The Final Verdict: the Blur and Oasis “Rivalry” (with help from the 50 point-scale)

by Peter Long

We as a society are infatuated with rivalries. We like the concept of competition, we love the idea of one person winning and the other losing, and we would even make sweet love with the sight of two alpha-males kicking the crap out of each other to a bloody pulp if it was possible.

The absurdity of the human race’s love affair with rivalries is best displayed with the “rivalry” between Brit-pop titans Blur and Oasis. Now notice how I put quotations around “rivalry.” I did this because in reality the two groups weren’t ever truly rivals. When people think of rivalries they think Lakers and Celtics or Jerry and Newman because the two parties show a general or strong disliking for one another. Both bands during their primes in the mid-nineties commended each other’s music and were even seen HANGING OUT together.

In fact, it has been well-documented that this was all simply a big marketing scheme for the New Musical Express (NME) to sell more papers. The editors of the NME placed Albarn and brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher on a pedestal as torch-holders of British

rock music and yet portrayed them as bitter counterparts. The paper even went as far as paying off Blur’s management (Albarn refuses to speak about the shady transaction to this day) to release the single off their next album The Great Escape the same week and day as Oasis’ single “Roll With It” off What’s the Story (Morning Glory?). In the end, the NME got what they wanted. They sold papers, and people ate their shit up.

So realistically, this was once again a part of the human race’s infatuation with rivalries. Blur and Oasis were just two bands making the best music they could during one of the greatest artistic renaissances in the United Kingdom’s history.

So does this mean we can’t argue about who had the biggest cultural impact and altogether who the better band was? Heck no! I think it’s about time we peel away all of the garbage and hoopla that has been made of this “rivalry” and finally decide who was the better group, Blur or Oasis.

I decided to break it up into five categories based on a 50 point-scale (a scale that is scientifically proven to determine greatness). 20 points for overall legacy, 12 for body of work (albums), 10 for musicianship (for example, if you’re a guitar player in a group, you will be based on a scale of Fred Durst to Jack White), five for live performance and three points goes to the group who benefitted most from the “rivalry.”

Benefaction from the “Rivalry”: I truly don’t believe that the Gallagher brothers would be the Gallagher brothers that we know and love today if it wasn’t for the “rivalry.” The British tabloids exploited and reported every little thing that the brothers did, hence making them complete socio-paths in the process. Their music didn’t benefit from the rivalry, their debut Definitely Maybe was the fastest-selling debut in the history of British music well before the NME decided to spice things up, but their bad-boy image and their label as working-class heroes did benefit. Oasis 3 Blur 0.

Live Performance: After watching numerous hours of Oasis and Blur live performances for this feature, I have come to the conclusion that Blur is the better live band. They play around with dynamics, they have a personal connection with their audience and they seem to simply have more fun than Oasis. Blur also aren’t ashamed to add backup singers, horns and even strings to their live show. In the meantime, Oasis just plugs in, turns it up to 11, play their 17 or so songs and leave (along with Liam yelling stuff at the audience that is A. offensive and B. incomprehensible to even understand its offensiveness in the first place). And I’m not even touching the fact that Liam’s voice has (ehm) plateaued over the past few years. Just watch Blur’s 2009 reunion concert at London’s Hyde Park and tell me that that isn’t better than any other Oasis show. Ever. Blur 5 Oasis 3.

Musicianship: I will say this, out of both bands, Noel Gallagher is the best songwriter. His depictions of his working-class upbringing in Manchester are vivid and can be translated to anyone’s background regardless of race or origin. BUT, if I had to choose between Gallagher or Blur guitarist Graham Coxon, I’d go with Coxon. Coxon transposed Damon Albarn’s simple chord progressions into songs that blended funk, dance and punk. The superb and underrated rhythm section comprised of bass player Alex James and Dave Rowntree rounded out Blur while Oasis dealt with a mediocre carousel of drummers which included Tony McCarroll, Alan White and for a brief period of time Ringo Starr’s son Zak Starkey. While the musicians of Oasis seemed to fit for the music, the better musicians were the guys from Blur. Blur 15 Oasis 3.

Body of Work: I’m going to make this short and sweet. If you want to get into Oasis, purchase Definitely Maybe and their follow up What’s the Story (Morning Glory?) or the greatest hits compilation Time Flies. That’s it. Be Here Now was a good try but everything after that is simply mediocre. Blur on the other hand released two solid albums back-to-back in Leisure and Modern Life is Rubbish. But then in 1994, three months before Oasis released Definitely Maybe, Blur released Parklife, an album which swept the Brit Awards (the UK’s Grammys but with an open bar) that year and spearheaded the Brit-pop movement. They then followed with classic albums The Great Escape and Blur, cementing their place as one of the greatest rock bands in the history of British music. By the time their self-titled album came out in 1997, Oasis had ended the disastrous Be Here Now tour and three years prior to releasing their abysmal Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. In the end, Blur’s catalogue is a lot more vast and accessible. Blur 27 Oasis 3.

Lasting Legacy: The only way to describe the lasting legacy of Oasis is to quote British rock-journalist John Harris. After quoting the lyric “is it worth the aggravation to find yourself a job when there’s nothing worth working for?” from the song “Cigarettes and Alcohol,” he went on to say that “it’s words like that that make 100,000 people jump up and down, because he’s singing about you.” Oasis isn’t a perfect band. They’ve done drugs, they’ve been in fights, they may not be the best musicians, but when it came down to connecting with their audience, Oasis did it better than anyone else. Hence, their legacy is greater than Blur’s and perhaps even more greater than any other band in British history. Blur 27 Oasis 23.

There you have it, Blur turned out to be the better band (because the 50 point-scale never lies). And yet there will always be those what-ifs. Like what if Liam and Noel had stayed off the smack and made a decent if not better Be Here Now album. Would they wind up conquering America like they were supposed to? What if “Song 2” wasn’t played in every hockey arena and baseball game, would Blur still be more relevant than Oasis today? Would this rivalry not take place if the NME hadn’t established class-warfare between the middle-class London pretty-boys and the working-class fighters from Manchester? I don’t know, the 50 point-scale isn’t that mind-blowing, but the musical landscape (in Britain especially) would be completely changed and altered for the Blur and Oasis “rivalry.” And as long as there are rock bands and British tabloids to hyperbolize it, there will be silly rivalries. Next week, the final verdict between Supergrass and Coldplay…