The Untouchables 02.09.06: Oasis (Part 1) and GNR Backlash
Posted by Stephen Mogan on 02.09.2006
A bumper issue of The Untouchables, as Steve takes a look at Oasis. Also, lots of views and response on the GNR "backlash".
There are many artists that are universally recognised as being great, some achieve superstar status, but very few reach the point where the acclaim for them is so intense, that it becomes inconceivable to question their genius. They are The Untouchables….
Wow, I'm not popular this week! Before we get into the column, I'd just like to address Tollah's latest work. It's a response to my Guns ‘n' Roses articles of a couple of weeks back. Tollah basically has the complete opposite opinion to me regarding Guns ‘n' Roses' music, which is fair enough. I'm not stupid enough to think I can do a column that speaks very negatively about GNR and not upset people. Now, I realize we all have different opinions and stuff, and I enjoy constructive criticism, but Tollah's column almost jumped out of the computer and smacked me in the face with it's ignorance. The basic synopsis of what I said about GNR was thus; first album was good, but now sounds dated. Second album sounds surprisingly good today. Both "Use Your Illusion" albums are bloated and too full of plodding ballads. "The Spaghetti Incident" is pretty throwaway but has some good tracks. I stand by all of that, because it's my opinion, which I'm entitled to. Tollah's column was made up of quotes from mine, followed by a section where he'd tell me that my opinion was completely wrong (a classic literary format mostly found on internet forums where people like to flame each other). Now, I feel that I don't need to explain this to my readers, but let's go anyway; an opinion is just that. It can be neither right nor wrong and if you have an opinion on anything then it should be as valid to you as the opinion of anybody else in the world. To say that you disagree with somebody else's opinion is fine; debate and discussion are extremely healthy. To say somebody else's opinion is wrong is just ignorant. And to resort to insulting the person who gave the opinion either directly, or by proxy, is just sad. Here's an example of Tollah's work (I'm in italics, Tollah's in bold):
"You're Crazy" showcases the bands punk side and it's a side the band should have concentrated on more. Whereas the bluesy rock ‘n' roll songs on this disc sound horribly dated when listening to them now, this one still sounds great.
Okay, this one just bamboozles the T-Bomber. "It's So Easy" is the CD's most punk song. The band refer to it as their punk song and it was written by Duff and his old punk band. Yet it sounds dated, whereas "You're Crazy", which is also supposedly a punk song, still sounds great? Make your mind up. Personally I think "You're Crazy" is actually more of the bluesy rocker type of song which is supposedly soooo bad.
He calls himself the "T-Bomber", by the way. I feel like I'm patronizing everybody by pointing out what's wrong with Tollah's point here, but what the hell. Yes, Tollah, you're absolutely right. Guns ‘n' Roses have one, and only one, punk song. They filled up their quota on "It's So Easy" and that was it, one punk song only, as they were rationed in the 80's. *sigh* Enough sarcasm. If you think that "It's So Easy" is the CD's most punk song, then that's fine. I disagree with you, but again, it's all opinions. The truth is that both songs are punk songs and that one has aged a lot better than the other. Just because one song in a certain style has aged well doesn't mean that every single song ever released in that same style is of the same quality. So yes, Tollah, one punk song that Guns ‘n' Roses did sounds good today, and one sounds dated. I can see why you struggled with such a ludicrous concept; from now on I'll just make blanket statements in my columns that everybody can understand. Hell, I can limit the entire column to monosyllabic words if you want, or how about I just fill it with grunts? That way I can make sure everybody gets the points I'm trying to make.
I'm sorry for resorting to that "here's what you said/here's what I say" format, because I don't like it much. But I have every right to defend myself and my opinions as Tollah does of defending Guns ‘n' Roses. I'll keep the rest of this relatively brief.
I never once said I didn't know "Live And Let Die" was originally a Paul McCartney song. I never once said that the cover songs on "Lies" weren't covers. If I don't like the song, I don't like the song. It doesn't matter who did it originally. A song can be filler if it's a cover, a song can suck if it's a cover. I don't see how the fact that a song is a cover should affect my opinion of the version I'm reviewing.
Tollah, if you don't believe that GNR's success opened doors for other rock bands like Rage Against The Machine and Korn to become successful in the early 90's, then fine. When I talk about a band's "influence", I mean on the state of music in general and not only on other artists. GNR popularized heavy rock in the late 80's. The early 90's saw Metallica, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and the bands I just mentioned break through and become huge. I feel that GNR deserved credit for that, but if you disagree; fine. I retract my comment. GNR's only influence on the whole of music was on the "the late-80s LA sleaze metal scene", as you put it. What a legacy.
