster on Jul 22, 2021 12:50:35 GMT -5
I would never listen to Blur because I felt like that would make me disloyal to oasis. But last year I got into them deep and have listened to all the albums/ B sides. I feel like they are a great singles band but some of the albums as a whole are tough to sit through. Not sure if that’s a common belief about them but that’s how I feel. And I think 13 is hugely overrated. And Great Escape era is underrated. Yeah, I'd describe them as a singles band more or less. A lot of filler in their albums even at their peak. This, too many filler on their albums, even on their best ones like Parklife and 13, just trim down the fat and albums could have been much better.
|
|
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 14:13:21 GMT -5
freek likes this
Post by asdfgjhkl19 on Jul 22, 2021 14:13:21 GMT -5
dont mind blur some good singles and some good songs on their first album. the album tracks on parklife are diabolical though and the whole thing including sleeve just seems contrived. they only really competed with oasis for like 1 year at the most though while oasis will still coming up. soon as morning glory came out they werent even close. they were a distant second place by default. i dont really like it when people lump oasis, blur, pulp etc all under the "britpop" banner (i cant stand that term to begin with). oasis were just a rock band and they were in a different league to the others. pulp, blur, suede, elastica etc were doing their own thing, had similar styles, so you could group them together as "britpop" if you wanted. but oasis had nothing to do with them. you constantly get dregs from that era trying to associate themselves with oasis. and weirdo journalists who get interviewed for these documentaries try to push the whole britpop thing as well
|
|
yogurt
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 363
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 15:23:33 GMT -5
via mobile
asimarx likes this
Post by yogurt on Jul 22, 2021 15:23:33 GMT -5
Blur records are good, but they could have been way better with bsides on instead. Still, a few classics : Great Escape (yes this one, even it's hated), Blur S/T, 13 are amazing records. Before that and Think Tank a bit hit or miss. The last one was nice too. But overall : unique sounds (oh yea they do have that), unique guitar work (Coxon), great vocalist. Verdict: great band. But not for everyone, i agree. Maybe too english for some people ? Their biggest mistake was not opening the songwriting more to Coxon. He's making one hell of a solo career in very different styles. The Great Escape is a brilliant album. Song for song i don’t think it’s really any weaker than Parklife, in fact I’d say some of the non-singles like Best Days are better than on Parklife. I think the great escape might have got some negativity because it come out a year after Parklife and musically was not really much different, just different songs but they certainly made up for that lack of progression on the self titled. The funny thing is, Lazy journalism always took little digs at Oasis for being some kind of Beatles rip-off which isn’t true, But I hear a lot more of the Beatles in Blur than Oasis. I watched an interview with Graham Coxon and he said pretty much the Beatles where is biggest influence. When you listen to some of the harmonies in Blur’s music and chord progressions and melodic and harmonic structure, I hear more similarities with the Beatles from them than Oasis. Beetlebum sounds like it couldn’t been taken straight off the White Album.
|
|
yogurt
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 363
|
Blur
Jul 22, 2021 15:27:32 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by yogurt on Jul 22, 2021 15:27:32 GMT -5
dont mind blur some good singles and some good songs on their first album. the album tracks on parklife are diabolical though and the whole thing including sleeve just seems contrived. they only really competed with oasis for like 1 year at the most though while oasis will still coming up. soon as morning glory came out they werent even close. they were a distant second place by default. i dont really like it when people lump oasis, blur, pulp etc all under the "britpop" banner (i cant stand that term to begin with). oasis were just a rock band and they were in a different league to the others. pulp, blur, suede, elastica etc were doing their own thing, had similar styles, so you could group them together as "britpop" if you wanted. but oasis had nothing to do with them. you constantly get dregs from that era trying to associate themselves with oasis. and weirdo journalists who get interviewed for these documentaries try to push the whole britpop thing as well I wouldn’t even lump Blur, Pulp, Suede etc together, Those three bands are nothing alike at all. Blur were the ones who made a real progression away from what was considered “britpop” by 1997 with their self titled, while Oasis were creating some bloated uninspired album that become a pretty good snapshot for what “Britpop” had become.
|
|