This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Sykes, Robbie & Tranter, Kieran (2015) ’You gotta roll/rule with it’: Oasis and the concept of law. Griffith Law Review, 24(4), pp. 571-591.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/124803/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2015.1138922 This is a preprint of:

Robbie Skyes and Kieran Tranter ‘You Gotta Roll/Rule with It’: Oasis and The Concept of Law’ (2015) 24(4) Griffith Law Review 571-591 DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2015.1138922.

It is available to download at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10383441.2015.1138922

‘You Gotta Roll/Rule with It’1: Oasis and The Concept of Law

Robbie Sykes and Kieran Tranter∗

This article analyses H.L.A. Hart’s legal positivist theory through the life and music of the English band Oasis. It is argued that bringing Hart and Oasis into co-orbit reveals a fundamental ambiguity and anxiety within Hart’s jurisprudential performance. It is argued that Oasis’ self-confidence compares to Hart’s certainty of a distinction between law and morality and Oasis’ populism echoes Hart’s claim of law as dependent on communal assent. However, an examination of Oasis also makes visible an essential critique of the certain and voluntary nature of Hart’s system. Oasis’ performances, on and offstage, highlight the undisclosed essentiality of violence within The Concept of Law that betrays ambiguity and anxiety regarding core elements of Hart’s jurisprudential performance; the role of officials and the clarity of rules.

Introduction

This article analyses H.L.A. Hart’s legal positivist theory through the life and music of rock

stars Liam and Noel Gallagher, singer and guitarist, respectively, of the now-defunct English

band Oasis. Notwithstanding the palpable differences in time, audience, genre and methods

between Hart’s jurisprudential project of steering legal positivism between the superficiality of

1 Oasis (1995) ‘Roll With It’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory? ∗ Dr. Robbie Sykes, BIntBus, LLB (Hons), PhD (Griffith), DipGrad (Otago), affiliate member, Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University. Dr. Kieran Tranter, BSc LLB (Hons), PhD (Griffith). We would like to thank Professor William MacNeil and Professor Andy Bennett for their comments and direction, as well as the two peer reviewers and the editors of the Griffith Law Review for their comments on this article. All errors and omissions are our own. 1

the command theory and the sophistry of natural law2 and Oasis’ loud affirmation of British

pop-rock music, both projects share at their core an overconfidence and overstatement that

masked uncertainty. Hart’s accessible prose and rational delineations and the Gallagher

brothers’ driving riffs and vocals might seem to be from different worlds. Except there are core commonalities; both can be seen as attempts to delineate an order of things (for Oasis the difference between authentic and rubbish music; for Hart the distinction between law and morality) and incorporation of community and tradition into their performances (for Oasis self- awareness of being a rock ‘n’ roll band; for Hart the grounding of the posited legal order on communal assent). However, bringing Oasis and Hart into co-orbit reveals an essential critique of the certain and voluntary nature of Hart’s system. Oasis’ performances, on and offstage, highlight the essentiality of violence within Hart’s jurisprudential performance that reveals fundamental ambiguities and anxieties with the role of officials and clarity of rules. For the theory of law, this article shows that the ‘stars’ within its jurisprudential pantheon are engaged in ‘performance’ and that as performance – conceived as such and dramatised through comparison with the performance of rock stars – fundamental insights and nuances are revealed.

This argument occurs in three ‘sets’. Set One deals with the novelty of the approach of the article by locating it within an emerging sub-theme in cultural legal studies of rock music and jurisprudence. The benefit of bringing rock music into co-orbit with jurisprudence as a way of exposing, revealing and highlighting tensions, anxieties, and assumptions within legal theorising will be explained. Set Two brings Hart and Oasis into co-orbit. It is argued that the

Gallaghers’ confidence in the superiority of their band, asserted in contrast to other musicians,

2 Hart’s use of epic navigation metaphors - Scylla and Charybdis - to demark how he tries to find the safe middle ground between formalism and realism is well known: Hart (1994), p 147. See Flores (2011). 2 was comparable to Hart’s (apparently) certain distinction between law and morality. Further, it is argued that Oasis’ populism is echoed within Hart’s description of law as being dependent on communal assent. In making these arguments this part establishes the commonality between

Hart’s jurisprudential performance and Oasis’ performances, both musical and offstage. Set

Three draws upon these commonalities to show that Oasis’ performance make visible the essential place of violence within Hart’s The Concept of Law.3 This set climaxes by showing that this violence, amplified through engagement with Oasis, reveals that the surface confidence of The Concept of Law is beset with ambiguities and anxieties concerning officials and rules.

Set One: Rock Music and Jurisprudence – Oasis and Hart

The flowering of cultural legal studies in recent years has brought a diverse array of popular cultural texts into law. Cultural legal studies that draw upon film,4 television,5 and comic books6 have become increasingly common. As part of this diversification, cultural legal scholars have also begun to explore music. In order to provide another vantage from which law can be explained and evaluated, music’s structures and practices, its ways of creating and performing, as well as the feelings it evokes, have been utilised as legal scholarly resources.

One approach, taken by Desmond Manderson7 and Michael Richmond,8 has been to identify and reflect upon connections between the aesthetic impact of the legal and the musical. Mainly, however, it has been the functions performed by those directly involved in law that have been considered by musically-minded academics. Issues to do with the way that law is brought to

3 Hart (1961); Hart (1994). 4 MacNeil (2007); Young (2010). 5 Tranter (2007); Robson and Silbey (eds) (2012). 6 Bainbridge (2012); Lloyd (2012); Giddens (ed) (2015). 7 Manderson (2000). 8 Richmond (1998). 3

life (and affects people’s lives) through interpretive (in the work of Adam Gearey,9 as well as

Jack Balkin and Stanford Levinson10) and improvisational acts (in the work of Carol

Weisbrod11 and Sara Ramshaw12), and in a context of discourses of authenticity (David

Caudill13, Ramshaw14) have been examined. The unique features of musical genres as diverse

as classical,15 folk,16 country,17 and jazz18 have been enlisted in this endeavour and applied to

different facets of the legal world.

While some law and music scholarship has drawn upon popular forms,19 rock music remains largely unexplored. This article expands this earlier law and music research in two directions. First, by taking as its focus a mainstream and popular rock music group; and second, by using music to analyse jurisprudence rather than the specific responsibilities of legal actors.

William MacNeil has argued that popular culture is a setting in which community perspectives

on legal matters are expressed in coded form, and that these views can be used to supplement

and even recast legal academic preoccupations.20 Drawing from MacNeil’s insight, this article contends that rock music, as popular cultural practice, can strikingly illustrate and appraise jurisprudence.

This article departs from MacNeil’s work by examining not only the jurisprudential significance of a particular text, but by also examining the significance of the text’s author.

9 Gearey (1999). 10 Balkin and Levinson (1999). 11 Weisbrod (1999). 12 Ramshaw (2006). 13 Caudill (1999). 14 Ramshaw (2004), Ramshaw (2010). 15 Manderson (1999). 16 Weisbrod (1999). 17 Caudill (1999). 18 Ramshaw (2006). 19 Jaff (1986), Richmond (1998), Gearey (1999). 20 MacNeil (2007), p 1. 4

Rock music differs from literature in that it is multimodal and that, in particular, its creator –

the rock star – is frequently embodied in the practice of popular music. Be it through their

voice, their image on stage and in the ubiquitous music videos, or the persona conveyed through

interviews, the rock star feeds into a broader coupling of texts of which the music is just one

track mixed with other tracks to form a commodity for sale on the mass and popular market.

In his semiotic and sociological examination of Madonna, Georges-Claude Guilbert identifies multiple facets that are socially significant and can be loci for meaning and analysis:

‘I consider the whole of Madonna’s work and the whole of her person as a sum of signs lending themselves to analysis. Her songs, her videos, her movies, her book, her interviews, her TV appearances, as well as the outfits she wears, her hairstyles and her makeup constitute a vast text that I read...’21 Accordingly, this article looks not only to Oasis’ music, but to album art, concert footage

revealing onstage personae, audio and textual recordings of interviews, and biographical and

journalistic information. It uses the term ‘performance’ to demark this assembly.

