Well he can’t sell before 2025 anyway.


But if he wants to do it he wants to do it.

I’m not 100% sure how it works tbh. I don’t know what it means for reissues etc.

It could mean more re-issues or it could mean less. Honestly no idea.

Give the Real People Don't Go Away's royalties!

If he sell his catalog, then Liam can use freely?

Liam can't release Oasis songs with video, As It Was couldn't include Oasis songs.
I thought If someone buy Oasis catalog, then no need to get permission from Noel? I'm confused now.

I’ve never seen As it Was but I would have thought Liam would have been able to include them as long as he paid for them. I dunno if he was refused permission or if he just didn’t want/couldn’t afford to pay them.

But if Noel sold them then Liam would just have to pay the new rights holders.


Edit: I’ve just looked it up and apparently Noel did refuse to license the music. So yeah, if Noel sold the rights then Liam would be able to use it (provided he paid for it) as I doubt the hedge fund buying the catalogue would care as long as they were being paid.


Having read into it and his reasons for doing so I can understand why Noel didn’t license them. And to be fair, he has every right not to license them.

Nah, it doesn’t work like that. I think.

They own the rights to the songs (publishing) not the Oasis performed versions of the songs.

Meaning they could get Joe Bloggs to cover Wonderwall and stick it on a John Lewis advert, but they couldn’t do that with the Oasis original.

No I think you’re correct. They collect the royalties but the record label still have the right to release stuff.

So Michael Jackson made money from Beatles releases because he owned the rights but he couldn’t just decide to release the Beatles recordings.

Noel would be selling the royalties not the recordings.

Basically, when you sell your catalog, you’re both relinquishing all future income from the publishing and forfeiting the right to decide where songs can be used, including the sync rights which cover all visual media. (There are indeed separate master recording rights but according to what’s been reported, in whatever seemingly savvy deal Noel made with Big Brother those rights, separate from publishing, will also be his soon, and might or might not be part of his deal with Hipgnosis. Anyway, master recording rights are very nice but only the publishing owner can license songs, and that's where the real moola is.)

All the big money in music now that isn’t made through touring is made through licensing. The main aim of a company like Hipgnosis is to monetize individual songs across a wide spectrum –advertising, video games, TV shows, Broadway plays, you name it. So the main consequence for the ordinary person would be that you may hear more Oasis – but perhaps not the way you expected (or depending on who you are, the way you desire) … in a worst-case scenario, Oasis songs selling hemorrhoid cream or Viagra or Donald Trump. (I’m sure some here can have fun with what songs would work.)

Now Hipgnosis claims they aim to manage catalogs with care and in keeping with the artist’s image, but depending on the precise deal they make, they (and also future investors who might see things differently) can ultimately do what they want.

From a pure money perspective, now truly is a good time to sell. Profits are increasingly dismal in the music industry for all but massive corporations and they look to get worse. (This is a very, very bad thing for the whole future of music, but songwriters lucky enough to have already made money in different times are in a unique position to get one last windfall.) Catalogs for legacy acts with mass recognition are probably at or near peak value. People actually use the word “de-risking” for selling publishing rights because you are removing the very real risk that the value will plunge in 5 or 10 years time.

The downside for the artist is something blurrier but not insignificant (to some): that you’re no longer directly connected to what you created and have no further say in what happens to it.

Though it’s the trend recently, not all artists sell, even if they’re feeling their mortality ... or dead, for that matter. Some keep it in their family or create an entity to manage it according to their personal wishes after they’re gone. Depends I think on how you look at things (and maybe how you feel about your family.)

Already a thread here:

live4ever.proboards.com/thread/92913/noel-selling-oasis-catalog

I don’t see the issue, they’re his royalties so if he wants to sell them that’s up to him. He doesn’t get the benefit of them after he’s gone and this removes the hassle of his family having to deal with it in the future. He sells now and gets a big lump sum and set the kids up for life.

Don’t think it will affect oasis fans in anyway at all other than we might hear oasis songs on adverts more frequently.

In the end his kids need to make this decision, not him. Its basically them who will benefit it (or be a burden)

I dont think the value of oasis catalog will plunge in the next 50 year. Its become part of the humanity culture, like Picasso or Abba. People will make money off of it for at least another 50 years.

Pop culture has slown down the last 20 years and iconic songs are hard to install nowadays. The last golden era was early 00s. Oasis have at least 5 Picassos to sell over and over again.