Comments on: Blur Vs Oasis Again: If Foreman Was A Cockney & Ali Wore Sheepskin

By: rose

rose — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:06:47 +0000

We can enjoy them all. Both are have their own trademark. They’re better than Lady GaGa.. LOL

By: Cam

Cam — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:11:15 +0000

Floyd or Zep?

Beatles or stones?

duran or spandau?

the inkspots or the legendary pink dots?

By: shooty*

shooty* — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:16:57 +0000

I’m still in the era of Guns N Roses v Poison. What decade was that, again?

By: Karla

Karla — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:11:11 +0000

Blur is more original.

By: Tom J

Tom J — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:35:21 +0000

Blur vs Oasis was always a ridiculous conflict but time has conclusively shown us the winner. That winner is Blur because they actually managed to identify that their music was a gratefully forgotten relic of the 90s and packed it all in while they still had some credibility. Oasis, on the other hand, are still putting out the same shit to this day.

By: JoeMomma

JoeMomma — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:46:47 +0000

Does anyone younger than 30 even know who these bands are? OR are they just neat songs during a retro party?

My vote is for Stone Roses (first album). Early Blur is ok, but they became kinda “light in the loafers”. Never was a big Oasis fan, always found that they were full of themselves.

By: Allie.

Allie. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:10:05 +0000

Team Blur.

Although the Gorillaz makes me want to wretch and die.