It is not argued, however, that jurisprudence and rock music are alike or strictly

analogous. That a project with a combined focus on the performances of H. L. A. Hart and the

Gallagher brothers could say anything sensible does carry with it a degree of incredulity. This

is especially so as rock stars are provocative; they carry out their work at sites of cultural

contestation unsettling the mundane and complacent. Jurisprudes tend to be respectable

scholars engaged in a highly refined project of academic debate according to the conventions

of literacy, rationality and polite manners.22 Rock stars rarely behave appropriately. Rather,

they can be seen as performative of the conflicts over understandings of the law itself. Applying

rock stars to jurisprudence highlights the tensions, inconsistencies and paradoxes of the latter.

21 Guilbert (2002), pp 1-2. 22 See Hart’s posthumous published postscript to the second edition of the Concept of Law for a classic exemplar of academic debate with its conventions of literacy rationality and good manners in his responses to Ronald Dworkin: Hart (1994), pp 238-276. 5

Rather than claiming a simple linear correlation between jurisprudence and rock, this article

identifies a number of connections that deepen understanding, an approach explained by Lewis

Hyde in his comparison of the artist and the mythical archetype of the trickster:

‘My own position, in any event, is not that the artists I write about are tricksters but that there are moments when the practice of art and this myth coincide. I work by juxtaposition, holding the trickster stories up against specific cases of the imagination in action, hoping that each might illuminate the other. If the method works, it is not because I have uncovered the true story behind a particular work of art but more simply that the coincidences are fruitful, making us think and see again.’23 Hyde does not claim to expose any common essence, but is attentive to the presence of

comparisons that are helpful in explicating themes, issues and tensions. By bringing Hart and

Oasis into co-orbit this article undertakes the task of allowing thinking and seeing Hart again.

The beginning of this circulating is with Oasis’ context at the epicentre of the ‘Britpop’ era. Britpop was a style of music that occupied a central space in the popular culture of mid-

1990s England.24 Distinguished not only by the mainstream attention it courted and received,25

Britpop was also notable for its mix of nostalgia for the England of the 1960s and confidence

in the England of the early Blair New Labour period. During Britpop, the 1960s and the world

cultural dominance of a certain Fab Four from Liverpool were consciously referenced in

support of the claim that English music had been restored to its previous excellence.26 Oasis,

and particularly their frontman Liam Gallagher, emanated a self-confidence that drove them to

become the most popular English band of the time and a prominent fixture of the then

contemporary culture.27

23 Hyde (1998), p 14. 24 Harris (2003), p xv. 25 Harris (2003), p xv. 26 Bennett and Stratton (2010), p 1. 27 Such was Oasis’ popularity at this time that the band played to an audience of two hundred and fifty thousand people across two nights in 1996: Harris (2003), p 298. 6

It is Oasis’ immense popularity28 that can be immediately related to Hart’s account of

the pervasive acceptance of law. The certainty projected by Liam Gallagher of the proper order

of authentic music is kindred with Hart’s sharp distinction between law and morality. With

Liam and Hart there is a belief that the subject matters of their professions – rock music and

law – preside exclusively within their domains. For Hart, laws were more serious and more

binding than other rules of behaviour.29 For Oasis, rock ‘n’ roll was the only music that was

‘real’, and a band performing it was entitled to a massive, adoring audience. Separating law

from non-law and rock ‘n’ roll from inferior, inauthentic music was to be done by reference to

communal understanding: Hart offered an account that distinguished law from commands and

threats due to widespread acceptance rather than forced obedience. Oasis supposedly gained

widespread attention because their music was made in keeping with a format, set out by the

Beatles, Rolling Stones, et al, of what is commonly described as ‘classic’ rock music. Both

Hart and Oasis enjoyed success in these endeavours. Hart was one of the most influential legal

philosophers of the 20th century,30 while Oasis were a stadium-playing colossus.

However, the accounts that Hart and Oasis themselves provide do not completely explain how within their endeavours each established law (Hart) and rock ‘n’ roll (Oasis) as

‘binding’ on their audiences. The convincingness of Oasis’ claims to be heirs to a particular musical tradition may have less to do with their fidelity to a musical template than they do with

Liam’s assured delivery. Placing Liam’s confident style alongside The Concept of Law raises the suggestion that under Hart’s system, law’s validity primarily depends on the belief of those imposing it. It is with identifying these themes of confidence, community and acceptance Set

28 Niven (1994), pp 2-3 writes that ‘…Oasis became more culturally central than any other band in post-war Britain, with the obvious exception of their role models, The Beatles.’ 29 Hart (1994), p 87. 30 Lacey (204), p 1; Kramer, Grant, Colburn, Hatzistarvou (2008), p xiii. 7

One of this article closes. Set Two provides the main billing, connecting these themes in the

performances of Hart and Oasis.

Set Two: ‘D’You Know What I Mean?’31 Confidence, Community and ‘Officials’

Hart opens his performance in the Concept of Law with what was by 1961 a familiar

riff – the limits of sovereign command theory as an adequate explanation of law.32 Hart strums along with a virtuoso’s confidence. The threatening sovereign command fails to connect with the ‘essence’ of legality,33 as it does not explain why people accept laws as legal.34 A more accurate account of law should focus not just on law’s exterior movements, but on the interior

lives of its subjects.35 Law is identified by the attitude that people have towards it. Hart shifts

law from a regime that forces obedience to a system that is sustained by knowing assent.36 The two significant features of Hart’s move from obedience to acceptance are consensus and community. Hart tries for an understanding of the legal system that does away with violence as necessary for legal validity, substituting force with the willing acknowledgement of law.

Costas Douzinas and Adam Gearey call Hart’s theory a ‘celebration of a spirit of compromise’.37 Without violence to secure conformity, the legal system becomes about

community consensus.

31 Oasis The Classic Interviews Part 4’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O3kZhgtyQ4&feature=relmfu 32 Hart (1994), p 18. 33 Hart (1994), p 79. In place of sovereign power, Hart (1994), p 155 asserts that there are ‘…two types of rule, [and] that their union may be justly regarded as the ‘essence’ of law…’ And it is the identification of legality itself that is at stake in The Concept of Law, as Krygier (1982), p 161 points out. 34 The authoritativeness of law is addressed in Hart (1994), pp 53-55. 35 Hart (1994), p 56. 36 Which, Hart (1994), p 57 states ‘…should display itself in criticism (including self-criticism), demands for conformity, and in acknowledgements that such criticisms and demands are justified, all of which find their characteristic expression in the normative terminology of ‘ought’, ‘must’ and ‘should’…’ On the distinction between coercion and authority, see also McCormick (1994), p 8. 37 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 141. 8

Community consensus is a theme detectable in Oasis, indeed, in Britpop music

generally, sitting, as it did, in the mainstream:

‘In some ways Britpop was indie’s nemesis. It began as an offshoot of the independent British music scene but arguably ended up killing it, as a convergence took place between indie and mainstream, removing the distinctive ‘protest’ element of British-based independent music.’38 Compromise is linked to community, the second highlighted feature of Hart’s performance.39

Devoid of ‘protest’, Britpop eschewed discord for togetherness. Oasis’ ambitions for

mainstream popularity and the mass attention the band gained echo the community that Hart’s

theory strives for: ‘After the individualist ideology of the Thatcher years, Oasis brought back

enthusiasm for the collective.’40 Of the band’s debut album, Noel remarked:

‘Well, it appealed to everyone. It appealed to people who were into guitar music, it appealed to people who were just into fucking going out getting high, d’you know what I mean? It was rock ‘n’ roll, it was pop. Girls liked it, lads loved it. It appealed to everybody, every single person.’41 In response to the individualism and difference of 1980s rock styles, Oasis attempted to revitalise that which brings people together.42 Hart’s performance accents the enduring ties of

community43 which Douzinas and Gearey argue is ‘nostalgia for a settled community with a

more or less explicit value consensus.’44 Community is an environment adumbrated by shared

understandings and values. It is in this environment that law can be identified. Hart does not

provide a definition of law45 such as Austin’s ‘orders backed by threats’.46 Instead, law is to be

observed in situ. The legal system is to be understood as a collection of practices and

38 Huq (2010), p 93. 39 Hart (1994), p 59. 40 Scott (2010), p 119. Also, Niven (2014), p 40: ‘The core of Oasis’s identity was populism.’ 41 Oasis The Classic Interviews Part 4’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O3kZhgtyQ4&feature=relmfu 42 See also Niven (1994), pp 4-5 on Oasis and collectivity. 43 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 157. See also Schroeder (2007), p 124 on law and society in Hart. 44 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 157. 45 Hart (1994), p 15. 46 Hart (1994), p 19; p 81. 9

interpretations that occur in an environment defined by rules.47 A rule does not force

conformity, but invites critical evaluation.48 Those that accept the system of rules belong to a

community of understanding.

