Blur

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 2015 (The 2016 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? No  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2016 (ranked #127) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Modern Life Is Rubbish (1993)
Parklife (1994)
Blur (1997)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Girls And Boys (1994)
Parklife (1994)
Song 2 (1997)

Blur @ Wikipedia

Blur Videos

Will Blur be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

76 comments so far (post your own)

Of all the Britpop bands that were huge in the UK and barely made a dent in the US, Blur's back catalog stands out as the best of the genre. Oasis, Suede, Supergrass: None have Blur's wit or musicality. Compare Blur's greatest hits compilation to any other Britpop band's; Blur is easily the very best. ("Coffee & TV" alone merits induction.)

Sadly, the swagger and greater stateside fame of Oasis will probably ensure they will be the only Britpop band to be inducted. Blur is just too British for the Hall.

Posted by Andrew on Tuesday, 03.6.07 @ 21:24pm


The committee should note the merit and supreme originality that Blur has contributed over the years. The best albums that stand testament to that are Parklife and self-titled Blur.
Albarn is a musical genius, along with Coxon, james, and Rowntree, they are true pioneers of their mid-90s era in the contributions they made.

If any Britpop band should make it, then it should be the one that is most cited as starting the movement, and the one that can still carry it out today!

Posted by Eddie on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 20:10pm


I peronally think oasis is the best british alternative/mainstreem rock band.

they had a few catchy songs.

Posted by nick on Friday, 03.23.07 @ 13:11pm


Blur hasn't had a big impact on the U.S...except for one song...

Posted by maplejet on Thursday, 04.5.07 @ 14:40pm


Let me just say, I AM very much a BLUR fan.

The thing is, dispit what they've done in the Uk, bLUR has done so little in the U.S. that they just might not make my vote.
BLUR stands out, they have original sound and lyrics, and for that they do deserve recognision.
I think they lack the popularity in the States to make it though.
I'd much rather see BLUR in then Oasis (Not that I don't like Oasis).
Unlike Oasis, BLUR has quite a fanbase where I live, in Switzerland. So there is that. xD

Posted by TopHat on Monday, 04.23.07 @ 07:56am


Oh and by the way,
This is not about Song 2.
=3

Posted by TopHat on Monday, 04.23.07 @ 07:58am


if Oasis don't then Blur won't

simple as

Posted by liam on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 13:41pm


Theres no way in hell Blur gets in. I don't think Oasis will get in so how are Blur. They had one album go gold, and critically they only had one album that was well recieved in AMerica and that Was BLur. After that they were basically looked at as Radiohead wannabes.

Posted by Michael on Tuesday, 10.23.07 @ 13:52pm


who'll be the quickest to state that thinking Blur were seen as Radiohead wanna-bes is bullshit?

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 10.23.07 @ 14:00pm


parklife is perfection!
oasis got nuthin' on these guys.
musically, it's like,
blur are the kinks, and oasis are like... i dunno... herman's hermits?

Posted by b on Friday, 11.2.07 @ 16:08pm


"parklife is perfection!
oasis got nuthin' on these guys." - b

Parklife is not perfection. It's great, but not that great. Oasis' two best albums are far better than those of Blur

"musically, it's like,
blur are the kinks, and oasis are like... i dunno... herman's hermits?"

Out of context. It's very difficult to do a 'x is y, and z is a' sort of thing, because Oasis and Blur cited similiar artists.

Posted by liam on Friday, 11.16.07 @ 14:57pm


It'd be especially difficult for Blur to get in first time, as they were never as Pop as Oasis were, and they were neither as intricate as Radiohead. It doesn't help that countless Americans see them as one-hit wonders (see Song 2)

Posted by micheal on Tuesday, 11.27.07 @ 10:37am


Seems as if "Micheal" "came back" to see us for a bit

"Theres no way in hell Blur gets in. I don't think Oasis will get in so how are Blur. They had one album go gold, and critically they only had one album that was well recieved in AMerica and that Was BLur. After that they were basically looked at as Radiohead wannabes."

Truly, you are a complete wanker, "Anon". I remeber vaguely when I first saw this comment, and I'm actually appalled that I couldn't just nail you there and then.

In my defense though, you managed to avoid mentioning Rush, quoting wikipedia AND using LOL.


"They had one album go gold"

Should album sales affect their chances? No

"and critically they only had one album that was well recieved in AMerica and that Was BLur"

I'm sure you were absolutely devastated that Mr Prindle was (and is) yet to write a review of anything by Blur, but you got by without him. Well Done. But even then, I wouldn't be surprised if he found in favour of Blur.

"After that they were basically looked at as Radiohead wannabes."

liam impersonating 'Anon at his wittiest':

"Huh huh huh! Obviously you're not supporting of Radiohead, oferwise you wood hav posted a comment on dat webpage!!! Uh huh huh huh!!! Quick, write a supporting comment about Radiohead!!!! Huh huh huh huh!!!!! I'm so smart and like to toot my own horn (in a literal sense)"

Posted by liam on Monday, 12.10.07 @ 12:17pm


I honestly think you're giving him too much credit here, Liam; I doubt he has the faintest idea who Blur is, much less the insight to link them with Oasis.

Speaking of Oasis, do you like "Be Here Now"? How about "Standing On.."?

Posted by meximelt on Monday, 12.10.07 @ 13:58pm


"Speaking of Oasis, do you like "Be Here Now"? How about "Standing On.."?"

Oooh, I always get a headache whenever I have to answer this question....I think I prefer "Standing On...", as Noel did at least TRY to incorporate dance/electronica influences from people like The Chemical Brothers, The Charlatans, Prodigy...and sometimes he got it right, I think.

The thing with "Be Here Now", is that I actually think it's a bad ALBUM: far, far too long than the millions of brits who were buying were used to, and what COULD have been Oasis classics (he had most, if not all, the album written before DM and MG came out) turned out over-produced, which is very much a problem considering part of Oasis' initial charm was their poor-background and the 'freshness' of their (his) song-wrting. But I can still whack it on on he iPod as single songs, and it's fine.

