Were they the best band of the 90s?

Blur have a more diverse sound, but I would strongly argue that Suede and Pulp are both better than them. Both for the songwriting, and Suede for the musicianship as well. I know Blur was way more successful than either, but I find their music generally far inferior. I think Damon Albarn is an incredible musical mind, but I think he was just finding his way with Blur.

I would agree. I wouldn't say they are 'far inferior' though.
Also I think Damon's best work was with Blur, including the new(ish) stuff. Not a huge fan of Gorillaz bar a few of their hits.

Tbqh this might be my favorite thing he ever did: youtube.com/watch?v=AZYRR3qxGaI

Good God what an incredible song, how have I not heard this before?!
It's like a cross between Simon and Garfunkle, and Blur, and incredibly it works.

Who, me?

Suede's first two albums are fantastic, and I love that they have this atmospheric soundscape feeling. It really does fit with the shoegaze that came before, and the lyricism is great, very ponderous stuff. Bernard Butler is also just really great. But I don't know if what they did outside those 2 albums is that special (I don't know honestly haven't bothered hearing but it's not as critically well received), but they did lose Bernard Butler so I have a feeling that hurt.
I think Blur are definitely the Beatles of the 90s. They were chameleonic and inventive in their sounds throughout the decade, eclectic, with an affinity both for smart and witty lyricism as well as lush pop melodies. Like the Beatles they had a big young female fanbase and were very photogenic, but they also had that almost Pythonesque sense of humor the Beatles had, and were making music that had critical artistic merit, that went quite beyond the teenage girl fanbase. They started by attracting shoegazers, then mods, then after their eclectic Parklife period they went after yuppies on The Great Escape, and by the end they were doing indie rock and electronica, and quite regularly singing about drug addictions. Also, they actually felt like they were trying to say something as a movement or statement, the whole "We intentionally want to do the opposite of grunge nihilism by turning to esoteric super-Britishness." I don't think any of the other Britpop bands really were engineering a movement the way Blur was, they sort of just tagged along with the Britishness thing as if it were incidental to the fact they were in fact British bands, but Blur was much more focused on it as a response to something that troubled them. Blur songs maybe weren't the best in their category, but I think they cover the most ground in sound variety out of all the 90s bands.

>after yuppies
Sorry to clarify, I mean they went out against them. The Great Escape is the most anti-yuppie album I know other than OK Computer. People forget Blur at the time did sarcastic photoshoots of themselves as yuppies. Anyway, Blur's the only band of the period that I know did shoegaze, Madchester, disco, new wave, punk, grunge, trip hop, waltz, 90s American indie, stuff that sounds like Syd Barrett, and their whole unique Coxon-riff Britpop microgenre based entirely on XTC's Respectable Street but with Ray Davies type lyrics. And the time signatures on some of their Modern Life songs are really weird, Star Shaped is a good example, unsurprising since they were big Cardiacs fans.

Attached: bateman.png (300x300, 121.99K)

I think you're right to point out that Blur had incredible diversity in their material, and they did a lot of it very well and successfully. I think Albarn's incredible eclecticism only grew after Blur as well. However, the thing that has always kept me from being overly enthusiastic is the fact that they just don't have that many songs that truly enthrall me. With Britpop, Suede and Pulp grab me a lot more. Neither of those bands were eclectic enough to go as far as Blur with other styles, there's something to be said for that. Suede threw in some electronic elements in their middle period, but for the most part they had a sound and stuck to it. Pulp's evolution was gradual, going from post-punk to a kind of new wave thing, to straight up Britpop, to a really cinematic sound with This Is Hardcore, to basically an indie band. Pulp jumped around. But that's kinda the thing, Blur was a very good Britpop band, but I don't think they were ever as good as Suede or Pulp. Damon Albarn is very good with trip hop, but he's never been quite as good as Massive Attack, Tricky, or Portishead. Blur did some good noisy indie stuff, but they weren't as good at it as, say, The Wedding Present. Blur did some cool dreamy stuff early on, but it wasn't in the same league as My Bloody Valentine, Ride, or Slowdive. The fact they could do all of those things well is extremely impressive, and your Beatles comparison is interesting. But what it comes down to is, if I'm gonna listen to Britpop, I'd rather listen to Suede than Blur. If I'm gonna listen to trip hop, I'd rather listen to Tricky than Blur. If I'm gonna listen to shoegaze, I'd rather listen to My Bloody Valentine than Blur. If I'm gonna listen to noisy indie, I'd rather listen to The Wedding Present than Blur.

I thought the guy in the middle was Stephen Malkmus for a good thirty seconds

Mat Osman, the bassist, released this book on Zer0 Books, a really cool publisher that put out stuff by the brilliant Mark Fisher. I'm looking forward to reading it. Also looking forward to Brett Anderson's autobiographies.

Attached: 81zY0FtG+xL.jpg (1689x2560, 400.38K)

hands down the best thread on the board right now... passion and scholarship.

It's actually interesting how Britpop brings this out of people, not just Blur/Pulp/Suede but also other bands that people mentioned like Supergrass, Manic Street Preachers, and Placebo (Mansun and Elastica to round it all out). Can add The Verve and Radiohead too, and maybe the early Boo Radleys up to Giant Steps. Oasis and their fans on the other hand are so, so un-intellectual, un-artistic, simpletons, it's a serious wonder how they hijacked the movement.