Hart claims that law is best explained as a system of primary and secondary rules.49

Primary rules contain the law’s content, while secondary rules establish the processes by which

primary rules may be created, abolished, or changed.50 Law is not to be confused with other

rules, such as morality, which lack the appropriate legal characteristics.51 The legal system is

not dependent on morality for its validity because law is defined by community practices.52

One secondary rule in particular – the rule of recognition – is used to ascertain law. The rule

of recognition contains within it the characteristics of legality which can be measured against

a rule to determine whether that rule forms part of the legal system of that community

(importantly, as will be discussed in Set Three below, the rule of recognition establishes its

authority to determine legality because it is observed by the officials of the system53). The rule

of recognition reflects the comprehension that is required of participants in the legal system.

Reflective attitude and Liam Gallagher tend not to be common associations. Stan

Hawkins clearly had Liam in his sights when he described Britpop as ‘Victorious and flagrantly bloke-ish’.54 However, Liam’s offstage performative reflections on what counts as good music

and what presentation and conduct are becoming of a rock star, exhibits a substantial account

47 Hart (1994), p 100 sets out this environment as a ‘…complex social situation where a secondary rule of recognition is accepted and used for the identification of primary rules of obligation.’ Hart (1994), p 81: ‘…most of the features of law which have… eluded the search for definition can best be rendered clear, if these two types of rule and the interplay between them are understood.’ [emphasis added] 48 Hart (1994), p 57. 49 Hart (1994), p 81. 50 Hart (1994), p 81. 51 Hart (1994), p 86. 52 Hart (1994), pp 107-108. 53 Hart (1994), p 116. 54 Hawkins (2010), p 145. 10

of the values contained within his conception of rock stardom. Likewise, the rule of recognition

constitutes an understanding of what may be allowed into the legal system and what is to be

denied entry because of its incompatibility with the community’s values. In other words

secondary rules are used to sort law from-non law just as Liam sorted authentic rock from the

chaff of try-hards and wannabes.

Using the rule of recognition gives a confidence to the identification of law. As Hart

recalls in the appendix to the second edition of the Concept of Law his aim was to give lawyers

confident certainty in the formal legitimacy of the legal system so that they could have a ‘good

night sleep.’55 The self-confidence projected by Liam through his assured swagger, stoic

onstage posture, and definitive pronouncements in interviews made him an impressive and

compelling frontman.56 Liam’s air of certainty – this is rock and you will like it – illustrates

how, in promising a certain distinction between legality and everything else, whatever Hart’s

rule of recognition identifies as law is given a persuasiveness that encourages critical examiners

to follow it. Legal rules have a kind of ‘star quality’, a special character which makes them binding.

As Hart seeks to distil what gives law its essential legal quality, Oasis’ performance seems to distil an essential purity of style. Projecting the image of a mini-collective, the members of Oasis can be seen as ‘officials’ of their musical world. In writing the band’s songs,

Noel acts as legislature. His activities fall under the secondary rules of change, which authorise the modification of existing rules and the creation of new rules.57 Liam, who was responsible

55 Hart (1983), p 144. 56 For example, Liam was voted greatest frontman of all time in a poll taken by the radio station XFM: Radio X Names the Greatest Frontman of All Time http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/xfm-names-the-greatest-frontman-of-all- time 57 Hart (1994), p 95. 11

for the vocal delivery of Oasis’ songs, acts similar to a judge applying the law, while the other

band members form a musical executive. They were required to follow the instructions of Noel

and were charged with realising the supportive elements of the band’s music (rhythm guitar,

bass guitar, and drums) in a purely workmanlike fashion. Harris writes that the rest of the band

was instructed to play in a style of ‘brutal simplicity’, saying that:

‘…[rhythm guitarist] Paul Arthurs was instructed to stick to bar chords, meaning that his fingers need never alter their basic configuration; Paul McGuigan’s bass played little more adventurous than root notes; Tony McCarroll took comfort from the fact that his basic 4/4 rhythms were seemingly all that was required.’58 Oasis did not require extraordinary technical musical capabilities, presenting themselves as deriving their legitimacy from the ‘official’ positions they inhabited rather than from any personal characteristics. Harris comments that at the time of their Knebworth concerts, Oasis’ casual appearance suggested that they could have been culled from the crowd to which they played.59 Similarly, Liam claimed that the members of the band were ‘not wizards’ but that

they ‘...just happen to be in the best band in the world.’60 The band was the band was the band, highlights Hart’s attempt at a pure legal system, where the law is the law is the law. Positivism

privileges itself and excludes non-law. Oasis argue that the rock ‘n’ roll style that they

performed was ‘real’ music,61 distinguishing it from the work of most other popular musicians,

whose music is inauthentic because it does not conform to the rock ‘n’ roll genre. Liam

connects being real with rock ‘n’ roll music, saying ‘We’re the best ‘cos we’re real,’ and then

continuing ‘...that’s what you need in indie these days. But we’re not an indie band. We’re a

rock band, pal.’62 Distilling the ‘real’ enables identification of the values that are important to

a community.

58 Harris (2003), p 127. 59 Harris (2003), p 299. Similarly, Niven (2014), p 33 characterises the members of Oasis, aside from Noel and Liam, as ‘…simply the people who were there…’ 60 Harris (2003), p 378. 61 Harris (2003), p 296 62 Shaw (2006), p 116. 12

These determinations with Oasis’ and Hart’s performances on what is and is not real

music and law do have a temporal and cultural dimension. For Hart the law is not only self-

sufficient in that it does not require external supports such as morality or sovereignty but is

capable of perpetuating itself through the continuity generated by its rules.63 The continuity of

the law survives independently of its particular members.

This recourse to an internal tradition resonates with Oasis’ performances. Scott notes

that ‘Britpop was made possible in the 1990s by the emergence of a rock canon and, consequently, the idea of classic rock.’64 Harris remarks that Britpop musicians ‘were

knowingly reconnecting their music to a fleetingly forgotten heritage’ of 1960s English rock,65

in which, Andy Bennett observes, the Beatles were a predominant group.66 Oasis established

their connection to the rock ‘n’ roll artists of the past, particularly the Beatles, through their

lyrics, music, and presentation.67 The Beatles foremost among them, are used by Oasis in

judging the work of other musicians. Liam and Noel contrast ‘real’ rock ‘n’ roll music with the

bands and musicians that they disapprove of. Liam said of popular music when Oasis began

that ‘...it was just Phil Collins and all these boring people in boring bands and it were playing

big gigs but it was like, you know, you got nowt to say. You don’t look like rock stars; you

look like dicks in tights.’68 Here, Liam contrasts the musical style and presentation of Phil

Collins with rock ‘n’ roll stardom, the latter implied to be the standard of appropriate music-

