Nice piece Damon. I’ve got an only mildly-related question and it’s about the cash. What with the whole Ticketmaster/dynamic pricing fiasco with Oasis (and previously Bruce, Taylor, and others), I got to wondering about big tour logistics. Somebody commented on a Pitchfork post that The Cure made an effort to keep prices reasonable and didn’t use dynamic pricing, gold circle seating, etc. I don’t know what kind of leverage larger acts have within the whole TM/Live Nation ecosystem but if they did have the power to set fixed prices, what would they have to be for a huge band that has a lot of costs what with hall fees, logistics, band salaries, etc? Obviously they don’t want to lose money. I’ve just never read much about tour economics at that level.
As I understand from friends who operate not at the stadium level but the theater one, the answer is yes the band has options and can often say no to schemes like dynamic pricing. And yes they will earn less. As for what Oasis will earn playing stadiums: plenty, with or without dynamic pricing - estimates are in the tens of millions for just the relatively short UK run already announced.
And the cost of putting oasis on stage is going to be considerably less than mounting a Beyoncé tour.
Oasis can get away with having a pretty rudimentary stage that can be set up by local crews at each venue, a large pop act will likely have 2 bespoke stages travelling with there own crews, with one being build in the next city whilst one is being used Then you have all the additional performers, backing singer, dancers, costume changes, and associated back stage crews. It starts to become obvious why a Taylor or Beyoncé ticket can cost so much (minus dynamic pricing).
A standard 4 peace rock band have none of those costs. Except perhaps Bruce Springsteen and his band.
I really need to dig into Neu Klang, but the stuff about Oasis representing the dawn of "the retread" era of rock feels on the money—as does your thought on the term "Americana," which gives me a similar sense of discomfort. Great read, Damon, thanks for sharing it.
I was always perplexed about the Oasis as they just never resonated with me in any way. The music felt very generic to my ears. But hey, you can’t love everything, eh?
I absolutely loved Oasis as a kid—before I had much of a sense for rock and pop's history—and still find a lot of bonehead charm in the tunes. But I simultaneously understand and get pretty much every criticism I've ever read about them (plodding, boring lyrics, bad melodies).
Oh, I get the whole bonehead charm thing. I’m older than you, as Oasis came on the scene when I was in my 30s. Despite the hype, I heard nothing new in their music. But the bonehead thing…I gawd…I will still listen to Kiss or even the first Ted Nugent record (despite the horrible person he’s become). I’ve always loved Frank Zappa’s description….the big stupid. Wish I’d thought that up! Ha.
Thoughtful post, as always. I was connected to regional and national roots music networks when the Americana Music Association was launched in 1999, and I was bummed that they (and the associated industry apparatus) adopted that term.
Having coming of age musically with college radio in the mid-80s, I was heavily influenced by the roots rock of that time (Jason & The Scorchers, Del Fuegos, Long Ryders, etc.) and preferred that description for that subgenre of music. Likewise when alt-country became a thing in the mid-90s -- it was clearly meant as an alternative to mainstream country music. Later, there was the Adult Alternative radio format which also made sense. But the AMA movement came along and swept all of that -- along with straight-up folk and country that wasn't alternative to anything -- under the Americana tent.
I hadn't thought about this for years until I heard an interview recently by Alejandro Escovedo (one of my heroes) who noted that he doesn't like the term "Americana" because he doesn't think it makes people think of him or Flaco Jimenez or other roots-based artists of color. And this is a guy who was named Americana Artist of the Decade by No Depression! I'm using it for now because I'm drowning in work for my first release in seven years and I can only take on so many battles at once. But I already have a reminder for when things settle down to rethink how to frame and market my next releases (my music doesn't neatly fit any genre, but I have to throw an anchor somewhere).
And in fairness, while I loathe Oasis, I remember from my youth that from the beginning they said they wanted to be rich- they weren’t ever doing it for any other reason. Funny though, I had imagined Faust to be far more counter cultural and less materialistic- those quotes above make them seem to be wankers!
Re: the Krautrock term. My parents, who are of the Krautrock/68ers generation, always despised it. Apparently it was coined by English writers. I've always wondered what it's supposed to mean, and I absolutely agree with Liebezeit. There's not much 'rock' in Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Cluster or Harmonia. Can and Neu! might be a bit closer to rock regarding style and personnel; they might be the earliest precursors of what we'd call 'post-rock' in the 1990s. (I'm still referring to Talk Talk, Slint and Tortoise; absolutely aware that the next generation used that term for semi-awful 2000s crescendocore.)
Another great piece. I love your writing and that of Ted plus a recent t addition Chris Zappa.
I am from Manchester and one of our regular keyboard players Christian, plays in Liam’s band. The scene around the city has been cool ever since I can remember.
I have bought a couple of Oasis albums and recorded in Rockfield where they tracked some of their most well known songs. I am however a Britpop traitor, much preferring Blur. To me their music was lyrically more interesting with far superior musicianship. Graham Coxon is one badass.
Your view of nationalistic music is interesting and applies regionally in the UK
as well. Bands from Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and of course London all fly their flags high.
The krautrock section is really fascinating and the book is now on my very long reading list.
Another great, thoughtful essay, Damon. I was in London at the time when that “Blur vs Oasis” cover story came out. My sense was that England desperately wanted to celebrate something “British” especially after all of the “indie breakthrough” acts — ie Sonic Youth, Beck etc etc — pouring out of America and dominating the popular music discourse. Britpop indeed… By the way, I’m always happy to enjoy a Walter Abish reference, no matter how fleeting. Can someone dedicate a substack to him please?!?
