DS Forums

 
 

Was popularity the worst thing to happen to Oasis?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-12-2012, 17:20
nikproffitt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,554

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?
nikproffitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 13-12-2012, 18:07
performingmonk
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.
performingmonk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 18:16
SirMickTravis
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.
SirMickTravis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 21:26
Eraserhead
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.
Eraserhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-12-2012, 22:53
Mallaha
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.
Mallaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 00:26
marcusgv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belfast
Posts: 134
Cocaine definitely played a part. Also, they got lazy with their success, and as many people do, started running out of ideas.
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.
marcusgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 00:40
Bevrinton
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 .
Bevrinton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 00:55
Casual
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.
Casual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 02:15
Georges Grun
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.
Georges Grun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 09:05
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
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 . .
spot on.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 10:15
my name is joe
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
my name is joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 10:21
soundstory
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,114
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.
agreed
soundstory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 11:17
Apollo Creed
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
Apollo Creed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 11:26
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
does it matter anyway?
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 12:08
rachelgata
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!
rachelgata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2012, 12:46
Mallaha
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.
Mallaha is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:13.