Of all their post-Morning Glory work (not Stop the Clocks or The Masterplan), the albums, in order of personal enjoyment (top = fave), go:

1. "Standing On..."
2. "Don't Believe the Truth"
3. "Heathen Chemistry"
4. "Be Here Now"

1997. Not a good year for british music. Although "Urban Hymns" by the Verve didn't disappoint.

Posted by liam on Monday, 12.10.07 @ 14:12pm


I've recently thought up a problem that the Hall will face if it chooses to ignore britpop.

That is, that the Hall would essentially be ignoring around [at least] 20 years of mainstream UK music, and there's no knowing how long this second wave (Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand) will be going on for nor how many more waves of britpop there might be after this.

I'd like to see what you all think of this, and what you think would happen.

Posted by liam on Saturday, 12.29.07 @ 14:16pm


It'd be nice to see the Hall recognize movements like Brit-pop that weren't American centered someday.
Does it occur to anyone that it was slightly arrogant for them to call themselves "THE Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", as opposed to "The American..." or "The R&R HOF of America"?

The U.K Music HoF at least had the humility to not automatically assume the throne of THE alpha/omega Hall, regardless of the fact that they induct from countries other than Great Britain.

Something to ponder.

Posted by Blue on Saturday, 01.19.08 @ 19:06pm


What I am beginning to think is that too many people take this Hall of Shame a bit too seriously. And the arrogance behind the Hall is that pomopous knucklehead J. Wenner. He still thinks that Rolling Stone still means something in the culture of the USA. This Rock and Roll HoF has zero creditability until these acts from the late 60's and early 70's are inducted:

Alice Cooper
E.L.P.
Deep Purple
Cheap Trick
NY Dolls
The Stooges
Procul Harum
The Faces
King Crimson
T-Rex

After this, open the doors to the 80's scene, both Alternative and all that is encompassed by this genre and Hard Rock/Heavy Metal including the good bands from the Aquanet crowd. But IMO, those ten bands listed first need to get in first. If I missed anyone; please feel free to add to the list.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 01.20.08 @ 01:00am


"..and Hard Rock/Heavy Metal including the good bands from the Aquanet crowd."

Hair Metal and "good" are antithetical. Sorry.
It's like a "healthy cigarette"; not possible...bad by nature.

Posted by Blue on Sunday, 01.20.08 @ 10:14am


"So how could Wenner get away with honouring the second, and not the first?"

Well ideally he shouldn't, IMO. But he could with the same logic that has nominated The Stooges before MC5, inducted The Clash before The Sex Pistols, and put in U2 and R.E.M. before a fistful of post-punk first wavers who preceded their success.

It can be argued that acheiving notoriety and commercial success in a genre earn a trump over chronology when weighing significance. Maybe.

Posted by Blue on Sunday, 01.20.08 @ 10:36am


Hair Metal and "good" are antithetical. Sorry.
It's like a "healthy cigarette"; not possible...bad by nature.

Let me say that I have had many experiences where the cigarette was healthy. That cigarette stopped me from bashing someone's face ;-)

Actually, all I was trying to do was point out that the HoF has serious prejudices against certain genres and I believe that stops them from putting in some deserving bands.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.22.08 @ 07:19am


"..the HoF has serious prejudices against certain genres and I believe that stops them from putting in some deserving bands."

In the case of Hair Metal, I'd call that prejudice good judgment. It's all insipid crap - just really horrible stuff. Not one of them deserves a second glance. Every time I hear a Poison, Motley Crue, or Def Leppard song wiggle through on the radio today I can't believe how bad that shit was and marvel at how it sold so much. Blech. It's a shit stain spot on the popular music canvas. Ugh.
Van Halen does not fall into that category, btw.


Posted by Blue on Tuesday, 01.22.08 @ 08:39am


Def Leppard song wiggle through on the radio today I can't believe how bad that shit was and marvel at how it sold so much. Blech. It's a shit stain spot on the popular music canvas. Ugh.

Music is a form or entertainment and obviously this music entertained many. It did not entertain you - fine!

This is not an arguement for their induction into the HoF. I don't wish to belabor that point to death since I have had this same arguement a hundred times already on this site. Def Leppard released their first EP in 1979 and their first LP in 1980. I believe the term "Hair Metal" was created to label the LA scene which didn't really filter into the pop culture until well after Pyromania (1983) was released. Pyromania is considered to be an essential album by many industry sources. This was the direction that Mutt Lange led the band and who were they to argue with the success he helped deliver to them. The average age of the band at the time of Photograph was all of 22 y.o. I dare say that if given the choice to be millionaires at the age of 22 and have every beautiful chick in the world wanting to be with you just buy being in a Rock band, that most guys would say, Hell Yeah!!

David Fricke seems to think Hysteria is one of the great albums and he is one writer/editor whose opinion I respect. Hysteria was an amazing album, but somewhat too clean for many. The songs on Hysetria were filled with melody and harmony and there is nothing wrong with that. The songs were about fun and chicks and personally, those are two of my favorite subjects in the world.

They were loved in "85" - they became hated by "89" because of bands like Poison and Warrant. I think D.L.'s music became lazy (Adrenalize) after the death of Steve Clark.
Def Lep sold a lot of records, which means nothing to most people and I think it is because of this success that they became hated by many. I think the reaction to Metallica and the Black Album was similiar a few years later. In the 80's, perhaps people thought that if you sell that big then you cannot be viable anymore. Maybe they are right, I don't know. Maybe they are sell-outs and maybe the band's record company put such high expectations on them that they were not able to keep their integrity. I believe that to be somewhat true with Adrenalize. I wonder how many people realize just how much control a big label has on its bands. The 80's were a big money decade in the recording industry. Napster and the internet had yet to hit. IMO, D.L. were a victim of their own success.

