"I wll agree that the parts to noels lyrics and greater than the sum. But then again, I think Beck lapses into 'knowing' wackiness and very oblique lyrics for the sake of it. This isn't to say that I don't love Beck, but thats another matter entirely ( I was listening to Mutations today. Wicked album). It all boils down to the song as a whole package anyway. If its something that hits you, is it worth poring over the lyrics? Maybe it is for dylan/jimmy webb where the songs foundations are the lyrics, but with Oasis song its based on something else entirely; a feeling of euphoria and release. Not many people can debate the collosal passion and brilliance of say, DLBIA, but even with hindsight, who turns around and says "what he #### does 'slip inside the eye of your mind' actually ####ing mean?".
'I Wanna Be Adored' by The Stone Roses is a magical rock song, but 85% of the lyrics are the title. Its a vibe 'thang' and I believe it is the same with Oasis too."
What can I say? I disagree because of the statements made by Noel towards his own lyrics and from what other musicians have said (the "vibe 'thang'" is hard enough for me to digest, especially when trying to compare Noel to the hugely talented Ian Brown) I personally feel like some of the information found in interviews is intentionally done to cover-his-tracks because of what other musicians have openly stated against his lyrics. Sticky reviews, a handful of instances where close musicians have defended his lyrics (while it seems many others find his lyrics to be "an abortion")...

"Well, GLIO only had 2 bsides due to newly introduced (and absolutely ####ing stupid IMO) chart laws where a single could only register a chart placing if there was a maximum of 3 songs overall and the single didn't overrun 20mins. And should a band be eclectic for eclecticisms sake? With Oasis, their best songs have come naturally, and surely Oasis trying something that wasn't them would sound forced and therefore most likely be crap? Saying this, I'm not saying that Oasis should not go out on a limb artistically but Noel should write what he is feeling to ensure a flow. I would be disappointed if he wrote an album full of rock ballads but if they were classics, who gives a shit. Noels songwriting hasnt been upto his '93-'95 standard and thats why his lack of variation has got picked on. I dont think its cos he has run out of ideas, his muse or his drive may have gone. If BHN was still full of 7 min songs and the songs were actually all upto DYKWIM or Dont Go Aways standards then it woulda been a classic 'epic' album. If SOTSOG had still been downbeat but all upto Gas Panic/LAMB/FITB standard then it would have doubtless been regarded as a 'introspective, subtle classic'. Noel hasnt finished exploring his niche in rock yet and when/if he does then he'll probably break up Oasis and work on stuff on his own which may be more leftfield or more acousticy. I'll reiterate, I don't think variation is the problem, just a lack of inspiration and therefore lower quality songwriting. Also can you blame him for wanting new songwriting partners? The man has shouldered writing under immense pressure for 7 years virtually on his own. It'll be a lease of life for him and could hopefully kickstart Oasis - Chapter 2. I agree with the divorce statment BTW"

GLIO is just one of many examples: His early singles have plenty of live recordings that seem to be filling a whole versus actually having original tracks on hand. It seems like, part of the time, Noel doesn't have a whole lot of extra material for b-sides and such. Therefore, a share of his singles feel 'empty' to me. (I'm not going to bother yanking out my singles to give examples.)

Again, I think Noel should go out on a limb for the reasons I've already stated. It isn't so much what Oasis can do for you (my point about fans "selfishness"), but what Oasis can do for Oasis to make themselves more diverse. Sitting on a base diet of Beatlesque melodies has made creating new ideas in his repertoire more difficult to achieve. SOTSOG is obviously only fulfilling half of that promise, but atleast the 'song duration' issue was answered as none of the tracks feel bogged down by being overlong.

I'm sure Noel hasn't finished his niche. It's his overall confidence I question. I think he doesn't feel he can sustain new territory for any extended length on his own. I think the last two LP's suggest as much. The question I have for him is; Is he willing to give up songwriting royalties for the sake of letting other members have a say? That isn't something you or I can answer till the new LP comes out, or Noel cares to openly share that info with the press. He has made claims of such, but until the albums is complete, time will tell.

