|
|
Post by kimallenbewick on Jul 7, 2011 18:28:13 GMT -5
I don't want to get this thread any longer because arguing about this is pointless due to we all have different opinions which won't change.
I just wanna add those who think Andy did the right thing doing nothing when the fight happened must not have very good friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 7, 2011 21:56:27 GMT -5
If Noel had come up with Pretty Green, you can be sure it would have been advertised in the tour program at no extra expense to him. Maybe. But the difference is that Noel would never had come up with Pretty Green...  He understand music is music and not a way to advertise your clothing line... This. Even if Noel did do PG or something similar, I honestly believe he would keep it separate. Remember, he was the one who passionately championed that Oasis is about the "music music music....." |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 7, 2011 22:02:20 GMT -5
I don't want to get this thread any longer because arguing about this is pointless due to we all have different opinions which won't change. I just wanna add those who think Andy did the right thing doing nothing when the fight happened must not have very good friends. Doing nothing, when you're capable of acting is just as bad as the problem itself. It's like the kid who gets bullied at school by one big guy, and everyone watches. Everyone who is watching the spectacle and not doing a damn thing are part of the problem. But the kid who emerges to try to break it up, or try to console the kid at the end at the very least will have done the right thing. It's always easy to be a spectator and not get involved, but that doesn't make it right. Andy, as a mutual friend and as a band mate should have done - or at the very least said - something. I'm not blaming Andy for the breakup. And I'm not on a crusade of hatred against the guy. But I do understand Noel's feelings, and his statement both at the end of Oasis and at the press conference were fair. He feels betrayed, and that's understandable. What would you do if your friend watched you get the shit kicked out of you, not giving a damn about you while it was occurring or even after it ended? Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Jul 7, 2011 22:55:34 GMT -5
If Noel had come up with Pretty Green, you can be sure it would have been advertised in the tour program at no extra expense to him. If Noel did come up with PG, of course he would've been able to advertise it at no extra expense. The crowd have come for HIS songs, so Oasis was essentially HIS empire. In the press conference he even said that he "was the one who wrote the Oasis songs that mattered", and it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by Rifles on Jul 7, 2011 23:35:36 GMT -5
If Noel had come up with Pretty Green, you can be sure it would have been advertised in the tour program at no extra expense to him. If Noel did come up with PG, of course he would've been able to advertise it at no extra expense. The crowd have come for HIS songs, so Oasis was essentially HIS empire. In the press conference he even said that he "was the one who wrote the Oasis songs that mattered", and it's true. I don't think that's the way to handle it at all. From a strictly business standpoint, you look at it like - if Liam wants to profit off Oasis fans at Oasis concerts AND put the ad in without paying the normal fee, then he should probably give the band a cut of the profits, since he's not just profiting off himself, but everyone involved. If he paid the fee, then he's just like any other advertiser, no harm done. When you want it for free, that's an issue. Could Noel and the management given him a free pass? Of course. But you have to also remember there's a lot of people involved with Oasis, its not just Noel and Liam. There are managers etc and knowing how people are when it comes to money, i could see it causing a problem with anyone making substantial income off the tour. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 0:31:26 GMT -5
If Noel had come up with Pretty Green, you can be sure it would have been advertised in the tour program at no extra expense to him. If Noel did come up with PG, of course he would've been able to advertise it at no extra expense. The crowd have come for HIS songs, so Oasis was essentially HIS empire. In the press conference he even said that he "was the one who wrote the Oasis songs that mattered", and it's true. That's absurd! Noel wouldn't deserve free advertising any more than Liam did. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Jul 8, 2011 1:35:17 GMT -5
If Noel did come up with PG, of course he would've been able to advertise it at no extra expense. The crowd have come for HIS songs, so Oasis was essentially HIS empire. In the press conference he even said that he "was the one who wrote the Oasis songs that mattered", and it's true. That's absurd! Noel wouldn't deserve free advertising any more than Liam did. Why not?! Noel owns about 95% of the songs, so he basically owns the majority of the business. Think of it as a publicly shared company and Noel owns the highest amount of shares and therefore has the most control over the business. If he had PG and was advertising on the Oasis tour program then paying for advertising is pointless because the majority of the money goes back to him, it's like paying yourself to advertise. But of course Liam had a much smaller stake in the overall ownership of the band (hypothetically speaking of course) and therefore should've paid, but its absurd to think that Noel should had he owned Pretty Green. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 1:46:12 GMT -5
That's absurd! Noel wouldn't deserve free advertising any more than Liam did. Why not?! Noel owns about 95% of the songs, so he basically owns the majority of the business. Think of it as a publicly shared company and Noel owns the highest amount of shares and therefore has the most control over the business. If he had PG and was advertising on the Oasis tour program then paying for advertising is pointless because the majority of the money goes back to him, it's like paying yourself to advertise. But of course Liam had a much smaller stake in the overall ownership of the band (hypothetically speaking of course) and therefore should've paid, but its absurd to think that Noel should had he owned Pretty Green. If most of the money went back to Noel then fair enough. But LAG would deserve their portion. They would have gotten a share of the electrolux kettle ad money. They should get a should get a share of the NG ad money. And Liam was as much a draw in Oasis as Noel even if Noel wrote most of the songs. Their side projects should have been kept separate from Oasis regardless of whose project it was. Even if Noel had had PG, Oasis, as an entity, wouldn't have owed it any free publicity. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Jul 8, 2011 2:43:38 GMT -5
^I agree that overall any side projects should have been done separately and was a fatal mistake by Liam to integrate them. Your right, Liam was as much of a draw as Noel (probably more so) but that didn't have any affect on who got the bigger slice of the pie. Noel still owned the rights to most of the songs and so still received a higher fixed portion regardless of who was more popular out of him and Liam.