I am sorry that bands like Bon Jovi, Warrant, Nelson, Whitesnake and Poison became so big. I will never understand that, but I will defend D.L. up to the Hysteria album. Adrenalize sucked in comparrison to their previous albums and although Slang had good tracks on it, the album came off like a bad sell-out. And now, they are just a Rock and Roll band making music for their fans (Kill them and the fans). But they made some excellent party rock and roll in their hey day and I see nothing wrong with that. Not every band can record music that is haunting or message driven. The percentage of music that is recorded which can be declared innovative is minimal at best. Not every band can be influential with each passing recording. Some music is recorded just to make people happy. I don't think D,L. ever set out to change the world.

I have read your comments on many of the other bands and happen to agree with you on most. So please don't crucifx me on this.
I have heard all the arguements against Def Leppard and I respect all these viewpoints. So if you are going to tell me that D.L. sucked because ________; then save your energy, I have heard it from Shawn, Liam, Casper and Kit already. Shawn and Liam continually remind me of this. Leave me be with my guilty 80's pleasure, please. I liked them and when I hear their early stuff, it reminds me of a time when I was a young, decadent S.O.B. and was enjoying every minute of it.

have a good week.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.22.08 @ 11:16am


Alright Dameon, alright.... I only mentioned Def Lep in passing and would never tell you to disavow a band you find some joy in; I have my own guilty pleasures (though I don't think you feel guilt for loving Def, so that doesn't really apply I guess) - more 80's rockin power to ya.

I'm not sure why you went off on Def Lep there; I was speaking to Hair Metal in general. Like it or not, your Def Lep boys were definitely patriarchs of that unfortunate genre.

I have to ask one thing though:
"I dare say that if given the choice to be millionaires at the age of 22 and have every beautiful chick in the world wanting to be with you just buy being in a Rock band, that most guys would say, Hell Yeah!!"

What in the name of severed drummer arms does this have to do with the debate over the quality of a band?!

Posted by Blue on Tuesday, 01.22.08 @ 11:28am


What in the name of severed drummer arms does this have to do with the debate over the quality of a band?!

I'm not sure why you went off on Def Lep there; I was speaking to Hair Metal in general. Like it or not, your Def Lep boys were definitely patriarchs of that unfortunate genre.

I made that statement as only a possible answer to some who would say that their artistic integrity should have been more important than their choice to follow Mutt Lange's lead. It was not meant as an answer to anything you said. I did not mean for the misunderstanding, plus, I tend to overstate myself when the discussion of D.L comes up. I guess I have become a bit defensive in this arguement. My apologies.

I know that the melodic pop sensability they brought/reintroduced to guitar rock was copied by the bands that followed. I think much of that had to do with the industry as much as anything else. But enough of D.L. - enjoy finding the early David Bowie. You will definitely enjoy it. I mention Aladdin Sane only because I think "Panic in Detroit" is one of the great RnR songs of its time. Hunky Dory is probably the better overall album.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.22.08 @ 12:21pm


I think my favourite song on Aladdin Sane is Cracked Actor. I think it's his best album, but I'm not too keen on the title track.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 07:52am


Oh G*d. I actually agree with Liam on something. Truly today is Easter. A.S. is my favorite of all Bowie albums.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 14:50pm


Dameon - God is not an offensive term!

Low is my second favourite, Hunky Dory is third, Ziggy Stardust is fourth and "Heroes" is fifth. The rest I'm yet to decide upon.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 14:57pm


When you are raised in a close-knit Italian/American family like I was, you get used to doing things a certain way.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 18:19pm


blur change the world of music in the 90s iwait in the future see blur in the hall of fame

Posted by ALEX on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 15:15pm


Usually when people mock DEF LEPPARD, they are so full of prejudice and narrowmindedness that everything they say has no truth whatsoever. They run their mouths without seeing the big picture, and they end up bearing false witness against one of the greatest rock-and-roll bands of all time.All these negative things that these people say about DEF LEPPARD is like a bunch of gossip and slander mainly because there is no significance in what they are complaining about, and just like I have already mentioned, there is no truth within these kind of people, and DEF LEPPARD doesn't want these immoral people to be their fans anyway, especially when these people lie about the band. You see, when you are prejudice against certain forms of music, whatever you say or think doesn't count. You can't be openminded and truthful if you are prejudice at the same time. In time, there will be a judgement day, and these people who have lied out of prejudice against DEF LEPPARD are going to held accountable.

Posted by Timothy Cook on Tuesday, 06.17.08 @ 11:26am


That's one great band, Blur. I agree wholeheartedly, Tim.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 06.17.08 @ 11:35am


Blur should be inducted. Sure, they didn't have a lot of success in America but they've had a lot of success in British. Five number one albums! And they have a lot of good songs and Damon Albarn is a good singer! And Graham Coxon is an awesome guitar player!

Posted by Nathan on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 15:58pm


Blur was the band that basically invented the central concept of the entire "Britpop" age: Hooray for everything British!

This produced some fantastic music at the time because the artists understood the reference points but has proven damning for British rock music. Most British rock music of this decade is so indebted to older British acts, especially via 90s Britpop, that the rock genre has really stopped evolving over there. Belle and Sebastian's debut, a group indebted to more than Brit music, marked the end of British rock relevancy at this point; no new British rock band has done much of true value since (I do think Franz Ferdinand's debut is great but they still need time to prove themselves.)

Blur wisely rejected that aforementioned ideal and embraced American indie music and electronics. Makers of many fine albums they are. Since they defined that point in British popular music history, they should get in.

Posted by Jonas on Saturday, 12.20.08 @ 23:43pm


If these guys don't get in it's a joke. They're led by maybe the most talented and diverse songwriter of the last 20 years and contain near-virtuoso musicians at every turn (with the exception of maybe Rowntree, the drummer). They're also the perfect example of a band that was able to evolve, explore, and keep their sound fresh and exciting for over a decade. What's not to like about that?

