“Hope you enjoy our new direction…”
I'm not mad keen on Oasis (although I’m partial to the early funny ones) but seeing the reviews of the Oasis and AC/DC albums in the new issue reminded me that I almost (just almost) feel sorry for the Monobrow Twins. Every new Oasis album gets criticised (generally, this isn’t a Word specific thing and Andrew Harrison’s review refers to this) for a lack of musical development, making records like their early ones, only not as good. Meanwhile, every new AC/DC album gets praised for a lack of musical development, the mark of playing to your strengths, even if the records are like their early ones, only not as good.
So why not bash out the same sound over and over again, if that’s your schtick and people like it? Isn’t this just an extension of the ‘give the punters what they want’ line often lauded in Word, at least when it comes to live music? I'd rather have variety with music, but it’s probably a relief that Oasis have never discovered their latent Malian influences and made an album featuring extended kora workouts, best leave that to the people who are good at it.
Anyway, this got me thinking about acts who have tried to change and made you merely admire their efforts from a safe distance – The Doors’ Soft Parade anyone? Any other examples?
**(Oh, quick aside, the guitar sound driving Oasis’ new single Shock of the Lightning is obviously a beefed-up version of Stereolab’s Super Electric (even more similarity than Silver Machine, Andrew H!), a record which Noel Gallagher must be familiar with from the early 1990s. He’s plundering material from new genres now, at least some things change…)
You Tube clip contains 40 seconds of rambling nonsense from The Lab before it kicks in...
- More from dragnet101.
- Login or register to post comments
The difference is
AC/DC never made any great claims about themselves.
Oasis always made out they were the 'best band in the world'.
Oasis compared themselves to The Smiths, Stone Roses, Kinks, Who, Jam and The Beatles and then sold shedloads making people wonder if there was something there after all. There wasn't, there isn't.
...and the most tragic attempt at a 'new direction' is probably here. (Warning, includes DLT footage)
In that case they're all guilty
Almost every band makes themselves out to be the best band in the world at some point, AC/DC included, who frequently tout themselves as the greatest rock band in the world. It seems to come with the territory, i.e. people with rampaging egos.
I'm not sure either that Oasis compared themselves to the bands mentioned, more that they claimed them as influences (in some cases extremely overt influences, but nonetheless...)
The point made in the first post is a good one. Some are revered for never changing, some are hated for it. C'est la vie.
It's a fair point.
Having thought about this for all of three minutes, my suspicion is that AC/DC figured out what it was they were best at right at the very beginning, and haven't swerved an inch from that path, whereas Oasis attempted to evolve and fell short, giving the impression of a band floundering, trying to capture something they're not capable of, and now trying to recapture what it was they had in the first place. While AC/DC are giving you who they are, nothing more, Oasis are trying to give you what they want to be. AC/DC may lack ambition, but they're not lost.
I'm sure Andrew has a different take.
And AC/DC made a string of classic hard rock records...
between- let's say- 1977 and 1982. Oasis released a good first album, an inferior but listenable second, a 'not even Lindsay Buckingham would have added so many overdubs' third and the rest are so average they're not even on my radar.
Personally
I really like the new Oasis album. I'm not going to intellectualise it or in fact any album, either I like it or I don't but I bought this last Friday and its still on my player. Some people love them, some people hate them, as risles said C'est la vie.
I personally can't stand (to name but one sacred cow on this blog),Richard Thompson's music. To me it all sound the same. But I can live with it.
We had exactly this conversation in the office.
My feeling is that Oasis have based themselves/"paid tribute to" possibly the most innovative band in rock music history, so the contrast between what they're copying and what they create themselves is so vast as to demand comment. AC/DC, on the other hand, have never associated themselves with anything particularly innovative and never had an aspirations in that direction. They are just a great brain-emptying boogie band (although I don't particularly like them myself). Having no pretensions, they can't fall short of them. I can't imagine AC/DC trying to write a song called 'The Nature Of Reality' as Oasis do on 'Dig Out Your Soul'.
