Letter: Who needs the 'new Beatles'?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Andy Gill's article asks "Are Oasis the new Beatles?" (19 June). Yes, they are the "new Beatles", and they can have that title for as long they want, because they are a carbon copy, not something new.
The Beatles did something new. Their music gave teenagers whose parents listened to Glenn Miller and songs from musicals something which belonged to them, which summed up how they felt and couldn't be hijacked by the older generation. Oasis give teenagers exactly what their parents had, except with less intelligent lyrics.
So many bands are moving in new directions at the moment that Oasis shouldn't really matter. Pop today has moved beyond Noel Gallagher's "look, we're the Beatles" posturing. I can't see Oasis shocking parents, redefining pop or making Sergeant Pepper in five years' time. The only thing I can see them doing is reforming 25 years after they've split up.
FRANCES ROBINSON
(aged 14)
York
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments