Noel Gallagher has designed a new look for the band's latest album which is to be emblazoned across T-shirts and posters for the Oasis tour scheduled for next July.
Instead of the old white-on-black, lower-case "Oasis" presented in a box, Mr Gallagher has come up with dark, bold, rounded lettering, cut through horizontally. "I think it's more modern. At least it's more Seventies," an insider at Creation, Oasis's record company, said. "The basic idea is that Oasis are back with a new line-up, a new album, a new producer and a new tour, so why not try a new look?"
The logo has attracted particular attention because the change in design comes as the band is caught up in a row with Creation's boss Alan McGee, brought about when Mr McGee, who discovered the band six years ago, announced that the was quitting his own record label after 17 years.
The trauma for Liam Gallagher has been presented as the explanation for his recent 48-hour walk-out from his wife Patsy Kensit and baby son Lennon, while the need for Oasis, overall, to change its image and split from the past has been underscored.
The new logo represents some bravery. The band has ditched the tried and tested logo designed by the highly-respected Brian Cannon of Microdot, in favour of its own, home-grown, idea. Noel Gallagher produced it in the form of a sketch, which he gave to Creation's design team.
In the record industry, the new Oasis lettering is being watched with interest. It has become important for successful bands to have recognisable logos, to help with merchandising and promoting a group's image. But how important, in general, is a good logo for a band's success?
"A bad logo is not the end of the world, but a good one is a real asset," says Andy Ross, managing director of Food Records, who has been a main player in the successful branding of rival Britpop group Blur over the past 10 years.
POP GROUP logos, say the experts, work best when they convey the essence of the band's music and style. The new Oasis offering (right) is deemed to be more modern than its slightly dull predecessor, while the Rolling Stones' exposed tongue (below) says as much about the raunchiness and sexuality of Mick Jagger, as it does about the band's music.