@Joe Owen Why because I spelt his name wrong... And you are right I'm not a massive fan just take a casual interest in them. Wouldn't say it was "fake" though.
This is such a fantastic channel, James. You treat this music with an intellectual seriousness that is pretty much unprecedented. It may even be more than it deserves -- but even so, every single video is full of flashes of brilliant, generous insight, and you perform the material with passion that is contagious. Your points here about Alan McGee, Owen Morris, and Brian Cannon are extremely trenchant.
Too much speculation and random opinion of "what could have caused this"... At times I feel like I am watching a teenage girl gossiping. But I cannot stop watching this hairy man and his cheap tawdry clothes under the bright lights. The camera is SO close!
There's a whole lot in here that is wrong though, especially in discussions about producers and things outside the spectrum of James' knowledge (like saying High Flying Birds stuff was influenced by "techno" and used "programmed beats", Jesus). It's ok to say it but don't say it with authority unless you're sure.
@@Arkantos117 The second half of Heathen Chemistry is quite shite. Force of Nature is annoying as fuck and boring. Lyla and Love Like a Bomb and Part of a Queue suck. The only good songs are Turn Up the Sun, Importance of Being Idle and Keep the Dream Alive. The only two good songs in DOYS are Shock of the Lightening and Falling Down. The second half of that albums sucked. I think Oasis fans just got so desensitized to shit music in the 2000's that they will thing Love Like a Bomb is a good song.
Just to let you know when Bonehead left the band there was another substantial reason why. He was the only member of the band that lived up north in Manchester whilst the rest of the band lived around the London area. The constant travelling obviously had an effect on his family life thus chosing to quit.
I think bonehead was a bigger part of that band than they give him credit and was one of the wild ones that gave them that rock n roll image. In the early interview would tell the press who oasis were.
the rockers never, ever, sounded as good after Bonehead left. Rock 'n roll star, Supersonic, Acquiesce and stuff were always sounding a little whiny in the 00s.
I think British culture changed in the 2000’s and the days of the ‘lad’ were numbered. Also think that Noel was evolving and mellowing as he grew older, it’s totally natural. I don’t think Oasis intentionally changed there sound for a new audience, they were just evolving.
I'm a big fan of 00s Oasis but I completely agree that there was a reduction in quality and "magic" with their post 90s output. That Noel interview that you used is one of his best. Noels so honest in it and his usual ego bollocks isn't there. But I think he definitely was depressed during that time period and was fed up. (Famously leaving the SOTSOG tour). Its interesting though, because during the press tour of Heathen Chemistry, Noel was very positive and he seemed excited to be in the band again. His relationship with Liam seemed strong and he was very proud of Liams songs on that album. In an interview he said something along the lines of "I've grown to love that boy so much". It was during the Don't Believe The Truth tour where the relationship seemed to sour and by the Dig Out Your Soul tour, the tension and anger on stage was pretty uncomfortable to watch. But yeah I love all eras of the band. Some great tunes during the 00s and I don't think they every released a bad album. Just some better than others.
I think the continued decline of Liam's voice and the brotherly dynamic they had is what did it. Liam progressively got worse and then Noel threw that ultimatum at him after the 2007 Brits performance, likely because it was supposed to be this big celebration of their work but the media was more fixated on how Liam's voice had declined. Then Liam kinda doing whatever he wanted when DOYS was recorded, then the long, arduous tour and more vocal decline...all until that infamous fight that broke the band up. If Liam had gotten things right with his voice, I think they would've lasted longer but who knows? In Noel's words, Oasis was never meant to go 12 rounds.
Oasis were more about attitude and lad culture. You cant carry that on when your a middle-aged millionaire. Their edge was totally gone post-97. They were the type of band that should have disappeared after 2 albums. As Marvin Hagler once said "its harder to get out of bed at 5am and run 10 miles in the snow when you wake up in silk sheets".
Oasis stopped being a band as soon as Tony, Guigsy and Bonehead departed. You can never underestimate the power of the gang mentality in a band. The whole parts become the driving force. After that era you could have literally stuck any session musicians behind Liam and Noel and it would've done the job but never have the same vibe.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I thought Whitey replacing Tony was musically ok, but the heart's gone when the original rhythm section go offski. xx
It happens to most bands but when you think the likes of.. Go Let It Out, Roll It Over, Let's All Make Believe, Gas Panic, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Little By Little, The Hindu Times, Songbird, Born On A Different Cloud, Lyla, The Importance Of Being Idle, Keep The Dream Alive (very underated), Let There Be Love, Shock Of The Lightning, The Turning, I'm Outta Time and Falling Down.... were ALL released after the crazy magical Oasis Mania 'mad for it' period of the 90's when arguably they had past their peak of success then they had plenty of great songs that most bands would kill for in the noughties...
bag it up, waiting for the rapture, shock of the lightning, from last album , 3 tunes sam fender n the likes can only think about churning out! Oasis truly the last of the greats,
I've always found Gem a rather bland, uninventive guitarist. Not untalented, but the kind of guy you'd expect to see in a slick but generic covers band. At least with Bonehead you had that reliably loud, brash and basic rhythm style which gave Noel the chance to shine on lead guitar, and establish the "classic" Oasis guitar sound. After Gem joined, Noel didn't seem to put so much effort into creating iconic riffs and solos, and their overall guitar arrangement style seemed to prioritise texture over power, which is nice in itself, but much more suited to softer bands like Travis and Coldplay than raw power we had come to expect from Oasis.
this is exactly what i've been thinking but i couldn't put it into words, bonehead was definitely a massive part of oasis' sound in the 90s. almost every song from the first three albums is instantly recognisable from either its riff or solo, post bonehead the guitars almost seem to melt into a lot of the songs and don't catch your attention like they used to
I wish Dig Out Your Soul got more love. I have been a fan since the beginning and that album is still one of my all-time favorite albums. It's been nearly 15 years since its release and I still can't get enough of that album.
@@generalcustard1I love soldier on the best. I think that album is the one where the new lineup properly found its feet, but unfortunately it was the last.
@generalcustard1 I'd say first 8... TBWTL is great as it's so different and you could never imagine it being on any of the other albums except perhaps SOTSOG.
Don’t believe the truth and heathen chemistry are their weakest albums and they’re still great albums which is why oasis is one of the best bands to ever do it ayyy
Sorry it’s not an absolute Oasis 00’s shite and 90’s amazing. ‘She’s Electric, Digsy’s Dinner and Roll With It are poor. Live, 2000s Oasis are miles better how can anyone say Gem Archer and Andy Bell are worse musicians than their predecessors? Check out Gas Panic! Live at Wembley Stadium 2000 for an example of when Oasis went somewhere different and were still inventive.
While this is a good analysis and history, I *strongly* disagree that the post-90s change made Oasis a lesser band. I think many of the points raised go are really biased and ignore the strengths of the later albums, and I'm someone who grew up on 90s Oasis. So look - for all the pop sensibilities claimed to be present in SotSoG, I largely think it is the best-produced Oasis album. The sounds are enormous, cinematic, "Put Yer Money" sounds cybernetic, "Fuckin' in the Bushes" is more ferocious than Led Zeppelin at their most coked-up, "Who Feels Love" is awashed in psychedelia I find more coherent and multidimensional than in tracks like "Shakermaker"(and I fucking LOVE "Shakermaker"), and to say nothing of the British rock history compendiums that are "Gas Panic" and "Roll It Over". And listening to Liam's earnestness and vulnerability in "Little James" is also quite significant for me. I think it was a very creative period for the band, as Noel has said he wants to write some more well-crafted songs. The "Let There Be Love" cover art is amazing, how can anyone think it's a bad cover? It's so clean, stark, and yet powerful and full of symbolism. 99% of musicians out there wish they had covers as beautiful as that. And also just look at the sheer madness in "Dig Out Your Soul" and its booklet. Its incredible psychedelia has been very important and influential on me in wanting to become a graphic designer. I absolutely appreciate Gem and Andy's input and contributions to the group and I think they are really underappreciated. I think they are the two more grounded and intelectual counterparts to Liam and Noel's usually strong bravado(god bless em but they need people to keep them in check), and have more of an intuitive taste for timbre and harmony. Andy especially since he's a shoegaze veteran and a bit more of an indie person, and his input(and also of Zak Starkey's) in the band is something I immensely respect, and have to admit that I miss. I miss Bonehead and the others but they just weren't in there to collaborate in the realm of ideas. The 00s albums are full of tons of beautiful timbre and dynamics, too. Just think of the harmonica solo in "Gas Panic!", the Gilmouresque guitar in "Roll It Over", the entirety of "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", the closing moments of "Better Man", the segue into the arpeggio in "The Turning", or whatever the hell the sounds in "Swollen Hand Blues" are. I think touting "Sitting Down in Silence(On My Own)" as a worse version of "Sexy Sadie" is robbing it out of its own agency and the ability to become its own thing, and these songs, outside of the dour, depressed, piano line, are nothing alike. "Sexy Sadie" is a depressing, yet arrested and intoxicated rumination on a flirty, beautiful woman(or rather Maharishi Yogi), while "Sitting Down" is more like Noel's own vulnerable sharing on what appears to be coyness, shyness, anxiety, listlessness, or just whichever person or avatar embodies those feelings. It's so different. "Sexy Sadie" shares more in common with Radiohead's "Karma Police" if anything. As a last point: I'm one of those rare people who fuckin' adore Beady Eye. I love "Different Gear" and I truly and honestly love it more than most Oasis albums, and I think its sounds are intense and lyrics full of spirit, bravado, rumination and unhinged idealism. I love Noel's disco stuff too! It's obvious he's passionate about it and it translates into the music, and that it reminds him of the good times in the Manchester acid house scene of the late 80s, and that was a great scene and a fanboyism I can just smile with and appreciate. It's really no coincidence that Oasis used to collaborate so much with The Chemical Brothers, that they would get remixed by them. They don't seem like it, but both were really cut from the same cloth. The house scene was really huge in the English north in the late 80s. None of this is to say that your feelings on their decline are invalid and that you feel like you've been robbed or something. There is something you obviously value in their 90s music that you feel has been lost. But this feeling isn't universal to all Oasis fans, and to me the Gallaghers and all of their brothers in the group have remained as talented and capable as they were all those years ago.
I cannot believe that you skipped over Liam's hashimoto's diagnosis. Seriously - if you've ever had it, you know that it has a tremendous impact on your vocals.
I have bust up nose-itis. It's not because someone punched me in the face. It's this other peculiar thing. If he mentioned hashimotos, it would totally ruin the video. Mainly because that is bullshit. His screamed his voice out in a unnatural way and it got severely damaged. Simple as that.
@jamesthecat true. A more relaxed stance would have meant more relaxed signing. But in 95 and 96, he really did the damage if you listen back. Too much screaming and shouting instead of singing. It did sound great, but it came with a huge cost.
Fantastic job James! Really thorough but concise look at all the different factors (and people) that were replaced. Now I know why I fell out of love with Oasis by their 4th album. I love how this video highlights just all the different factors and people needed to create a masterpiece. It's not just Noel's songwriting, the drugs or the stage in his life, not just Liam's voice deteriorating; but the producers and talent behind the scenes that pushed the band to accept nothing but perfection 💚
I still think Oasis were pretty good in the 2000s. The reason why that era is so dismissed is because in 94-96 they were on track to become a genuine all time great band, and after they'd run out of steam they were "just" an ordinary good band. They also couldn't pull off changing their sound completely like Blur and Radiohead did (ironically Dig Out Your Soul in the dying stages of the band was probably their best attempt at evolving their sound)
They did "evolve" their sound. Listen to "Be Here Now" and then "Standing On The Shoulders", you'll notice the introduction of a softer slower sound, and drum beats. Not to mention Liam starting to write, and the band becoming more Beatles-esque.
dig out your soul it is indeed the best thing they did in the 2000's but it got nerfed due to the poor songs choices and liam refusing to sing the tracks that were originally planned to be in it (record machine, come in come out) forcing noel to rely on 3 very bad songs ("aint got nothing", "high horses" and the horrible beyond understanding "nature of reality") resulting in a good album that could have been way more interesting. dont believe the truth is a decent album but totally forgettable and heathen chemistry is just horrible. SOTSOTG was a good album but also suffered from the poor song choosing and has in it some of their absolute worst (i can see a liar, little james, put yer money where yer mouth is). why noel didnt put "lets all make believe" is a mystery and a sacrilege
Mate Oasis is a rock n roll band, not fucking shandy drinking art students like blur. You don't re invent the wheel, look at acdc, have you ever seen them play jazz?
The original lineup was the sum of its parts including Tony McCarroll Noel fucked all that up though. That's why the first album will always be the best album for me.
I actually think they became a better band. As in Alan White, Gem and Andy are better musicians technically speaking but in the process they lost that raw edge and young hunger. Noel should have definitely saved some of them B sides for later albums. Blew the load too quickly.
Oasis in the 00's were still amazing. Some of my favorite tunes were later stuff. More overlaying melodies, maturity, and going beyond simple bar chords rhythm section. Bands change and grow.. Please Please Me vs Revolver...Out of our Heads to Exile...Good bands simply change. Some like it..some don't. Personally, I love later Oasis.
