|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Sept 16, 2011 10:46:21 GMT -5
TBH the only Liam songs I'd be in favour of are Wonderwall (only because he's sang it so many times before) and Whatever (ditto). I realise I'm a minority here. i would pay an extra $100 for my ticket if it meant i didn't have to hear that song again. i'm serious. I'm with you on that - it should NEVER be done live EVER again - been way too many times now, talk about over done |
|
|
|
Post by supernovadragon on Sept 16, 2011 10:50:52 GMT -5
I realise I'm in the minority here but Noel isn't in Oasis anymore so imo he shouldn't be playing any Oasis songs. He should tour the album add in the b sides maybe a couple of covers and he has 15/16 songs that are new and are his solo project. Noel can't seem to let go, I realise he wrote the songs and they are his to play but jesus every Oasis tour became boring because it was the same songs off DM and MG all the time plus some new tunes. It's almost as if he is scared to live or die by his new tunes alone, advertising the fact he is playing Oasis songs guarantees fans will come to hear those even if they aren't bothered by the new stuff. It's just plain wrong imo, music is about the here and now, it should be fresh, exciting, invigorating, he has written a new album, new b sides and while I personally don't think some are very good others will and do so play those and see how they stand up in isolation. There are many criticisms of Liam and BE but living in the past by playing Oasis songs and being scared to fail aren't 2 of them. Not in so many words, but I have been saying the same thing since he announced he was doing Oasis songs in his set. I mean, he should have done what Liam done and left well alone, at least for the first tour. |
|
|
|
Post by Bittersweet Split on Sept 16, 2011 17:31:31 GMT -5
Play wonderwall so people will go.
Don't Look back in anger at the end so even if everything was shit people can think, "well, he's talented and had a good run".
Then play original songs. Oasis is Oasis. Noel Gallagher is Noel Gallagher.
I personaly think Liam is going the right way here, and Noel will need this less than Liam.
(Excpetions are relatively Unknown Oasis songs. Angel Child, Mucky Fingers, Where Did It All Go Wrong. Noel Songs)
And please, play Underneath the Sky. It's a killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Blougaredoc on Sept 16, 2011 17:39:17 GMT -5
He wrote those songs, he can play them any time he wants, and it´s gonna be good to be in the gigs singing with him some classics and all of his new songs. Nothing more, stop complaining about stupid things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heynow2005 on Sept 17, 2011 6:08:37 GMT -5
it comes back to opinion again, if i go to see Noel Gallagher i love the new tunes ive heard so far but if i get to hear slide away, dont look back in anger they r good singalongs so im loving that to, not really caring about its all in the past bla bla - i pay for a ticket i want to go and have a good time but then again thats just me :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by oneeye on Sept 17, 2011 7:36:12 GMT -5
Planning on going to one of the gigs so great news that we may get more Oasis.
Although does anyone else get the feeling that the gigs are going to be more about the sing-a-longs than his new stuff?
That's where BE have done well, by not playing their Oasis material, fans can appreciate the new BE songs better.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 17, 2011 11:13:53 GMT -5
Tbf, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have on whether they should play or not play Oasis songs live. How difficult really was their choice? They wouldn't have been able to play LV, WW, DLBIA, Supersonic, C&A, CS etc, anyways. Granted they could have "covered" the songs without permission from Noel, but would Liam really have done that? The embarrassment of covering songs that he's been singing for close to two decades. I think not.
And their Oasis contributions were not appreciably better than what they did as Beady Eye. How many songs did LAG write that were appreciably better than their Beady Eye songs? Maybe 3-4....maybe. So in that sense it wouldn't have made sense to play their own Oasis songs anyways. Mainly because it wouldn't have made sense for them to start off as Beady Eye playing basically "second tier and third tier" Oasis songs. That's just the wrong foot to start on.
So really in the end, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have when it came to playing Oasis songs or not?
Noel on the other hand, has the option to play Oasis songs. Especially after Beady Eye said that they wouldn't. At that point most fans (hardcore/casual) fully expected Noel to play Oasis tracks. For Noel it's a choice between playing a whole new set, complete with b-sides, album tracks, and probably 3-5 covers, or playing a set list complete with b-sides, album tracks, and having 5 covers being Oasis songs. Five songs which he knows he can pull off live.