63 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 159, Hart (1994), p 61. 64 Scott (2010), p 110. 65 Harris (2003), p xv. 66 Bennett (1997), p 22. 67 References to the Beatles abound in Oasis’ work. A few examples: The lyrics of ‘Supersonic’ reference ‘Yellow Submarine, ‘Take Me Away’ includes a partial recitation of the opening line from the Beatles’ ‘Octopus’s Garden’, ‘Wonderwall’ takes its title from a film soundtrack by George Harrison. Also, ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’ includes the line ‘So I start a revolution from my bed, ‘cause you said the brains I had went to my head,’ a quote from Lennon’s unfinished memoirs: Shaw (2006), p 67. 68 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 5. 13

making Collins has failed to achieve. The majority of contemporary bands at the time of any

interview with Liam will be dismissed as being un-rock ‘n’ roll. Responding to one interviewer,

Liam said:

‘There’s lots of bands I like, but as for all that, the ones that you said, the Scissor Sisters, then, no, I’m not having it. I’m sorry. I’m sure they’re all nice people, but fuck them and fuck Bloc Party and fuck Pete Doherty and his stupid mess, and all the rest of it. And Franz Ferdinand, they don’t do it for me mate, you know what I mean?’69 Noel, too, portrays other bands as unworthy by contrasting these bands’ music with the rock

‘n’ roll produced by Oasis, saying, for example: ‘“Music for me at the moment is dead.’ ‘It’s

poncey and serious and everyone’s got to make some sort of statement, whether it’s about

“Parklife” or their feminine side or their politics. But we’re a rock ‘n’ roll band...’70 This quote

by Noel is striking for he expressly excludes from music morality and politics, the same

concerns that Hart excludes from law to maintain its purity. Harris identified this consistent

denigration of musicians and bands who created music other than rock ‘n’ roll a ‘constant

refrain’ within Oasis’ performance.71 These inauthentic music makers failed to be recognised

by Oasis’ rule of classic English rock recognition.

This tradition includes a longing for England’s past. Curiously, Britpop’s deliberate resuscitation of the 1960s aligns with the publishing history of Hart’s main text, The Concept of Law,72 which appeared first in 1961 and then received a new edition in 1994, the same year

that Oasis’ debut album was released. Many have observed Hart’s theory is infused with

Englishness73: ‘Hart’s sensibility is very much that of the last period of Empire, and… there

69 Walsh (2006) Oasis Lord Don’t Slow Me Down, Chapter 11. 70 Harris (2003), p 144. 71 Harris (2003), p 144. 72 Hart (1961). 73 MacNeil (2007), p 55, Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 141; p156. 14

are ideological links between Hart and the visions of colonial administrators who were trying

to save the British empire.’74 Oasis’ performance also engaged with a broader Englishness and

the visual images of ‘Brand UK’ their retro-60s ‘mod’ style clothes, Noel’s iconic Epiphone

Sheraton guitar with its union flag paint job, and remarks such as Liam’s in the following

exchange:

‘...when a passing Creation [Oasis’ record company] staff member enquired about the design on the cover of the Oasis demo – the colours of the Union Jack arranged in a vortex, as if being sucked down the plughole – Liam dispensed a snarling reply. His words, in the right-on days of 1993, must have sounded striking indeed. ‘It’s the greatest flag in the world and it’s going down the shitter,’ he said. ‘We’re here to do something about it.’’75 Hart’s ‘cricket pitch’ conception of England of players, umpires and shared rules76 and Oasis’

nation of ‘Strawberry Fields’77 and ‘Penny Lane’78 (doubly nostalgic since these songs were

written as reminiscences by Lennon and McCartney79) grounds the confidence of both. The

legal system can be seen working as it has always done, and good music sounds like good

music equally in the 60s and the 90s. They must be made to ‘Live Forever’,80 as one of Oasis’

most anthemic tunes would have. The tradition is to be perpetuated, and anything that does not

adhere to it will be met with disapproval. The specific vision of the past is applied as a universal

standard,81 and most of which it is applied to is found wanting and excluded from the insular

system of positivist law, or the canons of classic rock. In bringing the tradition into the present,

the shadows of the past are brought back as something harsher. The idealised vision of a golden

74 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 156. 75 Harris (2003), pp 129-130. 76 MacNeil (2007), p 55. 77 The Beatles (1967) Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. 78 The Beatles (1967) Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane. 79 See Daniels (2006) for a discussion of the past in relation to these two songs. 80 Oasis (1994) ‘Live Forever’ Definitely Maybe. 81 Douzinas and Gearey (2005), p 141. 15

age makes for a stringent test of validity, and one that requires, as will now start to emerge, a

‘master’ who has to be followed.

Oasis demonstrates that tradition, while it may outlive individuals, depends for its

endurance on custodianship in the present. A legacy does not exist merely in its texts, but in

the people that currently embody it. Validity and exclusion issue forth from the custodians

rather than any disembodied auto-implementation by the criteria of quality. As such formal

statements of the rule of legal or authentic rock recognition tend to be nebulous. For example

when asked ‘What are the characteristics that make a great rock band?’ Liam replied with a

confident swagger, ‘Having it, just having it. I don’t know what it is. You’ve just got to have

it and I’ve got it. And by us having it hopefully some other people will learn how to have it,

you know what I mean?’82 A lot of the phrases used by members of Oasis as well as fans of the band centre around this ineffable ‘it’, such as the expression ‘mad for it’, meaning to be enthusiastically devoted to the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle. It must be noted, however, that all this vagueness is not a deficiency. Rather, it is intentional. Noel has expressed ‘his admiration for

Beatles lyrics that remain a mystery…’83, and his own lyrics are not intended to be profound:

‘…everyone’s dead into analysing, but don’t analyse our band. “That’s a good song, that is.

What does it mean?” Who gives a fuck what it means?’’84 This ineffability is echoed in the

technicalities of Hart’s legal system where the rule of recognition cannot be expressly

articulated.85 Like Liam’s ‘mad for it’ way of life, the rule of recognition exists in the attitudes of the system’s officials. In Oasis-speak they have ‘it.’

82 Dower (2003) Live Forever: The Rise and Fall of Brit Pop, Chapter 13. 83 Scott (2010), p 119. 84 Harris (2003), p 144. 85 Hart (1994), p 101. 16

Given its concealment, how is the rule of recognition to be identified? The answer (in

the form of a question, no less), may be found in ‘(It’s Good) To Be Free’,86 where Liam sings

‘So what would you say if I said to you “it’s not in what you say it’s in what you do”?’ The

rule of recognition has no one formulation, and in what Hart calls ‘developed’ legal systems, it might involve the use of different methods to ascertain whether a rule is part of the legal system.87 Because of this complexity and the previously outlined ineffability, the rule of

recognition is more easily observed when it is actually used in the process of discerning

whether a rule is legal.88 Likewise, that the work of bands such as the Beatles and the Rolling

Stones are chosen by Oasis’ as real music tells something of Oasis’ criteria of musical validity.

This process also creates a paradox in that what the rule of recognition chooses is legal, but

what is legal creates the rule of recognition. While the rule of recognition specifies which rules

belong to a legal system, it cannot gain legal legitimacy through self-recognition, so its

inclusion in the legal system comes from its being used by the system’s officials.89 Liam pays homage to a tradition of musicians to which he appoints himself successor; ‘You couldn’t put

any of these other bands near any of them greats years ago like Keith Richards, Elvis, John

Lennon. Put me in the middle of them and I’d look fucking pretty cool with them.’90

In connecting to bands of the past, Oasis were not simply making ‘real’ music, but

expounding a rhetoric that justified their musical prominence. Liam describes this very

conscious seizing of power from the aestheticism and androgyny of 1980s English music,

saying ‘It was time for some real lads to get up there and take charge, and I think that’s what

86 Oasis (1998) ‘(It’s Good) To Be Free’ The Masterplan. 87 Hart (1994), pp 94-95. 88 Hart (1994), p 101. 89 Kramer (1988), p 407. 90 Dower (2003) Live Forever: The Rise and Fall of Brit Pop. Unseen Interview Cuts Liam Gallagher, Chapter 7. 17

we did.’91 It is Oasis’ position as musical ‘officials’ that bestows authority upon their chosen

bands. The rule of recognition is imbued with authority by the tradition of legal officials

implementing it. The planetary imagery of orbits when introducing this Set’s placing of Oasis

and Hart into co-orbit, was not innocent and not without meaning. The elliptical paths of

heavenly bodies trace a repetitious stable pattern of going around and around. So too the

complex of confidence, community and acceptance within the performances of Oasis and Hart can be seen as ‘circular.’92 However, this going around was not self-sustainable. Gravity is the force that keeps the clockwork movement of the Newtonian solar system ticking. The necessity in both Oasis’s and Hart’s performances is for tradition imbued and infused officials to force everything in its proper place. There is a noticeable darker pitch and tone to this realisation and it is with hitting this registry that Set Two gives way to Set Three.