Also, yeah your right Oasis didn't owe PG any free publicity, but had Noel owned PG it wouldn't have mattered - he could have done as he liked to advertise a side-business onto his primary business (hypothetically of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Jul 8, 2011 2:50:00 GMT -5
That's absurd! Noel wouldn't deserve free advertising any more than Liam did. Why not?! Noel owns about 95% of the songs, so he basically owns the majority of the business. Think of it as a publicly shared company and Noel owns the highest amount of shares and therefore has the most control over the business. If he had PG and was advertising on the Oasis tour program then paying for advertising is pointless because the majority of the money goes back to him, it's like paying yourself to advertise. But of course Liam had a much smaller stake in the overall ownership of the band (hypothetically speaking of course) and therefore should've paid, but its absurd to think that Noel should had he owned Pretty Green. What a load if bull. Payment for live shows and royalties for songs are two totally different things. Noel got no where near 95 percent of gig earnings, I even doubt he was paid more than Liam. |
|
|
|
Post by martinpaul on Jul 8, 2011 2:54:55 GMT -5
This forum/site is frighteningly full of Noel can do no wrong posters.
It's pretty boring that anyone posting anything remotely anti Noel as their opinion to balance out a discussion is shouted down by the usual few.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion hence the beauty of internet forums but seriously a lot of you need to take the blinkers off.
If BlueJay and others think that Oasis is more Noel's band than Liam's because he wrote most of the songs is like saying the Beatles was only John and Paul, The Who was just Townsend.
I can guarantee Noel's songs wouldn't have had 10% of the commercial or social impact if he had been singing them, or any other front man for that matter.
Oasis was Noel and Liam. Not either of them more than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 3:01:08 GMT -5
^I agree that overall any side projects should have been done separately and was a fatal mistake by Liam to integrate them. Your right, Liam was as much of a draw as Noel (probably more so) but that didn't have any affect on who got the bigger slice of the pie. Noel still owned the rights to most of the songs and so still received a higher fixed portion regardless of who was more popular out of him and Liam. Also, yeah your right Oasis didn't owe PG any free publicity, but had Noel owned PG it wouldn't have mattered - he could have done as he liked to advertise a side-business onto his primary business (hypothetically of course). It was both of theirs band. If Liam had decided to let Noel do it free then fair enough. If Noel had decided to let Liam do it free fair enough. But noone owed anyone anything and it was also fair enough for them to refuse and the other person should have sucked it up. And I'm not sure you are right in saying that Noel owned more of Big Brother Records than Noel. He gets more royalties certainly...but percentage of the touring? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Jul 8, 2011 3:04:19 GMT -5
^I'm only assuming of course as there's no way we could actually know, but I would think that Noel would still get more than the rest even from the touring as well from things like performance royalties of songs that he wrote. But the PG advertising would be more associated with being integrated with the whole Oasis empire not just the touring (I would think).