Which is another reason that Noel is playing Oasis songs. I believe that he's so self conscience about being a frontman that he might be feeling that he needs those five Oasis songs. That he needs five songs that he knows he can pull off live and be good at.
Noel has the harder decision imo. He has to choose between playing literally complete classics like WW, DLBIA, and TM, or going out there without them, with completely new songs, and all while not feeling all too confident in his abilities as a frontman.
imo, I think in terms of decision making, Noel had the harder decision. While Beady Eye somewhat had their decision already made for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Vulgar on Sept 17, 2011 11:36:29 GMT -5
^Exactly what I've been saying all the time spaneli. K+
|
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Sept 17, 2011 11:37:06 GMT -5
Tbf, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have on whether they should play or not play Oasis songs live. How difficult really was their choice? They wouldn't have been able to play LV, WW, DLBIA, Supersonic, C&A, CS etc, anyways. Granted they could have "covered" the songs without permission from Noel, but would Liam really have done that? The embarrassment of covering songs that he's been singing for close to two decades. I think not. And their Oasis contributions were not appreciably better than what they did as Beady Eye. How many songs did LAG write that were appreciably better than their Beady Eye songs? Maybe 3-4....maybe. So in that sense it wouldn't have made sense to play their own Oasis songs anyways. Mainly because it wouldn't have made sense for them to start off as Beady Eye playing basically "second tier and third tier" Oasis songs. That's just the wrong foot to start on. So really in the end, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have when it came to playing Oasis songs or not? Noel on the other hand, has the option to play Oasis songs. Especially after Beady Eye said that they wouldn't. At that point most fans (hardcore/casual) fully expected Noel to play Oasis tracks. For Noel it's a choice between playing a whole new set, complete with b-sides, album tracks, and probably 3-5 covers, or playing a set list complete with b-sides, album tracks, and having 5 covers being Oasis songs. Five songs which he knows he can pull off live. Which is another reason that Noel is playing Oasis songs. I believe that he's so self conscience about being a frontman that he might be feeling that he needs those five Oasis songs. That he needs five songs that he knows he can pull off live and be good at. Noel has the harder decision imo. He has to choose between playing literally complete classics like WW, DLBIA, and TM, or going out there without them, with completely new songs, and all while not feeling all too confident in his abilities as a frontman. imo, I think in terms of decision making, Noel had the harder decision. While Beady Eye somewhat had their decision already made for them. could not have said it better myself spaneli  . sums up my opinion exactly. K+ |
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Sept 17, 2011 12:12:45 GMT -5
Totally agree with Spanelli's post, however I'd also like to add that Oasis were a stadium band and Noel isn't. His gigs will be far more intimate and it gives him more scope to experiment. If he was going to play Oasis songs in the same way that they've been performed for the past 15 years then I'd be totally against it. I would bet my mortgage (if I had one) on them being more like the TCT songs though which will be totally new to the majority of attendees. That is as good as playing new songs imo, though with the added bonus that the crowd will already know all of the words and love the songs.
