Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 16:57:06 GMT -5
One thing that I never understood is why Oasis fall from grace was so intense. They were heroes from 94-97 even though some crack started to appear in 97. Starting with the release of SOTSOG in 2000 they were pretty much considered has-beens without any chance of getting best to their best if my recollections serve me right.
Bands like Coldplay and blur either released pretty bad albums over the year (Coldplay) or relatively obscure ones relatively speaking(The Magic whip) but were never considered has-beens.
Anyone know why? Has it to do with their attitude / line up changes or where BHN/SOTSOG and HC just too terrible?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Dec 20, 2020 17:18:17 GMT -5
It's a cultural thing, for better and for worse. Oasis were so asphixiatingly massive in part because they were the ultimate emblem of one of Britain's most distinctive cultural moments: Cool Britannia/Brit-Pop. They fit the mood of the nation so perfectly in that 94-96 era, and with such a fast run of such massive songs, that they would forever be tied to it in most people's conception of the band. They weren't just part of that culture. They were the Gods of it. Therefore, the bloated and tasteless death of Cool Britannia was the bloated and tasteless death of Oasis' coolness. Post Diana, post Be Here Now, they weren't the young new jet engine flying British brilliance across the airwaves, they were the gauche drunks who reminded people of a time of lads mags, football, and happiness that felt embarrassing in the darker mood of the late 90's/early 00's. The most commonly used analogy is that they quickly became the loud drunks at a funeral, and that's probably about right.
Coldplay, for instance, were never the figureheads of a culture. They were initially a part of the sea of Radiohead-lite indie bands that came out in 99/00, but they quickly struck out of the pack with A Rush of Blood to the Head and never looked back. Now most of their fans have probably never heard of either Travis or The Bends. That's allowed them to stay relevant across more than cultural shift, because they never defined any one of them - they just keep writing good pop-rock albums and people keep liking them,
Which is the other reason, of course. If Oasis had struck back with an amazing comeback album in the early 2000's, it's just about possible that they could have shaken off the memory of the nineties and forged a new identity. But they didn't. When Coldplay realised they had lost their edge with X&Y, they came with Viva la Vida and had the biggest song of the year with an orchestral sound and lyrics about the French Revolution. When Oasis lost their edge, they came back with Sunday Morning Call and Heathen Chemistry. The idea of them being has-beens was probably hard to get away from following such a dramatic downturn in music quality. Whatever you think of them, both Chris Martin and Damon Albarn have shown a much stronger ability than Noel to write hit songs in a variety of genres, allowing them to pen hits even when their initial style had gone out of fashion.
But circles keep turning, I suppose. The good news is that Oasis are cooler and more relevant now than they have been for years. Liam's solo career has gone down brilliantly, the nineties are now looked back on with fondness and nostalgia rather than embarrassment, and the youth culture here - at least in the north - still loves guitar music and would consider Oasis one of the best. You can't keep good tunes down, and that run from Supersonic to All Around the World will always be one of the most brilliant run of tunes in British history. Never goin' down.
|
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Dec 20, 2020 17:18:42 GMT -5
Because they were a stadium rock band, and they were perceived as some arrogant neanderthals with minimal musical talent by most of their haters, and they pissed so many people off on their way up that they weren't gonna let them get away with anything
Kinda like U2 really
This all combined with the fact that they peaked with their first two albums so anything that came after was unfairly compared to them
Blur moved on from "britpop" at the right time and didn't stick around as long, with Damon going into another succesful carrer with Gorillaz, and they were always seen as better musicians more prone to experimenting and changing their sound
Coldplay get a lot of hate, they just found a new demographic to appeal to
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Dec 20, 2020 17:28:18 GMT -5
"The higher that you climb the longer you fall"
|
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Dec 20, 2020 17:33:19 GMT -5
Yes, Be Here Now was a major factor. The hype was impossible to live up to and it was quickly seen as a massive letdown compared to the first two albums (even though I still believe they could have made a better album from the songs they had available at the time).