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 3:17:23 GMT -5
^I'm only assuming of course as there's no way we could actually know, but I would think that Noel would still get more than the rest even from the touring as well from things like performance royalties of songs that he wrote. But the PG advertising would be more associated with being integrated with the whole Oasis empire not just the touring (I would think). This is useless hypothesizing....because he never would even considered the primary point that this all depends of. The starting point is so outlandish that anything is possible. Any Noel in this theorhetical world you have developed is fundamentally different from the real Noel. Noel just never would have integrated a non-music venture with Oasis IMO because he will probably never would have gotten heavily involved in a non-musical venture. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueJay on Jul 8, 2011 3:31:43 GMT -5
I'm merely providing an argument to explain why things would and should understandably be different if Noel owned PG (as someone noted above). For the basis of proving my point I'm talking in hypothetical terms, if that's too much for you to process then I apologize  |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 3:42:01 GMT -5
I'm merely providing an argument to explain why things would and should understandably be different if Noel owned PG (as someone noted above). For the basis of proving my point I'm talking in hypothetical terms, if that's too much for you to process then I apologize Well seeing as none of your points make any sense...it is hard to follow. It is no different. A side project is a side project and if you chose to advertise your private business you have to pay...even if you are part owner of the other company because your partners are owed their fair share of the ad revenue. Even if they only get a small percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 8, 2011 9:54:47 GMT -5
This forum/site is frighteningly full of Noel can do no wrong posters. It's pretty boring that anyone posting anything remotely anti Noel as their opinion to balance out a discussion is shouted down by the usual few. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion hence the beauty of internet forums but seriously a lot of you need to take the blinkers off. If BlueJay and others think that Oasis is more Noel's band than Liam's because he wrote most of the songs is like saying the Beatles was only John and Paul, The Who was just Townsend. I can guarantee Noel's songs wouldn't have had 10% of the commercial or social impact if he had been singing them, or any other front man for that matter. Oasis was Noel and Liam. Not either of them more than the other. Oh please. It was the same thing last year when Liam came out with his album details and his story. People took Liam's story to be god's honest truth. Or when people slated BTL. Anyone who gave that song a bad review was automatically called a Noel lover and a Liam hater. I hate even discussing this crap. "There are too many people who love Liam", "there are too many people who love Noel". It's childish as fuck. And it's quickly becoming annoying how people have selective memory. Both "sides" have defended both brothers to the hilt. Both have been equally as anmoying. Try having a memory longer than 3 days please. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2011 12:19:16 GMT -5
This forum/site is frighteningly full of Noel can do no wrong posters. It's pretty boring that anyone posting anything remotely anti Noel as their opinion to balance out a discussion is shouted down by the usual few. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion hence the beauty of internet forums but seriously a lot of you need to take the blinkers off. If BlueJay and others think that Oasis is more Noel's band than Liam's because he wrote most of the songs is like saying the Beatles was only John and Paul, The Who was just Townsend. I can guarantee Noel's songs wouldn't have had 10% of the commercial or social impact if he had been singing them, or any other front man for that matter. Oasis was Noel and Liam. Not either of them more than the other. Oh please. It was the same thing last year when Liam came out with his album details and his story. People took Liam's story to be god's honest truth. Or when people slated BTL. Anyone who gave that song a bad review was automatically called a Noel lover and a Liam hater. I hate even discussing this crap. "There are too many people who love Liam", "there are too many people who love Noel". It's childish as fuck. And it's quickly becoming annoying how people have selective memory. Both "sides" have defended both brothers to the hilt. Both have been equally as anmoying. Try having a memory longer than 3 days please. Spaneli is the voice of reason. GDForever is, too. Some people on here think that PG should have been apart of Oasis and thus think Noel should have adopted the idea. This is simply not correct. PG was a completely different entity and had nothing to do with Oasis. If Noel agreed to merge the two based on Liam's wishes, fair enough. But he had no obligation to do so, end of. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 8, 2011 12:30:35 GMT -5
Might as well post this here. An excerpt from my book as LIB has called it.  I agree with Noel that the band should not have been associated with Pretty Green. I personally have never been a fan of the band and Liam's clothing line being associated together. I have always felt that if Liam wanted to do Pretty Green, then he should do it on his time with his own resources. I disliked when Oasis were together, and Liam would go out for Oasis interviews, yet only talk about Pretty Green. Having said that though, I can see why Liam may have been angry. Liam probably got mad for two reasons. One was that, Oasis was his band too. He should not have had to go and beg Noel to put an advert into a small tour packet. Secondly, Liam and Noel are brothers. Liam probably thought that because he was Noel's brother, that Noel would make an exception for him. It's not like this was Chris asking for an advert, this was Noel's own brother. Again, I don't think that Liam should have associated Pretty Green with Oasis. But that's my personal preference. Noel could have been a bit more understanding and helpful. And I think that when Noel didn't support Liam with his venture, that Liam felt a bit betrayed. In then end, I can see where both parties are coming from. But Noel did not have to, if he didn't want to. And I think Liam could have been a bit more grown up in dealing with it. |
|
|
|
Post by LlAM on Jul 8, 2011 12:45:03 GMT -5
I agree with Noel that the band should not have been associated with Pretty Green. I personally have never been a fan of the band and Liam's clothing line being associated together. I have always felt that if Liam wanted to do Pretty Green, then he should do it on his time with his own resources. I disliked when Oasis were together, and Liam would go out for Oasis interviews, yet only talk about Pretty Green. Noel didn't say Oasis and Pretty Green shouldn't be associated, he said Pretty Green should pay for advertising in the tour material ?? Which is surely the same as saying he doesn't mind the too being associated? |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Jul 8, 2011 13:03:09 GMT -5
I agree with Noel that the band should not have been associated with Pretty Green. I personally have never been a fan of the band and Liam's clothing line being associated together. I have always felt that if Liam wanted to do Pretty Green, then he should do it on his time with his own resources. I disliked when Oasis were together, and Liam would go out for Oasis interviews, yet only talk about Pretty Green. Noel didn't say Oasis and Pretty Green shouldn't be associated, he said Pretty Green should pay for advertising in the tour material ?? Which is surely the same as saying he doesn't mind the too being associated? Noel also said that he didn't want Liam to be trying to sell his stuff to their fans. I don't think Noel was ever keen on PG. And I think to a point when he asked Liam to pay, he knew Liam would never do it. And that's why he suggested it. So I don't think that Noel wanted Oasis to be associated with PG. But of course, this is also speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Jul 8, 2011 13:32:45 GMT -5
It amazes me how such passionate fans of one band can take one topic to such polar extremes. What should be a very interesting debate has descended into a farce. This forum is ridiculous.