"Whenever I listen to music, I try and listen to it as objectively as possible. Even with my 'transition SOTSOG' comment above, I said that so it may be understood why the lp sounded half-hearted and downbeat. It doesn't change my opinion on the quality of the music within.Andabout lowering standards, thats rubbish. I don't think Macca had more than a handful of good songs post-beatles, Lennon did some schmaltzy rubbish, Jagger made an arse of himself etc etc. But the reason that these acts pioneered in the first place is that when they came about, they offered something new, an alternate take. And because they believed in what they did, they have continued to do it in that style. And yes I'm aware that the early deaths were due to health choices but that is academic. One of the greatest american talents in the last half century, Kurt Cobain painted his apartment with his brains in 94. D you really think that he would be into improvised free jazz or that Hendrix would be into techno if they were alive now? they wuld probably be plowing their own furrow or more likely, they would have quit and ducked out of high profile. The only act that I can imagine who would be trying new stuff still would be Lennon.
These people were innovative when they arived on the scene and continue for a few years. The Beatles were really the only major act to innovate for more than 5 years (from '65's Rubber Soul to the end of '69 and Abbey Road)"

No, of course I don't think many of these songwriters would have been absorbed in styles that the people wouldn't find recongnizable. But isn't that the point Baz? WHY aren't they challenging themselves in different ways? 30 years of Mac's piano pop, the Stones 'nothing new' LP's followed by a massive tour... obviously what sells tends to overshadow a musicians art. It's also an "academic" decision on any musicheads part to appreciate them during their innovative streak, but if their not going to challenge our intellect with anything new, then we need to all look elsewhere for inspiration. Certainly sitting here typing and criticizing is easier than 'what the hell am I going to create next?,' but I also know that the route Macca and the Stones have taken in the last 30 years or so is not something I'd be proud of. They are sitting on their laurels, and if that means openly throwing my frustrations out about Oasis' lack of "new" product, so be it. If it makes someone like Ncb think about his own talents, and how NOT to get in a creative rut by going to the well one too many times, than I certainly hope all my derogatory comments have paid off in a small way. I couldn't imagine Yorke just taking the piss from album to album, and I expect Noel to do something more than take the piss on his lyrics or his infamous line about how he'll "get it right on the next song." Ah, duh, those aren't qualities I'm proud of. Oasis lost a ton of fans between BHN and SOTSOG because people tired of hearing the same lines. Until Oasis can prove to move on a higher plain, I'm just a casual fan wondering "only if?" Whether or not the next LP is an improvement, my life moves on.

"Could they be as transcendental and zeitgeist-surfing as Oasis? I don't think an answer is needed."

I do. Oasis transcendental? I'd have to partially disagree with Q's quote there. If they are "transcendental," than it is only in the most unintentional of ways. I don't feel Oasis fall under any supernatural qualities. Leave that to the "OK Computer's" and Aphex Twin's of the world.

"And Wonderwall was slagged in Q months before it was released as a single or even gt airplay, so your statement doesn't really scan."

I haven't the slightest idea what your saying there? Wo cares about Q?

You've made some incredibly valid points, and have made me think in retrospect about my own views on the once-lofty heights of the boys. Oasis brought a nation together early on... Then lost that same nation to Radiohead ("OK" put a virus on "BHN," or so the story goes), and hopefully now their coming back to claim that crown.


BAZ:
"What can I say? I disagree because of the statements made by Noel towards his own lyrics and from what other musicians have said"
But I thought that you said that you went with your own heart and not anyone else?

"GLIO is just one of many examples: His early singles have plenty of live recordings that seem to be filling a whole versus actually having original tracks on hand. It seems like, part of the time, Noel doesn't have a whole lot of extra material for b-sides and such. Therefore, a share of his singles feel 'empty' to me. (I'm not going to bother yanking out my singles to give examples.)"

Well, I am astounded. You are the first person that I have met that has criticised Oasis B-sides and the lack of extra material. How many bands can you name that have b-sides as good as anything off the Masterplan (14 songs) and omissions of the quality of Take Me Away, Round Are Way, LAMB, Carry Us All, Cloudburst, Step Out etc etc? I can't understand that statement really.


"Again, I think Noel should go out on a limb for the reasons I've already stated. It isn't so much what Oasis can do for you (my point about fans "selfishness"), but what Oasis can do for Oasis to make themselves more diverse. Sitting on a base diet of Beatlesque melodies has made creating new ideas in his repertoire more difficult to achieve. SOTSOG is obviously only fulfilling half of that promise, but atleast the 'song duration' issue was answered as none of the tracks feel bogged down by being overlong."