There was also the fact that the media turned against them - and the general public is far too easily led by what the media says. Oasis were everywhere in the UK with stories about them every day in the papers - and often on the TV news.
That over-exposure wasn’t healthy - and nor, if I’m being honest, was the way the Gallaghers were acting around this period. Even as a diehard fan they came across really badly at the 1996 Brit Awards and the confidence that had seemed so funny and refreshing - almost tongue in cheek - gave way to an arrogance and boorishness that put a lot of people off.
Add in the fact that a lot of people who bought WTSMG and went to Knebworth etc were just jumping on the bandwagon because Oasis were flavour of the month and it meant that the perception of the band - coupled with a fresh batch of songs that didn’t justify that trademark Gallagher arrogance - significantly reduced the fanbase.
Bizarre as it may sound now, the UK also went through a very strange period of national mourning when Princess Diana died - very soon after Be Here Now was released. Cocaine-fuelled anthems to punch the air to were suddenly out of fashion and the more sombre likes of The Verve and Radiohead were deemed a more suitable soundtrack to the times.
It’s also worth adding that Oasis were a really divisive band - even at the peak of their WTSMG popularity (early to mid-1996 when Wonderwall and DLBIA had charmed the mainstream and tickets to the big spring and summer gigs had gone on sale). And even among those that did like them, it was just about impossible for the band to sustain those levels of popularity which peaked at Knebworth. Noel’s conscious decision to make ‘an out and out rock album’ with Be Here Now in response to the ballads that had got them that mainstream following also alienated a lot of the casuals who were expecting another Wonderwall and got D’You Know What I Mean? instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 20, 2020 19:20:05 GMT -5
It's very simple - everything after Be Here Now just wasn't good enough. I am certain they always had it in them to maintain relevance into the 21st century. There's some parallels to U2's situation in that I think the opportunity to reinvent themselves would have kept them culturally relevant. Be Here Now is very much their Rattle & Hum. They're not bad albums, there's a handful of great songs in amongst some missteps and also undone by their ego, messiness and self-indulgence. A big step down from the greatness that preceded both albums and with it came the animosity from the public and press.
U2 turned it around with Achtung Baby and Oasis should have done the same. In fact, the public goodwill towards Oasis would have been more acceptant than U2 - they're genuinely more loved so it was an open goal.
However, U2 had two creative driving forces within the band (Bono & The Edge) and two creative forces outside the band (Brian Eno & Daniel Lanois). Oasis only had Noel and it's hellishly difficult for one individual to realise that ambition and change in sound (even solo acts like Bowie had Tony Visconti as his creative muse).
It takes a team to successfully reinvent a band. Oasis didn't have it. If Noel had more ambition and motivation at the time, he could have hired a top level producer to push them in a different direction. If Noel dropped his ego just a tiny bit, he could have hired two guitarists that were more musically ambitious than Gem and Andy.
It would have been impossible to write another Morning Glory, just as it was impossible for another Joshua Tree. From there on, there's nowhere to go aside from completely turning the thing on its head completely. The fact is he didn't, and he got bored, hired boring sidemen and the result was watered down boring albums.
To this day, what ultimately followed Be Here Now is the major regret in the entire Oasis story. Not Be Here Now, not the split itself but the acceptant uninspired mediocrity that followed from everyone in the band. A missed opportunity to maintain relevance if ever there was one.