I'm more of a Liam fan than a Noel fan, but not to the extent where I'm pro- one and anti- the other. Anyone who does choose to align themselves on "Team Noel" or "Team Liam" is spectacularly missing the point of Oasis in my opinion.
What was fascinating about Oasis was that whilst the public could relate to Liam and Noel in so many ways, their own relationship with each other was so complex and complicated. It is impossible to judge the infamous night in Paris without taking into account the previous 18 years and the context of the split.
Was Liam right to attack Noel with the guitar? Certainly not. Similarly, Noel was fully justified in leaving the band. Whilst physical violence could perhaps be excused 10-15 years ago, it isn't worth the hassle for a man in his 40s with a family, fame and millions of pounds in the bank.
Can Liam's actions be explained? Perhaps. Regardless of what Noel says and how he is painted to be whiter than white, both Liam and Noel have massive egos and are massive personalities. It is well documented how controlling Noel can be - some may say that is justified, but that is for another debate. It could be argued that Noel has constantly undermined Liam throughout their careers. The exception to this has been with Liam's songwriting, although we all know how sensitive and perhaps vulnerable Liam is with songwriting.
They didn't split over Pretty Green or advertising, or even over Liam swinging a guitar. Pretty Green might have been the tip of the iceberg, and it may be that Noel refused the advertising out of spite. Regardless though, for 18 years they have both provoked, undermined and constantly tried to outdo each other. Liam may have delivered (or tried to deliver) the knockout blow, but the Paris incident was the culmination of years of fighting with each other rather than "Oasis would still be here today and everything would be hunky dory if Liam hadn't swung a guitar," or if Noel wasn't such a control freak.
As for Andy Bell, he is more difficult to judge as we don't know much about his relationship with Noel. He has always struck me as being closer to Liam, and to be honest, I don't particularly like the bloke. But I can't condemn him either.
He is an introvert and doesn't really strike me as the confident type. It is easy to sit here and say he should have intervened, and I'm sure he'll say the same now. But I do think it is difficult when you are faced with two massive personalities. Remember that Andy was the most vulnerable member of the band. Noel had talked about a hiatus for months, and it seemed inevitable that he would release a solo album should Oasis split. Noel and Gem are close and Gem was involved in Noel's solo tour, so Andy's future basically rested on Liam.
If Andy had slagged Liam off to Noel behind his back then sided with him then he deserves all the shit he gets. But I genuinely think he is just mentally weak and wasn't brave enough to intervene, and I won't condemn him for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 13:45:07 GMT -5
I don't think that Andy was two faced. That's stretching a bit too far IMO.
I just think that, for someone as strong willed as Noel, there must not be very much respect for that kind of cowardice. After having watched the explanation a few times...he seems less angry with Andy than baffled and frustrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Jul 8, 2011 14:23:59 GMT -5
I don't think that Andy was two faced. That's stretching a bit too far IMO. I just think that, for someone as strong willed as Noel, there must not be very much respect for that kind of cowardice. After having watched the explanation a few times...he seems less angry with Andy than baffled and frustrated. Agreed. I don't think Andy was two faced either, but he seems to have lost respect for Andy's cowardice than anything else. I do think he still respects Liam, even if he does dislike him as a person. |
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Jul 8, 2011 14:34:13 GMT -5
I don't think that Andy was two faced. That's stretching a bit too far IMO. I just think that, for someone as strong willed as Noel, there must not be very much respect for that kind of cowardice. After having watched the explanation a few times...he seems less angry with Andy than baffled and frustrated. Agreed. I don't think Andy was two faced either, but he seems to have lost respect for Andy's cowardice than anything else. I do think he still respects Liam, even if he does dislike him as a person. Definitely. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5