4.5 Can't call em the best live band but certainly up there for the emotional ride.

Had Morning Glory around the beginning of 1998. Really liked it. Every time they came around, I always was out of town, up north boating, or had something going on. So I obviously missed the heyday. Ended up getting a used copy of FTM in 2001 and practically wore it out. Started getting the rest of the catalog and said come hell or high water, next time I'm in.

Finally made it, Aug 2002. Thought they were quite amazing, but I believe what really got me was the crowd reaction, singalongs, camaraderie and the fact it felt like the balcony was going to collapse from the stomping and hell raising.
I had been to some lively gigs, but... mind blown. Since then, kinda like a drug I can't do without   

Unlike some elements of the band I don't think their live performances are much to shout about. Outside of the Oasis fanbase I doubt the band gets any real props. What Oasis have going for them are the scores of sing-a-long anthems at their disposal, the enormous fanbase to create a sense of scale (no different than any huge band/pop act) and Liam Gallagher (a mixed blessing of course). Despite not being at all dynamic from a vocal stand point when Liam was on form he was a noted highlight however he's put in his fair share of subpar vocal performances. The setlists were largely very fixed, so there was never ever much sense of surprise and spontaneity. No one in the band was an exceptionally strong musician. The band are notedly static and have been compared to shoegaze acts. There's never been any attempt at any kind of creative use of the stage (BHN tour objectively exempt) or how the band interact with the crowd. No exciting guest performances, no exciting covers... You get the picture. The songs did the heavy lifting and I think people conflate that with the band's live performance. They were average.