Oasis are one of the last great rock bands -- they are among the so-called grunge bands in the US and the Brit Pop bands in the UK -- before rock as we knew it from the 50s/60s onwards saw its demise. It's why grown men are crying at the Oasis concerts. Oasis are a reminder of what those of us who grew up with the iconic rock bands have lost and what we are still in mourning for, and why we still reverentially listen to rock music from the 60s to 90s.
There are many factors in the demise of rock -- the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the US that destroyed local radio, massive changes in the record industry, the rise of streaming, etc. -- that ushered in the 'alt' era and the difficulty for rock bands to get visibility, airtime, and contracts.
That's why I would contend that you cannot compare across musical genres because it's comparing apples with oranges. Rock bands, even successful ones like Oasis, were facing very different circumstances from the favored pop and rap/hip hop genres from the mid-90s onwards. The record companies will claim there was a fall in demand for rock that explained their decrease in investment, but I would contend there was a fall in supply because of their decisions and actions. There was no shortage of kids still trying to make it in rock (and still isn't), and the investment is now overseas where rock is thriving.
So we have to give the Oasis guys credit for managing to keep themselves in the public eye for three decades, which they have done brilliantly. The big names in music are entertainers par excellence, and Noel and Liam are certainly two of the best.
Ellen, this is the best comment on here. Guitar based rock suddenly died after bands like Oasis became widely popular. Rock’s / Brit-pop call it what you will but that all crashed down without much of a tail. It all seemed so sudden. An organic fall from grace is one thing but the sudden cultural, economic and cultural shifts in the early 2000s were devastating for a lot of people.
After the demise of dance music in the 80s, Europe kept the party going and reexported a lot of the funky beats back to the U.S. so I hold out hope that rock will come back home.
Thanks, Ryan. This is my understanding, but people who were inside the industry may have a different perspective on how things evolved. There are a lot of indie rock bands but they now appear to be niche and most unable to make any sort of living from music unless they developed their audience before streaming.
The now grossly misnamed record industry is busy buying up all the rock catalogs and gaining control over the classic rock archive such that we may not have access to all that great music in the future if we don't have a physical copy. It can become inaccessible in an instant if the streamers or the music companies decide to withhold it from public consumption, which is no question within the realm of possibility. So anyone who wants to keep having access to rock music should invest in records or CDs and ensure that they have a player of some sort.
In terms of rock music going forward, I believe we will have to build a new system from the ground up, organically. The music industry is apparently only signing about 50 artists per year, almost nothing. And they only want milquetoast artists who don't say anything controversial -- clearly not rock 'n' roll at all!
I have enjoyed these articles you’ve put out in this vein of statistical analysis, but I think there is something being missed in this activity.
You cannot separate the lore from the music. There is a presupposition here that goes unnamed, that music, as an object, has intrinsic value outside the material-discursive relations that constitute the lore through which you are measuring Oasis’s music. But Oasis’s music is not separable from the material-discursive contexts that give it form!
Tabloid antics, amateur guitar covers, nostalgia for the ’90s - these do not obscure music-in-itself (an impossibility); they are part of the phenomenon we call “Oasis.” To suggest, as you do at the end, that we must separate the lore from the art is to miss the point: the lore is not accidental to the art, it is constitutive of it.
As a relatively 'new' Oasis fan I have really enjoyed reading this.
I was a bit too young in the 90s to like them and also I am from Spain, where they were played a lot on the radio but so were so many other artists. I guess if you had asked me what I thought of them back them, I'd probably say they were overrated.
Fast forward to 2025 when I live in London and the wave of Oasis mania has been inescapable and overwhelming and all of a sudden I was listening to Oasis everywhere.
I'm not that convinced that in the case of Oasis you can understand the band's reputation if you separate the lore from the art because the success of their reunion tour and how much it's become the musical event of the year, both have played a key element. I think for many people who liked them in the 90s and are older now seeing Liam and Noel on good terms has been as much of a highlight as being able to see Oasis live again.