Beady Eye had everything to prove and playing Oasis songs would have been a sign of weakness. Regardless of that though, they have something Noel doesn't, and that is Liam. They could have played any old shit and the crowd would still stand in some sort of trance with their eyes-fixed on his every movement. I imagine Noel's gigs will be more about the intimacy and the music than the frontman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Silence Dogood on Sept 17, 2011 15:05:09 GMT -5
Tbf, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have on whether they should play or not play Oasis songs live. How difficult really was their choice? They wouldn't have been able to play LV, WW, DLBIA, Supersonic, C&A, CS etc, anyways. Granted they could have "covered" the songs without permission from Noel wait-what !? what on earth are you talking about? you do understand that they can play any song they please, right? any artist can play any song they want at their gigs. It's not the same as releasing a song that's not yours (as a single) or include it in your album. Live gigs are all fair game. you really dropped the ball on this one, dude. Plus they're Oasis songs, Liam was Oasis' frontman, the rest of BDI were also in Oasis for a decade. still don't know what you were going for with that post. How much of a choice did BDI have whether to play Oasis song? lol they could've played them if Liam had wanted to, they can still play them now if Liam ever changes his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by deasy on Sept 17, 2011 15:09:29 GMT -5
Tbf, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have on whether they should play or not play Oasis songs live. How difficult really was their choice? They wouldn't have been able to play LV, WW, DLBIA, Supersonic, C&A, CS etc, anyways. Granted they could have "covered" the songs without permission from Noel wait-what !? what on earth are you talking about? you do understand that they can play any song they please, right? any artist can play any song they want at their gigs. It's not the same as releasing a song that's not yours (as a single) or include it in your album. Live gigs are all fair game. you really dropped the ball on this one, dude. Plus they're Oasis songs, Liam was Oasis' frontman, the rest of BDI were also in Oasis for a decade. still don't know what you were going for with that post. How much of a choice did BDI have whether to play Oasis song? lol they could've played them if Liam had wanted to, they can still play them now if Liam ever changes his mind. Beady Eye playing Noel written songs would have made them a parody like laughing stock. Noel playing Noel written songs doesn't. I'm not sure why people can't see this? lol |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 17, 2011 15:13:26 GMT -5
Tbf, how much of a choice did Beady Eye really have on whether they should play or not play Oasis songs live. How difficult really was their choice? They wouldn't have been able to play LV, WW, DLBIA, Supersonic, C&A, CS etc, anyways. Granted they could have "covered" the songs without permission from Noel wait-what !? what on earth are you talking about? you do understand that they can play any song they please, right? any artist can play any song they want at their gigs. It's not the same as releasing a song that's not yours (as a single) or include it in your album. Live gigs are all fair game. you really dropped the ball on this one, dude. Plus they're Oasis songs, Liam was Oasis' frontman, the rest of BDI were also in Oasis for a decade. still don't know what you were going for with that post. How much of a choice did BDI have whether to play Oasis song? lol they could've played them if Liam had wanted to, they can still play them now if Liam ever changes his mind. Which is what I pointed out. You can cover the songs live without anyone's permission. It's right there in the quote. You dropped the ball in not reading the quote that you're quoting. Jeez. Stop trying to have a gotcha moment and actually read. Here's the quote that's in the quote What's so hard to understand? As Deasy pointed out. Playing Oasis songs would have been embarrassing for Beady Eye. Whether they had free reign to do it or not. If you're not actually going to read my post and completely comprehend, then don't read them. But please don't say that I didn't or did say something, when it's clearly in the quote that you're quoting. Take the time read before you comment.  My head hurts, I must depart. |
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 17, 2011 15:23:12 GMT -5
To answer lgfaver: Beady Eye had something to prove. Noel does not. Simples.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 17, 2011 15:25:31 GMT -5
To answer lgfaver: Beady Eye had something to prove. Noel does not. Simples. Basically. The fact that they had something to prove made the decision easy for them. They didn't have a decision to really make. Noel did/does. |
|
|
|
Post by jilliam on Sept 17, 2011 16:12:12 GMT -5
wait-what !? what on earth are you talking about? you do understand that they can play any song they please, right? any artist can play any song they want at their gigs. It's not the same as releasing a song that's not yours (as a single) or include it in your album. Live gigs are all fair game. you really dropped the ball on this one, dude. Plus they're Oasis songs, Liam was Oasis' frontman, the rest of BDI were also in Oasis for a decade. still don't know what you were going for with that post. How much of a choice did BDI have whether to play Oasis song? lol they could've played them if Liam had wanted to, they can still play them now if Liam ever changes his mind. Beady Eye playing Noel written songs would have made them a parody like laughing stock. Noel playing Noel written songs doesn't. I'm not sure why people can't see this? lol When you put it that way of course BE would have look weak singing "Noel's" songs. However most of us don't refer to songs as "Noels" songs, they're "OASIS" songs and quite frankly, anyone playing them post Oasis is somewhat weak IMO. Noel has enough of his own "solo" material to carry on a full hours long gig...why play Oasis songs? don't get me wrong, I'll enjoy them, fuck I might even sing along but, come on... |
|
|
|
Post by psufan43 on Sept 17, 2011 16:16:58 GMT -5
i dont understand what the fuss is about. ud rather hear 12 songs w/ no oasis songs. then 17 or 18 with them. the show is not going to be worse if he plays dont look back in anger, falling down. etc etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 17, 2011 16:51:46 GMT -5
i dont understand what the fuss is about. ud rather hear 12 songs w/ no oasis songs. then 17 or 18 with them. the show is not going to be worse if he plays dont look back in anger, falling down. etc etc This. As I said earlier, he's not sacrificing new material for Oasis songs. Rather, the Oasis songs act as a bonus and the more the merrier. Still wondering what people are complaining about. I mean, it's not like the likes of DLBIA are utter shit - we all should be wanting to hear these songs again..... |
|
|
|
Post by J.B on Sept 17, 2011 19:08:33 GMT -5
yawn
This thread is divided into people who are going to the gigs and people who are not.