Posted by Wil on Tuesday, 03.24.09 @ 20:38pm


First they created an important music scene (britpop), made brilliant pop albums like Parklife, Modern Life is Rubbish, and The Great Escape, then reinvented themselves, going into the American indie kind of direction, with Blur, 13, and Think Tank. They had 5 number one albums in the UK, 2 number one singles, make excellent songs, and basically got more talent than Oasis or Suede (love both bands, by the way). But Wenner and Co. don't give a crap unless if they had hits in the states, and Blur, they had only three albums on the billboard chart (Parklife, Blur, Think Tank) and three or four singles on the hot 100 (There's No Other Way, I think that Chemical World did, Girls and Boys, and I think that Coffee and TV did, and Out of Time), well Oasis, all their albums got in the top 25, and they had like 7 top 40 singles (Supersonic, Live Forever, Wonderwall, Champagne Supernova, Don't Look Back in Anger, Don't Go Away, and Shock of Lightning). So basically Blur won't get in until Oasis does, since Oasis was successful in the US, another case of the superior group being beat by the more mainstream group.

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 16:45pm


But Wenner and Co. don't give a crap unless if they had hits in the states,

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 16:45pm
--------------------------------------------------
How painfully true. I don't know if you've had the chance yet, but the BBC channel here in America recently ran a documentary called "Live Forever" which was done in 2003 I think. They are running it again on Monday morning, around 8:00 A.M. I think. Don't know if you've seen it already, or if the time is too early for you (this is Eastern Time), but I can tell you it's worthwhile checking out.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 17:49pm


Sounds good, I'll check out if I get up early enough. Is it mainly about Oasis/Blur/Pulp/Suede or does it talk the whole Britpop scene? I saw a similar thing on TV about Britpop (forgot what it was called, it could be on youtube) and it was mainly Blur and Oasis get in the chart battle, how grunge was popular and middle class Brits wanted to bring UK music back to the charts, and how Madchester basically influenced much of it (they only talked about the Stone Roses in that segment, and like a couple mentions of the Happy Mondays)

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 18:22pm


Sounds good, I'll check out if I get up early enough. Is it mainly about Oasis/Blur/Pulp/Suede or does it talk the whole Britpop scene? I saw a similar thing on TV about Britpop (forgot what it was called, it could be on youtube) and it was mainly Blur and Oasis get in the chart battle, how grunge was popular and middle class Brits wanted to bring UK music back to the charts, and how Madchester basically influenced much of it (they only talked about the Stone Roses in that segment, and like a couple mentions of the Happy Mondays)

Posted by lame on Sunday, 05.24.09 @ 18:22pm
--------------------------------------------------
This show is kind of like that. I can recall no mention of the Happy Mondays, but there is footage of Pulp, Sleeper, etc. + interviews w/artists like Massive Attack. If you missed it, you can find it on YouTube, w/some extra footage.

If you saw it already just disregard this.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 05.25.09 @ 17:25pm


Popscene was really the single that started Britpop, and yes, I agree wholeheartedly Blur should be inducted... Damon is a brilliant songwriter and musician, Graham is a mind blowing guitarist, Alex is an extremely good, and underrated, bassist, and Dave is a damn fine drummer. For all the things they've done for British music in the 90s, they deserve to be in.

Btw - since Leisure was released circa '91, aren't they inelligible until 2016, rather than being elligble in 2015 as the list denotes.

One last thing--people should really stop comparing Blur to Oasis and vice versa as it is like comparing apples to oranges. Each to his own, right?

Sorry if I am rambling; it's 3 AM here and I'm tired, plus that song is now stuck in my head.

Cheers.

Posted by Lauren on Tuesday, 08.18.09 @ 00:55am


yes blur is awsome

Posted by james on Friday, 09.11.09 @ 14:23pm


"I've recently thought up a problem that the Hall will face if it chooses to ignore britpop.

That is, that the Hall would essentially be ignoring around [at least] 20 years of mainstream UK music, and there's no knowing how long this second wave (Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand) will be going on for nor how many more waves of britpop there might be after this.

I'd like to see what you all think of this, and what you think would happen." Exactly. I think Oasis will get in; they were too big in the U.S. in the mid 90's to ignore (I'm a Brit, like yourself.) Blur might; depends on how much British input. Suede were just as important in forming the scene, so they should get in as well, but they were even smaller than Blur in the U.S. so they won't, and I don't think any Britpop groups stand a chance beyond Oasis and Blur. Too early to tell with the second wave.

"if Oasis don't then Blur won't

simple as"

Posted by liam on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 13:41pm

Liam's on a role these days, though you forgot to mention that if for whatever reason Radiohead don't get in that makes the chances of Oasis getting in miniscule (I say this because critics like Radiohead much more, and because Radiohead is still going gold and #1 in the U.S.)

"Most British rock music of this decade is so indebted to older British acts, especially via 90s Britpop, that the rock genre has really stopped evolving over there. Belle and Sebastian's debut, a group indebted to more than Brit music, marked the end of British rock relevancy at this point; no new British rock band has done much of true value since (I do think Franz Ferdinand's debut is great but they still need time to prove themselves.)" I do think Franz Ferdinand are a good band but I disagree with the rest of that. Did you listen to Up The Bracket, The Libertines' first album? Fantastic. Nice and raw, and it helped bring indie back down to earth.

Comparing Blur and Oasis is apples and oranges. I prefer Oasis but they were just a guitar band, where as Blur had the balls to keep experimenting (hard rock, new wave, Madchester, you name it.) "Popscene" was a great song which did get the ball rolling for Britpop (along with Oasis and Suede), and they really defined the times. Combine that with a string of great singles, and they should get in if there's any justice. They were huge in Britain in the 90's.



Posted by Sam on Friday, 02.12.10 @ 21:23pm


"Liam's on a roll these days" - Sam

Actually, judging by that post, Liam was on a roll in 2007....