Great video nerd, thank you. Personally I think the abandoned Death In Vegas stuff was a real missed opportunity to reinvent themselves and to update their sound. Kasabian came along a few years later with that exact sound and blew Oasis out of the water. Any thoughts?
@@inazumaajax9939 It was supposed to be the album after Heathen Chemistry that was scrapped in 2004. A few of the songs from it were reworked and redone for Don't Believe The Truth, but the recordings have never come out.
@@ChadLouisNewton does it have any connection to the band Death in Vegas because Liam Gallagher features on one of their songs and I think it came out around this time
You hit the nail on the head with McGee's pressure and Noel's "that'll do" attitude. For DM and WTSMG, Noel was picking the best 10 or 11 songs from 100 he'd written. By the time it got to the 2000s, he was writing 10 songs and using them all.
The decreasing quality/amount B-sides element is not *entirely* on Noel, IMO - the entire singles industry was changing at this time. Fewer B-sides on singles was the norm, after a few years of people rinsing two different versions of every single. I think the chart rules as to how many tracks were allowed on each single also changed.
Yeah, in 1998, the Chart Supervisory Committee changed the rules so that a single could only have 3 tracks to be eligible for the charts, rather than 4. The maximum length of a CD single was also reduced from 25 minutes to 20 minutes. It’s also worth noting that, even before then, the majority of Oasis singles were padded out with live/alternative versions of songs and/or covers. Some Might Say, Wonderwall and Stand By Me are the only singles that have three original b-sides on them.
It’s not only Oasis that changed in that time, their fans also changed. Grew up, discovered new music. The band couldn’t feed of that 90’s fan fever anymore and had to start rediscovering themselves at the detriment of their music.
Giving an American perspective here. After Morning Glory, ofcourse on this side of the pond, everyone was waiting to hear "Wonderwall" and "Champaign Supernova" again. I saw them on the BHN tour in 97, GREAT show, epic show, 2 sold out nights at the arena, people still didnt fully absord BHN yet. But that would be the last time they did 2 sold out nights at an arena in the US. BHN just did not connect with American audiences. SOTSOG got an even smaller push and after that, the mainstream here just didnt get any of it, not the music, not the Gallaghers personalities (we liked the mystery of Thom Yorke, the 'nice guy' Chris Martin was easy to digest) but not the brashness of the Gallaghers, as Noel slipped far into the derivative 'dad rock' sound. I supposed the same could be said in the Uk, but at least they were still releasing radio singles there. Of course, us hardcore fans never left and I still enjoy many tracks off their later records. Noel has said in interviews they were never on the right foot with the US side of the label even at their 90's peak. Tours here were frequently disasters for one reason or another. ... Still a hall of fame band in my book!! Oasis is one of the most influential bands of the 90's that still influence bands to this day!
Not all of us yanks didn’t get the Gallaghers. That’s one of the things I liked about Oasis. Their attitude. Fighting. Pocketful of drugs. Calling corporate pigs swine in pressers. That’s rock n roll. I agree about most wanting WW part 2 and such. I saw them in 96, and 98 and had the changed to work with them (Noel and Gem in 2000) but yeah the magic was gone a few weeks after BHN was released and people couldn’t digest it’s derivative dribble.
I worked on the production side for a short time, and I can say that overall production is one of the biggest factors in the overall decline of Rock music's popularity. Most of the great bands of the 90's used very little (if any) of the modern production tricks, and many used antiquated recording and production methods. That is what gave a lot of these bands their unique sound, and separated Rock from a lot of the Pop genres of the time. Producers tailored their production to the overall sound of the band, and used whatever method worked the best for that particular band. In modern times, everything is digitized and recorded the exact same way, and in Rock music, it takes the soul out of it and makes most of the instruments sound like shit. I am a huge music fan, and have well over 2000 albums in my collection, but I have purchased less than 10 albums that were made after 2010. It all sounds like a bunch of over produced rubbish.
Long said it - Who Feels Love? is one of the most underrated Oasis songs by far. Very experimental, psychedelic, and phenomenal production. I know it’s on an album that’s way down the pecking order of Oasis fans, but I always doffed my cap to that song.
I get Noel keeping tunes to himself for his solo career due to liams voice declining live. But I don’t think liams studio performances ever declined, they changed but I actually prefer some of his later studio performances (gas panic, who feels love, stop crying your heart out, turn up the sun, let there be love).
Agreed. It's not a bad tune. Always thought Force of Nature was a song about Noel venting about Liam, almost like a secret diss track. Heathen Chemistry is no way their worst album either.
You may be right. I assumed Liam because of the lyrics "can make you sing like a bird" - Liam's the singer, Noel's the chief, but also Noel said in previous interviews he has a round about way of tricking Liam into doing things he wants him to. "Smoking my stash/burning my cash" could be Noel resenting Liam making money off his songs and being wasteful with money. And finally hearing Noel say "he's had an easy life" regarding Liam in interviews before. Just a hunch though, I've not looked into it. Could well be about Meg.
Your first point about Noel’s childhood is astonishingly overlooked. Noel’s childhood was physically and emotionally abusive. Horrendously so. His father beat him for no reason. Worse still, Liam, for no reason was never abused. People with such trauma in their childhoods sometimes become well rounded, passionately good people. Some become toxic, pathological liars, who blame everyone but themselves. I’ve read all oasis biographies and Tony Mcarolls book. Noel seems unpredictable, selfish, blame-anyone but himself, sees people as objects. It’s not his fault. It takes years of therapy for the average person to deal with this, even if they decide to. He didn’t, he gained the wealth and power to eject people he didn’t like from his life. My understanding is everyone who left the band had enough of being insulted by him and dictated to- it just wasn’t fun anymore. He claims Liam physically attacked him wielding a guitar and that’s why he doesn’t speak to him. Many peoples have said this is rubbish. Imagine you’re angry, so you get up, retrieve a guitar from another room and return wielding it like an ax. Then what? Noel never says what happened next. When talking about his month long c0ke binge you don’t hear any remorse, or any feeling of “I made a bad decision” not even any frustration all the time effort and all the other peoples time wasted. I don’t understand how a brother can completely cut ties with another. He doesn’t even use Liam’s name in interviews. Says things like “his lordship claims he had laryngitis”. Meanwhile Liam seems genuinely hurt when asked about it. Notice he likes kicking his brother when he’s down. Liam is a baritone and Noel is tenor meaning Noel has a higher vocal range. So it’s unpleasant to say he had to lower the key of songs or that’s why he sang in Acquiesce. But his narrative was always Liam can’t hit the notes. As if that’s Liams fault. Always framed in a negative light. I’ve no idea why people ignore the fact Liam has hashimoto disease - an autoimmune disease meaning his voice box was becoming squashed. Imagine being considered the best singer in Britain then having no clue why your voice is failing more and more no matter what you do. He could have lived like a monk and the same would have happened. You can hear his vocal range start to reduce. Then after 2000s symptoms got very bad. Your voice doesn’t degenerate in less than 10 years from effortless, crisp high baritone to crippled so much you can’t sing whatsoever. Many vocalists have abused their voices had drug addictions, supported snack habits and sang during and after they got clean. How many legends from the 70s thrashed their voices, are still alive and still singing fine. Lemmy of Motorhead drank smoked and did whatever he wanted and belted out his songs till the day he died. Oasis were a ten year flash of lightening. It gets boring hearing the narrative Liam managed to entirely destroy his voice in just a few years with his lifestyle, when the cause was medical. Always love your vids mate. Huge Oasis fan (from DM to BHN) I find their story so peculiar.
I think they stopped doing 4 song singles because the b-sides they were producing were really good - better then some of their singles in some cases. I remember seeing an interview with Noel sometime ago where he remarked that they would have had 3 classic albums if they hadn't done that, and I tend to agree.
I remember first hearing Oasis in the Don’t Believe The Truth era I loved them songs but my obsession with them began with the first three albums later down the line when I got older. There are gems on the later albums but I’m afraid the albums didn’t hit the same way.
Think you nailed it with the outgoing line to this video. They believed their own hype. Noel got to a point where it was harder and harder to sing about anything relevant anymore. Gone was the struggle with the Tories, being skint and on the dole which is what often makes the journey raw and packed with emotion. It’s difficult to write another MG when you’re sat in a millionaires house watching the royalty cheques come in.
@@fshoaps Both John and Paul had their fair share of flops. Magical Mystery Tour was considered a critical flop upon release with even John himself declaring it ‘the most expensive home movie ever shot’ Yellow Submarine was exactly the same. The Let It Be film was only completed to fulfil a five film deal and that was massively cut down, terribly edited by Michael Lindsey Hogg and released to less than lukewarm reception. It is only years later that we look upon even the worst the Beatles had to offer through rose tinted glasses and call them quaint. Maxwells Silver Hammer? Yer Blues? Revolution 9? Dig a Pony? The list goes on and on, all terrible. More interestingly though, they’re further evidence of a band believing it’s own hype and being surrounded by people telling them that what they’re doing is good enough. Even The Beatles lost interest in being The Beatles by late 1967 and certainly by 1968.
@@andiholman2543 Magical Mystery Tour wasn't that great of a film, but can you really say that the album is bad? The title track is a great song, and "Fool On The Hill" is a classic. I would agree that John Lennon lost interest in being in The Beatles in late 1967, and certainly by 1968. But Paul McCartney kept the band going, and much of his work on the last few Beatles albums, and his first few solo albums is stellar, and genius work. And the Yellow Submarine film wasn't like Magical Mystery Tour in that it a "home movie", Yellow Submarine was appreciated by The Beatles at the time, and by John in interviews before his own death, that it was animated very well, and John was proud that such a interesting, and compared to Disney, a deep movie was being shown to children to introduce them to The Beatles. With songs like "Nowhere Man" being introduced to a younger audience. "Maxwells Silver Hammer? Yer Blues? Revolution 9? Dig a Pony?" - Notice how most of those songs are Lennon efforts? Say what you will but "Hey Jude", "Let It Be", "Come Together", "Across The Universe", "Sexy Sadie", and "Maybe I'm Amazed" are the works of geniuses. Also you seemed to forget that in the last few years of The Beatles career we got introduced to the songwriting genius of George Harrison, with "Here Comes The Sun", "Something", "Old Brown Shoe" laying the groundwork for George's excellent first solo album. You should listen to The Beatles more. You clearly have no respect for their final years. Scoffing at their supposed decay is pathetic, because they are the best band in the history of music.
@@fshoaps criticism isn’t a lack of respect on anyones part. It’s a case of looking at something objectively and formulating an opinion without fanboying. Most of their later stuff was weak. Simple as that. Yeah, there are standout tracks, just as Oasis had as they were imploding. Everyone has their opinions on what they were and there’s no right or wrong answer. Be cool man, it’s only RUclips. Who cares?
@@andiholman2543 We disagree. What I don't like is how you think it's somehow fact that The Beatles got worse in their last years. Most people disagree with that, and think 'The Beatles' and, 'Abbey Road' are amongst their strongest efforts. You are in the minority.
Oh I'll also say that even when Oasis declined they still had 2 or 3 tracks on every album of the quality that lesser bands base their entire careers on. "Gas Panic", "Go Let It Out", "The Hindu Times", "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", "LIttle By Little", "Lyla", "The Importance of Being Idle", "I'm Outta TIme", and my favourite Post 90s Oasis track "Falling Down". I guess you could say in the 90s they were the Beatles and in the 2000s they were the Stones.
over half of these songs you mention, I am afraid I do not recognize them, and I am a fairly wide-ranging music fan who seeks stuff out actively ---- however even the most uninterested music fan would likely recognize the 2 or 3 best tracks from a Beatles or Stones album from a similar point in their careers.
The Hindu times, Gas Panic and I’m outta Time, three of my favourites then Stop crying your heart out I think almost everyone in the world heard that one. Epic songs
I might be the exception, but SOTSOG is the first Oasis album I have ever heard as a kid and I didn't really listen to any of their earlier stuff before well into adulthood and while I admire their first two albums a lot, their fourth is still my favourite Oasis album to this day.
Bonehead was the Brian Jones of oasis.... he started it and was the driving force of the tunes... he and Liam are the soul of oasis, plus for my money Tony on drums gave that edge..... perfection is never perfect it's the pursuit of perfect expression
Hey all. Re 12:57 - Quite a lot of you have referenced in the comments that the UK Chart Rules changed in the year 2000 to only allow three songs on a single. I've really tried to find some evidence for this, and put in a bit of research, but can't find anything. I think this might be an urban myth, as I have also found multiple examples of 4-song singles that hit the charts and weren't affected by this rule (see Brianstorm by Arctic Monkeys for example, which had four songs and hit #2 in the UK singles chart). The singles chart today has a 4 song limit, the singles chart in the 90s had a 4 song limit, if anyone can link me to an article showing that for a while in the early 00's there was a randomly implemented 3-song limit I would be interested. Many thanks JH
It's strange how I also thought this was true. I was pretty confident (in fact completely of the belief) that there was a distinct change in 2000 that singles were only allowed to have 2 b-sides. I'm almost certain I read an article in Melody Maker or NME at the time which made the rules clear. I also thought that anything over the "2 b-side" rule had to be classed as an 'EP' and not a single. For this reason, I seem to remember some bands releasing an EP version and a 'single' version (could that be the Arctic Monkeys loophole?). Either way, it's baffling to me that I can't find actual evidence of this right now. But it was such a distinct change and memory that I find it very difficult to believe it's not true. Regardless, this was a very enjoyable video!
The change you’re referring to came into effect in 1998, at some point between June and October (compare the average number of b-sides on singles released before and after that timeframe). The CSC agreed to new rules reducing the number of tracks on a single from four to three, playing time from 25 minutes to 20 and the compact disc single minimum dealer price to £1.79. It was a fairly hot topic at the time.
To me Oasis is the Gallagher brothers and Bonehead. That's the sound. No diss to Guigsy, McCarrol or White but I think you could have had any decent bassist/drummer in those roles and it would have still been great as long as the Gallagher brothers and Bonehead where there. Boneheads rhythm guitar is a huge factor in that 90s Oasis sound.
Guigsy pretty much wrote the book on being in the right place at the right time - he was like the Stuart Sutcliffe of Oasis, only an ugly version who was allowed to stick around.
Heathen Chemistry is easily their worst album. Liams voice was deteriorating, Noels songs were nowhere near as good as before. The sound of the band was changing and Noels flat production was uninspired.
Yeah, I took a hi-fi to my mates parents house (in his double garage) as he had a 2nd hand snooker table in there and he had SOTSOG on CD which he used to play while we played snooker and I did say to him once, "this album is so underrated, brilliant album" to which I still think. It has some great tracks on it, Sunday Morning Call, Where Did It All Go Wrong? and Roll It Over to name just 3.
The talent in a band has to be a dictator. Do I want Phil Selway's songs on OK Computer? Do I want a Krist Novoselic song on Nevermind? Fuck no. The best bands work when there is humility. The talent has to be humble enough to find the value in their bandmates, and the bandmates have to be humble enough to recognise that their meal-ticket is the talent. If you all can do this then you can have great success.
I firmly believe that no songs on Heathen Chemistry would make it in any of their albums from the 90s. Just as Noel said about SOTSOG, there were no "killer tracks" there as well. Everything sounds like a B-side of a better song.
It's funny how tides turn. I remember being on a certain Oasis pro-boards for years and you'd get absolutely destroyed for saying you preferred the band with Bonehead/Guigs over the Gem/Andy.
Definitely Maybe is my favorite album. Liam’s voice was crystal clear with range and power, Noel’s guitar was more aggressive, and Tony’s straight forward and big/round sounding drum style provided a foundation that complemented those two aspects in a way no other drummer was really able to replicate. Some people may disagree with me, but I feel they peaked after the first album. What’s the Story is excellent for sure, and probably more radio friendly, but their albums just gradually lost energy it seemed.
Yep you're right man. You go from Champagne Supernova and Some Might Say to "God bless the sun the one that shines on everyone, who deaaals druuugs" LOL
Would just like to say, the reason Oasis never had singles with 3 b-sides on after a certain date (which I can't recall now) is because the official charts company (if that's the name and who it was) changed the rules in the early 00's. Now singles were only allowed 3 songs max and the total running time couldn't exceed 20 mins in total where as before could be 4 tracks and I think as long as you liked. I remember it and remember Oasis singles having to have 3 tracks on them instead of 4. Also remember being gutted about it. Rules eh! think it was possibly to make it fairer somehow but thought, now Noel being so prolific and talented has to limit his singles, gutting.
Ironic really that Morning Glory was recorded really quick when they were all drunk half the time in ‘95 & it all seemed like a doddle. Then for Don’t Believe the Truth in ‘05, the documentary shows they were all really trying hard to make that album, Liam included. As you said it’s all about the songs & the magic had gone
Gem weirdly started acting all Manchester and taking on the persona of Noel and Liam, which was a bit fake, he’s from Willington Co Durham. Great musician but not a star
The difference in the art direction of the record covers was so jarring at the time. You knew before even hearing SOTSOG that things had changed, and not for the better. Great analysis overall, James. Keep up the good work, fella.
He didn't "forget", he chose ten reasons that changed things in his opinion. Just because a content creator doesn't include absolutely everything doesn't mean they "forgot". Comments like these are the most useless of the useless.
No offence to Alan White, but replacing Tony McCarroll is why they never matched their artistic peak of the Some Might Say single. Oasis as a great indie rock band died that day.
I don't believe the newer Noel Gallagher is the same person as the original. I literally believe he has been replaced by another person. It's more common than people realise. His music's boring, for starters, even Liam can write better songs than him. New Noel looks an inch taller, original was shorter. The look in the eyes is completely different. Original looks wild, newer look like one eye is going in one direction and the other in a slightly other (MK-Ultra?). A sure sign is that the incoming replacement will acquire a new wife, like new Paul McCartney dropping Jane Asher for Linda. Also, look how much the Beatles changed when the new Paul came in before Sgt. Pepper's. I haven't yet dated the switch over, but it was some time in the noughties. Could also just be NLP (mind re-programming) but I can't shake the feeling it's not the same soul. If this sounds too far fetched to be true consider this, there is more evidence that the man that replaced Paul McCartney is not who he claims he is than proves that he is. Professional analysis of photographs by clinical pathologist, differing DNA test in paternity suit, mismatched voice prints, signatures by left and right handed persons, differing facial features and eye colour, and even a book by the man that claims to have replaced him that is completely convincing ("Billy's Back" ghost written by Thomas E. Uharriet).
Wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure if McCartney is dead as such, but I trust my own two eyes which tell me that there's more than one person out there being Paul McCartney.
Great video James.I wiil defend SOTSOG though because i think Noel still had a desire to prove himself even though he kind of backed out with the song choices in the end.Also 2000 is my favorite year of them live (yokohama 2000 and 1st Night at Wembley being some of their best gigs)
Wow James, you've just put into words and described what I had always thought or felt regarding Oasis's decline in the 00s. It's just brilliantly analysed. I appreciate that you mentioned Brian Cannon, whose work was definitely an important part of the Oasis experience. I remember waiting with excitation for the new artwork to be revealed...
I love 2000s Oasis. Liam finally started writing a lot, and his songwriting style is so John Lennon-y, it's just great. His songs on "Heathen Chemistry", and "Don't Believe The Truth" are some of my favourite songs. "The Meaning Of Soul", "Love Like A Bomb", "Probably All In My Mind", etc.... 23:35 - whats wrong with that?
@@VitorBarbosa Not even close to Beady Eye. Liam’s current solo work isn’t written by him, or by friends like Gem, or Andy. It is written by producers, and other corporate boardroom, songwriters.
Another lovely video. Thanks mate. Between the age of 14 and 17, Oasis absolutely were absolutely everything to me (1994 - 1997) and from that point onwards I fell out of love with them. It was really interesting to hear from you some of the reasons why that might have been.
To be fair on the B-sides, it was always an exceptionally high standard they set early on. I don't remember anyone else having great b-sides at the time, they were as much filler as the later Oasis ones were. Also, at the time a single was around £4 and an album £10-12, which you inevitably had anyway, so it had to be a good sell to get kids to part with that cash again instead of on another great album from someone else...of which there were plenty at the time. Ultimately though, it was just slowly fizzling out. The motivation had gone, it had become just a job to them and they were just going through the motions.
They were a cocaine, ecstasy and beer band. They sacked their mates from Manchester, got some proper musicians in, and became a bit more weed and red wine. Happens when you get older, have kids etc
The oasis I really liked was the DM era band into early MG. They meant it, were raw, were writing some really good songs and had a massive attitude and no one had seen it for a while. Then they ran out of steam, got too bloated and noel started going to cocktail parties at Downing Street. After knebworth there were still some decent songs but they didn’t really mean it and lost their way. Then they became a self parody. Partly because Noel hasn’t got anything to say. Still good live.
They never became a "self parody". Sure they weren't all that great live. But their last two albums are great efforts, and Liam sounds pretty good in the studio.
Heading into the release of Be Here Now we had been left with.....Don't look back in Anger, Underneath The Sky, Wonderwall, Round Are Way and The Masterplan! No wonder the anticipation was beyond belief at the time. But I could tell with one listen of Be Here Now that it was never gonna be the same.
I think Oasis were still good in the 2000s. Different yes, but still good. However the musical landscape had changed and new bands like Travis and Coldplay and Killers etc were current and oasis ship had sailed in terms of mainstream popularity although they still had a huge fanbase. Nothing lasts forever sadly. Probably a good thing.
In my opinion a huge difference between the two lineups is the bass. Guigsy was playing very punk, not doing many movements, just straight notes, like a train, like a machine gun. When they did SOTSOG Noel played the parts and it became very McCartney, there are much more things going on in the bass lines. And then Andy was similar too, he was a guitarist, like Noel, and when a guitarist becomes a bass played there's more ability involved technically, whilst if bass is your first instrument and you learn it yourself, then you don't need much ability to play Oasis first era songs. The same can be said about Bonehead and Gem, totally different guitarists, Gem is a solo guitar player, and with all my respect I don't think Bonehead is able to play solos properly. The amps and backline was different too, their sound in the first era was more aggressive, more American with the Marshalls, more 90s cause they were coming from Grunge, second era was much more Beatlesque and British, more clean. In my opinion if they would have kept the same backline and brought in people with the same ability of Guigs and Bone, they would have sounded more in line with their past.
Noel was under intense pressure in the 90's. It is no surprise that he needed substances to cope. He was bearing most of the weight of the band's success. The Beatles had three songwriters. Oasis had one (of quality). The rest of the band were modern day voluptuary's. He needed much more support and commitment from them than they were willing to provide. Without other band members taking an active part in the creative process they were doomed as a unit in the long term. It was inevitable that it would not end well for them. I've learnt more about Oasis from your channel than from everything else on RUclips combined. Cheers.
From what I understand, the Beatles had 2 main songwriters. John Lennon & Paul McCartney, who intern had their own publishing company until it was sold to Sony along with the entire Beatles Catalogue. With Oasis on the other hand, all the songs on the 1st 3 albums were written entirely by Noel Gallagher who allowed other band members to contribute to the songwriting process in their later albums. Which was a positive since it took the weight off his shoulders and gave Liam a chance to hone his songwriting chops. Noel benefited royally in the long run from being the bands main songwriter since he was granted power of attorney over the Oasis catalogue/publishing.
As great as their 90s work was, I always thought that their 00s work was so underrated. The thing with Oasis was that they peaked musically really early after just 2 albums within 2 years. I mean anything they were ever going to make after Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory was never going to reach them heights. Any album after was always going to be compared. These were 2 of the biggest albums in rock music history. I believe that if Oasis the band had first come on the scene in 2000 then them 00s albums would definitely had got more recognition.
Really excellent. I'm in the states and was a very big Oasis fan from the start. I definitely noticed the drop in the number of quality songs per album as time went on, but I never really closely followed what was going on in their private lives and with their inner circle of creative people. I noticed the change in producers obviously, but many bands do that as a natural evolution and the need to feel growth, whether the change actually works or not. I also noticed the democratization as more non Noel songs popped up. I figured that Noel's output was drying up a bit, and that the band might have needed more songs than he was delivering, but that was just a guess, I didn't really know what was actually happening within the band. I know that they never matched the excellence of the first two albums (imo), but I always gave the newer stuff a shot. There was ALMOST always something good/great on the later albums but they lacked the fire and consistency. All that being said, the last Oasis show I saw in 2005 at Madison Square Garden in New York was absolutely fantastic, and the crowd was some weird time travelling crazy bunch of nutters that thought they were at Knebwirth in '96!! I have never experienced a crowd like that, and it was very exciting to be there. The band were great that night, but the crowd was better! I'll always have a big warm and fuzzy spot in my heart for Oasis.
Problem with Oasis is that they did their best work first(DM & WTSMG) and peaked too early. BHN & SOTSOG were really cool albums but from then on it was hit and miss with their 00s works. The biggest change in the Oasis dynamic came in HC where Noel let Liam, Gem and Andy contribute the songwriting process. Noel's correct on one thing. The success of their 1st 2 albums was treated like an albatross around the band's neck by the music press as if to say they would never reach those heights again.
Thanks to your channel, I think I've learnt more about Oasis in the past 24hrs than the past 25+ years 😆!!! In all seriousness, this is a really good video summary and I do agree with a lot of what you've said about the changing sound/feel of Oasis between 90s & 00s. I've always felt that the line-up and production changes was the key difference, but it's interesting to learn about the other factors as well. While I do enjoy a lot of their 00s tracks in themselves, I am personally biased towards 90s era because I grew up during the Britpop years and was brought up on that sound thanks to my Mum - so there is a lot of nostalgia there.
Oasis set the bar so high on those 90s albums that afterwords, just being a ‘good’ or sometimes ‘very good’ band seemed like such a tremendous let down from a fan’s perspective or just as failures from a critical standpoint from 2000 onward. Personally I think the personnel and production changes played a huge factor in the sound of the band not being quite the same in the ‘00s. I also think Noel wrote over 100 songs in the 90s and cherry picked them over the first 3 releases. If he parceled out some of the classic bsides later for future albums, Oasis would’ve have easily released at least 2 more near perfect albums. The critics bashing’ everything they put out after BHN didn’t help with a lot of people’s perception of the band either. I think all of those post 2000 albums are all very good and I do think Heathen Chemistry is very underrated. And lastly, the bsides that were chosen for the later albums were often better than the album tracks themselves. For example, Let’s All Make Believe, Full On, Carry Us All would’ve made Standing on the Shoulders at least 8 or 8.5 out of 10 if they were chosen instead of Little James, I Can See A Liar etc
They made too much money and then lifestyle changes and they were around pretentious people rather their own class of people. Noel Gallagher hanging around with Kate Moss and co definitely turned him into a bit of a tosser!
I think the reason they stopped doing 4 tracks on singles was that at some point in the 00s the rules changed on singles, wasn't allowed more than 15 minutes of music i think, otherwise it wasn't eligible as a single. This is a distant memory and one i can't be arsed to google right now. Happy to be corrected if anybody knows what the single eligibility rules were changed to
The magic Oasis had in the 90's was because of their youth, new break out band on the scene, the era and the sound of rock during that time. They were a group of young lads with fire in their bellies to succeed and they came out the gate swinging with everything they had. By 2000 they were entering their 30's and the sound of rock was beginning to change, it's no hard to understand their sound and style would have changed too (for better or for worse) By that time of course they weren't the same band, even some of the founding members had been changed out. It's really not a mystery or any wonder what happened, they changed their sound with the changing times like every band does. I absolutely love their first two albums, and it holds up well because the sound is genuine and sincere. You can't expect them to write the same music for 20 years straight and still expect that to be true
It’s all about opinion I guess. They needed to evolve and in my opinion they did, it just took a few mediocre albums to get there. At the end they were probably at the most talented musician wise and some of the songs Liam, Gem and Andy wrote were some of the best oasis songs wrote in many a year, and they end up taking that into Beady Eye. Unfortunately they broke up for reasons that Liam has spoken about. I think Oasis had run their course, Noel and the others had moved in different directions music wise, the last album showed that. I loved Beady Eye and like Liam’s solo stuff but I cannot listen to Noel’s.
I like some of Noel's stuff but nobody wants a whole album of him singing, Beady Eye wasn't a bad band really, the opposite, they were quite good but under promoted plus back then everyone was glad to see Noel ditched his "untalented idiot brother" when Liam's voice and that massive guitar sound was the hot ticket.
Liam and Noel are still talented and the few songs I’ve heard from them sing from their solo careers are not bad at all! Would have loved to see them squash the beef and come together to make another album. Life is to short and family is to important to just waste their talent over some ego BS.
Another excellent video with some really good points. The Noel interview is also a really good and revealing one. I think the panic attack point is key. Up to that point it seemed like five lads having the time of their lives with every thing they touched turning to gold. Be Here Now was their first misstep, couple that with excessive drug use, the paranoia that can bring plus Noel's panic attacks and suddenly everything is far from rosy. The loss of Guigsy and Bonehead then rips out the heart of the band and what you're left with is musicians doing a job. The respective talents of guigsy, bonehead and gem and Andy also mean the sound of the band, live at least, changed. I feel like at this point Noel fell out of love with the idea of Oasis. He says in the interview about how he had loads of music that he wasn't going to explore with the band because he wanted them to be high energy rock and roll(I think that was more or less the phrase he used?). I'm sure some of that was down to Liam insisting on what they should sound like but it meant they didn't really explore any other avenues and like you said failed to evolve with the music scene around them. It's one of my biggest regrets with the band, why they never tried different stuff. Noel would often talk about it, he would often talk about new songs being out there and different sounding but come the album it was same old Oasis. I believe that's because he felt that that was the oasis sound and was what people wanted. Personally I'd have been really happy if he'd genuinely pushed the boat out sonically - even if it turned out shit. There's a little bit of it on the last album but by then it was way too late. In terms of quality control I both agree and disagree. Things like the album art and terrible logo change I agree with. In terms of the b-sides yes the last album was a joke but he still had some absolutely brilliant b-sides on the other albums. Let's all make believe and cigarettes in hell are better than the A-side(Go let it out) for example. Idlers dream is a great little song as is just getting older from the same single(hindu times). The trouble is I think Noels always had a problem with which songs to put on the album. It didn't really matter with the first two albums because everything was more or less amazing. It's when he ran out of ideas and the quality of his output decreased that it became more of an issue. How the hell no one thought Let's all make believe wouldn't make SOTSOG better is beyond me. There's more I want to say but I've forgotten just exactly what it is as I've written loads already so I'll leave it there. No, I won't I've just remembered one of the things I was going to say. Liam singing less and Noel singing more. In the 90's Liam sang 95% of the songs. In the naughties Noel sang loads. Sunday Morning Call and Where did it all go wrong - back to back noel sung songs on a 10 track Oasis album! And a lot of the b-sides were Noel sang. I remember either reading or seeing an interview where Noel said that Liam couldn't be arsed going into the studio to sing b-sides anymore so he(Noel) had to do them. I don't know how much truth there was to this or whether Noel just preferred singing them or if Liam's vocal issues were the problem but having more and more Noel sung songs also diminished the old magic a little as Liam and his voice were such a big part of why Oasis were so special. Edit: so after a brief bit of b-sides research it seems that Liam was happy to sing b-sides he, Gem or Andy had written but doesn't appear to have sung any Noel written b-sides after SOTSOG. Which is interesting... Anyway, great band, great channel!
I Started watching this thinking it was going to be an interesting, balanced comparison of the good and bad aspects of the two Oasis eras… instead you just get a very biased half hour moan about how oasis declined after ‘00. Clearly this guy prefers the earlier material. And that’s fine. But the discussion just seems to accept it as a given that oasis in the ‘00s had no good stuff. Liams changing voice, for example, while maybe unhealthy for the singer, nevertheless is what made some songs in that era really great. (Imagine if ‘go let it out’ had been delivered with his earlier voice?) Also, Noel starting to allow others contribute songs they’d written is not even listed here. But seems to me to be a pretty significant change? I would have expected a balanced analysis of the good and bad qualities of Gem, Andy, and Liam’s writing styles, during this era. It is also presented as a given that Noel stepping away from playing lead guitar was a bad thing… but how about a consideration of the possible positive aspects of Gem’s proficiency on lead guitar? There’s no balanced comparison here. Instead the video should be more honestly renamed “10 reasons oasis declined after 00” Because that is really what this video is saying. But I hugely disagree. The summer of 2002 stands out in my memory as a really great year! I was 22 and the soundtrack to that summer was the awesome Hindu Times single (definitely one of my top five oasis songs). And the rest of the Heathen Chemistry album was pretty great too. Saw them live twice that year, in Finsbury Park and in Manchester, and they were awesome. Of course oasis were always going to change and evolve. I personally like some of the more ponderous later stuff. But Even some of the very last songs still had that signature oasis attitude I’d loved as a teenager. (Eyeball tickler, shock of the lightening, lyla) This guy just seems a little hurt that oasis moved on from the first three albums.
James, I would love to hear more from you about the 2000s, obviously the 90s were better musically but I feel the 2000s is an under explored era for Oasis. Great channel by the way.
All Around the World was the last single to be a 4 Track Release that was No 1 in the UK in January 1998. After this, there was a 3 track limit for a Single to be Chart Eligible, so there could only be 2 B-Sides at most from Go Let It Out onwards anyway.
This guy omits and cherry picks things to enforce his agenda. Like complaining about liams voice in 2000 and using a clip from 2006 or like moaning that Noel used simple arrangements in the 2000’s when infact that’s what he did in the 1990’s.. Unfortunately this guy has lost his marbles and believe his own hype. Luckily I unsubscribed from him and the algorithm has done well to not put this nonsense on it since .
As I did discover Oasis when I was really getting into their music I still defend a lot of the various periods in their career and I think a lot of their albums have been strong stuff. I always love their first two albums and really like Be Here Now, but I always have been a fan of Standing On The Shoulder of Giants so much that it's always one of my favourite Oasis albums and yet really like the later diversions on experimentalism from the album. The other ones like Don't Believe The Truth and Dig Out Your Soul are also great records so I always feel open minded which era from Oasis that I listen to because the main point of the band is it's Oasis being themselves despite the changes and this is a brilliant video why all things changed from one of the UK's biggest sensations of bands ever.
Another excellent video and analysis. I enjoyed the later albums as well. It’s hard to stay on top of the world. Yet even a subpar Oasis album was better than most of the stuff that came out in the early 2000s anyway. I get what the video is saying but times and people change. Gem and Andy Bell were excellent musicians and probably kept Oasis going when the band most likely would have broken up. I would like to see a future video about the history of all the Oasis drummers. All are great but I think the best one technically was Alan White.
Oasis peaked early.....First 3 albums with countless monster b sides. I still love SOTSOG though. Easily best album after Be Here Now. Has some great tunes and the production is excellent
Guigsy is such a mystery. He was in one of the biggest bands in the world and yet no one knows anything about him.
You mean Guigsy 😄
They don't even know his name 🤣
@@richardmoss5139 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Joe Owen Why because I spelt his name wrong... And you are right I'm not a massive fan just take a casual interest in them. Wouldn't say it was "fake" though.
@Joe Owen Behave. Noone likes puritans!
This is such a fantastic channel, James. You treat this music with an intellectual seriousness that is pretty much unprecedented. It may even be more than it deserves -- but even so, every single video is full of flashes of brilliant, generous insight, and you perform the material with passion that is contagious. Your points here about Alan McGee, Owen Morris, and Brian Cannon are extremely trenchant.
Music deserves intellectual analysis
Oasis are a serious band and deserve serious consideration
Too much speculation and random opinion of "what could have caused this"... At times I feel like I am watching a teenage girl gossiping. But I cannot stop watching this hairy man and his cheap tawdry clothes under the bright lights. The camera is SO close!
There's a whole lot in here that is wrong though, especially in discussions about producers and things outside the spectrum of James' knowledge (like saying High Flying Birds stuff was influenced by "techno" and used "programmed beats", Jesus). It's ok to say it but don't say it with authority unless you're sure.
I like a lot of 00's Oasis songs but there's no 00's Oasis album where I can listen to the whole thing without skipping a few songs.
@@TheDreamer1980 Such as?
@@Arkantos117 The second half of Heathen Chemistry is quite shite. Force of Nature is annoying as fuck and boring. Lyla and Love Like a Bomb and Part of a Queue suck. The only good songs are Turn Up the Sun, Importance of Being Idle and Keep the Dream Alive. The only two good songs in DOYS are Shock of the Lightening and Falling Down. The second half of that albums sucked. I think Oasis fans just got so desensitized to shit music in the 2000's that they will thing Love Like a Bomb is a good song.
Just to let you know when Bonehead left the band there was another substantial reason why. He was the only member of the band that lived up north in Manchester whilst the rest of the band lived around the London area. The constant travelling obviously had an effect on his family life thus chosing to quit.
I think bonehead was a bigger part of that band than they give him credit and was one of the wild ones that gave them that rock n roll image.
In the early interview would tell the press who oasis were.
@@b00ts4ndc4ts yeah and theres plenty of footage available :D
the rockers never, ever, sounded as good after Bonehead left. Rock 'n roll star, Supersonic, Acquiesce and stuff were always sounding a little whiny in the 00s.
@@timkasansky2528agree 100%. They were amazing live 94/97. Never the same after this…
Surely he made millions, why not move his family to London?
I think British culture changed in the 2000’s and the days of the ‘lad’ were numbered.
Also think that Noel was evolving and mellowing as he grew older, it’s totally natural. I don’t think Oasis intentionally changed there sound for a new audience, they were just evolving.
Excellent points, kind regards.
the lad is forever. if you go to england they exist
I'm a big fan of 00s Oasis but I completely agree that there was a reduction in quality and "magic" with their post 90s output. That Noel interview that you used is one of his best. Noels so honest in it and his usual ego bollocks isn't there. But I think he definitely was depressed during that time period and was fed up. (Famously leaving the SOTSOG tour).
Its interesting though, because during the press tour of Heathen Chemistry, Noel was very positive and he seemed excited to be in the band again. His relationship with Liam seemed strong and he was very proud of Liams songs on that album. In an interview he said something along the lines of "I've grown to love that boy so much".
It was during the Don't Believe The Truth tour where the relationship seemed to sour and by the Dig Out Your Soul tour, the tension and anger on stage was pretty uncomfortable to watch.
But yeah I love all eras of the band. Some great tunes during the 00s and I don't think they every released a bad album. Just some better than others.
OASIS FROM 00s WAS A BEST "BAND" WITH GEM, ANDY. OASIS IN THE 90s WAS ONLY NOEL SONGS AND LIAM VOICE.
I think the continued decline of Liam's voice and the brotherly dynamic they had is what did it. Liam progressively got worse and then Noel threw that ultimatum at him after the 2007 Brits performance, likely because it was supposed to be this big celebration of their work but the media was more fixated on how Liam's voice had declined. Then Liam kinda doing whatever he wanted when DOYS was recorded, then the long, arduous tour and more vocal decline...all until that infamous fight that broke the band up.
If Liam had gotten things right with his voice, I think they would've lasted longer but who knows? In Noel's words, Oasis was never meant to go 12 rounds.