It's very easy for people not going to a gig to say that he shouldn't play Oasis songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 17, 2011 19:13:22 GMT -5
yawn This thread is divided into people who are going to the gigs and people who are not. It's very easy for people not going to a gig to say that he shouldn't play Oasis songs. Jilliam has said multiple times that she will be seeing Noel when he comes to LA. And she believes that Noel shouldn't play Oasis songs. So clearly what you're saying is not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by deasy on Sept 17, 2011 19:18:01 GMT -5
yawn This thread is divided into people who are going to the gigs and people who are not. It's very easy for people not going to a gig to say that he shouldn't play Oasis songs. Jilliam has said multiple times that she will be seeing Noel when he comes to LA. And she believes that Noel shouldn't play Oasis songs. So clearly what you're saying is not the case. And I'm not going to a gig and I'm saying there's no problem with him playing the tracks  |
|
|
|
Post by Silence Dogood on Sept 17, 2011 23:14:45 GMT -5
i simply don't see it that way. Liam, Gem, Andy and Chris.... all members of Oasis for a decade plus(except for the drummer), playing(NOT COVERING) Oasis songs would've made them a "parody"?
lol GTFO. SO when Noel left the band in like 2000 or whenever it was, they were "covering" those songs? that's where i don't agree with you.
If anything Liam could've just as easily opted to continue on with the name Oasis and no one would've been able to say shit. not that it really mattered anyways. There would've been people criticizing him sure, but there's a bunch of people doing that as it is so who gives a shit?
I know a lot of the members of this board would've been so fucking butthurt, it'd have been hilarious.
In any case, i am glad they changed the name of the band and decided to not play Oasis songs.
I just wish Noel would've done the same thing. He's taken the easy way out, we actually agree on that, so no need to even discuss that part.
As for the whole "LAG had something to prove/Noel doesn't" argument, i really think this is where the FANBOYISM(i know some don't like that word, but hey! a whore also doesn't like being called one lol) starts to show.
i'm done now, later.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Sept 17, 2011 23:28:59 GMT -5
i simply don't see it that way. Liam, Gem, Andy and Chris.... all members of Oasis for a decade plus(except for the drummer), playing(NOT COVERING) Oasis songs would've made them a "parody"? lol GTFO. SO when Noel left the band in like 2000 or whenever it was, they were "covering" those songs? that's where i don't agree with you. If anything Liam could've just as easily opted to continue on with the name Oasis and no one would've been able to say shit. not that it really mattered anyways. There would've been people criticizing him sure, but there's a bunch of people doing that as it is so who gives a shit? I know a lot of the members of this board would've been so fucking butthurt, it'd have been hilarious. In any case, i am glad they changed the name of the band and decided to not play Oasis songs. I just wish Noel would've done the same thing. He's taken the easy way out, we actually agree on that, so no need to even discuss that part. As for the whole "LAG had something to prove/Noel doesn't" argument, i really think this is where the FANBOYISM(i know some don't like that word, but hey! a whore also doesn't like being called one lol) starts to show. i'm done now, later. So apparently by your defintion, I'm clearly a "fanboy". Check. Well glad I'm part of the club now. Clearly the word "fanboy" has become a crutch for you lgfaver. It's your catch all phrase. One that's been used so many times, it's lost meaning. It's the phrase you use when you can't explain why some are against you/you're opinion. That anyone who disagrees with you and defends Noel, is a "fanboy". Well I think that's a defintion that you should change quickly. Because you'll find that the people you can actually have a conversation with will shrink drastically. If it hasn't already. |
|
|
|
Post by manualex on Sept 18, 2011 0:02:25 GMT -5