|
|
|
|
Post by World71R on Dec 20, 2020 20:56:38 GMT -5
It's very simple - everything after Be Here Now just wasn't good enough. I am certain they always had it in them to maintain relevance into the 21st century. There's some parallels to U2's situation in that I think the opportunity to reinvent themselves would have kept them culturally relevant. Be Here Now is very much their Rattle & Hum. They're not bad albums, there's a handful of great songs in amongst some missteps and also undone by their ego, messiness and self-indulgence. A big step down from the greatness that preceded both albums and with it came the animosity from the public and press. U2 turned it around with Achtung Baby and Oasis should have done the same. In fact, the public goodwill towards Oasis would have been more acceptant than U2 - they're genuinely more loved so it was an open goal. However, U2 had two creative driving forces within the band (Bono & The Edge) and two creative forces outside the band (Brian Eno & Daniel Lanois). Oasis only had Noel and it's hellishly difficult for one individual to realise that ambition and change in sound (even solo acts like Bowie had Tony Visconti as his creative muse). It takes a team to successfully reinvent a band. Oasis didn't have it. If Noel had more ambition and motivation at the time, he could have hired a top level producer to push them in a different direction. If Noel dropped his ego just a tiny bit, he could have hired two guitarists that were more musically ambitious than Gem and Andy. It would have been impossible to write another Morning Glory, just as it was impossible for another Joshua Tree. From there on, there's nowhere to go aside from completely turning the thing on its head completely. The fact is he didn't, and he got bored, hired boring sidemen and the result was watered down boring albums. To this day, what ultimately followed Be Here Now is the major regret in the entire Oasis story. Not Be Here Now, not the split itself but the acceptant uninspired mediocrity that followed from everyone in the band. A missed opportunity to maintain relevance if ever there was one. SOTSOG had the ingredients of something interesting but those ingredients were spoiled by his own making and rushing the ingredients along and when it wasn't meshing. The songs on that album can broken down into: Songs that act on the album's potential (Roll it Over, Gas Panic!, Fuckin' in the Bushes, Go Let it Out, Who Feels Love? sonically), songs that have potential but fall into certain cliches (Sunday Morning Call, Where Did it All Go Wrong?), songs that falter due to sheer laziness (Put Yer Money Where Yer Mouth Is), and the other two songs (I Can See a Liar, Little James). The production often ends up being a muddied mess and feels rushed, but with someone like a producer within the trip-hop realm or electronic realm who could direct him in producing those songs to its finished product (a la David Holmes for WBTM?), the album could've been an interesting electronic-inspired rock album to give an answer to what will define the post-Britpop era. |
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Dec 20, 2020 23:53:00 GMT -5
How many bands even get to ride a huge wave for 4 years and 3 albums with loads of accolades and milestones along the way? Not many. Fame for every band wanes in time for the most part. Nothing lasts forever.
Oasis still sold extremely well in their homeland after 2000. It’s America that moved on after BHN. If Oasis was still selling a million plus albums in the UK like they did with HC and DBTT along with platinum records in America I’m sure there wouldnt have been to sudden fall from grace. America was a different animal in 1999-2001. Boy bands, rap metal, blooming hip hop artists, etc, were now what was seen on MTV and US radio. Grunge and alt rock were gone and so with it Oasis. SOTSOG was not gonna get any real rotation from MTV or VH1.
When the back to basic rock revival of 2001-2004 emerged with bands like The Strokes and White Stripes, Oasis all the sudden were the old men at the party.
Life moves fast. Be thankful for what we got. Most fan bases never get here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Dec 21, 2020 10:01:09 GMT -5
Oasis were a band you truly could say they were a cultural phenomenon, so by 1997 expectations were too high for the band, they were supposed to be the new Beatles, Be Here Now supposed to be Earth's magnum opus, it wasn't of course, but nothing lasts forever, people would got tired of them at some point, the Gallaghers were everywhere too much exposure, people wanted to move on, Princess Diana died and all that Britpop euphoria died togheter.