Well, I think Gas Panic could of been knocked down to 4 mins but apart from that, yes I agree.


"I do. Oasis transcendental? I'd have to partially disagree with Q's quote there. If they are "transcendental," than it is only in the most unintentional of ways. I don't feel Oasis fall under any supernatural qualities. Leave that to the "OK Computer's" and Aphex Twin's of the world."

But isnt this unintentional outreach proving that they are more natural at their craft? How many peoples lives has the Aphex Twin changed? How many people want to get up and change the way they live/work/go about things after listening to Selected Ambient Works? Great music but is this mystic, touching feel there? I can agree about OK Computer as it really does have a human aspect to it, lending it its mystical quality. But Oasis are bare-faced take-it-or-leave-it and have such a human feel to there best work. Try standing in Wembley Stadium with 75 000 people singing every single word of DLBIA. Every hair stands on end, your body shivers as if a pneumatic drill has been tapped into your spine. Try saying that the music doesnt have a supernatural quality and is not transcendental then.

"And Wonderwall was slagged in Q months before it was released as a single or even gt airplay, so your statement doesn't really scan."

"I haven't the slightest idea what your saying there? Wo cares about Q?"

Well, it seems that you do. I quote "I prefer to not listen to Q or any others, and go with what my heart tells me. Wonderwall is a Stairway to Heaven: People find it fashionable to slag songs that get radio overplay. ". Surely you were referring to Q's slagging of Wonderwall here. If you were not, you can understand how I got confused.

"You've made some incredibly valid points, and have made me think in retrospect about my own views on the once-lofty heights of the boys. Oasis brought a nation together early on... Then lost that same nation to Radiohead ("OK" put a virus on "BHN," or so the story goes), and hopefully now their coming back to claim that crown."

Yes Radiohead won the 'kudos-crown' from Oasis in 97 with OK Comp being hugely better than BHN. But did they steal Oasis's place in the nations hearts? Speaking on a purely commercial level, no they didn't. BHN sold more in its first 10 days than OK Comp has ever sold in Britain. Also WTSMG sold 4.5 million copies in the UK (the largest figures in the uk ever, only Sgt Pepper dips over 4million in the uk). The truth is that since Oasis abdicated, no one has taken their vacant throne. (shit, I hate speaking in metaphors). Blame that on the rise and rise of manufactured teen pop since 98 to the present day. Travis are supposedly the peoples band, but does anyone actually give a #### about them apart from the music? Maybe thats a good thing, but a peoples band or aa nations band is someone that most everyone can relate to. The working class (whatever the #### that means nowadays) relate to 'one of them' being succesful cos "if those cunts can do it, then so can i", the middle classes relate to their credibility and 'street' mannerisms and can also whistle their tunes. They are/were truly accessible to all. Could Radiohead do that? Who can relate to the tortured thoughts of Thom apart from 16 yr old students in their bedrooms? My two (and a bit) cents anyways

L&N:
"But I thought that you said that you went with your own heart and not anyone else?"
Yeah, I'm afraid sarcasm is starting to step into your argument. But to answer your question, I'm still talking from my heart. *giggle giggle*

"Well, I am astounded. You are the first person that I have met that has criticised Oasis B-sides and the lack of extra material. How many bands can you name that have b-sides as good as anything off the Masterplan (14 songs) and omissions of the quality of Take Me Away, Round Are Way, LAMB, Carry Us All, Cloudburst, Step Out etc etc? I can't understand that statement really."

I'm not referring to The Masterplan, the album. I was trying to make a case in point for each of his singles and how a fair share of them contain either covers of other bands previous songs or Oasis' live A-side tracks. This feels, to me, like an easy outlet for the chief because he is having difficulty writing a large amount of songs at a given time. I just wish some of those 'fillers' could've been more original b-sides. These feelings aren't anything new for me as I've noticed this upon my first listens.

As for The Masterplan goes, I don't see it being a consistent "classic" like the brothers have hyped them in the past (comparing them to the Beatles b's). A mixture of classic (Masterplan, Headshrinker, Talk Tonight), descent (Acquiesce, Underneatn the Sky), and poor (Going Nowhere, Stay Young) IMO.