Posted by The Drummer on Saturday, 02.13.10 @ 08:25am


He's been gone for a while now, but he was certainly kicking ass and taking names then.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 02.14.10 @ 21:08pm


Well ideally he shouldn't, IMO. But he could with the same logic that has nominated The Stooges before MC5, inducted The Clash before The Sex Pistols, and put in U2 and R.E.M. before a fistful of post-punk first wavers who preceded their success. - Blue

Yes, I'm confident Bono would have a problem with getting in ahead of Joy Division, and R.E.M. opened for Gang of Four. To update things: Inducted the Clash before The Sex Pistols and The Damned (the first British punks), inducted The Stooges before MC5, and inducted the Pistols, Clash and Ramones before The Stooges, MC5 and New York Dolls. And let's not forget Metallica getting in ahead of many of the bands that paved the way for them (Deep Purple, Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Ozzy...) The same will apply for Guns 'n' Roses (they share some of those bands with Metallica, and no I don't think GNR's earned a place), the extreme likelihood of Red Hot Chili Peppers getting in before GO4, the fact that any chance Blur, Suede and The Stone Roses have of getting in will depend on whether Oasis gets in, why Oasis and Radiohead may get in before The Smiths, the possibility of Nirvana and Pearl Jam getting in before Soundgarden, Queen getting in ahead of T. Rex, and the likelihood of those three plus Alice in Chains getting in before many of the Seattle bands that preceded them, and why Bon Jovi will probably get in ahead of Motley Crue and Ratt. The trend I notice here: In terms of inductions that have already happened, the originals in a genre/scene were passed over and/or the ones in that scene who came later that had the most success in that genre/scene got in first. I don't know how they can fathom doing it, but somehow they do. For example, Oasis were not only by far the most succesful Britpop band back home, but also the only Britpop band to break America (Blur had only 1 gold album, their best charting single was "Girls & Boys" at #59 and their best chart position was #56. Suede never even charted in the U.S. and Blur and Suede were the 2nd and 3rd most succesful Britpop groups. "Popscene" by Blur was pretty much the beginning of Britpop, and Suede also had major UK chart success before Oasis.) The Stone Roses were partially responsible for Britpop even having any legs. They got U.S. charting positions of #86 and #47 but never really got the chance to break th U.S. Due to this lack of success and Oasis' period of stardom in the U.S. from 1994-97, they will probably go in and the fate of those other groups will be tied to whether Oasis make it or not. Ironic, huh?

Posted by Sam on Monday, 03.22.10 @ 19:35pm


One word:
PARKLIFE

Posted by Alex on Tuesday, 05.25.10 @ 14:54pm


Blur and Suede started the whole Britpop scene, about 2 or 3 years before Oasis. Blur made quality songs, but in the United States the only song most Americans now is Song 2 because it's played at every single damn hockey game. They may get in the hall, but even if they don't, pick up a copy of Parklife, Modern Life is Rubbish or their self-titled and you won't be dissapointed.

Posted by lame on Tuesday, 05.25.10 @ 19:23pm


Well, before that they should get the "Best of Blur" compilation just to learn about what they're like. Excellent and diverse songs on there. To be honest I'd give Suede credit for starting Britpop. Blur started out first in, but when they first broke out in '91 they were dismissed as Madchester wannabes. They shook that perception somewhat in '92 with "Popscene" (and gained full respect by the middle of that decade), but Suede fired out "The Drowners" and "Metal Mickey" in '92 and the instant reaction from critics and indie fans was "Wow, what the hell is this?" It came at a good time for sure (New Order was focusing on dance music, Stone Roses were going through their court battle, and the Madchester thing was declining), and those two singles gave UK guitar music a shot in the arm. Then Blur found their identity about the same time as Suede's debut (and "Animal Nitrate") came out, and both bands were met with popularity and critical acclaim. Regardless, both bands should get into the Hall and both deserve to be considered vital staples of British music (with Oasis a step or two behind in both departments, though "Definitely Maybe" came at a good time as well since both bands were experimenting and not just playing straight-ahead rock.)

Posted by Sam on Friday, 05.28.10 @ 20:07pm


Having listened to Leisure, Modern Life Is Rubbish and Parklife back-to-back, it's interesting to chart their artistic growth like that. I think I'm going to do that with the other four albums. I forgot to add that Leisure was good, but it was pretty derivative of The Stone Roses and My Bloody Valentine.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 09.11.10 @ 02:01am


1. Were Blur ever regarded as the best artist in rock (Did anyone ever seriously suggest this?) No critic or musician ever said it to my knowledge. However, they are the 7th most critically acclaimed band of the 90's; of the 7 ahead, one is in the Hall, two are locks and two will probably be inducted (the other will not be inducted.) They're also the 50th most critically acclaimed artists of all time; of the 49 above them, 38 are already in the Hall. Another 4 are locks for induction. So no, not the best but damn near.

2. Were Blur ever the best artist in rock music in their genre? Subjective question, in part because they transcended styles. They were nowhere near the best at doing "Madchester"/baggy or shoegazing (listen to Leisure). If they're not the best Britpop (a media-created term that had more to do with the times and culture than the music) band then they're at least in the Top 5; they're actually the most critically respected Britpop band, and they were second only to Oasis in popularity. Best Alt. Rock? This is much tougher considering all the other bands not in, but it's still subjective. 10th most critically acclaimed in that regard, and 3rd in critical acclaim as far as British Indie is concerned, trailing only The Smiths and Radiohead (I prefer them over The Smiths personally.) I'm not sure if this question is a "yes" (apples and oranges really), but it's very close to being a "yes."

3. Were Blur ever considered the best at their instruments? No, but their skills shouldn't be underestimated. Damon Albarn is one of alt-rock's most talented and versatile singers. Graham Coxon doesn't go for virtuosity; instead, he creates some very interesting noise and soundscapes. He is very well-regarded by his peers; Jonny Greenwood has said "Anything that has more of Graham's playing, I'm bound to like." Noel Gallagher has called him "one of the most gifted guitarists of his generation." Stephen Street has called him "the best guitarist I'd worked with since Johnny Marr. I rate him as the best guitarist around. He plays things Johnny wouldn't even dream of." Some album tracks (not singles, like "Bad Day" from Leisure) will reveal Rowntree and James to be capable of some of the best and tightest rhythm section performances in indie.