Set Three: ‘Definitely Maybe’93: Force and Uncertainty

Not much of force, violence and the darker side of humanity jangle discordantly within the

harmonies of the Concept of Law. John (The Gunman) Austin is conjured from the pages as a fairly benign bank robber only demanding money.94 Hobbes’ bloody humanity, his homo lupus capable of easily killing and easily killed95, becomes H. G. Wells’ armoured alien crustaceans at the end of time incapable of harming others of their own species.96 By explaining the legal

system in terms of rules, Hart attempts to show that acceptance of the legal system is not dependent on violence.

91 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 5. Affirming that such a coup was the process by which the band established themselves, rhythm guitarist Paul Arthurs said ‘It needed somebody to sort of say “Out of the way. We’ll take charge here. This is what you’re getting. This is what it’s going to be from now on”’: Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 1. 92 Duncanson (1979), p 218. 93 Oasis (1994) Definitely Maybe, Creation. 94 Hart (1994), p 19,; p22. 95 See Johnson (1987). 96 Hart (1994), p 194. Seemingly drawing on H. G. Wells imagery from the Time Machine. Wells (1995), p 74 18

To achieve this irenic concept of law Hart journeys through his celebrated distinction

between law that forces obedience and law that is voluntarily accepted as the difference

between being obliged and being obligated.97 Under a system of legal rules, a person has an

obligation to act in keeping with the law.98 Conversely, under a system that uses threats of

force to ensure compliance, a person is said to be obliged to obey.99 When a subject is obliged,

their desire to avoid being harmed by the legal system is motivation for their obedience.100 The existence of an obligation, however, need not be proven by reference to the reason for a person’s actions.101 An obligation exists separate from the motivation and actions of the

obligated.102 A person is obliged due to a threat being made against them; that person will most

often do what is being asked of them by the threatening agent. The obligation and the act go

together.103 However, there is a discretionary element as to whether or not to fulfil an obligation. This discretion is explained by Hart in terms of the internal and external points of

view.104 The internal point of view is the mindset of a person towards the rule that they are

following.105 The external point of view observes from the outside a person following a rule.106

To someone outside of a legal system only the actions of those under observation need be

considered in determining whether those people are following the rules.107 The internal aspect, meanwhile, explains normative belief in a set of rules as legal.108 The internal aspect allows voluntary acceptance of the rules as they can be considered and evaluated before being

97 Hart (1994), pp 6-7; p 82. 98 Hart (1994), p 82. 99 Hart (1994), p 82. 100 Hart (1994), p 82. 101 Hart (1994), p 83. 102 Hart (1994), p 83. 103 Hart (1994), p 83. 104 Sherwin (1986), p 386 identifies a dilemma that Hart’s work is directed towards resolving: the tension between the desire for certainty (attainable through rules capable of objective confirmation) and legal authenticity (via some interior understanding of law). 105 Hart (1994), p 89. 106 Hart (1994), p 89. 107 Hart (1994), p 89. 108 Hill (1990), pp 120-121. 19 complied with. However, Hart undercuts the voluntary nature of this system by requiring only the system’s officials to take the internal point of view. While it is preferable that subjects view the law from this internal perspective, it is not a fundamental requirement.109 Subjects are required to obey the law, but their reasons for obedience are irrelevant. Provided that subjects can be seen from the outside to be following the rules, they do not have to agree with them.110

If subjects do not consent to the laws, then the use of force to compel obedience will be sufficient to satisfy the external aspect of rule following required for non-officials.111 Even if the system threatens and perpetrates violence towards the non-compliant subjects (reminiscent of Pink Floyd’s Animals,112 Hart analogises non-officials to ‘sheep’ who ‘might end up in the slaughter-house’113), the system is nonetheless, in Hart’s schema, a legal one.114

Thus force, violence and the darker side of humanity leeches into Hart’s clinical distinctions. It is at this point of considering the compelling nature of potential force that Oasis takes centre stage. Key to Oasis’ performance was a compelling forcefulness. This hit their audience along two vectors. The first was the sonic qualities of the band’s instrumentation.

Oasis relied upon a ‘heavy’ style that utilised distorted guitars and countless overdubs. Harris called the band’s playing as ‘...positively monolithic: a sound so divorced of finesse and complexity that it came out sounding pretty much unstoppable.’115 Adding to their playing style, Oasis’ producer, Owen Morris, pioneered a mixing technique that raised the volume levels of their albums above that of all other records.116 Morris described this effect as a ‘wall

109 Hart (1994), pp 116-117. 110 See also Slattery (1998), who questions the extent to which normative obligations can be explained solely from this outside perspective. 111 Sherwin (1986), pp 404-405. 112 Pink Floyd (1977) Animals. 113 Hart (1994), p 117. 114 Hart (1994), p 117. 115 Harris (2003), pp 127-128. 116 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 12, Hawkins (2010), p 148. 20

of noise’, and said that ‘There are no dynamics... it’s just full on...’117 Alan McGee, head of the record label that Oasis were then signed to, stated that this technique gave the album ‘an aggression.’118 Oasis’ instrumental sound is unassailable and self-contained: it projects through the acoustic medium a pure ‘positivism’, it is ‘just there’ demanding to be noticed.

The second vector was through Liam’s singing style and onstage charisma. Liam’s vocals, delivered in a sharp, sneering tone and with unusual emphases are the most distinct, prominent, and forceful element of Oasis’ music. Paul Arthurs said that ‘For me personally it’s

Liam’s voice. That’s the Oasis sound. You know, anyone can crank up the guitars and sound like “wow, you sound big.” But without the right voice behind you you’re not going to sound that big.’119 Kasabian frontman Tom Meighan conceptualises Liam’s contribution to the band

in terms of ‘anger and aggression and passion’ and that ‘…he [Liam] could sing the menu to

my local Indian and you’d want to ‘ave it with him.’120 Liam onstage performance was a pure

study in charismatic authority; belting out the lyrics while standing unmoving with his hands

clasped behind his back. The stance is a product of his self-assuredness. Liam answered the question ‘Why don’t I move on stage? Cos I don’t feel as if I have to.’121 It is also a visual

representation of the force with which Liam delivers his vocals. Journalist Keith Cameron said

that ‘The way that he’s singing is so physical, you know, he’s just wrenching the sound out

from his legs, from his throat.’122

Through these two vectors Oasis could be seen to be intimating an audience, into not

just compliance, but adoration. The confidence of their rock stardom coupled with the pure

117 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 12. 118 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 12. 119 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 16. 120 Meighan (2010), p 96. 121 Shaw (2006), p 129. 122 Carruthers (2004) Definitely Maybe, Chapter 16. 21

physicality of their performances meant that their claims were ‘accepted’ by the listening

public. This ‘acceptance’ was tied up with a projection of authority intertwined with force.

From Hart’s external point of view Oasis audiences were rocking out because the man with the mic backed up by sledgehammers of sound was compelling them to.