i simply don't see it that way. Liam, Gem, Andy and Chris.... all members of Oasis for a decade plus(except for the drummer), playing(NOT COVERING) Oasis songs would've made them a "parody"? lol GTFO. SO when Noel left the band in like 2000 or whenever it was, they were "covering" those songs? that's where i don't agree with you. It would have prove a certain point to the public that Liam,Gem,Andy and Chris dosn't quite deliver(or has in a few years in the case of Andy) material that could stand with the material they were most known until the end of Oasis(You know the first two albums, the ones those regular joe's and jane's know...erm... Wonderwall.). I'm quite optimistic that Beady Eye COULD make a band of their own(and not a Noel-less Oasis) but there are a few things that might let them quite short of suciding of doing so(You know Liam is not a 24 year old boy who can deliver falsettos like the one in Live Forever). The keyword of the whole thing is potential Beady Eye has some but Noel has been proven(You can say that Andy could be too, but besides Pitchfork who knows of Ride in America?) that he while is not lazy is a great musician. If anything Liam could've just as easily opted to continue on with the name Oasis and no one would've been able to say shit. not that it really mattered anyways. There would've been people criticizing him sure, but there's a bunch of people doing that as it is so who gives a shit? Yeah but it would have been like Blur without Grahan Coxon, Strawberries without cream, a body without a heart(or brain). I loved 13 but S tink S tank Stunk is just a mess of a album like(arguably) most of Oasis(and Beady Eye) material this century has been. To answer your last question properly I'll just say this Liam cares for his reputation, just that he dosnt quite say it a lot.
"You're going to be f-cking arrested wearing his gear and you're going to pull a really nice-looking bird wearing mine."Oh yeah, he does ;D I liked some of the Beady Eye album, but if Liam wants to be remembered with good feelings of the new band he has to stop being a Big mouth and start to care about music and not showbiz in Q, NME and The Sun |
|
|
|
Post by Silence Dogood on Sept 18, 2011 0:28:21 GMT -5
i simply don't see it that way. Liam, Gem, Andy and Chris.... all members of Oasis for a decade plus(except for the drummer), playing(NOT COVERING) Oasis songs would've made them a "parody"? lol GTFO. SO when Noel left the band in like 2000 or whenever it was, they were "covering" those songs? that's where i don't agree with you. If anything Liam could've just as easily opted to continue on with the name Oasis and no one would've been able to say shit. not that it really mattered anyways. There would've been people criticizing him sure, but there's a bunch of people doing that as it is so who gives a shit? I know a lot of the members of this board would've been so fucking butthurt, it'd have been hilarious. In any case, i am glad they changed the name of the band and decided to not play Oasis songs. I just wish Noel would've done the same thing. He's taken the easy way out, we actually agree on that, so no need to even discuss that part. As for the whole "LAG had something to prove/Noel doesn't" argument, i really think this is where the FANBOYISM(i know some don't like that word, but hey! a whore also doesn't like being called one lol) starts to show. i'm done now, later. So apparently by your defintion, I'm clearly a "fanboy". Check. Well glad I'm part of the club now. Clearly the word "fanboy" has become a crutch for you lgfaver. It's your catch all phrase. One that's been used so many times, it's lost meaning. It's the phrase you use when you can't explain why some are against you/you're opinion. That anyone who disagrees with you and defends Noel, is a "fanboy". Well I think that's a defintion that you should change quickly. Because you'll find that the people you can actually have a conversation with will shrink drastically. If it hasn't already. i didn't call you-personally, a fanboy. You know what i think of you, i don't need to say it over and over. If you're insecure about what other people think of you, then i don't know what to tell you. I didn't really think you thought that way. Anyhow, all i am saying is neither of them had something to prove. i mean, i guess you could say Liam had to prove that he could do it on his own, to which i'd reply, so did Noel. and no, i am clearly not the only one using that word, i haven't been posting that much lately but i have been lurking the site and i seen it being posted several times. i know not everyone agrees with me but i also know not everyone disagrees with what i've said either. |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5