The gist is, if you're going to pretend to be The Beatles you have to at least try to move yourself forward, because that is what The Beatles were all about. Otherwise it's just karaoke.
Moving forward
It dawned on me the other day that the time that has gone by between the first Oasis album and this one is three times as long as the period between "Please Mr Postman" and "Helter Skelter".
I refer the Hon. Reader to the classic Select mag "charticle"
wherein we proved that you could fit the entire Second World War into the gap between the first Stone Roses album and 'The Second Coming'.
Haven't got the new Mag yet Andrew,
But this probably means you took the proverbial shotgun to them again. I just liked it as a good rock album. Won't change the world but it makes me happy in the kitchen when I'm cooking chilli.
Praised? Really?
While I agree with the point about some bands being loved for not changing and others derided ...
Well, I could be misremembering but I thought AC/DC did get a fair degree of flak at the time for albums like 'Ballbreaker', 'Flick of the Switch' etc. Keen hard rock archivists could perhaps confirm.
I actually feel a bit sorry for AC/DC in this respect. They must be proud of 'Back in Black' but I wonder how it feels to have all your subsequent work compared to what must have been a true one-off - an album created in next to no time, surely in a blur of emotion and adrenalin.
To go back to the original 'who else?' question: I used to really love that band Ride (topical Oasis connection accidental). I was partial to a bit of shoegazing and thought they were superb, live especially. So when they had a sudden shift into psychedlic grooviness (which for many bands would be an utterly good thing) I thought they lost most of their power.
I'd be interested to hear what people think of the jazz folk that did this. Miles going electric? Coltrane's sheets of sound? Personally, I like all that stuff but do lovers of 'Birth of the Cool' and 'Blue Train' recoil in horror at 'Dark Magus' and 'Ascension'?
I always say this
But I don't agree that Oasis don't progress. Each album is nothing like the one before, with the possible exception of Heathen Chemistry.
Can you imagine Go Let It Out on What's The Story? Falling Down on Be Here Now? Gas Panic or The Importance of Being Idle on Definitely Maybe?
It's just received wisdom
Chimney Singing Crow I've changed my mind
Again on Oasis. First the were brilliant. Bought all the singles as they came out, bought the first 3 albums on day of release.
Saw them first time in The Astoria London in August 1994, Earls Court Nov 1995 and Knebworth.
Never bought a single after D'You Know What I Mean?" after feeling cheated by the coked up monster that was Be Here Now.
Bought the DVD single of The Importance of Being Idle for my kid because he was strangely fascinated by the video and one of my mates gave me a copy of the album Don't Believe the Truth which was a return to form of sorts.
I gave the new one a listen on their my space while I was sitting at my desk and liked it. And I still do. Probably won't bother going to see them though as I'm fed up going to see bands in hangers not giving a shit. The Police for example.
I can't stand arenas
- it's usually like watching a video of a show but I will be at Wembley Arena next week.
Next week is Rocktober - Half Man Half Biscuit on the Thursday, Oasis on the Friday
Off at a slight tangent...
... does anyone else think this might be partly down to the gap artists leave between new records these days? Up until the late 80s, an album a year was standard procedure for most acts, so there was more incentive to experiment, as any fans you might lose you'd have a chance to get back next year. Nowadays, with 3 or 4 years between albums, if you release a duff record, it could be 8 years between decent ones, which is a big incentive for just maintaining the status quo and not rocking the musical boat.
It's an unfair comparison, but The Beatles and Bowie (for example) at their respective peaks were releasing a new album every 9 or 10 months, plus non-album singles, on top of touring *and* making films, and it didn't seem to affect their creativity.
It would be nice to think that the new digital age might encourage artists to release music more often (I wouldn't be the first to suggest that the EP age might be back with us soon) and take a few more chances with their output.