4. Did Blur have an impact on a number of other bands? Yes. Suede started the Britpop thing, but Blur took into a whole new dimension of success, paving the way for a bunch of bands to find fame (such as Oasis, though I don't know how many of them actually took anything musically from Blur; Oasis didn't.) AMG lists the following bands as followers: Easy, Grass Show, Midget, Stereophonics, Supernaturals, Octopus, Pinko Pinko, The Beta Band, Vending Machine, Razorlight, The Academy Is... Max´mo Park, The Capes, Arctic Monkeys, Mason Proper, The Young Knives, Cut Off Your Hands, Super Satellite and Attack! Attack! Again, I don't know how many of those bands actually cite Blur or whether Blur just paved the way for them. Stephen Thomas Erlewine of AMG says that "Popscene" was the beginning of Britpop (though he's also seperately credited Suede with that), and "even if it had been on Modern Life, it would have entered pop mythology. It's simply that good and that influential." A writer for The Guardian wrote upon their reunion: F"inally, Blur's influence is still apparent in contemporary pop. From Lily Allen's forthcoming single, The Fear, to the Wombats' daft Christmas single, I still hear the bright, sprightly Englishness that they helped make so modern." Coldplay said about the track "Lost" that they were trying to write something similar to "Sing" from Leisure. Apparently Radiohead have cited them as an influence, but I can't confirm that.

5. Were Blur good enough that they could play after their prime? Yes. Their reunion shows last year received some positive reviews, and even before that they made a succesful and well-received 7th album in 2003 without Graham Coxon. Lots of people, including me, think a new album could be interesting.

6. Are Blur the best artist in history not in the HOF? Subjective question. Certainly most bands would cut off body parts to have a first-five-albums run as good as Blur did (I'm starting on 13, and I have yet to get to Think Thank.) I reserve comment on this one.

7. Are most bands who have a comparable recording history and impact in the Hall of Fame? Well, there are some snubs that can equal or beat them in impact and influence but most of them are in. Recording history, again subjective. There are four bands (and five artists) considered better by critics but not in. All four of these bands are more influential than Blur, and at least two of them are definitely more innovative.

8. Is there any evidence to suggest that they were significantly better or worse than stats suggest? No.

9. Are Blur the best artist in it's genre eligible for the Hall of Fame? See Question 2, though they're not actually eligible yet.

10. How many #1 singles/gold records did Blur have? Did they ever win or get nominated for a Grammy award and how many nominations? No Grammy nominations. They had only one gold album in the US. However, in the UK: 3 gold albums (with 2 platinum and 2 multi-plat. and 5 #1's) 2 #1 singles (also, "Country House" was #1 in Ireland and "There's No Other Way" #1 in Canada) and 1 gold single in the UK ("Country House." Also, "The Universal" and "Tender" were Silver singles.)

11. How many Grammy-level songs/albums? How long did they dominate the music scene? How many Rolling Stone covers did they appear on? Did most artists with this kind of impact go to the HOF? Lots of material better than some Grammy-nominated/winning material. One of the biggest bands in the U.K. from 1991-2003 (the biggest in 1994 and part of 1995), and they also sold out Hyde Park and headlined Glastonbury while doing the reunion and apparently big in parts of Europe. No RS covers. Most of the artists with this impact did go to the HOF but also some with less.

12. If Blur were the best band at a concert, would the concert rock? Judging by live clips I think this would be a yes, and when they made the sonic leap and also tightened up their sound ("Blur"), it became very loud.

13. What impact did Blur have on rock history? Were they responsible for any stylistic changes? Did they introduce any new equipment? Did they change history? No new equipment or techniques (though Coxon's guitar playing was unorthodox, and in Q's opinion owed more to the saxophone than any standard guitar training.) They were very unapolagetically British from 1993-1997, and that rubbed off on some other bands. Few albums defined Britpop better than Parklife, Modern Life Is Rubbish and The Great Escape (I'd give Suede credit for starting it), and they also reintroduced lo-fi techniques to the UK with their self-titled album. From AMG: "the group emerged as the most popular band in the U.K., establishing itself as heir to the English guitar pop tradition of the Kinks, the Small Faces, the Who, the Jam, Madness, and the Smiths. In the process, the group broke down the doors for a new generation of guitar bands that became labeled as Brit-pop. With Damon Albarn's wry lyrics and the group's mastery of British pop tradition, Blur were the leader of Brit-pop" "the band's legacy remained in Britain, where they helped revitalize guitar pop by skillfully updating the country's pop traditions." I wouldn't say they changed history in the US but they did in the UK.

14. Did Blur uphold the standards of sportsmanship & character that the HOF in it's written guidelines instructs us to consider? They engaged in some typical excesses. Aside from that not much to talk about.

Verdict: Induct, but after others.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 09.13.10 @ 07:10am


I quite liked Blur when i was 12 years old, those good old days of 1996. Sadly, i listen back today and i honestly cant understand why, they were actually quite shit. The whole Britpop movement, it wasnt very forward thinking was it? For me a great band that represented the 90s as a time was the Smashing Pumpkins, Blur and Oasis seemed to be channeling the 1960s, not very well i might add. Do Blur deserve to be in the hall of fame? No, of course not, they never mattered a shit in the US and their music was of little consequence.

Posted by Paul on Thursday, 11.11.10 @ 19:04pm


"Sadly, i listen back today and i honestly cant understand why, they were actually quite shit."

Hmmm....

"The whole Britpop movement, it wasnt very forward thinking was it?"

Not on the whole, no. Plenty of them weren't trying to. However, every rule has an exception or two. Pulp's albums "His N Hers", "Different Class" and "This Is Hardcore" and Suede's "Dog Man Star" are examples of people crafting their own niche and self-consciously trying not to follow any trends. Give those albums a few listens and then get back to me. In addition, I can think of some non-forward thinking people that are loved by the Hall/are going to go into the Hall, so the Hall cannot logically dismiss Britpop on the grounds of not being forward thinking, otherwise they'd be hypocrites.