As for the singles in general, I think the bands early ones are consistently solid, but 'some' (key word) of the new tracks tend to be hit-and-miss (more on the "miss" side during '97) and barely a resemblance of their early infectious works.

"But isnt this unintentional outreach proving that they are more natural at their craft? How many peoples lives has the Aphex Twin changed? How many people want to get up and change the way they live/work/go about things after listening to Selected Ambient Works? Great music but is this mystic, touching feel there? I can agree about OK Computer as it really does have a human aspect to it, lending it its mystical quality. But Oasis are bare-faced take-it-or-leave-it and have such a human feel to there best work. Try standing in Wembley Stadium with 75 000 people singing every single word of DLBIA. Every hair stands on end, your body shivers as if a pneumatic drill has been tapped into your spine. Try saying that the music doesnt have a supernatural quality and is not transcendental then."

Great points. I would agree that Oasis' material has a natural and concrete feel to it, but I don't see them having that otherworldly quality when compared to the recordings of the former musicians mentioned. I would actually agree Oasis' live shows (specifically Wembley's masses) have a transcendental quality to them, but much of the music (recordings) doesn't supersede the likes of Aphex Twin or earlier Head for me. (Gallagher's early hits somewhat reflect your beliefs on "transcendental," but certainly not much of the later missteps.) From here on out, Oasis' bread-and-butter is in them live performances. Nice touch Baz.

"Well, it seems that you do. I quote "I prefer to not listen to Q or any others, and go with what my heart tells me. Wonderwall is a Stairway to Heaven: People find it fashionable to slag songs that get radio overplay. ". Surely you were referring to Q's slagging of Wonderwall here. If you were not, you can understand how I got confused."

No. Until you mentioned Q's criticism of Wonderwall, I had no clue they even mentioned that. My views reflect that of the Oasis boards and how people in general can't stand listening to them two songs because of overkill. I'm sure most people would agree overplayed songs shouldn't equate to belittling the quality of the actual tune.

"Yes Radiohead won the 'kudos-crown' from Oasis in 97 with OK Comp being hugely better than BHN. But did they steal Oasis's place in the nations hearts? Speaking on a purely commercial level, no they didn't. BHN sold more in its first 10 days than OK Comp has ever sold in Britain. Also WTSMG sold 4.5 million copies in the UK (the largest figures in the uk ever, only Sgt Pepper dips over 4million in the uk). The truth is that since Oasis abdicated, no one has taken their vacant throne. (shit, I hate speaking in metaphors). Blame that on the rise and rise of manufactured teen pop since 98 to the present day. Travis are supposedly the peoples band, but does anyone actually give a #### about them apart from the music? Maybe thats a good thing, but a peoples band or aa nations band is someone that most everyone can relate to. The working class (whatever the #### that means nowadays) relate to 'one of them' being succesful cos "if those cunts can do it, then so can i", the middle classes relate to their credibility and 'street' mannerisms and can also whistle their tunes. They are/were truly accessible to all. Could Radiohead do that? Who can relate to the tortured thoughts of Thom apart from 16 yr old students in their bedrooms? My two (and a bit) cents anyways

Yeah, I'm sure you're aware I wasn't talking at all about sales figures. Oasis may be the "peoples" band, but I'd rather hang out with the disturbed innovators at the moment. (And yes, I can relate to Yorke on 'a' level, even if that level is only on a smaller scale.) I just wish Oasis would spend a little less time trying to create music for "the people," and instead concentrate on creating music for themselves.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

gallimel:

