Blur versus Oasis

With the release of a new Oasis album, an age-old and epic debate has re-emerged: who is better, Blur or Oasis?

The English Student strives to place biases and tendencies to one side when writing. It is essential that one's moral principles are upheld by strong, even-handed foundations of empathy. To argue a point, one must view the argument from all sides and weigh all points fairly and equitably. This is justice, this is integrity and indeed, this is the cornerstone of these short compositions.

However, I must (temporarily, of course) step down from these lofty and pretentious heights in order to highlight an absolute truth: Oasis are terrible. They have been playing the same insipid songs for the past fifteen years and every time they release something "new", the bile rises a little higher in my gullet. Perhaps if the band had some originality or creativity, or some respect for other musicians, or even the tiniest hint of manners, I would find them less repulsive. But even then, I'm quite sure that the obnoxious scowl of Liam Gallagher would be enough to disgust me.

Fortunately, for every evil in this world, we often find a good. Moriarty had his Holmes, Ganon had his Link, Nadal has his Federer and Oasis have their Blur. In contrast to the aforementioned talentless thugs, Blur have managed to keep their music fresh and vibrant while maintaining a very high quality of production. I truly love their intricate, fun and profound music. Every album from the band shows a new side to their interesting and creative work, while side projects and solo recordings themselves trump anything provided by the rotting septic tank that is Oasis.

Comrades, rise up and be counted! We must stop pandering to these worn out hacks and finally shovel their putrid discography onto the dung heap!

-The English Student