Oasis: Criticized in America, but Loved

Oasis: Criticized In America, But Loved

Anyone familiar with music magazines will notice a common method used by most music critics: comparing artists to one or more of their peers. In most cases this method is critical to the review, especially if the readers have never heard the artist being reviewed. It gives them a point of reference, and if they like the artists being compared, they might buy the album. Such comparisons can work for or against an artist, but for one band in particular it has been incorporated into almost everything ever written about them.

Oasis were in the hands of the media right from the beginning. In a review of their first album, Definitely Maybe, Stuart Maconie referred to them as “manna from heaven in a slow newspaper week.” He gave almost as much attention to the rivalry between the two brothers and core members of the band, Noel and Liam Gallagher, as he did to the music itself. He pointed out that the music was nothing new and cited the Sex Pistols, T. Rex, the Stooges, and the Beatles as influences (Maconie). This last influence proved to be the most significant, as critic after critic used the Beatles as a focus point in describing Oasis. There were several reasons for the fixations on the Beatles and the Gallagher brothers’ social behavior when talking about Oasis.

Oasis never shied from the reality that they worshipped the Beatles, and that it showed in their music. In fact, the Beatles sometimes seemed to be their favorite topic of conversation in interviews. Noel claimed he wanted to introduce them to a new generation. They covered Beatles songs, including “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away,” and “I Am The Walrus,” the latter becoming a staple at their live shows. They also spoke of them in their lyrics. In “D’You Know What I Mean,” a song from their third album “Be Here Now”, they namedrop two Beatles songs in one line, “Fool On The Hill” and “I Feel Fine” (Oasis). Liam even claimed to be the reincarnated soul of John Lennon, though his brother often pointed out its chronological impossibility.

Though some of these facts seem important when music was concerned, they took a back seat in the tabloids to stories of alcohol and drug use, egotism, bad-mannered interviews, general rudeness, and various scuffs with the law, which include investigations of assault on a female member of the British Airways staff by Liam earlier this year (“In Brief” 14). Previous charges had been brought against him involving violence toward overzealous members of the press. All members of the band were infamous for their offensive language and penchants for endless partying. Noel verbally attacked anyone considered by him to be an enemy, including members of the media, the royal family, and other bands. Concerning the band’s live shows, Steven Mirkin stated, “The group's concerts used to be like NHL hockey. People claimed they went because they admired the grace and precision of the playing, but were really hoping a fight would break out (26).” Perhaps the media took offence at a band that seemed so unaffected by their power to give them any kind of press they wanted, which in this case was mostly seen as negative. This could have been their reason for playing up what they thought were Oasis’ musical flaws, causing the formation of two clearly apposing sides on the issue of Oasis.

A review that labeled the band as “daft” and “striking” in the same sentence made this point clear (Maconie). It appeared that you could love Oasis or you could hate them, and the people who hated them had plenty of arguments. They called them unoriginal and imitative, and claimed that they were pilfering and unashamedly plagiarizing the catalogs of bands like the Beatles. An article in Newsweek entitled “Derivative, and Darn Proud of It” describes an Oasis song that “mangles a pop clichÐ"©Ð²Ð‚Ñœ and “butchers the sentiment.” Yet again, the article does not fail to mention the antics of the Gallagher brothers. “In the past three years, Liam and big brother Noel have brawled, loudmouthed and love-hated their way to international stardom (Schoemer 12).” Here, credit for their success is given to their non-musical activities. Another article written for Melody Maker suggests that Oasis have become a joke, and mentions domestic difficulties, declining record sales, and yet more sibling rivalry (Baker 20-21).

Because Oasis was not creating something that had never been heard before, some fellow musicians thought they were not working hard enough for the attention they were getting. They played rock n roll, and that was just too easy. There were complaints that the words rhymed, the music wasn’t difficult enough, and the band was looking for stardom. They were not playing by the rules. Songwriters suffering from some inner turmoil were the only ones that wrote good songs, and they shunned the spotlight. Big chords and perfect melodies were frowned upon. Lyrics about girls and rock music were not acceptable anymore.

Every statement made by those who were against Oasis was indeed valid. Supporters of the band agreed with every single point of criticism, except to them, they were points of sanction.

Fans of Oasis ate up any news having to do with Liam and Noel. They thought it was exciting and loved the image of the band as drinking, swearing, cavorting rock stars. Maybe they did not think the band’s antics had anything to do with the music. Or, as Ken Capobianco