Options
Was popularity the worst thing to happen to Oasis?
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6d3fc73e664de0f86d171cbaaf03266.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 2,904 Forum Member
✭✭✭
It is commonly believed that the first two Oasis albums are classics, however the standard deteriorated after that.
The second album was really the start of the period when they were at the most popular. Did this increased popularity lead them to become too arrogant (yes I know Liam was already an arrogant tw*t) and did this cause the quality of the music to decline.
If they hadn't become so popular would they have continued making classic albums?
The second album was really the start of the period when they were at the most popular. Did this increased popularity lead them to become too arrogant (yes I know Liam was already an arrogant tw*t) and did this cause the quality of the music to decline.
If they hadn't become so popular would they have continued making classic albums?
0
Comments
The first 2 albums were, more or less, written before they made it famous. Noel did pull himself together by the time of 2002's Heathen Chemistry.
Probably true in the case of Oasis but not for all artists. U2 have re-invented themselves over 3 decades and Bruce Springsteen has produced great albums throughout his career.
Maybe if the US thing really kicked off it would have provided more impetus for the band to pull out the stops. Although lumped in with Britpop they weren't as overtly English as Blur or Pulp and had a 'rockier' overdriven guitar sound that would have fit in better with radio etc. They really should have pushed this. Especially given the success of Radiohead and Coldplay on both sides of the Atlantic since.
Knebworth couldn't have been topped and it's fanciful to say they should have split right after, but bands don't do that, it's never as simple as the way fans and critics like it to be. But after that I think the decline was steep and rapid - purely in the songwriting stakes.
I don't think the capacity or desire to 'reinvent' was there, I just believe that they ran out of memorable and strong songs.
spot on.
Once they started having to think they were doomed:)
agreed
Most casual music fans and young teenagers would not have accepted an Oasis album that was a radical departure. At the same time their continuation of straightforward rock meant many older music fans went somewhere new, bored of the limitations of anthemic rock. Whichever way they played it they would have lost fans and their title of the biggest band in Britain.
Oasis represented a moment in time. If they had split after Knebworth then their legacy would have been much greater. The Smiths are much revered as they never gave themselves chance to become stale. Oasis plodded on and every year they went on, their relevance decreased. It's only since Noel has gone solo that so many people have once again realised that he is a great songwriter
Definitely Maybe is a classic and I loved it as much as anyone when it came out and can still listen to it happily. Morning Glory was ok too but not as good. Everything after that has been dross, in my opinion, and they just never even tried to evolve their sound, or weren't capable of doing so.
I know everyone thinks Noel Gallagher is some kind of songwriting genius but personally I have to disagree. I think he is rather limited musically - at least in his ambitions. He doesn't strike me as someone who wants to push himself and never has, so we'll never know really.
As for Liam, same as above only much moreso!
Whenever I've seen Noel being interviewed recently, he comes across as very likeable, and very knowledgeable about all kinds of music. I thought his solo stuff might be really interesting and off-the-wall, but it really hasn't been. He is quite limited as a musician.