The rest of it is a mix of Tollah not really understanding the points I was making (the "watered down" one was my favourite, if you're interested) and just telling me my opinion was wrong and then listing his, without ever really explaining why the points I made weren't valid. I can't argue with the fact that Tollah knows more about GNR than I do; he's made that very clear. I can't claim to know everything about them, but the bio I gave was, in my opinion (there's that word again), sufficiently comprehensive. I know I didn't mention every single song off of every single album, but I have other things to do, as does everybody else. That article ran over 6,000 words, if I'd included absolutely everything it would have been even longer and I doubt anyone would have stuck it out to the end. So I had to skip some, sorry about that. It's also very easy to take single statements from a 6,000 word article and dissect them in an attempt to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Tollah, what you wrote wasn't even a column; it was a response to my column. If you wanted to make those points, hey, there's an email button at the bottom of all my articles. If you want to present an alternate view of GNR then fucking write one. What you wrote was little more than a personal attack. Don't use my column as an excuse to present your views. And lastly, that email from your fan Karl:
Tell Stephen Mogan he's a cunt. He has the world's stupidest opinion two weeks ago a good column on Rage now he comes out and disses GnR. He called Estranged "dull" what a knob.
I'm glad your readers are able to articulate their opinions so well, Tollah. Was that the pick of the bunch? Tell your "reader" Karl I have an email address as well, and after he's grown a set he can insult me personally by using it. This isn't the sort of thing I'd expect from a fellow writer; others have sent me mail about the column and whether they agreed or disagreed, they were respectful and intelligent about it. I don't see how printing that email helped you "Defend Guns ‘n' Roses", as the title of your article suggested. In fact, the entire column just screamed "fanboy". I may have bashed GNR, but I also gave them credit where I thought it was due. It's called "balance". It makes writing sound less sycophantic and a lot more credible (*hint*).
I thought I'd be above doing this sort of thing and I apologise to my readers who actually want to read what I have to say about Oasis. I was gonna let what Tollah wrote go and ignore it, but I thought fuck it; if I log onto the website I write for and find that a fellow writer has posted an article in which I'm called a "cunt" then I have every right to defend myself. At least he didn't try and justify "My World" eh? Oh, and I'm not a huge fan of punk music, but I'll take anything from one of the most exciting periods ever in musical history over a plodding 9-minute ballad any day of the week. Now, let's get on with this…
I'd like to thank everybody who gave feedback/asked questions/plugged the column last week, it's all greatly appreciated. I had a couple of interesting conversations with you guys about GNR actually, first off with George from "Scene Anatomy 101" over in the movies zone; if you're a stickler for detail like I am you'll really like his stuff. Secondly, I received a great question from Bryan Taylor, who, from the quality of his email, I assumed wrote for 411. Apparently he doesn't, but I was sure he must have a webpage out there that I could plug so I tried to track him down. Once again, a Google search of mine ended badly, with results returned that contained images such as this…
I should probably just email him about it and plug him next week instead, as I'm pretty sure that the guy who emailed me isn't the same man who appears to enjoy acting out the nativity scene whilst dressed as a clown. Anyway, he wrote in concerning the lyrics of the GNR song "One In A Million", which go a little like this (cue racism):
Immigrants and faggots
They make no sense to me
They come to our country
And think they'll do as they please
Like start some mini Iran
Or spread some fucking disease
You're one in a million
Yeah, that's what you are
You're one in a million, babe
You are a shooting star
Maybe someday we'll see you
Before you make us cry
You know we tried to reach you
But you were much too high
Much too high
Much too high
Much too high
Take it away Bryan…
My comment was concerning your comments about "Lies" in part 1. I totally agree with your assessment of the music but found it strange that you never mentioned the controversy over the lyrics of "One in a Million." That song always held a huge dichotomy for me in that the music itself and 95% of the lyrics are classic with 2 or 3 lines being ridiculously homophobic and racist. Based on the year, the AIDS reference and the homophobic language is somewhat understandable (Dire Straits had similar lyrics in their monster hit "Money for Nothing" later edited out) but if you weren't "Coming Straight Out of Compton" in 1988 (or any other year for that matter), then you just shouldn't be dropping N-bombs on records. I remember this being a HUGE deal when I was growing up and Axl even deals with it on Illusions with "Don't Damn Me." I assume you know all this, I was just wondering why you never commented.
