Taking Sides: Noel Gallagher vs Stuart Murdoch

::head explodes::

That said, a worrying sign is that Murdoch has lately borrowed a leaf from the Gallagher song-writing book and started doing songs that sound exactly the same as earlier songs by other people only with different words.

Mind you - I think you're on to something in comparing Oasis & MBV.

Mark, it's worth remembering that for all the "baggage" that comes with Oasis, there was just as much with B&S... jokes about "indie duo Belle & Sebastian" aside, their formative years were made a lot more interesting by the are-they-aren't-they nature of Stuart & Isobel's relationship, their relationship with the press and perhaps most importantly their fans.

Maybe it's the fans and their reaction not only to the music their respective heroes make but their reaction to criticism of that music that shows how similar the two really are. For all that the Dirty Vicar feels the band are washed up, you will find a lot more people who disagree; I saw them in Paris last month, along with thousands of others from Britain and further afield who travelled to see them. It was worth it - they're a great rock band who are amazing live. I wouldn't travel to see B&S, but I know a lot of people who would.

Similarly, try criticising B&S on Sinister, or telling me that Oasis are washed up, the worst thing in British music, etc and you'll get a similar kind of response: a) shock that you can actually think that, b) heated arguments about the rights and wrongs of it and c) an attitude of "I'm right and I don't care what you think, I'll still be right tomorrow." I'm intelligent enough to see the obvious flaw in this argument, but the nature of being a fan dictates that I'm not going to change my mind. I'm not sure what it would take.

I agree about the Smiths.

I used to do this regularly, with no repercusions to speak of.

I disagree that their prime strenght is 'attaching catchy melodies to simple musical structures'. The catchy melodies are great (and perhaps the attention to arrangements even better) but I wouldn't give many hoots about them if it weren't for Stuart Murdoch's singular lyrics.

There's no doubt that lyrically Stuart Murdoch is very strong. I suppose I would argue that it takes more insight to be able to write lyrics which appeal to millions of people rather than a select few, but in the pit of my stomach I'd know I was wrong.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is, and I'm not sure if this is the right word, but the strength of musicality in B&S songs. The arrangements are just so much more interesting and (to an extent) adventurous. The only Oasis song I can think of that I thought (think) was good in this way was Columbia, with that massive layering of guitar over guitar. Oh, this is difficult to put into words. Does it make sense? Sort of?

The point Madchen makes about B&S having more interesting arrangements, however, might be more down to the advantage of being surrounded by many other multi-talented musicians in the recording process than the individual finesse of Murdoch. It seems to be that Noel has had to go it alone more than Stuart. Of course I don't know very much about the writing/recording process of either band, so I could very well be way off the mark.

I'm not going to go on about how B&S are "better" because of their "loftier" goals - they're trying to entertain & be successful & be true to themselves, just as much as Oasis. Once upon a time, I was mad over Oasis; then, I was mad about B&S & slagging off Oasis; now, I find myself at a happy middle ground where I can appreciate both groups equally (if only Liam wouldn't open his mouth except to sing) (and Noel didn't go ON and ON about the Beatles).

I've done an excellent job of not keeping up at all with their lineup -- but would this still involve hearing songs by a certain former member of Ride? (Thus mimicking the unfortunate "we both write songs now" version of that band?) I may be misremembering . . .

Actually, the Ride / Oasis career comparison works fairly well, doesn't it? Start off smashing (Nowhere, Definitely Maybe); jettison 90% of what made you interesting to record a big pop record that treads dangerously near the edge of dullness (Going Blank Again, What's the Story. . .; release one lamely-ambitious single and one strangely limp one ("Leave Them All Behind," "Twisterella" / "What's the Story. . .," "Wonderwall"); get all huge; start to look sort of dumb and release records that no one in their right mind bothers to even look at; release live album; split up. Still waiting on Oasis for that last one.