Nice piece Damon. I’ve got an only mildly-related question and it’s about the cash. What with the whole Ticketmaster/dynamic pricing fiasco with Oasis (and previously Bruce, Taylor, and others), I got to wondering about big tour logistics. Somebody commented on a Pitchfork post that The Cure made an effort to keep prices reasonable and didn’t use dynamic pricing, gold circle seating, etc. I don’t know what kind of leverage larger acts have within the whole TM/Live Nation ecosystem but if they did have the power to set fixed prices, what would they have to be for a huge band that has a lot of costs what with hall fees, logistics, band salaries, etc? Obviously they don’t want to lose money. I’ve just never read much about tour economics at that level.
As I understand from friends who operate not at the stadium level but the theater one, the answer is yes the band has options and can often say no to schemes like dynamic pricing. And yes they will earn less. As for what Oasis will earn playing stadiums: plenty, with or without dynamic pricing - estimates are in the tens of millions for just the relatively short UK run already announced.
And the cost of putting oasis on stage is going to be considerably less than mounting a Beyoncé tour.
Oasis can get away with having a pretty rudimentary stage that can be set up by local crews at each venue, a large pop act will likely have 2 bespoke stages travelling with there own crews, with one being build in the next city whilst one is being used Then you have all the additional performers, backing singer, dancers, costume changes, and associated back stage crews. It starts to become obvious why a Taylor or Beyoncé ticket can cost so much (minus dynamic pricing).
A standard 4 peace rock band have none of those costs. Except perhaps Bruce Springsteen and his band.
I really need to dig into Neu Klang, but the stuff about Oasis representing the dawn of "the retread" era of rock feels on the money—as does your thought on the term "Americana," which gives me a similar sense of discomfort. Great read, Damon, thanks for sharing it.
I was always perplexed about the Oasis as they just never resonated with me in any way. The music felt very generic to my ears. But hey, you can’t love everything, eh?
I absolutely loved Oasis as a kid—before I had much of a sense for rock and pop's history—and still find a lot of bonehead charm in the tunes. But I simultaneously understand and get pretty much every criticism I've ever read about them (plodding, boring lyrics, bad melodies).
Oh, I get the whole bonehead charm thing. I’m older than you, as Oasis came on the scene when I was in my 30s. Despite the hype, I heard nothing new in their music. But the bonehead thing…I gawd…I will still listen to Kiss or even the first Ted Nugent record (despite the horrible person he’s become). I’ve always loved Frank Zappa’s description….the big stupid. Wish I’d thought that up! Ha.
Thoughtful post, as always. I was connected to regional and national roots music networks when the Americana Music Association was launched in 1999, and I was bummed that they (and the associated industry apparatus) adopted that term.
Having coming of age musically with college radio in the mid-80s, I was heavily influenced by the roots rock of that time (Jason & The Scorchers, Del Fuegos, Long Ryders, etc.) and preferred that description for that subgenre of music. Likewise when alt-country became a thing in the mid-90s -- it was clearly meant as an alternative to mainstream country music. Later, there was the Adult Alternative radio format which also made sense. But the AMA movement came along and swept all of that -- along with straight-up folk and country that wasn't alternative to anything -- under the Americana tent.
I hadn't thought about this for years until I heard an interview recently by Alejandro Escovedo (one of my heroes) who noted that he doesn't like the term "Americana" because he doesn't think it makes people think of him or Flaco Jimenez or other roots-based artists of color. And this is a guy who was named Americana Artist of the Decade by No Depression! I'm using it for now because I'm drowning in work for my first release in seven years and I can only take on so many battles at once. But I already have a reminder for when things settle down to rethink how to frame and market my next releases (my music doesn't neatly fit any genre, but I have to throw an anchor somewhere).
And in fairness, while I loathe Oasis, I remember from my youth that from the beginning they said they wanted to be rich- they weren’t ever doing it for any other reason. Funny though, I had imagined Faust to be far more counter cultural and less materialistic- those quotes above make them seem to be wankers!
Great post.
Re: the Krautrock term. My parents, who are of the Krautrock/68ers generation, always despised it. Apparently it was coined by English writers. I've always wondered what it's supposed to mean, and I absolutely agree with Liebezeit. There's not much 'rock' in Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Cluster or Harmonia. Can and Neu! might be a bit closer to rock regarding style and personnel; they might be the earliest precursors of what we'd call 'post-rock' in the 1990s. (I'm still referring to Talk Talk, Slint and Tortoise; absolutely aware that the next generation used that term for semi-awful 2000s crescendocore.)
Crescendocore! The perfect term for all that empty heart-string pulling. Thanks.
Another great piece. I love your writing and that of Ted plus a recent t addition Chris Zappa.
I am from Manchester and one of our regular keyboard players Christian, plays in Liam’s band. The scene around the city has been cool ever since I can remember.
I have bought a couple of Oasis albums and recorded in Rockfield where they tracked some of their most well known songs. I am however a Britpop traitor, much preferring Blur. To me their music was lyrically more interesting with far superior musicianship. Graham Coxon is one badass.
Your view of nationalistic music is interesting and applies regionally in the UK
as well. Bands from Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and of course London all fly their flags high.
The krautrock section is really fascinating and the book is now on my very long reading list.
Thanks again for your intelligent writing.
Simon
PS. Sorry for the hideous typos, I am at the gym and typing whilst I exercise 😬
Another great, thoughtful essay, Damon. I was in London at the time when that “Blur vs Oasis” cover story came out. My sense was that England desperately wanted to celebrate something “British” especially after all of the “indie breakthrough” acts — ie Sonic Youth, Beck etc etc — pouring out of America and dominating the popular music discourse. Britpop indeed… By the way, I’m always happy to enjoy a Walter Abish reference, no matter how fleeting. Can someone dedicate a substack to him please?!?