08p97piiipip8
SOTSOG? Really? Sheesh. Use your keyboard.
@@FuckinLibertineI also like Gem and Andy"s songs.Thank You For The Good Times is great!!!!
Oasis were more about attitude and lad culture. You cant carry that on when your a middle-aged millionaire. Their edge was totally gone post-97. They were the type of band that should have disappeared after 2 albums. As Marvin Hagler once said "its harder to get out of bed at 5am and run 10 miles in the snow when you wake up in silk sheets".
Oasis stopped being a band as soon as Tony, Guigsy and Bonehead departed. You can never underestimate the power of the gang mentality in a band. The whole parts become the driving force. After that era you could have literally stuck any session musicians behind Liam and Noel and it would've done the job but never have the same vibe.
Exactly! They were no longer the "5 lads from Manchester who took on the world" anymore.
they never bettered definitely maybe it shows you can bring in more talented players but they lost the edge that drove them
This.
Nailed it. My brother and I have been saying this for decades
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I thought Whitey replacing Tony was musically ok, but the heart's gone when the original rhythm section go offski. xx
It happens to most bands but when you think the likes of..
Go Let It Out, Roll It Over, Let's All Make Believe, Gas Panic, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Little By Little, The Hindu Times, Songbird, Born On A Different Cloud, Lyla, The Importance Of Being Idle, Keep The Dream Alive (very underated), Let There Be Love, Shock Of The Lightning, The Turning, I'm Outta Time and Falling Down.... were ALL released after the crazy magical Oasis Mania 'mad for it' period of the 90's when arguably they had past their peak of success then they had plenty of great songs that most bands would kill for in the noughties...
bag it up, waiting for the rapture, shock of the lightning, from last album , 3 tunes sam fender n the likes can only think about churning out! Oasis truly the last of the greats,
Lyla, Born on a Different Cloud are shit.
I also like the so called 'filler"songs on their later albums.And i also like the B-Sides that go with their later albums.
and for me one of the greatest: who feels love
Where Did It All Go Wrong is well underrated as well.
I've always found Gem a rather bland, uninventive guitarist. Not untalented, but the kind of guy you'd expect to see in a slick but generic covers band. At least with Bonehead you had that reliably loud, brash and basic rhythm style which gave Noel the chance to shine on lead guitar, and establish the "classic" Oasis guitar sound. After Gem joined, Noel didn't seem to put so much effort into creating iconic riffs and solos, and their overall guitar arrangement style seemed to prioritise texture over power, which is nice in itself, but much more suited to softer bands like Travis and Coldplay than raw power we had come to expect from Oasis.
this is exactly what i've been thinking but i couldn't put it into words, bonehead was definitely a massive part of oasis' sound in the 90s. almost every song from the first three albums is instantly recognisable from either its riff or solo, post bonehead the guitars almost seem to melt into a lot of the songs and don't catch your attention like they used to
@@decc0484 When Bonehead plays with Liam the songs sound so much better he had cancer but hope he comes back when he recovers
@@user-oh7iv3ij5x yeah agreed, thank fuck his scans have come back all clear, would be great to see him an liam live
Bonehead era was buy far BEST
Making the Boss look good is half the job....
I wish Dig Out Your Soul got more love. I have been a fan since the beginning and that album is still one of my all-time favorite albums. It's been nearly 15 years since its release and I still can't get enough of that album.
For me the first 7 tracks are great and then takes a massive noise dive
@@generalcustard1I love soldier on the best. I think that album is the one where the new lineup properly found its feet, but unfortunately it was the last.
Nah its my least to be fair there underrated ones but that's by far my least
Im Outta times is great but no the rest idk not great
@generalcustard1 I'd say first 8... TBWTL is great as it's so different and you could never imagine it being on any of the other albums except perhaps SOTSOG.
Don’t believe the truth and heathen chemistry are their weakest albums and they’re still great albums which is why oasis is one of the best bands to ever do it ayyy
Your attention to detail and the nuance you bring to this subject is, in itself, a work of art brother. Keep up the good work 🤘🏾
Sorry it’s not an absolute Oasis 00’s shite and 90’s amazing. ‘She’s Electric, Digsy’s Dinner and Roll With It are poor. Live, 2000s Oasis are miles better how can anyone say Gem Archer and Andy Bell are worse musicians than their predecessors? Check out Gas Panic! Live at Wembley Stadium 2000 for an example of when Oasis went somewhere different and were still inventive.
While this is a good analysis and history, I *strongly* disagree that the post-90s change made Oasis a lesser band. I think many of the points raised go are really biased and ignore the strengths of the later albums, and I'm someone who grew up on 90s Oasis.
So look - for all the pop sensibilities claimed to be present in SotSoG, I largely think it is the best-produced Oasis album. The sounds are enormous, cinematic, "Put Yer Money" sounds cybernetic, "Fuckin' in the Bushes" is more ferocious than Led Zeppelin at their most coked-up, "Who Feels Love" is awashed in psychedelia I find more coherent and multidimensional than in tracks like "Shakermaker"(and I fucking LOVE "Shakermaker"), and to say nothing of the British rock history compendiums that are "Gas Panic" and "Roll It Over". And listening to Liam's earnestness and vulnerability in "Little James" is also quite significant for me. I think it was a very creative period for the band, as Noel has said he wants to write some more well-crafted songs.
The "Let There Be Love" cover art is amazing, how can anyone think it's a bad cover? It's so clean, stark, and yet powerful and full of symbolism. 99% of musicians out there wish they had covers as beautiful as that. And also just look at the sheer madness in "Dig Out Your Soul" and its booklet. Its incredible psychedelia has been very important and influential on me in wanting to become a graphic designer.
I absolutely appreciate Gem and Andy's input and contributions to the group and I think they are really underappreciated. I think they are the two more grounded and intelectual counterparts to Liam and Noel's usually strong bravado(god bless em but they need people to keep them in check), and have more of an intuitive taste for timbre and harmony. Andy especially since he's a shoegaze veteran and a bit more of an indie person, and his input(and also of Zak Starkey's) in the band is something I immensely respect, and have to admit that I miss. I miss Bonehead and the others but they just weren't in there to collaborate in the realm of ideas.
The 00s albums are full of tons of beautiful timbre and dynamics, too. Just think of the harmonica solo in "Gas Panic!", the Gilmouresque guitar in "Roll It Over", the entirety of "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", the closing moments of "Better Man", the segue into the arpeggio in "The Turning", or whatever the hell the sounds in "Swollen Hand Blues" are.
I think touting "Sitting Down in Silence(On My Own)" as a worse version of "Sexy Sadie" is robbing it out of its own agency and the ability to become its own thing, and these songs, outside of the dour, depressed, piano line, are nothing alike. "Sexy Sadie" is a depressing, yet arrested and intoxicated rumination on a flirty, beautiful woman(or rather Maharishi Yogi), while "Sitting Down" is more like Noel's own vulnerable sharing on what appears to be coyness, shyness, anxiety, listlessness, or just whichever person or avatar embodies those feelings. It's so different. "Sexy Sadie" shares more in common with Radiohead's "Karma Police" if anything.
As a last point: I'm one of those rare people who fuckin' adore Beady Eye. I love "Different Gear" and I truly and honestly love it more than most Oasis albums, and I think its sounds are intense and lyrics full of spirit, bravado, rumination and unhinged idealism. I love Noel's disco stuff too! It's obvious he's passionate about it and it translates into the music, and that it reminds him of the good times in the Manchester acid house scene of the late 80s, and that was a great scene and a fanboyism I can just smile with and appreciate. It's really no coincidence that Oasis used to collaborate so much with The Chemical Brothers, that they would get remixed by them. They don't seem like it, but both were really cut from the same cloth. The house scene was really huge in the English north in the late 80s.
None of this is to say that your feelings on their decline are invalid and that you feel like you've been robbed or something. There is something you obviously value in their 90s music that you feel has been lost. But this feeling isn't universal to all Oasis fans, and to me the Gallaghers and all of their brothers in the group have remained as talented and capable as they were all those years ago.
I cannot believe that you skipped over Liam's hashimoto's diagnosis. Seriously - if you've ever had it, you know that it has a tremendous impact on your vocals.
I have bust up nose-itis. It's not because someone punched me in the face. It's this other peculiar thing.
If he mentioned hashimotos, it would totally ruin the video. Mainly because that is bullshit. His screamed his voice out in a unnatural way and it got severely damaged. Simple as that.
Yeah, I'm sure it could not have been because of abusing drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and partying. It MUST have been hashimoto ;)
@@korf79 Defo bro. It wasn't like it was his fault his voice went terrible. Nah, he was just lucky and got disease enit...
@@msv7856 Yes, and that ridiculous stance he had when singing didn't help, either.
@jamesthecat true. A more relaxed stance would have meant more relaxed signing. But in 95 and 96, he really did the damage if you listen back. Too much screaming and shouting instead of singing. It did sound great, but it came with a huge cost.
Fantastic job James! Really thorough but concise look at all the different factors (and people) that were replaced. Now I know why I fell out of love with Oasis by their 4th album. I love how this video highlights just all the different factors and people needed to create a masterpiece. It's not just Noel's songwriting, the drugs or the stage in his life, not just Liam's voice deteriorating; but the producers and talent behind the scenes that pushed the band to accept nothing but perfection 💚
ahh each album after Be Here Now has at least 3/4 good songs on them. Theres some great ones in there actually.
Totally disagree and BTW wrestling is FAKE
I still think Oasis were pretty good in the 2000s. The reason why that era is so dismissed is because in 94-96 they were on track to become a genuine all time great band, and after they'd run out of steam they were "just" an ordinary good band. They also couldn't pull off changing their sound completely like Blur and Radiohead did (ironically Dig Out Your Soul in the dying stages of the band was probably their best attempt at evolving their sound)
They did "evolve" their sound. Listen to "Be Here Now" and then "Standing On The Shoulders", you'll notice the introduction of a softer slower sound, and drum beats. Not to mention Liam starting to write, and the band becoming more Beatles-esque.
dig out your soul it is indeed the best thing they did in the 2000's but it got nerfed due to the poor songs choices and liam refusing to sing the tracks that were originally planned to be in it (record machine, come in come out) forcing noel to rely on 3 very bad songs ("aint got nothing", "high horses" and the horrible beyond understanding "nature of reality") resulting in a good album that could have been way more interesting.
dont believe the truth is a decent album but totally forgettable and heathen chemistry is just horrible.
SOTSOTG was a good album but also suffered from the poor song choosing and has in it some of their absolute worst (i can see a liar, little james, put yer money where yer mouth is). why noel didnt put "lets all make believe" is a mystery and a sacrilege
@@ososnake97 What’s wrong with “Ain’t Got Nothin” ?
@@fshoaps is a horrible song mate, at least in my books. If you wanna hear a good song from liam that's soldier on
Mate Oasis is a rock n roll band, not fucking shandy drinking art students like blur.
You don't re invent the wheel, look at acdc, have you ever seen them play jazz?
The original lineup was the sum of its parts including Tony McCarroll Noel fucked all that up though. That's why the first album will always be the best album for me.
I actually think they became a better band. As in Alan White, Gem and Andy are better musicians technically speaking but in the process they lost that raw edge and young hunger.
Noel should have definitely saved some of them B sides for later albums. Blew the load too quickly.
So you really mean they became a worse band.
@@hermanhawtrey8578technically speaking they became an incredible band but in the context of rawness they became iffy
Oasis in the 00's were still amazing. Some of my favorite tunes were later stuff. More overlaying melodies, maturity, and going beyond simple bar chords rhythm section. Bands change and grow.. Please Please Me vs Revolver...Out of our Heads to Exile...Good bands simply change. Some like it..some don't. Personally, I love later Oasis.
Except Revolver is much better than Please Please Me. Oasis died in the arse after 95'
Great video nerd, thank you. Personally I think the abandoned Death In Vegas stuff was a real missed opportunity to reinvent themselves and to update their sound. Kasabian came along a few years later with that exact sound and blew Oasis out of the water. Any thoughts?
I have never heard about this, what is the abandoned Death in Vegas stuff?
@@inazumaajax9939 It was supposed to be the album after Heathen Chemistry that was scrapped in 2004. A few of the songs from it were reworked and redone for Don't Believe The Truth, but the recordings have never come out.
@@ChadLouisNewton does it have any connection to the band Death in Vegas because Liam Gallagher features on one of their songs and I think it came out around this time
You hit the nail on the head with McGee's pressure and Noel's "that'll do" attitude. For DM and WTSMG, Noel was picking the best 10 or 11 songs from 100 he'd written. By the time it got to the 2000s, he was writing 10 songs and using them all.
For Standing On The Shoulder he left out some great tunes that would have made the album much better
The first two albums were both great. But, on record they slid. Perhaps still a great live band but that was it.
The decreasing quality/amount B-sides element is not *entirely* on Noel, IMO - the entire singles industry was changing at this time. Fewer B-sides on singles was the norm, after a few years of people rinsing two different versions of every single. I think the chart rules as to how many tracks were allowed on each single also changed.