Strangely enough, I caught their "Behind the Music" episode two nights ago, and was mainly fascinated by Johnny Marr trying desperately to praise their early days without seeming too much like a fan. Reminded me of the year before Definitely Maybe, when a friend of mine returned from Mexico, of all places, claiming he'd heard a new band that would blow the world away, and they were called . . . blah blah blah. I have to give them credit for really packing that punch -- I don't know anyone who wasn't amazed the first time he/she heard them. It's the third or fourth time that starts to fall apart.

I broadly agree with a lot of what AllyC96 said earlier, about the NG- SM comparison / contrast. But I'm going to have to come back to this.

I don't particularly agree with what the 96 says about Camera Obscura. I think he's just saying this cos he knew the earlier version better than anyone else, so he's sorry to see it displaced. For those of us who don't know that version, I don't think the problem arises.

Why am I talking about Camera Obscura? This thread is about Oasis vs B&S...

Last points for a while:

1. I think Nick D is overrating Murdoch's lyrics, as I think so many do. But I don't want to put words into ND's mouth here - after all, what he was talking about was the felicitous *combination* of things (so he's right, really). (Is that right, Nick?)

2. I don't accept this idea re. B&S being great musicians while Oasis aren't. If I had to choose (not to say we should - maybe we shouldn't compare them this way at all), I'd say Oasis were better musicians. I don't think B&S are great musicians. They are mostly 'amateurs' as far as I can make out. (I use that word deliberately very vaguely, of course. I am an amateur myself, and even worse than B&S.) What they do have is a certain textural diversity and idiosyncrasy.

Staying in ranks: Stuart's the obvious winner here.

I still think this is a joke question, though I can understand some of the Pinefox's points. Nonetheless: Murdoch by a distance.

It's funny that I find myself defending both B&S & O on the basis of "it's only music", since I'm usually the first jackass to jump on the "it's better because it's SMARTER/hipper/more underground" bandwagon, which is so damn stupid (though not as dumb as I am for biting down on that bit for so long). Ah, hypocrisy...

I'd say in this case, yes, but therein lies the biggest difference between the two: Noel is an extremely populist songwriter (whose songs are interpreted by studided musicians) and Struan's are (were?) more "personal"/specific to his worldview/sensibility (and, as Pinefox said, there is (was?) a more shambling, amatuer feel to their music -- imagine B&S sacking a drummer because his skill wasn't up to par?). The former was successful because its fans wanted to sway and sing with 60,000, the music's ambition and the bravado were always there. To Noel, why else form a band if not to conquer the world? The latter were (are?) successful -- in many cases -- because its fans recognized something in them that they felt in themselves that was culturally not articulated (which was then compounded by the mystery/mythology that surrounded the band from the start.) Once B&S became a "working band" with tours, press, album promotions Murdoch abandoned his auteur role and it changed into the "collective" that it is today, one (as Nick -- I believe, I also don't want to put wds. in his mouth -- has pointed out elsewhere in the past) that increasingly seems to be informed, and dulled, by consensus musical touchstones and is lapsing into 60s pastiche (starting as early as Dirty Dream #2). Interesting to see what may happen to Oasis, as Ned hinted, that same process -- embracing band democracy -- is the only thing that seems able to same Oasis 2001 from musical irrelevance.

Nick D is bang on the money re. Nick Drake (except, if I was being *really* picky, I might suggest that Murdoch's voice wasn't THAT much like Nick D's anyway. I mean Nick D, not Nick D. OK?).

Someone quoted Tom E on B&S. Tom E wrote well on B&S, but I'm not sure that I bought his wilful argument about 'house music'. I wouldn't, would I? Moreover, Tom E said B&S were inconsistent: a judgement which I have always thought really inaccurate.

I don't put Oasis in the same bracket as the Smiths - but then, that doesn't mean much, cos I put hardly anything in the same bracket as the Smiths. What's certain is that Noel Gallagher loved the Smiths' records in the 80s, and (as he said) 'wanted to BE Johnny Marr'. (That doesn't mean he succeeded. But then again - who did?)

