Being an American, I was unaware of the rivalry between the two bands (although my wife remembers reading something about it in an issue Rolling Stone).
Anyway, if you picked sides then which one did you pick?
If I was British, then seeing how I only know about three Oasis songs but I own The Best of Blur, I guess I would have chosen Blur.
American here – was aware of the rivalry through interviews. I would have chosen Oasis at the time, because I was a sucker for their post-Beatles grooviness.
In retrospect, it’s clear Blur was far more talent and Damon Albarn has been a far more positive figure in music since.
Two bands from a mediocre time in british music - hard for me to choose as I don’t rate either. Oasis are one of the more boring bands I’ve heard - hearing stuff like wonderwall or champagne supernova actually makes me tired. First album was OK and Liam in general has a good strong voice. Him and his brother are a pair of dickheads but did give very funny interviews.
Blur probably have the better tunes but are the personification of middle brow, middle class Englishness, and not in a good way. Most rock / pop bands probably come from relatively privileged backgrounds, but a natural frontman dispels these considerations. Seeing Damon Albarn channeling white Fred Perry Laaahndon youth with an exaggerated cockney accent was cringeworthy in the extreme (he does seem a very sound person away from music though). That aside, and I’m a big advocate of judging music with your ears, their stuff was patchy and doesn’t stand up. All the quality in rock music was coming from the US at the time.
From what I remember, Oasis played the US and made something of an impression - they were taken seriously as a rock outfit. Blur made no impact at all. Not that making it in the US is the be all and end all, but it probably does say something about the different types of music both bands offered.
I didn’t enjoy most of Blur’s early stuff, but liked their last two albums. Damon Alburn has gone on to have a interesting and varied career. My first reaction on hearing Oasis was that they were great, but I very quickly got tired of them. They were a band that never developed very much.
Pulp. They were equally as big on the Britpop scene and they are amazingly brilliant. I do like Blur too, but the Pulp songs have lasted longer.
Blur, both musically and personality-wise.
Spice Girls. 
Not British, but …
Blur: Song 2 was played non-stop on radio stations in ski- and snowboard-crazy Colorado during the late 1990s. It became an unofficial anthem of extreme sports, and was often heard in television commercials for X-TREEM products.
Oasis: Champaigne Supernover, and references in sketches on Saturday Night Live about their British-ness. One example:
Conclusion: Oasis is far more British than Blur.
I’m British and was teenage in the 90s. Neither seemed mind-blowing, but I preferred Blur’s more varied romantic indie-sounding output to the boorish anthems of Oasis. As I was at university at the time I think that deepened the divide between hoity-toity middle-class southerners Blur and salt-of-the-earth northern townie Oasis, as I was a Hampshire student in Yorkshire.
Pulp and (The London) Suede were better though.
I might agree with this statement in some regard. The 80s were an amazing time for British music - The Smiths, XTC, The Fall, Joy Division/New Order, to name a few timeless acts. Things got a bit wonky around 1987 or so (coincidentally, when I left, ha!). Blur’s first album was nothing special, and it blends in with the shoegazing crap that was dominant at the the time - though there are some flashes of brilliance (“Sing” and “There’s No Other Way”). Modern Life is Rubbish - which, interestingly enough, was originally planned to be produced by Andy Partridge from XTC, but the band didn’t get on with him - is an incredible album and very underrated. That album has aged incredibly well and I find myself going back to it decades later.
Of course they hit the big time with Parklife and The Great Escape - the singles wear thin, but the album tracks on both albums still stand up - “Trouble in the Message Centre,” “This is a Low,” “Fade Away,” “He Thought of Cars” - great stuff.
I was in college when Oasis broke; in fact, I saw them at the La Zona Rosa in Austin in 1994. It was a crowd of about 150 but they rocked it, and it still stands as one of the best shows I’ve ever seen. They had so much front and attitude… they basically said, “We’re Oasis, and we’re about smack you upside the head with great tunes, and you’re going to buy ten Definitely Maybes and tell your friends.” That album is great, more because of the attitude behind it… it takes me back to that time, and “Live Forever” is a generational anthem. I was in England in the summer of '95 when the battle between the bands was at its peak, and it was definitely a case of Oasis being the edgy, spliff smoking, street fighting cool kids, and Blur being a band that your little sister liked. I heard Oasis nonstop on the radio; Blur, not so much.
I completely agree that the Oasis’ music stagnated terribly after Be Here Now - some good tracks there, but it doesn’t get much better.
The Oasis challenge forced, or at least encouraged Blur to re-invent themselves - and they didn’t have to. They could have ridden the Britpop train into the ground… like Sleeper, Menswear, and any of the anonymous bands of the time. But they come out with classic albums like Blur and 13, and earn serious street cred with lo-fi oriented Americans.
Oasis limped on until about a year ago when the Gallaghers had a massive blowup and decided to pursue their own projects. I think they were a band for that moment, but nothing game-changing for music came from their body of work. Liam is a fine singer, possibly the finest of that '90s era, and Noel can write cracking tunes, but in a lot of ways I think historically they might be more respected for moving Blur from the Kinks-ian observers of middle-class Britain to the guys who wrote “Song 2” and “Out of Time.”
So for me, (non-Brit) it’s Blur by a mile. Their reunion was massive and there’s hope for more Blur material when Damon finds time from Gorillaz and Graham takes time off from his solo work. I’d also plug the virtuosity of the band - Graham Coxon, IMO, is the heir apparent to Johnny Marr’s throne (with the appropriate doff of the cap to John Squire, Johnny Greenwood, and Bernard Butler) as the most imaginative British pop guitarist of the time, Damon’s multi-talents (including a stint as pianist/keyboard with the Pretenders for Isle of View), and the criminally underrated Dave Rowntree has got to be one of the top timekeepers of that time as well.
Oasis were extremely derivative, folk seem to think much of it was ripped from The Beatles, but to my ear, it seems they ripped at least as much from The Kinks.
Their first album was fine, but it was downhill pretty much all the way after that.
I would go for Blur.
As for the middle class, working class nonsense, well its just that.