I Don't Mean It (Man)/Authenticity in Pop Music

A friend recently dismissed Oasis to me by saying they have always just been "60s rip off phonies", which kind of got me thinking.....Oasis, Bowie, The Strokes, The Monkees (!) all artists I like at least in a general sense and think have made some great music (in the case of Oasis maybe just their debut, but I do love that album).....All artists who could be (and have been) accused of being poseurs but also who have won a high degree of critical support (us Monkees fans have our supporters dammit), and of course I could list many other artists here as well. And yet, authenticity or being the "real thing" is constantly raised as a barometer of artistic merit. How important is it exactly? Or in a more general sense - can you "fake" great Rock & Roll?

On a worldwide scale, Oasis are one of the biggest traditional rock bands. Pushed aside in the US, sure, but that gives them more room.
And the 60s ripped off r & b.
It's all a big circle.
Given that Oasis operate in the mainstream, it serves to hold them against Britney, Shakira (a career based on a limber spine), et al. They remain one of the most consistent general rock bands. Always a few great tracks per LP. More than I can say for Bowie in the last 20 years. Holding their middle fingers high and cutting a trench for acts like Libertines is polar to poseur.

OK, I asked around a bit to confirm my suspicions.
What I've learned about Oasis and taste in America.
Taste=go with the majority
The majority have learned second-hand that Oasis are a curmudgeon for daring to homage (and write about their love of) the Beatles.
The Beatles are an untouchable institution in the US (not so much in the UK or rest of the world)
Few poeple have ever heard more than two Oasis songs.
Conclusion:: In US, the Oasis are known but not for their music (which is actually a flag-bearer for guitar pop rock in a deserted genre).



Post Edited (05-21-06 15:35)

Well, I don't need much of an incentive to defend Oasis, especially their debut which I think is just a tremendous record and my favorite 90s album probably - or at least the one I play the most. The Beatles influence isn't nearly as pronounced on the debut - it's there, but so are a host of other influnces - The Who, Stones, Stone Roses, early 70s glam and a touch of Punk. I agree that calling them poseurs is really just a cheap shot...... However, in the broadest sense of what I was getting at with this thread - could they not be poseurs and still pull of their sound? Is the genuine affection they have for their influences necessary for the quality in their Art? It seems to me the search for "authenticity" is what has driven much of what has been critically acclaimed in Rock, post-67 or so at least.

All music is derivative to some degree. With a wide range of music experience you can take any song and pick 2 or 3 bands that the artist has used. I mean you can say the NY Dolls are just a poor man's Stones. The Stooges, a poor man's Doors. Bowie was just imatating the Beatles or Eno. Now these statements aren't true, but you can hear the influences.

If you take away all influences you end up with the four-year-old down the street whose dad just plugged him into a Casio.