Yeah, in 1998, the Chart Supervisory Committee changed the rules so that a single could only have 3 tracks to be eligible for the charts, rather than 4. The maximum length of a CD single was also reduced from 25 minutes to 20 minutes. It’s also worth noting that, even before then, the majority of Oasis singles were padded out with live/alternative versions of songs and/or covers. Some Might Say, Wonderwall and Stand By Me are the only singles that have three original b-sides on them.
It’s not only Oasis that changed in that time, their fans also changed. Grew up, discovered new music. The band couldn’t feed of that 90’s fan fever anymore and had to start rediscovering themselves at the detriment of their music.
Totally agree. Would've liked to hear more about how Britpop's decline impacted the band.
Giving an American perspective here. After Morning Glory, ofcourse on this side of the pond, everyone was waiting to hear "Wonderwall" and "Champaign Supernova" again. I saw them on the BHN tour in 97, GREAT show, epic show, 2 sold out nights at the arena, people still didnt fully absord BHN yet. But that would be the last time they did 2 sold out nights at an arena in the US. BHN just did not connect with American audiences. SOTSOG got an even smaller push and after that, the mainstream here just didnt get any of it, not the music, not the Gallaghers personalities (we liked the mystery of Thom Yorke, the 'nice guy' Chris Martin was easy to digest) but not the brashness of the Gallaghers, as Noel slipped far into the derivative 'dad rock' sound. I supposed the same could be said in the Uk, but at least they were still releasing radio singles there. Of course, us hardcore fans never left and I still enjoy many tracks off their later records. Noel has said in interviews they were never on the right foot with the US side of the label even at their 90's peak. Tours here were frequently disasters for one reason or another. ... Still a hall of fame band in my book!! Oasis is one of the most influential bands of the 90's that still influence bands to this day!
Not all of us yanks didn’t get the Gallaghers. That’s one of the things I liked about Oasis. Their attitude. Fighting. Pocketful of drugs. Calling corporate pigs swine in pressers. That’s rock n roll. I agree about most wanting WW part 2 and such. I saw them in 96, and 98 and had the changed to work with them (Noel and Gem in 2000) but yeah the magic was gone a few weeks after BHN was released and people couldn’t digest it’s derivative dribble.
They sold out much bigger arenas in 2005 and 2008 in Usa
I worked on the production side for a short time, and I can say that overall production is one of the biggest factors in the overall decline of Rock music's popularity. Most of the great bands of the 90's used very little (if any) of the modern production tricks, and many used antiquated recording and production methods. That is what gave a lot of these bands their unique sound, and separated Rock from a lot of the Pop genres of the time. Producers tailored their production to the overall sound of the band, and used whatever method worked the best for that particular band. In modern times, everything is digitized and recorded the exact same way, and in Rock music, it takes the soul out of it and makes most of the instruments sound like shit. I am a huge music fan, and have well over 2000 albums in my collection, but I have purchased less than 10 albums that were made after 2010. It all sounds like a bunch of over produced rubbish.
Alot of people think that 96 Kenworth was Liam's best as a vocalist but I think Live By The Sea in 95 is.
Long said it - Who Feels Love? is one of the most underrated Oasis songs by far. Very experimental, psychedelic, and phenomenal production.
I know it’s on an album that’s way down the pecking order of Oasis fans, but I always doffed my cap to that song.
sounds incredible live IMO
actually my favorite oasis song! the production is insane! the dust brothers, right?
My favorite Oasis song from the 00's and it's definitely in my top 10 Oasis songs of all time.
I get Noel keeping tunes to himself for his solo career due to liams voice declining live. But I don’t think liams studio performances ever declined, they changed but I actually prefer some of his later studio performances (gas panic, who feels love, stop crying your heart out, turn up the sun, let there be love).
I’ve always thought Force of Nature was such an underrated track. I always liked Heathen chemistry more than the other 2000s albums too
Force of Nature is fantastic!
Agreed. It's not a bad tune. Always thought Force of Nature was a song about Noel venting about Liam, almost like a secret diss track. Heathen Chemistry is no way their worst album either.
@@ZakynthosDiamandis what it's about Liam not Meg!? I always thought it was about Meg!
You may be right. I assumed Liam because of the lyrics "can make you sing like a bird" - Liam's the singer, Noel's the chief, but also Noel said in previous interviews he has a round about way of tricking Liam into doing things he wants him to. "Smoking my stash/burning my cash" could be Noel resenting Liam making money off his songs and being wasteful with money. And finally hearing Noel say "he's had an easy life" regarding Liam in interviews before. Just a hunch though, I've not looked into it. Could well be about Meg.
@@ZakynthosDiamandis never thought of that
Your first point about Noel’s childhood is astonishingly overlooked. Noel’s childhood was physically and emotionally abusive. Horrendously so. His father beat him for no reason. Worse still, Liam, for no reason was never abused.
People with such trauma in their childhoods sometimes become well rounded, passionately good people. Some become toxic, pathological liars, who blame everyone but themselves.
I’ve read all oasis biographies and Tony Mcarolls book. Noel seems unpredictable, selfish, blame-anyone but himself, sees people as objects. It’s not his fault. It takes years of therapy for the average person to deal with this, even if they decide to. He didn’t, he gained the wealth and power to eject people he didn’t like from his life.
My understanding is everyone who left the band had enough of being insulted by him and dictated to- it just wasn’t fun anymore. He claims Liam physically attacked him wielding a guitar and that’s why he doesn’t speak to him. Many peoples have said this is rubbish. Imagine you’re angry, so you get up, retrieve a guitar from another room and return wielding it like an ax. Then what? Noel never says what happened next.
When talking about his month long c0ke binge you don’t hear any remorse, or any feeling of “I made a bad decision” not even any frustration all the time effort and all the other peoples time wasted.
I don’t understand how a brother can completely cut ties with another. He doesn’t even use Liam’s name in interviews. Says things like “his lordship claims he had laryngitis”. Meanwhile Liam seems genuinely hurt when asked about it.
Notice he likes kicking his brother when he’s down. Liam is a baritone and Noel is tenor meaning Noel has a higher vocal range. So it’s unpleasant to say he had to lower the key of songs or that’s why he sang in Acquiesce. But his narrative was always Liam can’t hit the notes. As if that’s Liams fault. Always framed in a negative light.
I’ve no idea why people ignore the fact Liam has hashimoto disease - an autoimmune disease meaning his voice box was becoming squashed. Imagine being considered the best singer in Britain then having no clue why your voice is failing more and more no matter what you do. He could have lived like a monk and the same would have happened. You can hear his vocal range start to reduce. Then after 2000s symptoms got very bad. Your voice doesn’t degenerate in less than 10 years from effortless, crisp high baritone to crippled so much you can’t sing whatsoever.
Many vocalists have abused their voices had drug addictions, supported snack habits and sang during and after they got clean. How many legends from the 70s thrashed their voices, are still alive and still singing fine. Lemmy of Motorhead drank smoked and did whatever he wanted and belted out his songs till the day he died. Oasis were a ten year flash of lightening. It gets boring hearing the narrative Liam managed to entirely destroy his voice in just a few years with his lifestyle, when the cause was medical.
Always love your vids mate.
Huge Oasis fan (from DM to BHN) I find their story so peculiar.
I think they stopped doing 4 song singles because the b-sides they were producing were really good - better then some of their singles in some cases. I remember seeing an interview with Noel sometime ago where he remarked that they would have had 3 classic albums if they hadn't done that, and I tend to agree.
Three!? Did they even have 1?
@@SlinkiestTortoise23 why are u here lmao
@@DREWJARV1903 To help people!
I remember first hearing Oasis in the Don’t Believe The Truth era I loved them songs but my obsession with them began with the first three albums later down the line when I got older. There are gems on the later albums but I’m afraid the albums didn’t hit the same way.
Gems on all the albums after bonehead left
@@joshdonaldson2888 ffs man haha
Think you nailed it with the outgoing line to this video. They believed their own hype. Noel got to a point where it was harder and harder to sing about anything relevant anymore. Gone was the struggle with the Tories, being skint and on the dole which is what often makes the journey raw and packed with emotion. It’s difficult to write another MG when you’re sat in a millionaires house watching the royalty cheques come in.
How did John Lennon, and Paul McCartney manage to do it? It's not as if Noel was the first artist to get famous, and rich writing music as a poor kid.
@@fshoaps Both John and Paul had their fair share of flops. Magical Mystery Tour was considered a critical flop upon release with even John himself declaring it ‘the most expensive home movie ever shot’ Yellow Submarine was exactly the same. The Let It Be film was only completed to fulfil a five film deal and that was massively cut down, terribly edited by Michael Lindsey Hogg and released to less than lukewarm reception. It is only years later that we look upon even the worst the Beatles had to offer through rose tinted glasses and call them quaint. Maxwells Silver Hammer? Yer Blues? Revolution 9? Dig a Pony? The list goes on and on, all terrible. More interestingly though, they’re further evidence of a band believing it’s own hype and being surrounded by people telling them that what they’re doing is good enough. Even The Beatles lost interest in being The Beatles by late 1967 and certainly by 1968.
@@andiholman2543 Magical Mystery Tour wasn't that great of a film, but can you really say that the album is bad? The title track is a great song, and "Fool On The Hill" is a classic. I would agree that John Lennon lost interest in being in The Beatles in late 1967, and certainly by 1968. But Paul McCartney kept the band going, and much of his work on the last few Beatles albums, and his first few solo albums is stellar, and genius work.
And the Yellow Submarine film wasn't like Magical Mystery Tour in that it a "home movie", Yellow Submarine was appreciated by The Beatles at the time, and by John in interviews before his own death, that it was animated very well, and John was proud that such a interesting, and compared to Disney, a deep movie was being shown to children to introduce them to The Beatles. With songs like "Nowhere Man" being introduced to a younger audience.
"Maxwells Silver Hammer? Yer Blues? Revolution 9? Dig a Pony?" - Notice how most of those songs are Lennon efforts? Say what you will but "Hey Jude", "Let It Be", "Come Together", "Across The Universe", "Sexy Sadie", and "Maybe I'm Amazed" are the works of geniuses.
Also you seemed to forget that in the last few years of The Beatles career we got introduced to the songwriting genius of George Harrison, with "Here Comes The Sun", "Something", "Old Brown Shoe" laying the groundwork for George's excellent first solo album.
You should listen to The Beatles more. You clearly have no respect for their final years. Scoffing at their supposed decay is pathetic, because they are the best band in the history of music.
@@fshoaps criticism isn’t a lack of respect on anyones part. It’s a case of looking at something objectively and formulating an opinion without fanboying. Most of their later stuff was weak. Simple as that. Yeah, there are standout tracks, just as Oasis had as they were imploding. Everyone has their opinions on what they were and there’s no right or wrong answer. Be cool man, it’s only RUclips. Who cares?
@@andiholman2543 We disagree. What I don't like is how you think it's somehow fact that The Beatles got worse in their last years. Most people disagree with that, and think 'The Beatles' and, 'Abbey Road' are amongst their strongest efforts. You are in the minority.
Dig Out Your Soul is my favorite Oasis record. It got nearly everything right that Standing on the Shoulder of Giants tried.
Gas Panic is fucking amazing. It's like Slide Away's evil twin.
Oh I'll also say that even when Oasis declined they still had 2 or 3 tracks on every album of the quality that lesser bands base their entire careers on. "Gas Panic", "Go Let It Out", "The Hindu Times", "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", "LIttle By Little", "Lyla", "The Importance of Being Idle", "I'm Outta TIme", and my favourite Post 90s Oasis track "Falling Down". I guess you could say in the 90s they were the Beatles and in the 2000s they were the Stones.
over half of these songs you mention, I am afraid I do not recognize them, and I am a fairly wide-ranging music fan who seeks stuff out actively ---- however even the most uninterested music fan would likely recognize the 2 or 3 best tracks from a Beatles or Stones album from a similar point in their careers.
The Hindu times, Gas Panic and I’m outta Time, three of my favourites then Stop crying your heart out I think almost everyone in the world heard that one. Epic songs
You right about how the bsides totally declined ..
@@rabsmiff He's not talking about the fame of the songs. He's saying that the quality is insane
The Beatles and then the Stones? Wtf are you talking about! I take it youre 15yr old
I might be the exception, but SOTSOG is the first Oasis album I have ever heard as a kid and I didn't really listen to any of their earlier stuff before well into adulthood and while I admire their first two albums a lot, their fourth is still my favourite Oasis album to this day.
imagine lets all make believe instead of little james. there you have, another good album
I think it only gets beaten by the first two
Bonehead was the Brian Jones of oasis.... he started it and was the driving force of the tunes... he and Liam are the soul of oasis, plus for my money Tony on drums gave that edge..... perfection is never perfect it's the pursuit of perfect expression
Hey all. Re 12:57 - Quite a lot of you have referenced in the comments that the UK Chart Rules changed in the year 2000 to only allow three songs on a single. I've really tried to find some evidence for this, and put in a bit of research, but can't find anything. I think this might be an urban myth, as I have also found multiple examples of 4-song singles that hit the charts and weren't affected by this rule (see Brianstorm by Arctic Monkeys for example, which had four songs and hit #2 in the UK singles chart). The singles chart today has a 4 song limit, the singles chart in the 90s had a 4 song limit, if anyone can link me to an article showing that for a while in the early 00's there was a randomly implemented 3-song limit I would be interested.
