|
Post by NicOasis on Jul 16, 2011 9:01:50 GMT -5
What D'Ya Think?
|
|
|
Post by deasy on Jul 16, 2011 9:07:58 GMT -5
No. If they did that they might as well change their name to 'Oasis Minus Noel'
|
|
|
Post by MacaRonic on Jul 16, 2011 9:10:30 GMT -5
I'd like to hear some of the songs again but really I hope they don't because it would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by starwillshine on Jul 16, 2011 9:27:04 GMT -5
Say Beady eye released a quality 2nd album and therefore proved themselves without Noel, Would it be acceptable to drop in a cheeky songbird in their encore or soemthing like that?
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 16, 2011 10:23:46 GMT -5
No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 11:07:12 GMT -5
Why not? Their current tunes are average at best like their Oasis era ones, minus Songbird and maybe I'm Outta Time. Play stuff that the crowd can get into and sing along to as well. Quit posing as though Oasis never existed. It makes you look like a bunch of dicks!
|
|
|
Post by songbirdsally on Jul 16, 2011 11:17:19 GMT -5
Why not? Their current tunes are average at best like their Oasis era ones, minus Songbird and maybe I'm Outta Time. Play stuff that the crowd can get into and sing along to as well. Quit posing as though Oasis never existed. It makes you look like a bunch of dicks! Totally wrong.. Beady Eye is a new band. If they play Oasis tunes now, people are going to come to the gig only to hear those and will not be interested in the other tunes.. If they want to make it as a band, and not as an oasis tribute group or summat, they shouldn't play Oasis tunes. There songs aren't average either, it's just because they're ALL new.. Give it some time! The 2nd album will point out what the future of Beady Eye is. If it's at least as good or better then DGSS, Beady Eye will be able to exist as a band on their own, without having to play Oasis tunes to keep gigs interesting. And IF they have achieved this, THEN they can maybe add Songbird or another one; because they can, not because they have to..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 11:24:11 GMT -5
nah. Noel is carrying the oasis flag now, so they don't really feel the need to play those live at all.
|
|
|
Post by GIMH on Jul 17, 2011 15:09:15 GMT -5
If they want to play songs they wrote, then they should. If they don't, they shouldn't.
Live Forever/CIgs & Alcohol/Wonderwall etc...that would feel like an oasis tribute act. Turn Up The SUn, Songbird etc? There's no good reason why they should be criticised if they did so.
They don't want to, though, and that's fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by SunshineLullaby on Jul 17, 2011 15:43:45 GMT -5
If the question is "could" they (meaning morally is it right), then no one should ever say no. Simply because any time you write a song it's fair game to play it in some other band you're a part of down the line. Velvet Revolver played GNR and STP songs live...hell, Slash even plays the classic GNR material now (as a solo act), despite a bulk of it being written by Axl.
And seeing as how there's little reason to think Noel wrote the bulk of any of the songs credited to LAG, it's certainly fair game.
|
|
|
Post by GIMH on Jul 17, 2011 16:06:35 GMT -5
'Bulk of it written by Axl' is pushing it slightly, and I'm a big fan of Mr Rose.
|
|
|
Post by Shockmaster on Jul 18, 2011 14:50:16 GMT -5
I think they have the right idea by playing them... But I think it would have been better if Noel and Gem had made some communication to agree between both camps whether the legacy would be left as a masterpiece... I know it sounds unlikely that anything like that could have happened, but I would have liked to think that they both at least considered leaving the Oasis legacy as it is... But, what can ya do, eh? Oh well
|
|