OASIS Faq

NEW MUSICAL EXPRESS

20th March 1999

...Mind you, we dread to think what sort of hideous haircut Noel Gallagher would force you to have in order to replace Bonehead in Oasis. Yup, not content with getting himself a reputation as the wildest, craziest, drunkest rock goliath in all, um, Bonehead's house, the guitarist managed to get himself sacked from the band this week for 'getting on Noel's tits'. Apparently, during a televised Man City football match that was utterly essential for Noel to watch if their fourth LP is ever to be completed, he was distracted by Bonehead cutting his toenails at an excessive volume in an adjacent room, so he sacked the bastard. Thankfully a worldwide scandal was averted ten seconds later when Noel reinstated Bonehead after he made him a nice cup of tea and gave him a foot massage. Phew!
Then again, the fact that Oasis have had an old '70s valve amp delivered to their studio which, insiders claim, makes everything they play sound "dead 'eavy metal, like", suggests that maybe they're gonna give up the pub-rock lark and audition for Kiss instead.

banging on about...Tony McCarroll vs Oasis
by Steve Sutherland

Even if The Sun is right and Tony McCarroll is the most stupid man in showbiz, there's still something fishy about the outcome of his recent court case with Oasis.
If all the rports are to be believed, McCarroll went to court with the royalties from the songs he played on while he was still drumming with the band in the bag. That means that any future use of any of the songs from 'Definitely Maybe' and a number of songs from 'What's The Story Morning Glory?' would result in future earnings for McCarroll. These earnings are incalculable, depending on whether Saab or Cadbury's or whoever decide to buy early Oasis to soundtrack their ads. Could be more millions...
As far we're led to understand it, McCarroll was going to court to secure his cut from the rest of the songs Oasis have recorded and are yet to record under their current contract with Sony on the premise that, when the band first signed, he was part of the deal and just because Noel decided he didn't like him and booted him out doesn't legally annul his contract. The build-up to the case in the press was proclaiming that there could be as much as Ł18 million at stake and, perhaps more importantly, a precedent set for other musicians who have been unceremoniously dumped but have lacked either the courage, knowledge or funds up until now to challenge their previous partners in court. The floodgates on such cases were about to open when...
Well, mysteriously enough, McCarroll came over all dumb, gave up the case and, not only that, but he signed away those early rights to, for Ł600,000 or so, Ł250,000 of which allegedly went on court costs! Doesn't seem right somehow. Even if McCarroll isn't the sharpest of operators, surely his solicitors must have had some say in this so-called decision.
Here at NME, we smelled a rat when we were told that McCarroll had suddenly settled out of court, but that the financial terms were not going to be released, only to find that Ł600,000 sum splattered all over the tabloids the next day. This was swiftly followed by The Sun's 'Stupid' story which, considering it appeared so quickly on the Oasis website, appears to have been sanctioned by the group, swiftly followed again by an Observer 'exclusive' interview with Mccarroll which conspicuously failed to ask or answer any of the questions pertinent to the case. Questions like, what was McCarroll's original contract with the band, were they signed to Creation or Sony, and why on earth did he settle for such a relative pittance?
So, just for fun, let's play Fantasy Court Case. What if...just what if...the figure we are being told McCarroll settled for isn't exactly accurate? Remember, there's no onus on anyone to reveal the true amount. Only the taxman will ever know and he is bound not to say. And what if...just what if McCarroll settled for the millions that the smile on his face when he emerged from court says he did? What if all the press is some sort of smokescreen? What if there hasd been a pay-off and a press game spin-doctored to make it seem as if McCarroll was never going to win the case? What if he would have won but it was settled on the quiet to keep the precedent from being set that would encourage others to come forward and press similar cases which might cost the record industry further millions?
So, who are the dummies in this scenario? Just a thought.
by Steve Sutherland
Even if The Sun is right and Tony McCarroll is the most stupid man in showbiz, there's still something fishy about the outcome of his recent court case with Oasis.
If all the rports are to be believed, McCarroll went to court with the royalties from the songs he played on while he was still drumming with the band in the bag. That means that any future use of any of the songs from 'Definitely Maybe' and a number of songs from 'What's The Story Morning Glory?' would result in future earnings for McCarroll. These earnings are incalculable, depending on whether Saab or Cadbury's or whoever decide to buy early Oasis to soundtrack their ads. Could be more millions...
As far we're led to understand it, McCarroll was going to court to secure his cut from the rest of the songs Oasis have recorded and are yet to record under their current contract with Sony on the premise that, when the band first signed, he was part of the deal and just because Noel decided he didn't like him and booted him out doesn't legally annul his contract. The build-up to the case in the press was proclaiming that there could be as much as Ł18 million at stake and, perhaps more importantly, a precedent set for other musicians who have been unceremoniously dumped but have lacked either the courage, knowledge or funds up until now to challenge their previous partners in court. The floodgates on such cases were about to open when...
Well, mysteriously enough, McCarroll came over all dumb, gave up the case and, not only that, but he signed away those early rights to, for Ł600,000 or so, Ł250,000 of which allegedly went on court costs! Doesn't seem right somehow. Even if McCarroll isn't the sharpest of operators, surely his solicitors must have had some say in this so-called decision.
Here at NME, we smelled a rat when we were told that McCarroll had suddenly settled out of court, but that the financial terms were not going to be released, only to find that Ł600,000 sum splattered all over the tabloids the next day. This was swiftly followed by The Sun's 'Stupid' story which, considering it appeared so quickly on the Oasis website, appears to have been sanctioned by the group, swiftly followed again by an Observer 'exclusive' interview with Mccarroll which conspicuously failed to ask or answer any of the questions pertinent to the case. Questions like, what was McCarroll's original contract with the band, were they signed to Creation or Sony, and why on earth did he settle for such a relative pittance?
So, just for fun, let's play Fantasy Court Case. What if...just what if...the figure we are being told McCarroll settled for isn't exactly accurate? Remember, there's no onus on anyone to reveal the true amount. Only the taxman will ever know and he is bound not to say. And what if...just what if McCarroll settled for the millions that the smile on his face when he emerged from court says he did? What if all the press is some sort of smokescreen? What if there hasd been a pay-off and a press game spin-doctored to make it seem as if McCarroll was never going to win the case? What if he would have won but it was settled on the quiet to keep the precedent from being set that would encourage others to come forward and press similar cases which might cost the record industry further millions?
So, who are the dummies in this scenario? Just a thought.

New Musical Express News Articles - index

c 1998 Andrew Turner

aturner@interalpha.co.uk

This page hosted byGet your ownFree Home Page