|
|
Post by samlal on Jan 18, 2006 23:04:54 GMT -5
Before people start to berate me, take this in mind. I;ve been an Oasis fan for over 10 years, own every Oasis single known to man and have seen them live over 10 times (I even shelled out over $90 to see them in Toronto in March).
But, i must say i've never been more disappointed in the boys then i am now. Let me explain. How can Oasis allow their song to be in a commercial, especially a major conglomorate like AT&T? Noel vitrolically berated Jack White of the WHite Stripes for allowing one of his songs to Coke and now Noel calls the kettle black and does the same thing? Doesn't make any sense. How could he do that?
Oasis stands for something more then just music. They stand for an attitude....an ideal...a swagger. Or so I thought. Sadly i think thier just like every other band out there. Making noise for publicity and talking to hear themselves talk. I know Noel talks a lot of shit, but Oasis always stood firm: They signed with an indie lable...they didn't "play the game" and they didn't care what others thought. Now, i guess 1 out of 3 aint bad. I write this a sad man.
(p.s. Noel and Liam always said Oasis was a fans band and they could not justify, like other bands,U2 Coldplay etc... charging such exorbinant prices for tickets to see there shows. Guess who just paid over $90 Canadian to see them? $90 freakin' dollars. Guess i'm the fool
|
|
|
|
Post by NoelandMeMay29 on Jan 18, 2006 23:26:49 GMT -5
May want to take a step back and a deep breath.
Sony owns the rights to those songs. They sold it to AT&T not Oasis.
Why do you think Michael Jackson owns the Beatles songs. Whoever owns the publishing rights can use the music.
I've heard F*ckin' In The Bushes during NBA and Movie Trailer promos. I don't think Noel is a basketball fan
|
|
|
|
Post by samlal on Jan 18, 2006 23:41:54 GMT -5
Point well taken. However Noel has said in the past that he would never sell his songs to movies unless he really believed in the project. AT&T? Seems like a blatent cash grab. Also, Noel is the chief. Nothing gets done without his approval, nothing! I'm sure Sony had to get some sort of go ahead from Noel to use the song. The last thing Sony wants to do is piss Noel off as they are trying to get him to sign on the dotted line for a new record deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by MSprague01 on Jan 19, 2006 0:21:15 GMT -5
Also, Noel is the chief. Nothing gets done without his approval, nothing! I'm sure Sony had to get some sort of go ahead from Noel to use the song. The last thing Sony wants to do is piss Noel off as they are trying to get him to sign on the dotted line for a new record deal. Sony owns the rights to the songs recorded under this recording contract, so they can let AT&T use it without Noel's permission. They're also going to release the Oasis greatest hits album whether Noel approves of it or not when the contract is up, because they own the rights to the songs. There is nothing Noel can do to stop them. Noel has also already stated several times that there is no way they would ever resign with Sony. |
|
|
|
Post by sam89 on Jan 19, 2006 4:59:51 GMT -5
Sony are bastards!
I read somewhere that Noel thinks the fans opinions count for nout and they he dont care about the fans....mega disappointed when i read that.
|
|
|
|
Post by samlal on Jan 19, 2006 14:55:04 GMT -5
Hey Guys thanks for the info. Feel a little better but still feel a little uneasy about the ad. Let's hope Sony does not abuse the greatest band that has ever graced Sony's roster
|
|
|
|
Post by His Royal Majesty Revolver on Jan 19, 2006 15:18:00 GMT -5
It's too bad that that's what music is relegated to. I can imagine pop nonsense being there, but I don't know why Sony used Oasis.. especially nowadays...
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Jan 19, 2006 19:31:16 GMT -5
Does sony force Oasis to mime and shit too?
There is no excuse for that
|
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Jan 19, 2006 19:45:37 GMT -5
that's the problem with many fans- they think of their favorite musicians as near-gods. while they're "selling out" against YOUR standards, they're laughing their way to the bank. you know what, good for them. it's a good investment.
p.s. do you know how many times people have asked me who sang that song? and do you know the look they get when i tell them it's oasis? if that isn't publicity (while getting paid for it), i don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
Post by chocolate st*rfish on Jan 20, 2006 2:34:30 GMT -5
i must say i've never been more disappointed in the boys then i am now. Oasis stands for something more then just music. They stand for an attitude....an ideal. lol |
|
|
|
Post by lyla on Jan 20, 2006 4:48:55 GMT -5
i must say i've never been more disappointed in the boys then i am now. Oasis stands for something more then just music. They stand for an attitude....an ideal. lol i cant say im disappointed in oasis or anything but i dont get why that is funny either. oasis didnt make big on pure musical talent (they dont exactly play the most technically brilliant music. many bands are better than them in that respect) its cos their songs had attitude and they (mainly the gallaghers) had the charisma that appealed and connected to so many people. |
|
|
|
Post by chocolate st*rfish on Jan 20, 2006 6:05:35 GMT -5
"i want to get famous, very rich and get laid" - sir bob geldof.
okay maybe my initial laughter was slightly out of place since that issue is touching some of you guys a lot.
oasis - in their own definition - is a band for the masses. theyre not an indie band, not even britpop. most of the artists they idolize were the biggest pop sensations in history.
i recall noel repeatedly saying he wants to be as big as them if not even bigger.
did the beatles and the stones sell their souls cos they filled stadiums? is the magic of classics like Satisfaction or Baba O'Riley taken away cos some insurance company backgrounds its adverts with those tunes?
for my life i cant understand fans going: "youre my band, dont dare to be as commercially successful as you wanna be."
remember, oasis dont owe you anything!! they didnt force you to like their music which -although they ran around acting like hooligans (smth people like to call swagger/attitude)- was or should be the reason you like a band in the first place.
you're proud of oasis not playing the game with the media, yet you adore their attitude which could have only been observed by reading the sun, the mirror, watching MTV, Vh-1 etc etc. doesnt that mean they WERE actually playing the game but they were just the bad guys doing whatever they were up to and the media and the people f*ing loved it.
then why not playing AATW to so many people?! it's a great song, people should listen to it, full stop.
p.s. the only oasis philosophy i can think of: get your ass up, believe in youself and (you can) be the biggest.
|
|
|
|
Post by lyla on Jan 20, 2006 11:23:00 GMT -5
"i want to get famous, very rich and get laid" - sir bob geldof. okay maybe my initial laughter was slightly out of place since that issue is touching some of you guys a lot. oasis - in their own definition - is a band for the masses. theyre not an indie band, not even britpop. most of the artists they idolize were the biggest pop sensations in history. i recall noel repeatedly saying he wants to be as big as them if not even bigger. did the beatles and the stones sell their souls cos they filled stadiums? is the magic of classics like Satisfaction or Baba O'Riley taken away cos some insurance company backgrounds its adverts with those tunes? for my life i cant understand fans going: "youre my band, dont dare to be as commercially successful as you wanna be." remember, oasis dont owe you anything!! they didnt force you to like their music which -although they ran around acting like hooligans (smth people like to call swagger/attitude)- was or should be the reason you like a band in the first place. you're proud of oasis not playing the game with the media, yet you adore their attitude which could have only been observed by reading the sun, the mirror, watching MTV, Vh-1 etc etc. doesnt that mean they WERE actually playing the game but they were just the bad guys doing whatever they were up to and the media and the people f*ing loved it. then why not playing AATW to so many people?! it's a great song, people should listen to it, full stop. p.s. the only oasis philosophy i can think of: get your ass up, believe in youself and (you can) be the biggest. agreed. i mean fair enough - you are meant to like bands for their music first and foremost. and that to me is the case with most bands i listen to. i dont pay attention to image or their views on fuckin tomatos. but what im (inarticulately) trying to get at is - while many bands have really good music, only a very few become great. And i think all those iconic bands - beatles, sex pistols, nirvana, oasis - they meant something to their fans. maybe the fans are deluded, and you can argue that if you'd like, but i still think its true. and that silly oasis philosphy of bothering to get up of your arse and believe you can be the biggest can be a profound philosophy. however it is also pretty cliched. how many people tell that to you? well to me anyway - and shit about the future having endless opportunities. but like hell i believe them cos usually these are people that have never taken any real risks, have never dared to aspire for anything more than good job and a bit of money (unlike say, wanting to be bigger than the beatles -.-). their average-ness is living negation of that philosphy. oasis are different cos they didnt fuckin sit and discuss it and preach to people. they just made it happen for themselves, and then it seems to transfer into their music which is generally optimisitc and idealistic (like living forever...) and it does not matter one bit that oasis are not as big as the beatles, what matters to me is that a) they have still have come so much further then most bands can ever dream about b) at least they had the balls to try and im 16 i like having a bit of hope. well i dont have musical aspirations, but in other fields. and maybe i'll become old and cynical later on, but for now, im happy being a fuckin believer in myself. but this oasis integrity thing is interesting. as you said, they've always said they wanted to be massive and really big band, and they got pretty far. but its interesting that while they said they wanted to be big - they obvioulsy didnt want it enough to be arsed sucking up to mtv (which basically guarentees mainstream american success) and record company executives. this all has very little to do with the commericals. i dont really care cos i understand that sony owns the rights, and that even if they did 'sell out' its not suprising due to the aforementioned desire to be the biggest. |
|
|
|
Post by samlal on Jan 20, 2006 17:34:45 GMT -5
Intelligent post starfish. However, i disagree. Oasis do owe me something and the do owe the fans something. The reason the Oasis is so big is because of the fans. We bought their records; we bought the newspapers and we bought the magazines. Without us their another Jesus and Mary Chain-----bickering brothers who put out some fantastic records that are/where criminally under-rated. Fair enough that we do put are rock stars on pedestals, but thats the way it is. I have 2 university degrees, work in the media and I should no better but i don't. Oasis mean soemthing to me that is more then any other band (and I own over 900 cds). And I know they mean a hell of a lot to you lot as well judging by all the posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenoasis on Jan 20, 2006 20:34:37 GMT -5
Sony owns the rights to the songs recorded under this recording contract, so they can let AT&T use it without Noel's permission. Haa! Haa! I think I'd prolly laugh my arse off if I ever see the day where Champagne Supernova is in a commercial for errrm...champagne. |
|
|
|
Post by Mogly on Jan 21, 2006 3:29:20 GMT -5
Sony owns the rights to the songs recorded under this recording contract, so they can let AT&T use it without Noel's permission. Haa! Haa! I think I'd prolly laugh my arse off if I ever see the day where Champagne Supernova is in a commercial for errrm...champagne. LMFAO that's genius queen! |
|
|
|
Post by skyofred on Jan 21, 2006 22:52:49 GMT -5
I was a little surprised at the price of the tickets as well! I always say to people that they are not U2 or coldplay who charge a ton. They always have a great opening act and usually charge half the price of the other bands! Like at the Molson ampitheatre they have jet opening and you the most expensive ticket was $60....nice
However this time the range was 50 - 70. Still not bad but the opening act is not as successful as those opening in the past. I am thinking the ACC is much more expensive to use than other places. Also your $90 ticket included service fees from ticketmaster of probably 15 dollars.
All in all still not a bad price compared to others! At least they are not like COLDPLAY and have an auction so the "real fans" can get tickets and not the scalpers. Sure that is nice but I don't think I want floor seats for $200 a ticket!
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5