|
||||||||
Was popularity the worst thing to happen to Oasis? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,554
|
Was popularity the worst thing to happen to Oasis?
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? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,069
|
It was partly because Noel decided to do a tonne of cocaine instead of writing some decent songs...
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,224
|
The first 2 albums were stuff Noel had probably spent years working on. I think he gave up drugs in the late 90s but the music didn't really revive. I quite liked Don't Believe The Truth but they burnt out like most bands before them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Holodeck 4
Posts: 21,476
|
Noel admitted that Be Here Now was their cocaine album. Fame, money, drugs - it messes with your mojo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
Cocaine definitely played a part. Also, they got lazy with their success, and as many people do, started running out of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belfast
Posts: 134
|
Quote:
Cocaine definitely played a part. Also, they got lazy with their success, and as many people do, started running out of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 59
|
Think it happens with most bands when they first start off they are hungry then when they make it big become rich famous and band members go off the rails . Personally I think Oasis will reform in the future maybe to earn some extra cash .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,519
|
Nothing to do with popularity at all. Some bands have only got one or two good albums in them. Oasis had their 15 minutes and that was that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 343
|
A lot of what drived Oasis was the desire to be a massive band - "Rock and Roll Star" and so on - so once it happened, what else was there? They're still a band, now what?
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Think it happens with most bands when they first start off they are hungry then when they make it big become rich famous and band members go off the rails . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In England
Posts: 4,349
|
they never had anything to say, but they could say it with a swagger which briefly made it seem like they had. Sooner or later a band wants to progress and do something more complex but they never had the ability to do anything more interesting than swaggering anthems, and even lost the instinct for them by trying
Once they started having to think they were doomed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
|
Quote:
Nothing to do with popularity at all. Some bands have only got one or two good albums in them. Oasis had their 15 minutes and that was that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 588
|
In a way they couldn't win. If they had changed their sound like The Beatles did in the 60's then their sales would have dropped. Blur changed direction and whilst their critical acclaim went up their sales suffered. I fully recall in 1997 people saying that they had gone off Blur after their change of sound.
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
does it matter anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 828
|
I just think Noel only ever had one and a half good albums in him as a 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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DTG Bunker
Posts: 5,044
|
I really enjoyed Definitely Maybe. It had a certain humour and playfulness to it that did not show up in any of their other albums.
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. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:13.