Great column!
B. Taylor
An excellent question, Bryan! Looking back, I totally agree with you; it seems obvious that I should have included that, but I think I know why I may have overlooked it where other columnists wouldn't have. Firstly, I was only 4 years old when "Lies" came out, so I don't remember any of the controversy about the lyrics of "One In A Million". If I had been old enough to understand the situation, it would have made a bigger impact on me; the fact that you remember it so clearly shows that. But I think if you don't experience something first-hand and then you read about it years later, you're sort of detached from the whole issue and it definitely seems less shocking than it would have at the time.
Secondly, I always try to listen to albums from a "today" sort of perspective. It's a look back at the music to see if it stands up in 2006 like it did when it was released. As you say, at the time it was insane for Axl to be dropping the N-Bomb, I totally agree with that. But since then we've had Zack De La Rocha, Jennifer Lopez and a whole host of "wigga" characters in movies openly saying it and it's lost its impact. It's the same with the homophobic statements. The more these "taboo" words are brought into the mainstream, the less impact they have (the South Park Movie is a great example).
Finally, when listening to "One In A Million" I got a feeling that perhaps Axl was writing from the perspective of a character. I may be totally wrong, he may have said that stuff just for shock tactics but I got the impression that he may have been playing the part of the racist homophobe on the verse, whilst the chorus is talking about unity. The thing that we (as a people) are trying to reach is unity between black/white/gay/straight/whatever, but the point Axl is making is that we're a long way off because of characters such as that which he takes on in the verses (which contain all the racism and homophobia). Like I say, I could be way off here, but if that's the case then it seems less shocking to me because there's justification for it. It's a better use than in rap song for example, where the N-word is thrown about like it's nothing, at least this song is using it to make a point.
Great feedback, thanks Bryan! Also last week, you may have noticed me infiltrating the wrestling zone here at 411 on not one, but two separate occasions! I'm like a ninja! Click here to read my email in last week's Hidden Highlights. Big thanks for JT and JP for printing that; I've plugged these guys before and I do genuinely love their column. Big thanks also to Larry Csonka (mania) for printing a story I sent him about a show I recently went to. If you've read this column before you'll no doubt realise that I'm a pretty big wrestling fan, as well as a music lover, so I appreciate the fact that those guys gave me a chance to air some of my views over on their patch. This week, I'll be bugging the politics guys as I continue my mission to spread myself all over 411 (figuratively, of course. And physically. Not really. But yes. Oh. What? Sorry). Er, have some plugs…
Morgan Marx takes a look at a couple of eagerly awaited albums for us; with Cat Power and Isobel Campbell getting the review treatment. Girl power! And Mark Lanegan.
This month's Roundtable surprisingly descends into an Arctic Monkeys love-in, since I sometimes struggle with their singer's accent and I'm British. If you haven't checked them out yet, do so. I dunno how well they'll go down in the US, but having your first two singles and debut album go straight to number 1 over here is pretty impressive. Even if they are capitalising on the demise of The Libertines (but that's another story for another time). Buy it.
Jared has unearthed some hilarious photos of Trent Reznor. That courtroom one is great. From musketeer to jolly, bloated chucklepuss in just 6 years!
Ian's latest Dancing About Architecture has a serious message for music lovers wishing to join a band, which almost made me throw out my guitar (yeah, because at the moment I can't get those damn bands away from me! Always calling me up, asking me to come and do a turn. It's a nightmare. That Brandon Flowers is one pushy mofo). Oh and I also thought the Bonnaroo festival was in Australia…because it sounds Australian. In all seriousness, this is the level I work on. "Bonnaroo? Ah, kangaroo! Must be in Oz then." Christ. Where did they find me?