In this, Liam’s performance distinguishes Oasis’ music. It is certainly not argued that

Oasis’ work is of poor or average quality and that their confidence and aggression, like earlier

eras of punk and grunge, are used to distract from the shortcomings of their work. On the

contrary, Oasis’ songs are beautifully written. However, the point is that Oasis’ music did not

garner an audience through the intellectual, rational, internal point of view ‘critically

evaluating’ the quality of the group’s song writing. Beyond being considered merely good

musicians, in the 1990s, a mass of people interpreted the group as culturally significant;

possessors of the spirit of the times. The way in which the delivery of Oasis’ music influenced

its reception resonates directly with how Hart distinguishes his system of rules as legal through

the combination of rhetorical signifiers – the internal obliged – and the real of the external of

forced obligation that distinguishes the law. Like how Oasis’ performance had significance and

meaning beyond a collection of a musically competent songs, a system of law has significance

beyond being a functional network of rules. For Hart force framed rules as important. Force

claims authority, but authority may also be facilitated by force. The ‘with us or against us’,

good vs. bad music, law vs. non-law distinctions, rather than being divisive, may attract a mass

of followers due to its implied promise of certainty. Oasis’s forcefulness stems from their belief

in the worthiness of their music. In rocking out to their self-belief others become convinced of

its importance. In Hart’s system it is the belief of the officials that signals validity. It is

suggested that the forceful conduct inspired by this belief is the frame that prompts the system

22

to be interpreted as authoritative by its subjects. The audience is made to see the world through the eyes of the performer.

The musician believes in the special quality of their work, and so performs it forcefully.

The audience interprets the music through this force, and thus agree to its importance, gaining the mass audience which validates the performer’s belief. The circle is complete, the orbit begins. Respectful and thankful in regards their audience, Oasis are not patronising in the way that Hart suggests legal subjects are sheep. Nonetheless, Oasis' performance reflects further upon Hart and his forced obedience and possibly slaughterhouse bound ‘flock’. Oasis’

embraced the rock ‘n’ roll life and were comfortable with having a large audience. According

to Harris, ‘Oasis were… the group who managed to purge British music of any lingering

difficulties with the idea of vast success.’123 Oasis’ music seems corroborated by its broad acceptance: ‘Their most iconic moments – the Gallagher brothers taking the stage at Earl’s

Court, Maine Road or Knebworth – were bound up with the spectacle of mass adulation.’124

Likewise, Hart’s system is in need of its flock. The law is a special set of rules and it establishes

a domain which must be populated by the right kind of followers. Hart’s legal subjects are

permitted to be indifferent, while Oasis’ fans were rapturously supportive. However, legal

subjects are often indifferent; there are critical moments when the law asserts its authority

through force. In these moments, when the law comes into contact with lives amongst the flock,

their apathy is dissolved. Forcefulness provides a context in which the law is understood to

have authority. The understanding of law provided by Hart’s theory and the force that makes

the legal system recognisable are united. In Oasis’ performance there was a convergence of the

123 Harris (2003), p xvii. 124 Harris (2003), p xvii. 23

force that Hart tried to push out of the legal system and the internal perspective with which he

sought to replace it.

In doing so the very certainty that Hart desired in and through The Concept of Law

vanishes. Through their internal dimension, rules are supposed to be evaluated and accepted.

As has been argued, however, critical appraisal of a rule may include assessment of the rule’s

delivery, evaluating the nebula of force surrounding it. For Hart these functions are in play

when a case, at least the everyday ‘easy cases’ are decided; rules should be identified and

applied with certainty.125 For Hart judicial decision making is usually a mechanical process.

An analogy from Oasis is illuminating. Liam, the embodiment of certainty in Oasis, sings with

confidence the songs written by Noel. In the ‘easy cases’ the legal system presents to the

official an unambiguous rule to be applied.

Performing as he was in the aftermath of American realism, Hart does acknowledge a

limited amount of uncertainty in his legal system. Within every legal rule is a core of settled

meaning that allows for an uncontroversial application of the rule.126 Every rule also has a

penumbra of uncertainty.127 In a small number of ‘hard’ cases, rules will be unable to clearly guide a decision. In these instances, a judge may have recourse to that which sits outside of the law in order to decide the case; positivism’s legal empire of the law that is gives way to a different order of knowledge about what the law should be. However, the uncertainty, it

transpires, is more severe than Hart’s text explicitly acknowledges.

125 Hart (1994), p 145: ‘Whatever courts decide, both on matters lying within that part of the rule which seems plain to all, and those lying on its debatable border, stands till altered by legislation…’ Also, Dworkin (1977), p 81, describes Hartian positivism as holding that: ‘His [the judge’s] opinion is written in language that seems to assume that one or the other party had a pre-existing right to win the suit, but [in Dworkin’s opinion] that idea is only a fiction.’ 126 Hart (1994), p 123. 127 Hart (1994), p 123. 24

Oasis’ onstage performance shows the extent of this uncertainty. Centre and in the spotlight, Liam is the embodiment of core certainty. Standing to the side, on the penumbra, is

Noel. Liam is cocksure, Noel ambivalent. Definitely Maybe,128 the title of Oasis’ debut album,

illustrates the relationship between the two brothers. Noel is the Maybe. This characterisation

of Noel can be seen in his lyrics. There was indeterminacy within the very words that he wrote

for his brother to boom into a microphone; ‘I can see the signs but they’re not very clear’129

and ‘I tried praying but I don’t know what you’re saying to me.’130 Noel’s songs are rife with

ineffability, questions and uncertainties. In contrast, Liam is the Definitely, his onstage presence grave and unmoving.131 Liam’s response to Noel’s ambivalence is similar to the

mentality of the Hartian official, as described by MacNeil: ‘I know that the rules are essentially

ambiguous, but nonetheless I continue to judge on the basis that their meaning is certain.’132

Whereas some of the lyrics on Oasis’ second album hint at Noel suffering from fatigue and

doubt, Liam’s sings the words with vitality and sureness:

‘Its [(What’s the Story) Morning Glory?’s] best songs were seemingly built on a compelling contradiction… Though Noel’s words betrayed a weary, questioning response to the group’s ascent, Liam’s bulgy-veined delivery suggested that he had no such misgivings: if the group were ever to slow down, it would not be his foot on the brake.’133 To MacNeil Hart’s disregard of uncertainty is an indirect acknowledgement of its existence.134

Unintentionally, Hart’s theory divulges that uncertainty is epidemic. Because the very purpose

of Hart’s legal rules are to be evaluated, at best not just creating external obedience but internal

128 Oasis (1994) Definitely Maybe. 129 Oasis (1994) ‘Columbia’ Definitely Maybe. 130 Oasis (1994) ‘Slide Away’ Definitely Maybe. 131 Harris (2003), p 145. 132 MacNeil (2007), p 51. 133 Harris (2003), p 255 attributes this insight to John Robinson’s NME review of (What’s the Story) Morning Glory? 134 MacNeil (2007), p 51. On the disregard of uncertainty, Singer (1963), p 214 writes that Hart passes over the complexity of the law/morality distinction. 25

obligation, their uncertainty is not confined to their penumbra but is shot through their core.135

‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’136 contains a warning to the audience, sung by Noel: ‘But please don’t put your life in the hands of a rock ‘n’ roll band, who’ll throw it all away.’ Noel sounds

Hartian as he asks for critical evaluation and acceptance rather than blind obedience.

Permeating Hart’s system is the battle between uncertainty and certainty. On one hand, uncertainty comes in from the outskirts to try and conquer the rule. On the other, officials decide cases with an affected certainty, trying to deny the ambiguity that afflicts the rule. The war between certainty and uncertainty was central to the fraternal squabbling of the Gallagher brothers. In one lengthy debate, Liam advanced the belief that certain ‘rock ‘n’ roll’ type behaviours were essential in order for a band to be convincing. Noel took the view that only

the songs were important. ‘If you think rock ‘n’ roll is getting arrested and all that,’ said Noel.

‘Rock ‘n’ roll is about being yourself,’ replied Liam. ‘No it’s not,’ Noel countered, ‘rock ‘n’ roll is about music.’ The (mostly) verbal conflicts between Liam and Noel reinforce the observation that the core and penumbra are one. Even though they clash and seem to differ, like the Gallaghers, the certain rule and its ‘shadow of doubt’ share the same DNA.