Ally96 is right, in my book: it's the first TWO Oasis LPs that are good, not just the first; and for that matter I think #2 better than #1. (I appreciate that loads of people think they both suck. Fine, fair enough, no problem.) The Vicar and Cookie both said that Gallagher had totally lost it, and Murdoch hadn't. Hm. I don't know. I think maybe they've both lost it about equally. Evidence to the contrary? Not abundant, from Murdoch. (We might always come at this from the other end, and say that Gallagher has not self-evidently lost it. But I can't be bothered to do that now.)

Perhaps the point of the thread - one point anyway - was to suggest that Oasis and B&S have (it seems to me) some things in common; or at least that it might be interesting to talk about them as though they had things in common, rather than just viewing them as RETRO MANC LADS vs FEY GLASWEGIAN INDIES; which perspectives are 'true', I guess, but over-familiar.

I have half a mind to run the showdown by giving the two songwriters grades on specific skills (NB: this is not meant as a Really Serious, Scientific Idea), and then seeing what their tallies were. I have a feeling I know the final result, though.

Nitsuh: But Ride's "Going Blank Again" is a brilliant album! I'd hesitate to say it's better than the first, but it's not the abrupt decline you get from "Definitely Maybe" to "What's The Story".

Andrew Williams: Very interesting comments about the whole being a fan thing with the blinkered world view that implies. Sinister does get a fair bit of B&S criticism on it, but it's usually of the "They used to be brilliant and now they've gone rubbish" type. Do you ever get people on the Wasis list talking about how the first album is brilliant and they've been rubbish since?

[Referring to Oasis as Wasis is the one lasting contribution to our culture of The Tony Ferrino Phenomenon]

Randy Newman once said that the band America's song "A Horse With No Name" was about 'a kid who thinks he's taken acid.' Personally, I think B&S's entire oeuvre is about a kid who thinks he's Morrissey and Serge Gainsbourg. Oasis may just as well be equally about a kid who thinks he's Lennon, mind you. ;-)

The first two Oasis albums are utterly grand, and stone me dead, but the others have some definite high points. But I called it the day Be Here Now was released when I said they were already repeating themselves and then some.

Well, I made that comment as someone who's not entirely against What's the Story. It's a fairly solid and well-written collection, and while it screamed "This is a band that will soon get really crappy," I'd almost be open to arguments that it itself was the peak of the band's goodness, in a very "second album" kind of way.

Going Blank Again still strikes me as good --- and more sophisticated in many senses than Nowhere --- but it's also so limp in spots. I think most thinking fans would have preferred that Ride become more like Ride with each successive release, not less. Nowhere was like a hunk of ice in pool of water; Going Blank Again was like a half-melted hunk of ice in a bigger pool of water.

Ride people: I adore Nowhere - one of my fave 90s LPs - and can listen to it endlessly. But I think Going Blank Again falls off after 2 songs. The equivalent of Be Here Now, in a way.

Tom E: yes, you're right about the Smiths, of course. You're not necessarily right about the non-Murdoch-song issue cos B&S don't necessarily sing their own songs. ('Family Tree'?) The LP doesn't announce who writes them anyway. But PLEASE, Tom - don't drag that old bore Vic Godard into this. Jeez.

Overall: I think I have been amazed so far at the amount of support for Gallagher vs Murdoch. I thought it would be one-way traffic, but it's been a lot more interesting than that.

Ned, not sure which praise you refer; Nick's assessment of Struan as a "singular" lyricist may be one, but to my mind it's the most precise reason for the band's success and the Cult of Struan/B&S.

Gareth: In the few indie/brit pop nights I've been to (in the U.S.), I'd noticed and always assumed the dulled critiques were due more to cultural tourism than anything else, and I assume that could be the case in Canada/NZ/Australia as well. The kids want to replicate the experience of being Brits and, for some reason, assume that if [critically favorable indie-type band] gets in the Brit charts and mags, there must be some benevolance within and These Animal Men or Sleeper or whomever must also have been/be good. I mean, the same kids are buying it, eh? Play "Hey Dude" at a Britpop night and the kids will love it all the same as, whatever, "The Drowners." (I believe Tim wrote an essay on observations of the same in an Aussie Britpop club which may be in these archiv

MUSIC I mean, chords and stuff. Both pretty basic, and perfectly adequate. I say 6-6.