And now ladies and gentlemen, after much ado I give to you this week's Untouchable; a band who first defined and then survived Britpop and still produce albums to this date, for better or for worse…
Oasis
The Band:
In 1993, Oasis was a bunch of five unemployed lads from Manchester. They were brothers Liam and Noel Gallagher (vocals and guitar/vocals, respectively), Paul "Bonehead" Arthurs (guitar), Paul McGuigan (bass) and Tony McCarroll (drums). By 1994, they were the most exciting new band in rock music. On the back of their breakthrough single, "Live Forever", the band's debut album "Definitely Maybe" charted at no. 1, and became the fastest selling debut album of all time in Britain. This is a record they held for over a decade (reality TV popstar shows not included), until the Arctic Monkeys recently usurped them. The group was riding high, but that didn't stop the pressures of fame leading to the Gallagher brothers having their first major public fallout (of which there would be many more in the years to come), resulting in Liam "leaving" the band. He was soon back on board, as Oasis-mania gripped the UK. Those who were listening closely noticed that the band had a habit of "borrowing from" classic UK bands of the past (The Who, T. Rex, The Beatles, The Kinks…er, how long have you got?). Intelligent people thought that this was a bit stupid, but went along for the ride anyway because it was a rare excuse to be optimistic. Stupid people thought this was cool, because they didn't have to go out and spend their beer money on more than one CD.
Oasis' success would soon open the door for bands such as Blur, Pulp, Elastica, Supergrass and many other less talented imitators to achieve success of their own. The press christened it "Britpop", and suddenly it was cool to be British, whether you were a beered-up lout or a publicly-educated intellectual type; Britpop had the right band for you. It was this culture clash that led to the rivalry between Britain's two biggest bands; Blur and Oasis. On the one hand you had the posh Londoners who sang slightly-camp songs and would ultimately go on to prove themselves as the more talented band. On the other, you had a band with an ape for a singer. Oh wait, no; he's a man. Sorry, the picture I have is a bit blurry. Anyway, the two didn't like each other, and engaged in a war of words ahead of the release of their respective new albums in 1995. I say war of words; it was actually more the Gallagher brothers shooting their mouths off and publicly wishing that Blur would "die of AIDS". Clearly, Axl Rose was a big influence on the Gallagher household in the late 80's. The whole thing came to a head when the bands simultaneously released their new singles on the same day. It was Blur's "Country House" vs. Oasis' "Roll With It". Blur came out on top, but took a bit of a beating in the album stakes. Oasis' sophomore effort, "(What's The Story) Morning Glory?" outsold Blur's "The Great Escape", and they never really recovered sales-wise. Just before the release of "Morning Glory", incidentally, drummer McCarroll left to be replaced by Alan White.
The band was riding on the crest of a wave, not only at home, but in America too. This was significant, as Britain hadn't had a real chart presence in the US since The Beatles. Well, not a credible one anyway, unless you really, really like George Michael. They had also just played the biggest gigs ever witnessed on British soil. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the Gallaghers continued to be at each other's throats on the front of newspapers, and then they cancelled their American tour in 1996, temporarily killing their US career. Way to go. No, I'm not sure how you can "temporarily" kill something either, but shhhh I'm on a roll here. Following this, both Bonehead and Guigsy left, citing "creative differences" or something, to be replaced by Andy Bell and Colin "Gem" Archer. Their third album, "Be Here Now", beat all previous sales records in 1997 (again, until the Arctic Monkeys came along and wiped the floor with their numbers) but was generally viewed as inferior and bloated when compared to their previous efforts. The typically-reserved British media instantly initiated a backlash, and the band withdrew to rethink their next move. 1998 saw the release of a b-sides collection, "The Masterplan", which was effortlessly better than their last album proper. This was not a good omen for further new material. When a new album did arrive, in 2000, it again failed to capture the imagination of music critics. "Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants" was panned, yet still managed to spawn a UK number 1 single, as did their previous album; a curious fact given that by this point popular public opinion indicated that Oasis were, as they might say, "shite".
The band shunned the spotlight for two years, during which time White departed and was eventually replaced by Ringo Starr's son Zak Starkey, before unleashing their latest offering, "Heathen Chemistry". Again, critics didn't embrace the record, but the public did. Lead single "The Hindu Times" hit number one, and the band had further success with the Liam-penned "Songbird". By now, this was business as usual, though. Oasis release new single, new single goes to number 1, Oasis release mediocre new album, critics call new Oasis album mediocre, record-buying public purchases said album anyway. Wash, rinse, repeat. However, in 2005, something strange happened. The band's new single, "Lyla", hit number 1; OK, nothing new there. However, the album itself, "Don't Believe The Truth", actually received favourable reviews. It appeared that Oasis were back, and successive singles both charting inside the top 2 seemed to confirm this. Come the end of the year, the band found themselves receiving awards and accolades left and right for the album, and had played their biggest ever US shows, in front of 20,000 people. Whether they can actually go on to recapture the form of their first two records, or if this is simply a temporary resurgence, remains to be seen. Until then, however, we're gonna look at whether Oasis ever deserved to be put up there on such a high pedestal in the first place.