The familial unity of core and penumbra shows the collapse of certainty in Hart’s theory. Pronouncements upon the usual matters of positivism, such as the distinction between law and non-law, cannot be made.137 The legal system can no longer be told apart from other

networks of rules.138 Likewise with Oasis, any lyric could be meaningless or significant, and any kind of music could be worthy of the zeitgeist or unremarkable. The only surviving

135 MacNeil (2007), p 51. 136 Oasis (1995) ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory? 137 Cox (1999), p 166 points out that Hart overlooks how legal interpretation is only possible within a broader context of which morality forms a part. Summers (2000), pp 1826-1827 argues that Hart’s account of judicial decision-making is incomplete because it does not examine the ‘concepts and rationales’ that inform the character of legal institutions. 138 MacNeil (2007), pp 51-52. For more thoughts on the lack of distinction between law and non-law in Hart’s work, see Croce (2014) and Gerber (1972). 26

indicator of legality in Hart’s theory is the ‘inner compulsion’ towards acceptance.139 This subjective realm (such as Oasis’ personally selected cosmology of rock stars) is all that remains, casting doubt upon the authority of positivism’s claims. An event that, by analogy, illustrates the collapse of certainty in Hart’s system is the making of Oasis’ third album, Be

Here Now.140 The album is mix of cocaine powered bombast141 (one track, for example is

‘…caked in strings, horns, superfluous vocal overdubs, grandiose drum fills and squalling

guitar solos, none of which gave up the ghost until the song’s ninth minute.’142) and

noncommittal writing (‘… songs that…tended to barely pass muster.’143). It appears that Oasis

was caught in the middle of the conflict between certainty and uncertainty. The album may be

an audacious, assertive triumph, or a hubristic disappointment. Everything is scrambled by

indeterminacy. Likewise, the distinctions made by Hart’s theory appear more and more

indeterminate.

The illusionary certainty of Hart’s theory is betrayed in the insecurity that is perceptible

within its apex, its rule of recognition. This rule, residing in the heart of the system’s officials

is ultimately a self-conscious, second-guessing tactic. This can be highlighted through Oasis’

innumerable declarations of the correct form of rock ‘n’ music. Ultimately the Gallagher

brothers had to keep telling interviewers and the music listening public what was authentic and

worthy rock ‘n’ roll because the history of popular music and mainstream success showed that

not everyone agreed. This needing to affirm a cultural ‘truth’ was a broader feature of Britpop.

As Andy Bennett and Jon Stratton remarked in the abstract of their edited collection ‘The genre

of Britpop, with its assertion of Englishness, evolved at the same time that devolution was

139 MacNeil (2007), pp 51-52. 140 Oasis (1997) Be Here Now. 141 Harris (2003), p 333. 142 Harris (2003), p 334. 143 Harris (2003), p 334. 27

striking deep into the hegemonic claims of English culture to represent Britain.’144 The rule of recognition is a conjurer’s trick. The official willingly doing violence to bleating, obliged subjects in the name of a law that only the official knows thorough her internal acceptance of a rule of recognition, is afforded a ‘good night’s sleep’145 merely through the confident self-

belief in the rule of recognition. The law is the law because the lawyer says so. Rock is rock

because the rock musicians say so. But to bother in the charade of saying so is to fundamentally

acknowledge that within a community of more than one, the claim is contested, contestable

and uncertain.

Nicola Lacey’s biography of Hart reveals a man beset by anxieties regarding his work,

his masculinity and even the parentage of his children.146 Yet the author of the Concept of Law is seemingly removed from these worldly concerns; there is a confident standing at the microphone with arms behind the back certainly telling what is and what is not law. But this is a show for the benefit of the paying punters. In the same way that Oasis reflected back an embodied lad-ism of New Labour Britain, Hart tells predominately common lawyers to have faith in their traditional location of privilege of deciding on what is law and imposing it onto the populace. However, the confidence of both was an illusion. Ultimately, Pax Oasisia dissolved. The fraternal rivalries and tensions between the Gallaghers, led to a succession of drummers and culminated in the 2009 split of the band with Noel pursing a solo career (titled

Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds147) while the remaining members formed, for a while, the

group Beady Eye148 (fronted by Liam). Hart’s ambiguities and anxieties were more essential.149

144 Bennett and Stratton (2010), Abstract. 145 Hart (1983), p 144. 146 Lacey (2004). See also Farrell (2006), p 983. Paralleling this anxiety, Niven (2014), p 10 characterises Oasis’ debut album as ‘…a work of desperation…’ 147 Gallagher (2011) Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds. 148 Beady Eye (2011) Different Gear, Still Speeding. 149 For more on Hart’s unresolved anxieties, see Manderson (2010). 28

His attempt to expel violence from a positivist theory of law only served to disguise150 and

entrench it and through this certainty that supposedly was to be afforded by rules was negated.

In short, placing Hart’s and Oasis’ performances into co-orbit reveals the fundamental anxieties and ambiguities within Hart. What is shown is the confidence of the performer but the uncertainty embedded in the material. Hart’s desire to propound an acceptable version of positivism that moves beyond the violence of Austin turns out to be a mirage, dreams of an oasis in the desert.

Conclusion

This article argued that bringing Oasis and Hart into co-orbit reveals an essential critique of

the certain and voluntary nature of Hart’s jurisprudence. Oasis’ performances, on and offstage,

highlight the endurance of violence within Hart’s jurisprudential performance that reveals

fundamental ambiguities and anxieties about the role of officials within a legal system and the

illusionary nature of rules. After establishing a pedigree for the analysis within cultural legal

studies of rock music this article went on to argue that the Gallaghers’ confidence in the

superiority of their band was comparable to Hart’s certain distinctions between law and

morality and their populism resonated within Hart’s description of law as being dependent on

communal assent. Having established commonality between Hart’s and Oasis’ performances,

the article went on to show that Oasis make visible the essential place of violence within Hart.

This corrosive violence went on to reveal the essential ambiguities and anxieties within Hart’s

account of officials and rules.

150 Schroeder (2009), p 191 writes that Hart’s theory may be a suppression of the traumatic violence present in the origins of the legal system. 29

References

Secondary Sources

Jason Bainbridge (2012) ‘Spider-Man, the Question and the Meta-Zone: Exception,

Objectivism and the Comics of Steve Ditko’ 16 Law Text Culture 217.

Jack M Balkin and Sanford Levinson (1991) ‘Interpreting Law and Music: Performance Notes

on “The Banjo Serenader” and “The Lying Crowd of Jews”’ 20 Cardozo Law Review

1513.

Andy Bennett (1997) ‘Village Greens and Terraced Streets’: Britpop and Representations of

‘Britishness’ 5 Young 20.

Andy Bennett and Jon Stratton (2010) Britpop and the English Music Tradition, Ashgate.

Sandra Berns (1999) To Speak as a Judge: Difference, Voice and Power, Ashgate.

David S Caudill (1999) ‘Fabricating Authenticity: Law Students as Country Music Stars’ 20

Cardozo Law Review 1573.

Owen Cox (1999) ‘The Meaning of Law in The Concept of Law’ 24 Australian Journal of

Legal Philosophy 145.

Mariano Croce (2014) ‘A Practice Theory of Legal Pluralism: Hart’s (Inadvertent) Defence of

the Indistinctiveness of Law’ 27 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 27.

Stephen Daniels (2006) ‘Suburban Pastoral: Strawberry Fields Forever and Sixties Memory’

13 Cultural Geographies 28.

Costas Douzinas and Adam Gearey (2005) Critical Jurisprudence: The Political Philosophy

of Justice, Hart.

Lewis Hyde (1998) Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth and Art, Farrar, Strauss and

Giroux.

30

Ian Duncanson (1979) ‘The Strange World of English Jurisprudence’ 30 Northern Ireland

Legal Quarterly 207.