Okay.. so here I am trying to share with you what your powerful series of opinions on Oasis has suggested to me.
First of all, I wanna thank you two for having made me feel proud to be an Oasis fan: if people around would read what you two wrote, I suppose they would stop to say Oasis fans are brainless people (starting from the pont the band in itself has no value).
Now, let's start :)
It seems to me that what sees you disagree is, at the end of things, the value you give to the word "artistic".
To L&N art is first being able to be eclectic, IE fulfilled with the will of explore new keys always, and in this research (which for him seems to be a thing belongin just to the artist for himself) the artist should find his major inspiration.
For L&N, Oasis seems to lack this (I'll say later that yes: Oasis are not at all eclectic: and for me they simply CAN'T be that, for a series of reasosn I'll say later as well)
To Baz, art is mainly (in music that is what I get from his words: you correct me Baz if I am wrong :)) to be truthful to themselves and develop the skills one has got.
I have to say I am more on the Baz's side as art in itself should mean, but for my personal taste of art and pleasure for it, I agree with L&N that eclectism is something I value the most among artistic way to be.
All this said, I have to state what for me is art, so that you can understand my subsequent sayings : art is the capability to communicate a personal vision about something and being able at the same time to make others get that vision you wanted to communicate as much as possible (and believe: it's all but easy to obtain).
Point number one: music is a polisemic form of art: namely the most difficult to encapsulate cos it speaks to the conscience of everyone. There's a language in it, but rarely people can use rightly all the keys to understand it. At the same time though, everyone easily FEELS throught muisc, and so muisc has this fascination so difficult to get rid out of.
Music is less direct than painting, and sculpture, and literature, but nowadays muisc is the most common art form we consume.
Pop music anyway, is the most direct of all type of music, and for this, we can come to analyze it better, and this explaines also why muisc forums are 1800 times most numberous than any other art form Forums.
(Are we agreeing anyway that Oasis are in the pop/rock field? Right: then for instance we can't compare them with Aphex Twin for what they have done so far, and not even with the latest Radiohead. The aims and the artistic languages are too different for being evaluated together.)
You said that Noel thinks his lyrics have nothing real to say, and that they are generally taken just for their "sound".
NOT AT ALL: Noel can say what he want, but all is simply untrue. He doesn't want to analyze himself, but being his music, his art made of music AND words, those lyrics have to mean something.
He put them by case on a paper? Are they without connection?
Again, not only I don't think so, but give me ALL lyrics of Oasis, and I will give to you an explanation about them: each sentence of them.
I am a master in analyzing conceptual poems, now let me say that to nalyze Oasis lyrics is like doing pure sums while normally you do logharitmics and third degree Equation)
And I'll prove Noel lies about that.Why? Cos he fears others being able to read in his mind (very understandeable if you remember his story.. and you got how much senitive he is); cos especially at first he wrote about the greatest pain and frustration in his life and humanly, and for the peculiar education and culture he was given, that would have been unforgivable "puffy" from him, to demonstrate how much internally the pain was getting his head in.
As I said above, art is about communication.
Lyrics in songs,all of them, they come from some places in the artist mind. A grey place?
Sometimes: but in nOel's case, they are more than clear if you (as I do) know their lifes (the book about them.. read them, and they wil explain a lot, and what they don't, with a certain effort you can come to partially and hugely explain).
I remember Noel in 95 said in an interview he intentionally said no to someone explaining to him Champagne Supernova lyrics: then he said he was thinkin "Fuck!!! that's true!" but he said back to the guy it was not.
This underlines what I said above.
And for this peculiar style in lyrics (which is not always good, but mainly it is, and it's personal) well, Oasis lyrics have something powerful in them.
We should more say that 98% of their supposed fans don't care at all about lyrics: but that's laziness of the fans and (let me say that) a little consideration about the band and Noel's brain at first.
It's like they have a big book under their eyes, but they read just the title and whatch the cover colors.
With this, I can anyway agree there have been lyrics really lazy by Noel: but for instance, it's not the repetition in itself (that he uses too much.. okay that's true)something not valuable artistically.
Examples: you quoted I wanna be adored by the Stone Roses Baz, and told it's hardly a good lyric for the repetition.
I don't agree.
As I said, the way to express a concept felt artistically can be many: the use of language is really intimistic, especially for a lyricist: you imagine the meaning of the song.. what it's that Brown wants to say? he wants to be a star, beyond all he thinks.. and that thought, this need.. is HIM.. it's so into him, and like it's said commonly.. he can't get it out of his head. How could he express this fix idea better, than hypnothically repeat it? It's the most powerful way to express this total need: and where the art of lyrics match perfectly the music, create a great communication and therefore a great pop art form of a song, is cos the music is hypnotic the same way.
Oasis lyrics have been short but really explicative and artistically valuable (Rockin chair, Columbia) or short and absolutely crap (PYMWYMI). The difference was in the first two cases the lyrics were felt, and in the third NOT.
Not strangely, the first two speaks about a reality I can perfectly inscribe in their history time and in the "environment" (Columbia: the first total takin of drugs, the mystic way to describe that surprise, that dependency, that scaring sinister magic trip, and in case of Rockin chair, Noel's fear about loneliness after a row, that many thinks being with Liam, but I tend more to think with his mum or even Louise Jones. Noel has always written his best songs thinkin about the woman in his life, and he has always being hugely dependent of a female love. Psychologically, it's easily explainable with the fact the only good figure of family was his mum in the childood) while the Sotsog song is just a filler for a record. Words really cut and pasted there.