By the year 2000 things changed, the music landscape changed a lot, a new generation of bands came along and all of sudden Oasis were a thing of past, also Oasis suffered lots of problems at the turn of the century, the Gallaghers divorced, quit alcohol and drugs, changed label, lost two band members, it didn't help that SOTSOG just wasn't the comercial album people expected, so Noel for the first time needed help, exhaustive times for the band.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Dec 21, 2020 11:59:58 GMT -5
Oasis were a band you truly could say they were a cultural phenomenon, so by 1997 expectations were too high for the band, they were supposed to be the new Beatles, Be Here Now supposed to be Earth's magnum opus, it wasn't of course, but nothing lasts forever, people would got tired of them at some point, the Gallaghers were everywhere too much exposure, people wanted to move on, Princess Diana died and all that Britpop euphoria died togheter. By the year 2000 things changed, the music landscape changed a lot, a new generation of bands came along and all of sudden Oasis were a thing of past, also Oasis suffered lots of problems at the turn of the century, the Gallaghers divorced, quit alcohol and drugs, changed label, lost two band members, it didn't help that SOTSOG just wasn't the comercial album people expected, so Noel for the first time needed help, exhaustive times for the band. Like a lot of paths in life, it’s about timing. Oasis were a band making the right kind of music exactly when MTV and radio across America was knee deep in guitar rock, grunge, alt, etc. They had so much exposure of those tv channels like MTV, VH1, Much Music. Back in the 90s getting that kind of rotation did translate into direct album sales. But nothing ever lasts. In 1997 the shift in style on MTV was beginning. Less music video hours. More reality television and the emergence of boy bands, power pop artists, rap metal and hip hop becoming the trends. By 2000 so many of those iconic MTV bands were out (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis). The Gallagher’s werent the only casualties. I always found it interesting to experience this happen in real time. At least from an Oasis in America perspective. No doubt they have a cult following here and toured well once they ditched the large arenas from the BHN era. |
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Dec 21, 2020 15:19:30 GMT -5
It's very simple - everything after Be Here Now just wasn't good enough. I am certain they always had it in them to maintain relevance into the 21st century. There's some parallels to U2's situation in that I think the opportunity to reinvent themselves would have kept them culturally relevant. Be Here Now is very much their Rattle & Hum. They're not bad albums, there's a handful of great songs in amongst some missteps and also undone by their ego, messiness and self-indulgence. A big step down from the greatness that preceded both albums and with it came the animosity from the public and press. U2 turned it around with Achtung Baby and Oasis should have done the same. In fact, the public goodwill towards Oasis would have been more acceptant than U2 - they're genuinely more loved so it was an open goal. However, U2 had two creative driving forces within the band (Bono & The Edge) and two creative forces outside the band (Brian Eno & Daniel Lanois). Oasis only had Noel and it's hellishly difficult for one individual to realise that ambition and change in sound (even solo acts like Bowie had Tony Visconti as his creative muse). It takes a team to successfully reinvent a band. Oasis didn't have it. If Noel had more ambition and motivation at the time, he could have hired a top level producer to push them in a different direction. If Noel dropped his ego just a tiny bit, he could have hired two guitarists that were more musically ambitious than Gem and Andy. It would have been impossible to write another Morning Glory, just as it was impossible for another Joshua Tree. From there on, there's nowhere to go aside from completely turning the thing on its head completely. The fact is he didn't, and he got bored, hired boring sidemen and the result was watered down boring albums. To this day, what ultimately followed Be Here Now is the major regret in the entire Oasis story. Not Be Here Now, not the split itself but the acceptant uninspired mediocrity that followed from everyone in the band. A missed opportunity to maintain relevance