Ronald Dworkin (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press.

Ian P Farrell (2006) ‘H.L.A. Hart and the Methodology of Jurisprudence’ 84 Texas Law Review

983.

Imer Flores (2011) ‘H. L. A. Hart’s Moderate Indeterminacy Thesis Reconsidered: In Between

Scylla and Charybdis?’ Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No.

12-162.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2126&context=fac

pub

Adam Gearey (1999) ‘Outlaw Blues: Law in the Songs of Bob Dylan’ 20 Cardozo Law Review

1401.

D. Gerber (1972) ‘Levels of Rules and Hart’s Concept of Law’ 81 Mind 102.

Thomas Giddens (ed) Graphic Justice: Intersections of Comics and Law Routledge.

Guilbert, Georges-Claude (2002) Madonna as Postmodern Myth: How One Star’s Self-

Construction Rewrites Sex, Gender, Hollywood and the American Dream, McFarland

and Company Inc.

H Hamner Hill (1990) ‘H.L.A. Hart’s Hermenutic Positivism: On Some Methodological

Difficulties in The Concept of Law’ 3 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence

113.

John Harris (2003) The Last Party – Britpop, Blair and the Demise of English Rock, Fourth

Estate.

H L A Hart (1961) The Concept of Law Clarendon Press.

H L A Hart (1983) Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy Clarendon Press.

H L A Hart (1994) The Concept of Law, 2nd ed, Clarendon Press.

31

Stan Hawkins (2010) ‘Unsettling Differences: Music and Laddism in Britpop’ in Andy Bennett

and Jon Stratton (eds) Britpop and the English Music Tradition, Ashgate.

Rupa Huq (2010) ‘Labouring the Point? The Politics of Britpop’ in ‘New Britain’ in Andy

Bennett and Jon Stratton (eds) Britpop and the English Music Tradition, Ashgate.

Jennifer Jaff (1986) ‘Law and Lawyer in Pop Music: A Reason for Self-Reflection’ 40

University of Miami Law Review 659.

Paul J Johnson (1987) ‘Hobbes and the Wolf-Man’ 111 International Archives of the History

of Ideas 139.

Matthew Kramer (1988) ‘The Rule of Misrecognition in the Hart of Jurisprudence’ 8 Oxford

Journal of Legal Studies 401.

Mathew Kramer, Claire Grant, Ben Colburn, and Antony Hatzistarvou (eds) (2008) The Legacy

of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy, Oxford University Press.

Martin Krygier (1982) ‘The Concept of Law and Social Theory’ 2 Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies 155.

Nicola Lacey (2004) A Life of H.L.A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream, Oxford

University Press.

Chris Lloyd (2012) ‘“Sakaarson the World Breaker”: Violence and Différance in the Political

and Legal Theory of Marvel’s Sovereign’ 16 Law Text Culture 119.

William P MacNeil (2007) Lex Populi: The Jurisprudence of Popular Culture, Stanford

University Press.

Desmond Manderson (1999) ‘Et Lex Perpetua: Dying Declarations & Mozart’s Requiem’ 20

Cardozo Law Review 1621.

Desmond Manderson (2000) Songs Without Music: Aesthetic Dimensions of Law and Justice,

University of California Press.

32

Desmond Manderson (2010) ‘HLA Hart, Lon Fuller and the Ghosts of Legal Interpretation’ 28

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 81.

Tom Meighan (2010) ‘Liam Gallagher: The Greatest Saluted By Kasabian’s Tom Meighan’,

286 Q Magazine 94.

Alex Niven (2014) Definitely Maybe, Bloomsbury.

Sara Ramshaw (2004) ‘“He’s My Man!’: Lyrics of Innocence and Betrayal in The People v.

Billie Holiday” 16 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 86.

Sara Ramshaw (2006) ‘Deconstructin(g) Jazz Improvisation: Derrida and the Law of the

Singular Event’ 2 Critical Studies in Improvisation 1.

Sara Ramshaw (2010) ‘The Creative Life of Law: Improvisation, Between Tradition and

Suspicion’ 6 Critical Studies in Improvisation 13.

Michael L Richmond (1998) ‘Law and Popular Music: An Etude in Two Movements 22 Legal Studies Forum 79.

Peter Robson and Jessica Silbey (eds) (2012) Law and Justice on the Small Screen, Hart.

Dereck B Scott (2010) ‘The Britpop Sound’ in Andy Bennett and Jon Stratton (eds) Britpop

and the English Music Tradition, Ashgate.

Harry Shaw (2006) Oasis “Talking”: The Gallaghers in Their Own Words, Omnibus Press.

Richard K Sherwin (1986) ‘Opening Hart’s Concept of Law’ 20 Valparaiso University Law

Review 385.

Jeanne L Schroeder (2007) ‘His Masters Voice: H.L.A. Hart and Lacanian Discourse Theory’

18 Law and Critique 117.

Jeanne L Schroeder (2009) ‘Totem, Taboo and the Concept of Law: Myth in Hart and Freud’

1 Washington University Jurisprudence Review 139.

Richard K Sherwin (1986) ‘Opening Hart’s Concept of Law’ 20 Valparaiso Law Review 385.

Marcus G Singer (1963) ‘Hart’s Concept of Law’ 60 The Journal of Philosophy 197.

33

Brian Slattery (1998) ‘Three Concepts of Law: The Ambiguous Legacy of H.L.A. Hart’ 61

Saskatchewan Law Review 323.

Robert S Summers (2000) ‘Legal Institutions in Professor H.L.A. Hart’s Concept of Law’ 75

Notre Dame Law Review 1807.

Kieran Tranter (2007) ‘“Frakking Toasters” and Jurisprudences of Technology’ 8(2)

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 449.

H G Wells (1995) The Time Machine J M Dent.

Carol Weisbrod (1999) ‘Fusion Folk: A Comment on Law and Music’ 20 Cardozo Law Review

1439.

Alison Young (2010) The Scene of Violence: Cinema, Crime, Affect, Routledge.

Primary Sources

Albums

Beady Eye (2011) Different Gear, Still Speeding, Beady Eye Records.

Noel Gallagher (2011) Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds, Sour Mash.

Oasis (1994) Definitely Maybe, Creation.

Oasis (1995) (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1997) Be Here Now, Creation.

Pink Floyd (1977) Animals, Harvest.

Songs

The Beatles (1966) ‘Yellow Submarine’ Revolver, Parlophone.

The Beatles (1967) Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Parlophone.

The Beatles (1969) ‘Octopus’s Garden’ Abbey Road, Apple.

Oasis (1994) ‘Supersonic’ Supersonic, Creation.

34

Oasis (1994) ‘Take Me Away’ Supersonic, Creation.

Oasis (1994) ‘Shakermaker’ Definitely Maybe, Creation.

Oasis (1994) ‘Live Forever’ Definitely Maybe, Creation.

Oasis (1994) ‘Columbia’ Definitely Maybe, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Roll With It’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Wonderwall’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Hey Now!’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Some Might Say’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Cast No Shadow’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1995) ‘Champagne Supernova’ (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?, Creation.

Oasis (1998) ‘Acquiesce’ The Masterplan, Creation.

Oasis (1998) ‘(It’s Good) To Be Free’ The Masterplan, Creation.

Films and DVDs

Carruthers, Dick (2004) Definitely Maybe, Channel 4 Television Corporation.

John Dower (2003) Live Forever: The Rise and Fall of Brit Pop, BBC.

Baillie Walsh (2006) Oasis Lord Don’t Slow Me Down, Black Dog Films.

Web Sites

All Music ‘Review of Oasis Dig Out Your Soul’ http://www.allmusic.com/album/dig-out-

your-soul-mw0000792986

Radio X Names the Greatest Frontman of All Time http://www.xfm.co.uk/news/xfm-names-

the-greatest-frontman-of-all-time

‘Oasis The Classic Interviews Part 4’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O3kZhgtyQ4&feature=relmfu

35

36