Many thanks
JH
@@DH-TV what happened
I thought this too
It's strange how I also thought this was true. I was pretty confident (in fact completely of the belief) that there was a distinct change in 2000 that singles were only allowed to have 2 b-sides. I'm almost certain I read an article in Melody Maker or NME at the time which made the rules clear. I also thought that anything over the "2 b-side" rule had to be classed as an 'EP' and not a single. For this reason, I seem to remember some bands releasing an EP version and a 'single' version (could that be the Arctic Monkeys loophole?).
Either way, it's baffling to me that I can't find actual evidence of this right now. But it was such a distinct change and memory that I find it very difficult to believe it's not true.
Regardless, this was a very enjoyable video!
i also remember something to do with people bemoaning new chart rules. but perhaps it was all smoke and no fire.
The change you’re referring to came into effect in 1998, at some point between June and October (compare the average number of b-sides on singles released before and after that timeframe). The CSC agreed to new rules reducing the number of tracks on a single from four to three, playing time from 25 minutes to 20 and the compact disc single minimum dealer price to £1.79.
It was a fairly hot topic at the time.
To me Oasis is the Gallagher brothers and Bonehead. That's the sound. No diss to Guigsy, McCarrol or White but I think you could have had any decent bassist/drummer in those roles and it would have still been great as long as the Gallagher brothers and Bonehead where there. Boneheads rhythm guitar is a huge factor in that 90s Oasis sound.
Guigsy pretty much wrote the book on being in the right place at the right time - he was like the Stuart Sutcliffe of Oasis, only an ugly version who was allowed to stick around.
Heathen Chemistry is easily their worst album. Liams voice was deteriorating, Noels songs were nowhere near as good as before. The sound of the band was changing and Noels flat production was uninspired.
I really like Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, it gets slagged a lot, I don't know why, it has some great songs and I listen to it often.
Yeah, I took a hi-fi to my mates parents house (in his double garage) as he had a 2nd hand snooker table in there and he had SOTSOG on CD which he used to play while we played snooker and I did say to him once, "this album is so underrated, brilliant album" to which I still think. It has some great tracks on it, Sunday Morning Call, Where Did It All Go Wrong? and Roll It Over to name just 3.
@@simontunnicliffe2107 and the epic Gas Panic, which is brilliant! Glad you like this album too. Cheers
@@simontunnicliffe2107 mate that takes me back to when most people had second hand snooker tables, great times. Sotsog deffo decent album
The talent in a band has to be a dictator. Do I want Phil Selway's songs on OK Computer? Do I want a Krist Novoselic song on Nevermind? Fuck no. The best bands work when there is humility. The talent has to be humble enough to find the value in their bandmates, and the bandmates have to be humble enough to recognise that their meal-ticket is the talent. If you all can do this then you can have great success.
I firmly believe that no songs on Heathen Chemistry would make it in any of their albums from the 90s.
Just as Noel said about SOTSOG, there were no "killer tracks" there as well. Everything sounds like a B-side of a better song.
Everything sounds like a b-side - exactly! And not one of their own 90s b-sides either.
It's funny how tides turn. I remember being on a certain Oasis pro-boards for years and you'd get absolutely destroyed for saying you preferred the band with Bonehead/Guigs over the Gem/Andy.
Definitely Maybe is my favorite album. Liam’s voice was crystal clear with range and power, Noel’s guitar was more aggressive, and Tony’s straight forward and big/round sounding drum style provided a foundation that complemented those two aspects in a way no other drummer was really able to replicate. Some people may disagree with me, but I feel they peaked after the first album. What’s the Story is excellent for sure, and probably more radio friendly, but their albums just gradually lost energy it seemed.
The band ended for me after they released all around the world.
They were never the same after the be here now tour.
Untouchable at their peak though.
I thought they were still good in the 2000s. Different but still good.
They should've taken a 2 year hiatus after Knebworth
Yep you're right man. You go from Champagne Supernova and Some Might Say to "God bless the sun the one that shines on everyone, who deaaals druuugs" LOL
Would just like to say, the reason Oasis never had singles with 3 b-sides on after a certain date (which I can't recall now) is because the official charts company (if that's the name and who it was) changed the rules in the early 00's. Now singles were only allowed 3 songs max and the total running time couldn't exceed 20 mins in total where as before could be 4 tracks and I think as long as you liked. I remember it and remember Oasis singles having to have 3 tracks on them instead of 4. Also remember being gutted about it. Rules eh! think it was possibly to make it fairer somehow but thought, now Noel being so prolific and talented has to limit his singles, gutting.
that's true! I remember being right fed up about it. Singles were pretty much dead to me after that.
"Bonehead was being an asshole to someone we were working with", what, like Noel was to The Real People ?!
Ironic really that Morning Glory was recorded really quick when they were all drunk half the time in ‘95 & it all seemed like a doddle. Then for Don’t Believe the Truth in ‘05, the documentary shows they were all really trying hard to make that album, Liam included. As you said it’s all about the songs & the magic had gone
1) They got rich
2) Noel ran out of songs
3) The line up changed
4) They were incapable of growing musically
Agreed except Noel got very rich but the rest have to work.
Gem weirdly started acting all Manchester and taking on the persona of Noel and Liam, which was a bit fake, he’s from Willington Co Durham. Great musician but not a star
The difference in the art direction of the record covers was so jarring at the time. You knew before even hearing SOTSOG that things had changed, and not for the better.
Great analysis overall, James. Keep up the good work, fella.
Artic Monkeys make like fuckin lounge music now tho the rockers are completely gone.
James, you forgot to mention that even Alan White's drumming declined in SOTSOG and HC, and he was a big part of Oasis sound in MG and BHN.
He didn't "forget", he chose ten reasons that changed things in his opinion. Just because a content creator doesn't include absolutely everything doesn't mean they "forgot". Comments like these are the most useless of the useless.
No offence to Alan White, but replacing Tony McCarroll is why they never matched their artistic peak of the Some Might Say single. Oasis as a great indie rock band died that day.
I don't believe the newer Noel Gallagher is the same person as the original. I literally believe he has been replaced by another person. It's more common than people realise. His music's boring, for starters, even Liam can write better songs than him. New Noel looks an inch taller, original was shorter. The look in the eyes is completely different. Original looks wild, newer look like one eye is going in one direction and the other in a slightly other (MK-Ultra?). A sure sign is that the incoming replacement will acquire a new wife, like new Paul McCartney dropping Jane Asher for Linda. Also, look how much the Beatles changed when the new Paul came in before Sgt. Pepper's. I haven't yet dated the switch over, but it was some time in the noughties. Could also just be NLP (mind re-programming) but I can't shake the feeling it's not the same soul.
If this sounds too far fetched to be true consider this, there is more evidence that the man that replaced Paul McCartney is not who he claims he is than proves that he is. Professional analysis of photographs by clinical pathologist, differing DNA test in paternity suit, mismatched voice prints, signatures by left and right handed persons, differing facial features and eye colour, and even a book by the man that claims to have replaced him that is completely convincing ("Billy's Back" ghost written by Thomas E. Uharriet).
Wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure if McCartney is dead as such, but I trust my own two eyes which tell me that there's more than one person out there being Paul McCartney.
Great video James.I wiil defend SOTSOG though because i think Noel still had a desire to prove himself even though he kind of backed out with the song choices in the end.Also 2000 is my favorite year of them live (yokohama 2000 and 1st Night at Wembley being some of their best gigs)
Wow James, you've just put into words and described what I had always thought or felt regarding Oasis's decline in the 00s. It's just brilliantly analysed. I appreciate that you mentioned Brian Cannon, whose work was definitely an important part of the Oasis experience. I remember waiting with excitation for the new artwork to be revealed...
It is indeed a great video
It's better he lost his magic than losing his life.
I love 2000s Oasis. Liam finally started writing a lot, and his songwriting style is so John Lennon-y, it's just great. His songs on "Heathen Chemistry", and "Don't Believe The Truth" are some of my favourite songs. "The Meaning Of Soul", "Love Like A Bomb", "Probably All In My Mind", etc.... 23:35 - whats wrong with that?
I know when he said the bit about beady eye and right away I thought about three ring circus, what a tune!
@@b00ts4ndc4ts I love Beady Eye too. Some of my favorite Liam songs are from their second album.
And Liam's new solo stuff is pretty good too!
@@VitorBarbosa Not even close to Beady Eye. Liam’s current solo work isn’t written by him, or by friends like Gem, or Andy. It is written by producers, and other corporate boardroom, songwriters.
Probably all in the mind is written by Noel i believe.
Another lovely video. Thanks mate. Between the age of 14 and 17, Oasis absolutely were absolutely everything to me (1994 - 1997) and from that point onwards I fell out of love with them. It was really interesting to hear from you some of the reasons why that might have been.
To be fair on the B-sides, it was always an exceptionally high standard they set early on. I don't remember anyone else having great b-sides at the time, they were as much filler as the later Oasis ones were. Also, at the time a single was around £4 and an album £10-12, which you inevitably had anyway, so it had to be a good sell to get kids to part with that cash again instead of on another great album from someone else...of which there were plenty at the time. Ultimately though, it was just slowly fizzling out. The motivation had gone, it had become just a job to them and they were just going through the motions.
The Verve had some great B-sides like "I See the Door", "You and Me", and "Dance on Your Bones".
OCS had some great b-sides on their 90’s singles
They were a cocaine, ecstasy and beer band. They sacked their mates from Manchester, got some proper musicians in, and became a bit more weed and red wine. Happens when you get older, have kids etc
The oasis I really liked was the DM era band into early MG. They meant it, were raw, were writing some really good songs and had a massive attitude and no one had seen it for a while. Then they ran out of steam, got too bloated and noel started going to cocktail parties at Downing Street. After knebworth there were still some decent songs but they didn’t really mean it and lost their way. Then they became a self parody. Partly because Noel hasn’t got anything to say. Still good live.
should there ever be an Oasis reunion, it has to be the original 1994 lineup with McCarroll, Guigsy and Bonehead.
@@cherrysunburst828 how likely is that ?!
Extremely unlikely haha, just a bit of dreaming on my part
They never became a "self parody". Sure they weren't all that great live. But their last two albums are great efforts, and Liam sounds pretty good in the studio.
Heading into the release of Be Here Now we had been left with.....Don't look back in Anger, Underneath The Sky, Wonderwall, Round Are Way and The Masterplan!
No wonder the anticipation was beyond belief at the time. But I could tell with one listen of Be Here Now that it was never gonna be the same.
Andy Bell is probably the most boring guy in the music industry, possibly ever
Andy Bell was good when he was doing the beats for Jay-z.
I think Oasis were still good in the 2000s. Different yes, but still good.
However the musical landscape had changed and new bands like Travis and Coldplay and Killers etc were current and oasis ship had sailed in terms of mainstream popularity although they still had a huge fanbase.
Nothing lasts forever sadly. Probably a good thing.
Definitely losing Bonehead was a big one. He was a secret genius to it all. Cool to see him playing with Liam solo.
In my opinion a huge difference between the two lineups is the bass. Guigsy was playing very punk, not doing many movements, just straight notes, like a train, like a machine gun. When they did SOTSOG Noel played the parts and it became very McCartney, there are much more things going on in the bass lines. And then Andy was similar too, he was a guitarist, like Noel, and when a guitarist becomes a bass played there's more ability involved technically, whilst if bass is your first instrument and you learn it yourself, then you don't need much ability to play Oasis first era songs. The same can be said about Bonehead and Gem, totally different guitarists, Gem is a solo guitar player, and with all my respect I don't think Bonehead is able to play solos properly. The amps and backline was different too, their sound in the first era was more aggressive, more American with the Marshalls, more 90s cause they were coming from Grunge, second era was much more Beatlesque and British, more clean. In my opinion if they would have kept the same backline and brought in people with the same ability of Guigs and Bone, they would have sounded more in line with their past.
Bonehead started off playing lead but Noel wanted that role, he’s a very good musician
Noel was under intense pressure in the 90's. It is no surprise that he needed substances to cope. He was bearing most of the weight of the band's success. The Beatles had three songwriters. Oasis had one (of quality). The rest of the band were modern day voluptuary's. He needed much more support and commitment from them than they were willing to provide. Without other band members taking an active part in the creative process they were doomed as a unit in the long term. It was inevitable that it would not end well for them. I've learnt more about Oasis from your channel than from everything else on RUclips combined. Cheers.
From what I understand, the Beatles had 2 main songwriters. John Lennon & Paul McCartney, who intern had their own publishing company until it was sold to Sony along with the entire Beatles Catalogue. With Oasis on the other hand, all the songs on the 1st 3 albums were written entirely by Noel Gallagher who allowed other band members to contribute to the songwriting process in their later albums. Which was a positive since it took the weight off his shoulders and gave Liam a chance to hone his songwriting chops. Noel benefited royally in the long run from being the bands main songwriter since he was granted power of attorney over the Oasis catalogue/publishing.
Well said.
As great as their 90s work was, I always thought that their 00s work was so underrated.
The thing with Oasis was that they peaked musically really early after just 2 albums within 2 years. I mean anything they were ever going to make after Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory was never going to reach them heights. Any album after was always going to be compared. These were 2 of the biggest albums in rock music history.