In my case their music has acquired new meaning now that I've been able to experience it in the UK and it has reconnected me with a time when I was more carefree and optimistic about the future. Also, the atmosphere in London in the week they played here and at their Wembley show was exceptional. I've never seen so many people across generations so genuinely happy to sing along each other. So I guess if you were to ask me know what I think of them, I would have a very different answer than I did in the 90s.
“Oasis's following is largely Anglo-centric and Gen X. The people buying $300 general admission tickets to “Live '25” probably fall into one or both of these groups.”
I see your online analytics with observation.
Tokyox2, Seoul, Buenos Airesx2, Sao Paulox2, and Santiago. All of them in big venues. That is a solid global tour, even for a modern western act.
A lot of the Oasis t-shirts I see being worn in Tokyo are millennial/gen-z. Not to mention the people I see buying Oasis albums at Tower Records here.
One time I did an international trip which included swings through London and Sydney. I heard three buskers playing Wonderwall in that time between the two cities. I have never disliked them more than I did at that moment. Overrated? Maybe. Overdone? Absolutely.
Really enjoyed this read, despite my ambivalence to Oasis in general.
I’m early GenX, so all my memories of students learning popular guitar songs were the opening chords of Cinnamon Girl, Smoke on the Water, and Stairway to Heaven.
Guilty Gen Xer as charged. This is spot on. If I were 10 years younger I would have traveled multiple states to see them, blowing thousands of dollars to see them over and over. I was one of those types. I've since mellowed. Keep up the great work!
I don't mind Oasis but I'm not a huge fan. I find Liam's voice mildly annoying but most of all I find their songs repetitive - it feels to me like they just endlessly recycled the same song over and over, although I know others will feel differently. I'd be curious as to whether bands often described as overrated tend to have less distinction between their various songs than ones who are considered underrated, and equally how that measure might apply to critical reception, if you're ever looking for a new analysis to run...
Gen Xer here. My peer group's excitement about the tour reflects your analysis. I thought they were amazing 25 years ago. Now, I find their lyrics and musicianship excruciating.
Stop the celebrations – Oasis are the most damaging pop-cultural force in recent British history | Simon Price | The Guardian https://share.google/Zqqfm1DfsttqyGzou
Oasis are one of the last great rock bands -- they are among the so-called grunge bands in the US and the Brit Pop bands in the UK -- before rock as we knew it from the 50s/60s onwards saw its demise. It's why grown men are crying at the Oasis concerts. Oasis are a reminder of what those of us who grew up with the iconic rock bands have lost and what we are still in mourning for, and why we still reverentially listen to rock music from the 60s to 90s.
There are many factors in the demise of rock -- the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the US that destroyed local radio, massive changes in the record industry, the rise of streaming, etc. -- that ushered in the 'alt' era and the difficulty for rock bands to get visibility, airtime, and contracts.
That's why I would contend that you cannot compare across musical genres because it's comparing apples with oranges. Rock bands, even successful ones like Oasis, were facing very different circumstances from the favored pop and rap/hip hop genres from the mid-90s onwards. The record companies will claim there was a fall in demand for rock that explained their decrease in investment, but I would contend there was a fall in supply because of their decisions and actions. There was no shortage of kids still trying to make it in rock (and still isn't), and the investment is now overseas where rock is thriving.
So we have to give the Oasis guys credit for managing to keep themselves in the public eye for three decades, which they have done brilliantly. The big names in music are entertainers par excellence, and Noel and Liam are certainly two of the best.
Ellen, this is the best comment on here. Guitar based rock suddenly died after bands like Oasis became widely popular. Rock’s / Brit-pop call it what you will but that all crashed down without much of a tail. It all seemed so sudden. An organic fall from grace is one thing but the sudden cultural, economic and cultural shifts in the early 2000s were devastating for a lot of people.
After the demise of dance music in the 80s, Europe kept the party going and reexported a lot of the funky beats back to the U.S. so I hold out hope that rock will come back home.
Thanks, Ryan. This is my understanding, but people who were inside the industry may have a different perspective on how things evolved. There are a lot of indie rock bands but they now appear to be niche and most unable to make any sort of living from music unless they developed their audience before streaming.
