Rock Star Dickhead 1 sues Rock Star Dickhead 2 for saying that Rock Star Dickhead 1 was hungover. That’s rock ‘n’ roll, kids.
I’m pretty ambivalent when it comes to Oasis – I don’t hate them but I’m no massive fan, either. The overriding emotion they trigger in me is irrepressible boredom.
Yes, the Brothers McMonobrow have certainly penned some decent tunes over the years (and I hear they’re great live) but I’ve felt their career has been as much, if not more, about hype, PR, marketing, branding and synthetically-engineered controversy as it has been about the actual music. I’ve always had a sneaky suspicion that every twist and turn (will they break up/won’t they/who cares?), every apparent controversy and every childish hissy fit has been the invention of faceless record company execs and bespectacled branding consultants.
In this way I’ve seen them as nothing more than a slightly grittier, much hairier version of those highly fuckable Spice Girls that gave us the empowering concept of Girl Power® (created by suited men in boardrooms rather than cock-teasing women in trackie bottoms or Union Jack dresses).
For all I know, the actual break-up of Oasis was just part of the original Project Plan, too, and there’s a reunion pencilled in which is just waiting for sign-off from the beancounters, actuaries and tax evaders I mean tax advisers.
I see that Liam (the younger, slightly uglier one) is suing his older brother Noel over Noel’s claims that the band once cancelled a gig because Liam had a hangover. Yes, you read that correctly: a rock ‘n’ roll star, who once sang songs about being a rock ‘n’ roll star who just needed cigarettes and alcohol, is suing his own brother who is also a rock ‘n’ roll star, for claiming he behaved like…a rock ‘n’ roll star. Liam says his brother’s comments “went way beyond rock-and-roll banter and questioned my professionalism.”
Of course, the fact that Noel made these claims about Liam to coincide with the release of Noel’s debut solo album is irrelevant and certainly not a mere extension of the tried and tested over-hyping methodology that Oasis used so regularly and successfully to rocket-boost an otherwise mediocre career.
In a further fascinating insight into their feral lifestyle, Noel claims that Liam demanded free advertising space for his clothing label in the band’s tour programme. It’s presumably only a matter of time before one of these morons accuses the other of borrowing a Louis Vuitton handbag without asking.
This rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle makes my life as an impoverished provincial solicitor – emails, track changes, conference calls, contract approval sheets – look anarchic, hedonistic and nihilistic.
The Oasis brothers are entitled to make as much money as they like and to deploy the full arsenal of capitalist weapons such as PR, marketing and branding to achieve their objectives. But the rest of us are entitled to see it as just that: a money-making exercise that relies to a large extent on hype, hype and yet more hype.
Whatever next, I really don’t know. Ex-junkie rock stars peddling online car insurance, probably.