MELODIES This is the strong suit of both, but somehow I think that Murdoch’s melodies have an extra dancing dynamism; they’re so intuitive, so sinuous, it’s as though he breathes and sleeps melody. So both score well, but Murdoch wins. 8-9.

LYRICS Gallagher is a terrible lyricist. Of all who’ve been called ‘major songwriters’, he has been one of the most unusually bad with words. OK, the odd good line here and there. But he can’t begin to compete with Murdoch, whose lyrics are a strong point. I have a feeling that Murdoch’s subject matter – teen angst and wistfulness and wee rocking horses and whatnot – has helped him to get a reputation among the kind of kids who judge what a great lyric is. I think he’s a wee bit overrated – but by whom? By his fans, whose comments I read all the time; but hey, everyone’s overrated by their fans. I’ll call this 2-8.

ARRANGEMENTS Gallagher is good at the thrill of big guitar-pop moments: the cool intro, then the drums come crashing in. He knows when to stick a jangling line on, too, and he’s not afraid of solos and outros. But Murdoch probably wins this round too, thanks to his sense of dynamics – his ability to rise from silence to noise, to use the acoustic field (if there is such a thing). Gallagher is a lot more 1- D about that stuff. But he does have a few tricks and studio shenanigans up his sleeve – funny intros and outros, closing doors, coughs and whistles on the soundtrack… maybe 5-7.

MUSICIANSHIP Gallagher is predictable and derivative, but he’s still a pretty cool lead guitarist. He’d be a great asset to B&S, if you ask me. He can play bass better than his old bassist, too. Murdoch seems to be an average acoustic guitar player, but he can play a bit of piano; maybe other stuff too. But on balance Gallagher thrashes him here. 7-2.

FINAL SCORE: Gallagher 28-32 Murdoch.

You've mentioned this a few times now, Pinefox, and I'm curious to know why you think inconsistency is a particularly inaccurate accusation to throw at B&S. As someone who likes a fair bit of the stuff they've done, finds an equal amount OK and actively dislikes a much smaller proportion, saying they're inconsistent doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

*originator actually is completely wrong. 'reviver' is more like it, since this is Dylan's strategy.

Re. Family Tree yes but this is the point - it's a murdoch song which becomes a non-murdoch song because he's not singing it: his presence vocally is in this case more important than the songwriting. (Would it be a good song if he sung it? No, admittedly.)

Actually the inconsistency thing is something I'd edit out now if I was the rewriting kind.

But what’s this? They’re both bringing on substitutes. This is most unusual. Liam Gallagher is entering on the Oasis side, and Isobel Campbell for Belle & Sebastian. I must say, they’re both… unusually dressed… anyway, it’s Gallagher junior vs Campbell in the SINGING SURROGATE category, and – oh, I say! Gallagher has trounced Campbell 8-1! That levels the scores again at 40-all!!! This is extraordinary!!! Alan McGee and some members of Camera Obscura's rhythm section are with us in the studio… have you ever seen anything like it?

Guy Chadwick, is not the missing link, between them?

I like Stuart Murdoch's tunes much better than Noel Gallaghers.

'Sukie in the Graveyard' - what a dreadful song this is, really. 'She had an A1 body and the face to match' - I bet she did. How convenient for her, and you. But what made me want to revive was the realization that the lazy rock solo in the middle is so ... Oasis.

Both are geniuses with a melody, both are declining into middle age I'm afraid. However Murdoch is, has been said before, the better lyricist, and has produced four albums and a string of EPs of a high standard. Gallagher spat out two good albums and a batch of fine b- sides and subsequently collapsed as a songwriter of note. A bit of a shame, actually. Murdoch takes it by a few lengths.

The point Madchen makes about B&S having more interesting arrangements, however, might be more down to the advantage of being surrounded by many other multi-talented musicians in the recording process than the individual finesse of Murdoch. It seems to be that Noel has had to go it alone more than Stuart. Of course I don't know very much about the writing/recording process of either band, so I could very well be way off the mark.
-- Ally C, Tuesday, 17 July 2001

Ah, 2001. a few lengths.