if ever there was one. SOTSOG had the ingredients of something interesting but those ingredients were spoiled by his own making and rushing the ingredients along and when it wasn't meshing. The songs on that album can broken down into: Songs that act on the album's potential (Roll it Over, Gas Panic!, Fuckin' in the Bushes, Go Let it Out, Who Feels Love? sonically), songs that have potential but fall into certain cliches (Sunday Morning Call, Where Did it All Go Wrong?), songs that falter due to sheer laziness (Put Yer Money Where Yer Mouth Is), and the other two songs (I Can See a Liar, Little James). The production often ends up being a muddied mess and feels rushed, but with someone like a producer within the trip-hop realm or electronic realm who could direct him in producing those songs to its finished product (a la David Holmes for WBTM?), the album could've been an interesting electronic-inspired rock album to give an answer to what will define the post-Britpop era. I really think SOTSOG was Oasis’ chance to reinvent themselves but the results were mixed and Noel ultimately bottled it. The band’s larger than life personality meant material showing U2-style levels of introspection and ‘gravitas’ were never really going to wash with the rank and file of the established fanbase or win over large numbers of new fans. So in the end Noel opted to play it safe - and the final 3 albums were the result. But SOTSOG is still a fascinating glimpse of what Oasis Mark II could have been. Even more so than Pulp’s This Is Hardcore, it signalled the end of the Britpop/Cool Britannia party. It contains the most personal material of Noel’s entire career with songs about the tolls of drug abuse (Gas Panic), familial fallouts and inter-band arguments (Let’s All Make Believe), the shallowness of celebrity (Where Did It All Go Wrong?, Sunday Morning Call), the countless hangers-on accrued along the way (Roll It Over), and even the upbeat first single is about trying to escape the now boring rock star lifestyle (Go Let It Out). It’s Oasis’ The Empire Strikes Back - and even Little James is a beautiful tune if you remove the bit about plasticine. |
|
|
|
Post by tiger40 on Dec 21, 2020 17:24:56 GMT -5
Be Here Now changed things as it never lived up to the hipe of when it was first released and all the good reviews it had at first. People quickly turned on it and I think that the damage was done with that album. What followed Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants which I think is a much better album, people just didn't want it and I don't think that Noel's heart was in it at the time. Didn't he say in an interview once that he wasn't feeling it or something? The band could never live up to the first two albums from a critics point of view even though they did seem to like Don't Believe The Truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by AppleScruff on Dec 22, 2020 16:26:48 GMT -5
No disrespect to anyone but I have to laugh when “Diana died..” is mentioned when this question is asked. Revisionist nonsense. As a teenager at the time, I couldn’t give a f*ck about Diana (still couldn’t now as a near 40 year old) and neither did anyone in their youth at the time. It had nothing to do with the cultural shift in music.
As others have pointed out, Oasis had gotten so massive that there was only one direction to go post BHN. It was total saturation to the point of mismanagement.
I do however, recall feeling a bit taken aback by how quickly it was fashionable in the media and just generally to mock Oasis come 2000. To retain any kind of credibility they needed a reinvention but as we know, it was probably too far outside their comfort zone or capacity. A longer break would have done them some good but Liam couldn’t entertain that even if Noel wanted it.
Anyway there are very few bands who’s catalogue has no missteps or 5+ albums of consistent top quality (certainly not Coldplay by the way). Oasis are often held to a higher standard than others, mainly because the first 2 albums were so incredible. It was great while it lasted!
|
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Dec 22, 2020 17:27:07 GMT -5
Oasis' arrogance and general not give a fuck attitude rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way pre 97. They got away with it because they were so good. They couldnt keep that momentum up and it was inevitable there would be a large queue of people waiting to put the boot in once the chinks started showing.