I believe that if Oasis the band had first come on the scene in 2000 then them 00s albums would definitely had got more recognition.
Really excellent. I'm in the states and was a very big Oasis fan from the start. I definitely noticed the drop in the number of quality songs per album as time went on, but I never really closely followed what was going on in their private lives and with their inner circle of creative people. I noticed the change in producers obviously, but many bands do that as a natural evolution and the need to feel growth, whether the change actually works or not. I also noticed the democratization as more non Noel songs popped up. I figured that Noel's output was drying up a bit, and that the band might have needed more songs than he was delivering, but that was just a guess, I didn't really know what was actually happening within the band. I know that they never matched the excellence of the first two albums (imo), but I always gave the newer stuff a shot. There was ALMOST always something good/great on the later albums but they lacked the fire and consistency. All that being said, the last Oasis show I saw in 2005 at Madison Square Garden in New York was absolutely fantastic, and the crowd was some weird time travelling crazy bunch of nutters that thought they were at Knebwirth in '96!! I have never experienced a crowd like that, and it was very exciting to be there. The band were great that night, but the crowd was better! I'll always have a big warm and fuzzy spot in my heart for Oasis.
When bonehead and guigsy left I didn't like them as much to be honest.
Problem with Oasis is that they did their best work first(DM & WTSMG) and peaked too early. BHN & SOTSOG were really cool albums but from then on it was hit and miss with their 00s works. The biggest change in the Oasis dynamic came in HC where Noel let Liam, Gem and Andy contribute the songwriting process. Noel's correct on one thing. The success of their 1st 2 albums was treated like an albatross around the band's neck by the music press as if to say they would never reach those heights again.
I think ‘Truth’ is the best overall record they ever did. Great sound, great clothes, great videos, images and collective writing. Just my view
Same, they carried themselves with confidence and a swagger that you could HEAR on the tracks
Thanks to your channel, I think I've learnt more about Oasis in the past 24hrs than the past 25+ years 😆!!! In all seriousness, this is a really good video summary and I do agree with a lot of what you've said about the changing sound/feel of Oasis between 90s & 00s. I've always felt that the line-up and production changes was the key difference, but it's interesting to learn about the other factors as well. While I do enjoy a lot of their 00s tracks in themselves, I am personally biased towards 90s era because I grew up during the Britpop years and was brought up on that sound thanks to my Mum - so there is a lot of nostalgia there.
Oasis set the bar so high on those 90s albums that afterwords, just being a ‘good’ or sometimes ‘very good’ band seemed like such a tremendous let down from a fan’s perspective or just as failures from a critical standpoint from 2000 onward.
Personally I think the personnel and production changes played a huge factor in the sound of the band not being quite the same in the ‘00s. I also think Noel wrote over 100 songs in the 90s and cherry picked them over the first 3 releases. If he parceled out some of the classic bsides later for future albums, Oasis would’ve have easily released at least 2 more near perfect albums.
The critics bashing’ everything they put out after BHN didn’t help with a lot of people’s perception of the band either. I think all of those post 2000 albums are all very good and I do think Heathen Chemistry is very underrated.
And lastly, the bsides that were chosen for the later albums were often better than the album tracks themselves. For example, Let’s All Make Believe, Full On, Carry Us All would’ve made Standing on the Shoulders at least 8 or 8.5 out of 10 if they were chosen instead of Little James, I Can See A Liar etc
They made too much money and then lifestyle changes and they were around pretentious people rather their own class of people. Noel Gallagher hanging around with Kate Moss and co definitely turned him into a bit of a tosser!
Just remember who’s the most successful of the 2 now.. NG not a hope would sell out 2 nites at knebworth
I think the reason they stopped doing 4 tracks on singles was that at some point in the 00s the rules changed on singles, wasn't allowed more than 15 minutes of music i think, otherwise it wasn't eligible as a single. This is a distant memory and one i can't be arsed to google right now. Happy to be corrected if anybody knows what the single eligibility rules were changed to
Also cd single sales generally were dwindling as the 00’s went by. With people burning mp3s on to cds etc
Yes I mentioned this above, it was, I'm almost certain 20 mins max and no more than 3 tracks.
Not sure of the time but the number of tracks comment is spot on. Surprised James misses that
The magic Oasis had in the 90's was because of their youth, new break out band on the scene, the era and the sound of rock during that time. They were a group of young lads with fire in their bellies to succeed and they came out the gate swinging with everything they had. By 2000 they were entering their 30's and the sound of rock was beginning to change, it's no hard to understand their sound and style would have changed too (for better or for worse)
By that time of course they weren't the same band, even some of the founding members had been changed out. It's really not a mystery or any wonder what happened, they changed their sound with the changing times like every band does. I absolutely love their first two albums, and it holds up well because the sound is genuine and sincere. You can't expect them to write the same music for 20 years straight and still expect that to be true
Songs like songbird are class!
Bands get older they want to try new things
Noel backed off from lead because bending a note over and over again does not make you a lead guitar player
It’s all about opinion I guess. They needed to evolve and in my opinion they did, it just took a few mediocre albums to get there. At the end they were probably at the most talented musician wise and some of the songs Liam, Gem and Andy wrote were some of the best oasis songs wrote in many a year, and they end up taking that into Beady Eye. Unfortunately they broke up for reasons that Liam has spoken about. I think Oasis had run their course, Noel and the others had moved in different directions music wise, the last album showed that. I loved Beady Eye and like Liam’s solo stuff but I cannot listen to Noel’s.
I like some of Noel's stuff but nobody wants a whole album of him singing, Beady Eye wasn't a bad band really, the opposite, they were quite good but under promoted plus back then everyone was glad to see Noel ditched his "untalented idiot brother" when Liam's voice and that massive guitar sound was the hot ticket.
Beady Eye first record is Awesome!
They had great singles
It’s shit
Liam and Noel are still talented and the few songs I’ve heard from them sing from their solo careers are not bad at all! Would have loved to see them squash the beef and come together to make another album. Life is to short and family is to important to just waste their talent over some ego BS.
Another excellent video with some really good points. The Noel interview is also a really good and revealing one.
I think the panic attack point is key. Up to that point it seemed like five lads having the time of their lives with every thing they touched turning to gold. Be Here Now was their first misstep, couple that with excessive drug use, the paranoia that can bring plus Noel's panic attacks and suddenly everything is far from rosy. The loss of Guigsy and Bonehead then rips out the heart of the band and what you're left with is musicians doing a job. The respective talents of guigsy, bonehead and gem and Andy also mean the sound of the band, live at least, changed.
I feel like at this point Noel fell out of love with the idea of Oasis. He says in the interview about how he had loads of music that he wasn't going to explore with the band because he wanted them to be high energy rock and roll(I think that was more or less the phrase he used?). I'm sure some of that was down to Liam insisting on what they should sound like but it meant they didn't really explore any other avenues and like you said failed to evolve with the music scene around them. It's one of my biggest regrets with the band, why they never tried different stuff. Noel would often talk about it, he would often talk about new songs being out there and different sounding but come the album it was same old Oasis. I believe that's because he felt that that was the oasis sound and was what people wanted. Personally I'd have been really happy if he'd genuinely pushed the boat out sonically - even if it turned out shit. There's a little bit of it on the last album but by then it was way too late.
In terms of quality control I both agree and disagree. Things like the album art and terrible logo change I agree with. In terms of the b-sides yes the last album was a joke but he still had some absolutely brilliant b-sides on the other albums. Let's all make believe and cigarettes in hell are better than the A-side(Go let it out) for example. Idlers dream is a great little song as is just getting older from the same single(hindu times). The trouble is I think Noels always had a problem with which songs to put on the album. It didn't really matter with the first two albums because everything was more or less amazing. It's when he ran out of ideas and the quality of his output decreased that it became more of an issue. How the hell no one thought Let's all make believe wouldn't make SOTSOG better is beyond me.
There's more I want to say but I've forgotten just exactly what it is as I've written loads already so I'll leave it there.
No, I won't I've just remembered one of the things I was going to say. Liam singing less and Noel singing more. In the 90's Liam sang 95% of the songs. In the naughties Noel sang loads. Sunday Morning Call and Where did it all go wrong - back to back noel sung songs on a 10 track Oasis album! And a lot of the b-sides were Noel sang. I remember either reading or seeing an interview where Noel said that Liam couldn't be arsed going into the studio to sing b-sides anymore so he(Noel) had to do them. I don't know how much truth there was to this or whether Noel just preferred singing them or if Liam's vocal issues were the problem but having more and more Noel sung songs also diminished the old magic a little as Liam and his voice were such a big part of why Oasis were so special.
Edit: so after a brief bit of b-sides research it seems that Liam was happy to sing b-sides he, Gem or Andy had written but doesn't appear to have sung any Noel written b-sides after SOTSOG. Which is interesting...
Anyway, great band, great channel!
Saw them live many times , Oasis early 2000s live were amazing when Gem&Andy 1st joined . brilliant musicians.Heathen Chemistry was great!
I Started watching this thinking it was going to be an interesting, balanced comparison of the good and bad aspects of the two Oasis eras… instead you just get a very biased half hour moan about how oasis declined after ‘00.
Clearly this guy prefers the earlier material. And that’s fine.
But the discussion just seems to accept it as a given that oasis in the ‘00s had no good stuff.
Liams changing voice, for example, while maybe unhealthy for the singer, nevertheless is what made some songs in that era really great.
(Imagine if ‘go let it out’ had been delivered with his earlier voice?)
Also, Noel starting to allow others contribute songs they’d written is not even listed here. But seems to me to be a pretty significant change?
I would have expected a balanced analysis of the good and bad qualities of Gem, Andy, and Liam’s writing styles, during this era.
It is also presented as a given that Noel stepping away from playing lead guitar was a bad thing… but how about a consideration of the possible positive aspects of Gem’s proficiency on lead guitar?
There’s no balanced comparison here.
Instead the video should be more honestly renamed “10 reasons oasis declined after 00”
Because that is really what this video is saying.
But I hugely disagree.
The summer of 2002 stands out in my memory as a really great year!
I was 22 and the soundtrack to that summer was the awesome Hindu Times single (definitely one of my top five oasis songs).
And the rest of the Heathen Chemistry album was pretty great too.
Saw them live twice that year, in Finsbury Park and in Manchester, and they were awesome.
Of course oasis were always going to change and evolve.
I personally like some of the more ponderous later stuff.
But Even some of the very last songs still had that signature oasis attitude I’d loved as a teenager. (Eyeball tickler, shock of the lightening, lyla)
This guy just seems a little hurt that oasis moved on from the first three albums.
James, I would love to hear more from you about the 2000s, obviously the 90s were better musically but I feel the 2000s is an under explored era for Oasis.
Great channel by the way.
The Drums on HC should of been lots better Don't think Whitey was happy with the way he was mixed
All Around the World was the last single to be a 4 Track Release that was No 1 in the UK in January 1998. After this, there was a 3 track limit for a Single to be Chart Eligible, so there could only be 2 B-Sides at most from Go Let It Out onwards anyway.
This guy omits and cherry picks things to enforce his agenda.
Like complaining about liams voice in 2000 and using a clip from 2006 or like moaning that Noel used simple arrangements in the 2000’s when infact that’s what he did in the 1990’s..
Unfortunately this guy has lost his marbles and believe his own hype.
Luckily I unsubscribed from him and the algorithm has done well to not put this nonsense on it since .
Are you sure
Current guidelines allow up to 4 tracks and now b-sides hardly even exist
This talk of B-sides makes me think of The Wildhearts during the 90s as well. So many marvellous tunes on those EPs and CDS releases.
Definitely, 100%. It’s a shame that a lot of people don’t know about them, but throughout the whole of the 90’s their output was solid gold.
As I did discover Oasis when I was really getting into their music I still defend a lot of the various periods in their career and I think a lot of their albums have been strong stuff. I always love their first two albums and really like Be Here Now, but I always have been a fan of Standing On The Shoulder of Giants so much that it's always one of my favourite Oasis albums and yet really like the later diversions on experimentalism from the album. The other ones like Don't Believe The Truth and Dig Out Your Soul are also great records so I always feel open minded which era from Oasis that I listen to because the main point of the band is it's Oasis being themselves despite the changes and this is a brilliant video why all things changed from one of the UK's biggest sensations of bands ever.
Reason 1-10: The drugs changed.
Another excellent video and analysis. I enjoyed the later albums as well. It’s hard to stay on top of the world. Yet even a subpar Oasis album was better than most of the stuff that came out in the early 2000s anyway. I get what the video is saying but times and people change. Gem and Andy Bell were excellent musicians and probably kept Oasis going when the band most likely would have broken up. I would like to see a future video about the history of all the Oasis drummers. All are great but I think the best one technically was Alan White.
LG said AW was THE oasis drummer and it’s hard to disagree
Oasis peaked early.....First 3 albums with countless monster b sides. I still love SOTSOG though. Easily best album after Be Here Now. Has some great tunes and the production is excellent
If you want to listen to Liam, listen to the 90's, if you want to listen to the band, listen to 00's
25:00 That concert was in Buenos Aires...I was there.... and I couldn't believe Liam's voice sounded like that.... :(