Now let's get into the most interesting side of your discussion.
It's so hard to try to depurate from commercial side and commitments Oasis music, for make they be just ARTIST in the purest way. Well, IMHO, we can't forget what Oasis for first asked to their life: they wanted to be popstars, not artists.
Let go the fact they have been and are ALSO artist: the point is they clearly never cared about the art in itself just. They wanted to be famous, make money, being successful for the greatness of that state.
They never got that troubled approach to showbiz others egos have got (Beck, Thom Yorke): they have always searched firstly for a public, and once got it, they wanted at least to mantain that public and maybe gain other, but they would never dismiss the value of the public by create a pop rock series of pearls (Radiohead's first three albums) and then, at the peak of popularity, throw all up for their ego being simply not caring about the success which means adoration.

Now on this L&N would react different than Baz maybe (I don't know.. you tell me this eventually): namely that for their way to change anyway, Beck and Thom are more artists than Oasis.
NO, if you keep in mind my definition about art.
Thom is someone full of questions in himself, Beck as well: not cos he's smarter, but for who knows what balance in himself. He's artistic cos he's able to communicate this mutability which can make identify people similar to him (or at least interested at this side of life), but it's not the feeling in itself which is artistic. If you get what I mean.
It's the rendition of it Thom give, or Beck, or Bjork (Pj.. and millions others).
Oasis search out for other things: never had stability in their lifes, having got simple tastes, they have been truthful to THIS essence of them and for this they are as artistic as Radiohead or Beck. THIS, when they were truthful to this thing at least.
Cos what I think, is that they cease this after WTSMG.
THIS made them weak and less valuable artistically.
Before explaining why I think BHN started the backlash, I have to say this: The eclectism is nice, but if all would be eclectic, there would be no eclectism.
One can recognize beauty cos in his head he's got the idea of no beauty as well; and so L&N, you can appreciate the eclectism cos you compare it with no eclectism.if there wouldn't be stability, the "classic" approach to things constantly repeated, you wouldn't be that facsinated by the contrast of eclectism to that situation you see stale and firm.
You wouldn't love and rate Beck that high, for telling one case just, if it wouldn't be many Beatlesque tunes around :)
All is useful to the variety: it's always a matter of truthfullness: cos as you said(the both) it's not a senseless noise to be forcedly "more" creative. It is, I add, only if this noise underlines a communication of distortion which is belonging to the heart of its creator.
Not for its fashionable, not for it's Un-fashionable. But if it's expressing something FELT by the artist or not.
How can we know if it's true or not?
Again, getting deeper about the artist.
That's why Picasso was and always will be a genious, and tons of imitators of him are not.
Cos he was feeling, and others were just blindly trying to be cool.
And knowing the processes of life and artistic developement of those persons, we can come toi some judgement about this "art possession" they have or not.
That's why I hugely believe Oasis will never act for themselves and not for the fans, as L&N hopes, that's why I don't think they can step out from the beatles road.
Not cos they are stupid, but cos they are having Beatles in their SOULS.
They have grown up with them: the feelings we get when we listen to our music... and feel all the magic of it.,. and we say "it's part of us".... well that's the same with Oasis.
Should they change for selling again?
They tried: it didn't work cos they were NOT feeling it.
AC/DC hard rock? Progressive tunes long as hell? Pseudo electronic bits?
This is not in their soul...It hasn't work and it won't work until they won't find (if it's possible) some in this kind of music capable to stimulate their souls.
I can't say if it will happen or not. What I can say is that their best tunes both in BHN and SOTSOG period, even in the bits of different productions, well.. they were the most melodic ones.
Or those with anyway the most meaningful lyrics (DYKWIM, DGA, GP) Why? cos they were at that point trying to encapsulate a feeling, THEIR feeling in it. Not for being cool. But for an (artistical) need of expression.
