To promote their forthcoming seventh studio album, the Mancunian rock'n'rollers have confirmed that they will be heading out on a UK tour.
Inevitably tickets will sell out within hours of becoming available, hype will build and magazines will unleash "exclusive interviews" by the barrel load. But why? Why do people still buy into the Oasis myth?
Back in't day, Oasis were arguably the greatest and most exciting band of their generation, with epic hit single after epic hit single oozing from Noel Gallagher's every pore. But that was then. For the last 11 years Oasis have been a stodgy asthmatic dinosaur, steadily demolishing every molecule of the rock'n'roll myth they'd worked hard to achieve.
Post (What's The Story) Morning Glory, Oasis albums can be divided into three distinct categories - indulgent, faux-psychedelic cocaine fests that sound thinner than the Primrose Hill set (Be Here Now, Standing on The Shoulders of Giants), over-produced, soulless, pop-pap (Heathen Chemistry) and mid-paced "back-to-basics" dad-rock (Don't Believe The Truth).
But still they sell. It's a known fact that Noel Gallagher could record his own flatulence, lace it with reverb and demand Liam repeat the words "fookin' shine" for 7 minutes and 44 seconds, and the record would still effortlessly glide to number one. Not only that, it'd also be swamped in gushing critical acclaim, every publication wholeheartedly agreeing that Noel was right - this IS the best album since their debut.
Perhaps it's denial or maybe it's unbridled nostalgia, but I've got a hunch that Oasis' success lies in something more primal. For all their flaws, Oasis still represent the antithesis of the NME-obsessed scenester trash that 99 per cent of the population are genetically predisposed to abhor. They're inclusive, not exclusive and at three in the morning there's still no better band to slur along to with your friends. Add to that the fact that Noel Gallagher is without doubt the wittiest man in music - a self deprecating mix of grizzled raconteur and grumpy old man - and the recipe for total, basic entertainment is complete.
Ok so their new album is likely to be rubbish but nobody seems to care that the Rolling Stones haven't written a decent song in 34 years. We don't really need Oasis to be great, we just need them to exist in all their dysfunctional glory for our own simple pleasure. Perhaps its time we stop expecting high-art from Oasis and just roll with what we've got.


Oasis' last hurrah. Ha.
Posted by: princess anne | Friday, 15 August 2008 at 03:07 PM
It sounds exactly the same as everything else they've produced for the past decade. Waste of time.
Posted by: wonderwall | Saturday, 16 August 2008 at 01:14 PM
great piece
Posted by: Steven | Saturday, 16 August 2008 at 04:18 PM
Mm. Mediocre-to-poor Oasis still remains at least mildly impactful and entertaining, which is better than one can say for shit "music criticism."
Have you considered attempting to venture beyond the obvious at any time, perchance? Your recipe for journalistic success is, evidently, to find a barrel full of fish and shoot into it. Doesn't work by me.
Posted by: David B Livingstone | Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 08:26 AM
They are no different to Kylie who sell out to millions via endless onslaught of media hype and PR.Does not male the music "good" ,the reverse in fact though they are better than Kylie but then I think most people are better than her and ev this organ gave her a resounding round of applause for all the dazzle of X style and no substance. Mostly the mass are sheep who go where directed, so look no further than press who big up seriously mediocre acts, and the mass just mumbles and follows like some blinded cult.
Posted by: Duncan | Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 10:10 AM
David B Livingstone: What r u doing reading in then??
Posted by: Shaka | Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 10:34 PM
If they're not careful they will ruin the memory of their early stuff. Really, why can't any band let it be? Quite while they're ahead. It's beyond me.
Posted by: Music fan | Sunday, 17 August 2008 at 10:36 PM
Yes, I am agree. Quiet while they are ahead, it are only make some much sense to me.
Posted by: Marco | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 09:47 AM
Err, David did you not actually read the article? He makes the same point as you! why do so many people post stupid responces like this when they obviously don't know what theyre talking about!?
Posted by: Michelle | Monday, 18 August 2008 at 04:33 PM
He's not really making the same point michelle
Posted by: Music fan | Thursday, 21 August 2008 at 11:17 AM