"For me a great band that represented the 90s as a time was the Smashing Pumpkins"

While I agree with that, haven't they been accused of stealing guitar parts from My Bloody Valentine? If that were true, that would disqualify them from the idea of "forward thinking".

"Blur and Oasis seemed to be channeling the 1960s, not very well i might add."

As opposed to Wenner's buddy Jon Bon Jovi channeling Springsteen and Def Leppard.

"Do Blur deserve to be in the hall of fame?"

Yes.

"No, of course not, they never mattered a shit in the US"

Nobody said that was a requirement

"and their music was of little consequence."

Oh, and on that whole representing the 90's thing, a passage from AllMusic: "and the sense that they were creating the soundtrack to the lives of a new generation of British youth. And it was very definitely British youth they were aiming at; Britpop celebrated and commented on their lives, their culture, and their musical heritage, with little regard for whether that specificity would make them less accessible to American audiences." Oh, and this:

"In the process, the group broke down the doors for a new generation of guitar bands that became labeled as Brit-pop. With Damon Albarn's wry lyrics and the group's mastery of British pop tradition, Blur were the leader of Brit-pop, but they quickly became confined by the movement; since they were its biggest band, they nearly died when the movement itself died. Through some reinvention, Blur reclaimed their position as an art pop band in the late '90s by incorporating indie rock and lo-fi influences, which finally gave them their elusive American success in 1997. But the band's legacy remained in Britain, where they helped revitalize guitar pop by skillfully updating the country's pop traditions."

Little consequence, indeed. If Radiohead and Coldplay choose to acknowledge Blur when they get in (as they have sporadically done so before), then maybe some attitudes will change. If you want experimental music from them, try the self-titled album and "13" (avoid "Think Tank" entirely; it's far too messy.)

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 11.14.10 @ 06:22am


I decided to explore the influence thing a bit further. I'm sure they have plenty of significant influence, as they were one of the definitive Britpop bands (a movement that seems to be casting a shadow over a lot of indie music around today). AMG listed quite a few followers, but I haven't heard of most of them. Coldplay said that their track "Lost" was influenced by "Sing". Critics have frequently drawn comparisons to Kaiser Chiefs, but in the few times I've listened to Kaiser Chiefs I haven't heard it. Nothing concrete, basically. So I typed "who did blur influence?" into Google, and after 13 pages all I've found is this:

http://newbeatsmedia.com/2010/03/04/neil-athey-of-the-bibelots-talks-to-christopher-mundy-of-new-beats-media/

"Well, I used to play guitar playing along to The Cult, The Stone Roses, Oasis, Blur."

Any help would be great. Actual citations, please.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 16:23pm


To all the "no"s....you need to admit that the release of "Parklife" and the ending to the Britpop Movement made by this band had a great impact.

Posted by Dadada on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 19:35pm


I think the "no's" have to do with either not liking them or their lack of Stateside impact, though the latter seems like a bit of a fallacy. I personally say yes, though there are other bands that have done more for music that I'd like to see in first.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 02.26.11 @ 07:29am


I have to rethink my position on Think Tank. The first time I heard it I hated it, and found it to be almost unlistenable. The only one other than Leisure that I didn't like. However, I decided to listen to it again today, and... well, I wouldn't say I loved it, but I did find it enjoyable in parts, and it's a lot more interesting and creative than I originally gave it credit for. It confirms my opinion that Oasis may have won the war from a sales perspective, but Blur won from a musical perspective. I like both by the way.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.16.11 @ 16:27pm


I think the "no's" have to do with either not liking them or their lack of Stateside impact, though the latter seems like a bit of a fallacy. I personally say yes, though there are other bands that have done more for music that I'd like to see in first.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 02.26.11 @ 07:29am

I think it's probably the first point. Most people on here hardly vote objectively, I mean how else do you explain such high fan approval for some questionable acts on here, let alone yes votes at all for some of the VERY questionable acts on here (who shall remain unnamed as I don't want to taint the Blur page with their names). Not that there's anything wrong with this all the time mind you, I know I'm personally guilty of clicking that green button for some acts I know won't ever get in (like the 13th Floor Elevators for example). As for Blur, I say yes, emphatically.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 03.20.11 @ 11:52am


As far as I'm concerned there should be a "SHOULD ??? be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?" poll to go alongside the current poll; I think some people may be confused by what the current poll actually implies.

Anyhow, I'm going to try and tackle this from the perspective that GFW does:

Innovation: I'm not sure about this. I'm leaning yes, though. Although they didn't specifically invent any subgenres or new styles, we need to avoid using that as the be-all and end-all, and just listen to the sound. What Messrs. Albarn, James, Coxon and Rowntree did was move through several different phases (and trying different things constantly) and most of it worked, and the way they played and wrote was exclusively their own. For example, when Modern Life Is Rubbish was released it was hailed as something different, and it still sounds that way now. Ditto Parklife, which carried on where MLIR left off, but also differentiated by being fun and also incorporating more influences. Being fun and optimistic was uncommon in the history of writing about British life. The album was also quite bittersweet and ironic in places, but that's besides the point. Also, in the book "The Last Party: Britpop, Blair and The Spectacular Demise of English Rock" (which I highly reccomend), John Harris makes reference to the band "minting" the "oompah-oompah stomp" on "Sunday Sunday" (I guess that's a certain beat).

Influence: YES. I once used Google to try and gauge their influence, and I didn't come up with much. But then I read the aforementioned book again, and their Influence is more in terms of trends than people actually citing them. Blur and Suede were both equally responsible for reviving the concept of quintesentially British music, and Suede initially made more impact, but Blur's angle proved to be more popular and impactful, and made them the definitive "Britpop" band in terms of sound and attitude. Damon Albarn's ambition was to "save" British music (more on what I think of that later, though he thought he succeeded initially) and to bring indie music to the masses whilst still keeping it's intelligence intact. Bring it to the masses he did; for better or worse, from the time Parklife blew up to about 1998 or 99, everybody and their grandmother could get signed as long as they were singing about English life (again, in the book) and none of that would've happened without Blur.