But again, if for following this need they anyway have you think they will try to not have masses following them, then you dream. They wanted to be rockstar in their lives, they had beatles and stones as myths, they banned Lou Reed "art fuck noise" and bands like Radiohead "pretentious" at first: cos for them their own music is a funny pleasure for tons of people, not a mind trick.
And in their minds, (Liam's especially) electronic music is a sort of mental blur with no heart, and it's naive to hope he will change what he feels. Cos Oasis is not about what I want or what L&N wants or what Baz wants (in this they cannot do all for the fans): Oasis are Liam and Noel and the rest's will and aims and hopes and fears.
And preferences.
And as I don't like everything, they can't like everything: they have preferences which are not questionable: we can just decide if we agree with them or not for OUR own ones.
But where I think it's a mistake question without analyze, is thinkin that their preferences are FORCEDLY trunching the art in them.
When they will be back again making their tunes following their hearts JUST (as in the beginning) then they will be deeply artistic even keeping on with Beatles Melody. And this independently from selling.
Cos (this is another part in your great debate) what sells belongs to current (and really volatile) trend: Oasis cannot be again trendy, cos they were it at the Britpop era: when their INDIE music become mainsteram THANX and DUE to them.
But all trends must pass. They passed.
This is a reality , but again this has nothing to do with them being artistic or not.
Trend says that kids right now don't want to step into Britpop cos that belongs to their elder bro and sis.. they want something theirs for distinguish themselves and their generation.
They could make Oasis "new supposed trippy eclectic version" trendy again?
Sure, why not: but Oasis would like to make music with NO their souls in?
And moreover, do you honestly think they could be able to do that, they, whose main quality and skill was to be spontaneous and true, but also simple and crystal clear about their limitated education and their limitated horizons when they were speaking about what they like or dislike?
We can even guess that they were at the peak of heir skill for a little period cos in that period they were inspired by their greatest and deeper motions internally: think of their past, and imagine two poor and trashed kids, with the sensitivity of a stolen child in, and all that pain (Noel) and the rage of his little brother, angry against the world cos he was left alone so without even another human being to Blame (Liam: reemember in the Hewitt's book when Peggy says she was forced to left him alone at home at 6 watching tv?). This combination created the perfect mix of feelings to DM and WTSMG... and after?
What after all their dreams were made true?
We can easily guess they got satisfied?
well... why not.. who couldn't have been so...
But then, the machine and the love for success made them exceed everything (but without anymore a true inspiration of feelings at the basis),and they created less valuable works, cos less important became the things they were trying to communicate: less important for themselves for first.
What we can do about this?
NOTHING.
Oasis have always searched an approdal in their lives: they wanted a place to stay in (how many times Noel has written this??) and once they found it, they wouldn't take the risk to leave it again for the unknown.
That's hom Yorke, not NOel Gallagher.
Is this less artistic?
NO. Cos Thom is not Noel, and viceversa.
I am a fan of Oasis cos I appreciate what they did to show to me humanity behind them: that's why I never considered them rude in a bad way, that's why I love how they are, while I am able to appreciate Thom and others as well.
I won't blame Noel for he singin about stability of his life. I blamed him when he was not true to himself, and making music basing on this "not truth" he has someway even "betrayed" me as fan :) or as listener to his "communication" with me.
That day, those days, he was not artistic nor valuable cos he was not painting his soul over and with his songs.
But I am hoping he will come back, and Oasis entirely to the past approach.
I hope he feels satisfied enough and mature to let others have the pleasure of the expression as well in the band (in this I hope as you L&N).
I hope that new album anyway won't be the last, since being a fan, and caring about what they say to me (like a diary of their lives, which I feel so human) I fear the day of their last album a sort of unknown friend would say me bye.
And that would make a bit of me die.
In this, I am selfish like all fans:) I know ;)
No one is perfect after all :P :P :P

Whoooa... Ended ;) my ramblings came to their conclusion :)

Back to gallimel's Web Door

Wisdom Freaks Boards (free use)