The now grossly misnamed record industry is busy buying up all the rock catalogs and gaining control over the classic rock archive such that we may not have access to all that great music in the future if we don't have a physical copy. It can become inaccessible in an instant if the streamers or the music companies decide to withhold it from public consumption, which is no question within the realm of possibility. So anyone who wants to keep having access to rock music should invest in records or CDs and ensure that they have a player of some sort.
In terms of rock music going forward, I believe we will have to build a new system from the ground up, organically. The music industry is apparently only signing about 50 artists per year, almost nothing. And they only want milquetoast artists who don't say anything controversial -- clearly not rock 'n' roll at all!
I have enjoyed these articles you’ve put out in this vein of statistical analysis, but I think there is something being missed in this activity.
You cannot separate the lore from the music. There is a presupposition here that goes unnamed, that music, as an object, has intrinsic value outside the material-discursive relations that constitute the lore through which you are measuring Oasis’s music. But Oasis’s music is not separable from the material-discursive contexts that give it form!
Tabloid antics, amateur guitar covers, nostalgia for the ’90s - these do not obscure music-in-itself (an impossibility); they are part of the phenomenon we call “Oasis.” To suggest, as you do at the end, that we must separate the lore from the art is to miss the point: the lore is not accidental to the art, it is constitutive of it.
As a relatively 'new' Oasis fan I have really enjoyed reading this.
I was a bit too young in the 90s to like them and also I am from Spain, where they were played a lot on the radio but so were so many other artists. I guess if you had asked me what I thought of them back them, I'd probably say they were overrated.
Fast forward to 2025 when I live in London and the wave of Oasis mania has been inescapable and overwhelming and all of a sudden I was listening to Oasis everywhere.
I'm not that convinced that in the case of Oasis you can understand the band's reputation if you separate the lore from the art because the success of their reunion tour and how much it's become the musical event of the year, both have played a key element. I think for many people who liked them in the 90s and are older now seeing Liam and Noel on good terms has been as much of a highlight as being able to see Oasis live again.
In my case their music has acquired new meaning now that I've been able to experience it in the UK and it has reconnected me with a time when I was more carefree and optimistic about the future. Also, the atmosphere in London in the week they played here and at their Wembley show was exceptional. I've never seen so many people across generations so genuinely happy to sing along each other. So I guess if you were to ask me know what I think of them, I would have a very different answer than I did in the 90s.
“Oasis's following is largely Anglo-centric and Gen X. The people buying $300 general admission tickets to “Live '25” probably fall into one or both of these groups.”
I see your online analytics with observation.
Tokyox2, Seoul, Buenos Airesx2, Sao Paulox2, and Santiago. All of them in big venues. That is a solid global tour, even for a modern western act.
A lot of the Oasis t-shirts I see being worn in Tokyo are millennial/gen-z. Not to mention the people I see buying Oasis albums at Tower Records here.
One time I did an international trip which included swings through London and Sydney. I heard three buskers playing Wonderwall in that time between the two cities. I have never disliked them more than I did at that moment. Overrated? Maybe. Overdone? Absolutely.
Really enjoyed this read, despite my ambivalence to Oasis in general.
I’m early GenX, so all my memories of students learning popular guitar songs were the opening chords of Cinnamon Girl, Smoke on the Water, and Stairway to Heaven.
BLASPHEMY
Guilty Gen Xer as charged. This is spot on. If I were 10 years younger I would have traveled multiple states to see them, blowing thousands of dollars to see them over and over. I was one of those types. I've since mellowed. Keep up the great work!
I don't mind Oasis but I'm not a huge fan. I find Liam's voice mildly annoying but most of all I find their songs repetitive - it feels to me like they just endlessly recycled the same song over and over, although I know others will feel differently. I'd be curious as to whether bands often described as overrated tend to have less distinction between their various songs than ones who are considered underrated, and equally how that measure might apply to critical reception, if you're ever looking for a new analysis to run...
Gen Xer here. My peer group's excitement about the tour reflects your analysis. I thought they were amazing 25 years ago. Now, I find their lyrics and musicianship excruciating.
Stop the celebrations – Oasis are the most damaging pop-cultural force in recent British history | Simon Price | The Guardian https://share.google/Zqqfm1DfsttqyGzou
Now do AFI. Or any emo band.