The Albums:
Definitely Maybe (1994)
It's hard to listen to this without getting caught up in what it represented in terms of Britpop and all that stuff, but let's ignore all that and try and focus on the music. The main thing about this album is that it isn't greatly challenging from a musical perspective. It's pretty messy to be blunt, and it relies on the "wall of sound" technique way too much. That said, it has an enormous amount of charm to it. Opener "Rock ‘n' Roll Star" is brimming with energy; incredibly urgent with a big sing-a-long chorus. It's easy to see why this is still a fixture in their live set. The guitars, as I mentioned, aren't too distinctive, but the track hurtles along at a nice pace and we get a good solo thrown in there too. Liam pulls off a great vocal performance for somebody who isn't the greatest natural singer in the world, too. A good start. Next up we have "Shakermaker", which takes off "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing". It's slower than the opener and a lot more plodding. While that may not sound great on paper, it works surprisingly well. It's the first sign of the famous swagger that Oasis seem to have to a lot of there songs. It's clear that The Vines has listened to this in great detail based on their own musical output. This is another good song, and is noticeably different in style to the first track; a variety that I'd argue Oasis lack nowadays. "Live Forever" follows, and this is simply an anthem; I'm not sure about the US, but it's engrained into British culture. However, it doesn't sound as good today as it did back then. It sounds pretty fragile when compared to the first two songs, and is lacking a certain "fullness", which is one of the problems when you go for a full-on wall of sound feel on some tracks but not others. This one hasn't aged well.
"Up In The Sky" more than makes up for that disappointment, though. This is an overlooked classic, in my opinion. A fantastic riff and a great vocal performance from Liam make this an absolute winner. Again, the song settles into a swagger, but also something of a groove. It's pretty funky, for an Oasis track. The breakdown halfway through is magic as well. "Columbia" follows, and is one of the most underrated Oasis songs ever in my opinion. At 6:17, it's longer than most of the other tracks here, and the band use this time to build up a mesmerizing groove. The drums are loose and funky, the wall of sound works perfectly and the soaring guitars are exquisite. The euphoric ending only cements this song further as a classic in my mind. For those who thought I was only bashing GNR for being too "epic", listen to this and hear how music can be both exciting and expansive at the same time. "Supersonic" is another very well-known track that, unlike "Live Forever", still holds up today. Nice guitars, backing vocals and drumming make this one a winner. And Liam's delivery? Classic. Cocky and arrogant? Yes. Effortlessly cool? You betcha. Don't you find people who answer their own questions annoying? Yes, sir. I should probably stop shouldn't I? If you want people to keep reading. Alrighty!
"Bring It On Down" starts with some heavy drumming and then explodes into an awesome riff that takes over the track. Liam's sneering vocal is a little grating here, but the rest of the band put in good performances to make up for this. It's decent, certainly no classic; but we get a great guitar workout at the end that pushes the song above average. Oasis plundered the riff for "Cigarettes and Alcohol" from T. Rex, true. However, the song they produced with it has so much energy that you can almost forgive them. Another classic delivery from Liam, obviously a great riff and a sound that makes the song seem so much bigger than it actually is. Another anthem, this one is one of the few "classics" that Oasis made that still has the same impact today as it did 12 years ago. "Digsy's Dinner" has been slated in the past, and it's easy to see why. Very throwaway, but hey; even "The Stone Roses" has "Don't Stop" on it. "Slide Away" is a long, slow-paced song, and if you've been paying attention to my columns you'll know how I feel about this sort of track. In fairness though, it's actually pretty good. Noel's lyrics are top notch and the whole thing feels very other-worldly. It's no "Champagne Supernova" though. Finally, we close out an excellent debut album with the acoustic "Married With Children". This one has very powerful lyrics and is a surprisingly gentle tune to close out with, considering the noise that preceded it. It works well though; sort of a comedown after all the madness. A nice way to finish off an album that still sounds like a classic to my ears.
Sorry I couldn't fit more Oasis in this week with the GNR stuff spilling over. I promise next week's column with contain no mentions of the words "Guns" or "Roses". Space constraints have obviously forced me to make this a two-parter, so tune in next week to see what I think of the rest of Oasis' recorded output. Take it easy,