|
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Dec 22, 2020 18:28:24 GMT -5
No disrespect to anyone but I have to laugh when “Diana died..” is mentioned when this question is asked. Revisionist nonsense. As a teenager at the time, I couldn’t give a f*ck about Diana (still couldn’t now as a near 40 year old) and neither did anyone in their youth at the time. It had nothing to do with the cultural shift in music. As others have pointed out, Oasis had gotten so massive that there was only one direction to go post BHN. It was total saturation to the point of mismanagement. I do however, recall feeling a bit taken aback by how quickly it was fashionable in the media and just generally to mock Oasis come 2000. To retain any kind of credibility they needed a reinvention but as we know, it was probably too far outside their comfort zone or capacity. A longer break would have done them some good but Liam couldn’t entertain that even if Noel wanted it. Anyway there are very few bands who’s catalogue has no missteps or 5+ albums of consistent top quality (certainly not Coldplay by the way). Oasis are often held to a higher standard than others, mainly because the first 2 albums were so incredible. It was great while it lasted! No, while it’s sad when someone’s daughter and a mum of two young boys dies in such awful circumstances, Diana’s death didn’t have any special significance for me. However, the playlists of all the UK radio stations literally changed overnight and that was part of a general feeling that Oasis were out of step with the prevailing climate. There was definitely a sense that the party was over and the Britpop era (even if Oasis never considered themselves a ‘Britpop’ band) was on its way out. Also, you don’t get as big as Oasis got without an older, more typically MOR buying into it. As Noel said in an interview once (BBC’s Seven Ages of Rock, I think) Oasis became massive because Wonderwall got ‘The Squares’ on board. |
|
|
|
Post by garylineker on Dec 22, 2020 20:05:45 GMT -5
It's a cultural thing, for better and for worse. Oasis were so asphixiatingly massive in part because they were the ultimate emblem of one of Britain's most distinctive cultural moments: Cool Britannia/Brit-Pop. They fit the mood of the nation so perfectly in that 94-96 era, and with such a fast run of such massive songs, that they would forever be tied to it in most people's conception of the band. They weren't just part of that culture. They were the Gods of it. Therefore, the bloated and tasteless death of Cool Britannia was the bloated and tasteless death of Oasis' coolness. Post Diana, post Be Here Now, they weren't the young new jet engine flying British brilliance across the airwaves, they were the gauche drunks who reminded people of a time of lads mags, football, and happiness that felt embarrassing in the darker mood of the late 90's/early 00's. The most commonly used analogy is that they quickly became the loud drunks at a funeral, and that's probably about right. Coldplay, for instance, were never the figureheads of a culture. They were initially a part of the sea of Radiohead-lite indie bands that came out in 99/00, but they quickly struck out of the pack with A Rush of Blood to the Head and never looked back. Now most of their fans have probably never heard of either Travis or The Bends. That's allowed them to stay relevant across more than cultural shift, because they never defined any one of them - they just keep writing good pop-rock albums and people keep liking them, Which is the other reason, of course. If Oasis had struck back with an amazing comeback album in the early 2000's, it's just about possible that they could have shaken off the memory of the nineties and forged a new identity. But they didn't. When Coldplay realised they had lost their edge with X&Y, they came with Viva la Vida and had the biggest song of the year with an orchestral sound and lyrics about the French Revolution. When Oasis lost their edge, they came back with Sunday Morning Call and Heathen Chemistry. The idea of them being has-beens was probably hard to get away from following such a dramatic downturn in music quality. Whatever you think of them, both Chris Martin and Damon Albarn have shown a much stronger ability than Noel to write hit songs in a variety of genres, allowing them to pen hits even when their initial style had gone out of fashion. But circles keep turning, I suppose. The good news is that Oasis are cooler and more relevant now than they have been for years. Liam's solo career has gone down brilliantly, the nineties are now looked back on with fondness and nostalgia rather than embarrassment, and the youth culture here - at least in the north - still loves guitar music and would consider Oasis one of the best. You can't keep good tunes down, and that run from Supersonic to All Around the World will always be one of the most brilliant run of tunes in British history. Never goin' down. Agree with all this but 2005 era was when Oasis became cool again. That period from 99-03 sort of time was exactly likw you described for them. But as soon as The Libertines, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian came along and Oasis were seen as the kind of band that inspired all that, alongside a good album in DBTT their image was reborn. Liam and Noel both looked great which helped too. 2000 they kind of looked tired and down. Noel was going through a lot of shit and there was just a massive 90s hangover. It's astonishing how Liam can be what he si to a younger generation now, when he'd probably have been cast off as a has been in 1999 by youngsters. 4 years after. Now 25 years on hes going this. |
|
|
|
Post by garylineker on Dec 22, 2020 20:08:35 GMT -5
I don't know what some on here class as "relevance" but i don't know anyone who likes U2. Oasis on the other hand have now appealed to 3 different generations of youngsters, and they haven't had to force themselves onto anyone's apple library to do that.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5