Sales: If this was a UK Music Hall of Fame they'd cruise in based on this category; as it's not, eh, no. They found some success in Europe and other places, but not much earth-shattering.

Yes on 2 of 3 (though if you're myopic enough to mandate the 2nd cover the US it becomes 1 of 3), so yes, put them in.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 03.24.11 @ 12:13pm


Though deserving, it's highly unlikely that they'll ever get in seeing as they never had much success in America and were always more of a quirky art school sort of band rather than their bigger selling but generally bland contemporaries Oasis.

Posted by Kyle on Monday, 05.30.11 @ 23:38pm


Influence: Blur has definetly had an influence on the british and american indie/alt landscape. 20
Innovation: Helped define britpop. 10
Sales: Blur had alot of sales in the uk but not many outside. 5
Criticval Respect: Blur are respected by many critics and have even won quite a few awards. 20

bonuses for Modern life Is Rubbish and Parklife

65, worthy of induction but not a priority.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 10.16.11 @ 09:42am


That dire performance at the Brits this evening might hurt their chances. I think they played ok, but Damon's voice is shot... it was painful to watch him try and keep up with the others. The fact that they started performing as Adele began her speech won't help either, though that's more the producer's fault for being badly organised.

Still, can't complain too much; the reason they were performing was that they won the Outstanding Contribution To British Music Award. Well deserved.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.21.12 @ 19:04pm


I very much dbout it will, i'm guessing it will be way overshadowed by the award which is pretty much the biggest honour you can get in britain when it comes to music.

I do agree with you, the performance was terrible. Damon was just shouting his way through, though everyone else was on fine form. I doubt his voice will of changed that much in 15-20 years, I'm thinking it might just be a bad night.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 11:41am


True. Thinking about it, any award can help their cause. Now can we give that award to Iron Maiden?

Phil Daniels was erratic as well, when he did his bit during Parklife as well. Damon sounded ok from what I saw of the reunion gigs, so maybe you're right. We'll see when this happens: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/feb/21/blur-headline-olympics-concert

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 12:06pm


Looking at who's won that award, I think The Rolling Stones, The Kinks and Black Sabbath are deserving before Iron Maiden.

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 12:40pm


the stones haven't gotten it?

suprising.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 13:28pm


On blur's chances I think that if oasis get in then blur is very likely.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 13:38pm


BRIT Award for Outstanding Contribution to Music:

1977: L.G. Wood & The Beatles
1982: John Lennon
1983: The Beatles (again for some reason)
1984: George Martin
1985: The Police
1986: What! & Elton John
1987: Eric Clapton
1988: The Who
1989: Cliff Richard
1990: Queen
1991: Status Quo
1992: Freddie Mercury
1993: Rod Stewart
1994: Van Morrison
1995: Elton John (again for some reason)
1996: David Bowie
1997: Bee Gees
1998: Fleetwood Mac
1999: Eurythmics
2000: Spice Girls
2001: U2
2002: Sting
2003: Tom Jones
2004: Duran Duran
2005: Bob Geldof
2006: Paul Weller
2007: Oasis
2008: Paul McCartney
2009: Pet Shop Boys
2010: Robbie Williams
2011: Daniel Miller
2012: Blur

Lots of good choices, but lost of head scratchers.

Posted by Gassman on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 14:11pm


Spice Girls?
Seriously?
Spice Girls but not the Stones?

wow.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 14:24pm


Spice Girls, Tom Jones and Robbie Williams before the Stones?

Wow.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 14:26pm


Silly list, as is the case with most awards shows. Is What! supposed to be Wham!?

Posted by Sean on Wednesday, 02.22.12 @ 18:07pm


I don't object to Blur or Oasis getting one. I'm not too familiar with Paul Weller's solo career, but I guess it'll do since The Jam don't have one. I'm equally baffled by the Stones not having one... no Who? Zeppelin? Sabbath? (Good catch, Gass. Forgot about them in my urge to champion Maiden.) Not one for Pink Floyd, Jeff Beck? The Cure? The list goes on. Yet The Spice Girls... shoot, I'm even struggling with Duran Duran a bit. Just a popularity contest. Looking at who's been snubbed, I think even Bowie might not have gotten his had Britpop not brought him back into relevance.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 04.21.12 @ 13:18pm


seems to me like if it wasn't 90's or a direct influence on britpop/indie rock then it's not considered relevant.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 04.21.12 @ 13:40pm


^Not entirely. Stewart, Elton, FM, Eurythmics, PSB. The Kinks and Small Faces both had resurgences in popularity in the 90's because they became big reference points for Britpop, so I'm a bit surprised they never got one.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.28.13 @ 18:35pm


Guess I'm just not British enough to like this band. I like maybe a few of their songs (sue me, I only listened to their Best of compilation!) and most of them were hits on alternative radio here in the States. I like Oasis more than I like Blur. I'm not one to question one's tastes but I really don't get it how they are legendary overseas. I even tried getting into their songs that were #1 over there (ex. 'Country Home') but they failed to win me over. Woo-hoo!

U.S. RRHOF-worthy? Probably not, unless Rolling Stone gives them attention in the future.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Monday, 08.19.13 @ 12:30pm


Yes, but not yet.
First, induct Joy Division, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Bauhaus, Siouxsie & The Banshees, The Smiths and all those who influenced Blur.

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Sunday, 07.6.14 @ 23:52pm


I really hope blur makes it in. I know everyone bring up their moderate success in the states, but over time they really have become more popular over here (if not partially thanks to gorillaz) just looking at their back catalog makes them the best Britpop band, and even the later albums go beyond Britpop and show how inventive they can be (look at 13, which should be a essential album on the list). not to mention they pulled off a fantastic reunion album with the magic whip, how many bands can make that big a comeback album? unfortunately oasis might be the Britpop representation but no one should count out blur just yet

Posted by James on Sunday, 07.31.16 @ 15:31pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.