|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Jun 12, 2023 7:21:01 GMT -5
who are you and me to say what's wrong and what's right?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChampagneHypernova on Jun 12, 2023 9:02:27 GMT -5
who are you and me to say what's wrong and what's right? Just giving an opinion as people do on the forum. I'm glad Bonehead didn't get in and that they didn't continue without Noel under Oasis name. It would have been a disaster IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 12, 2023 11:22:02 GMT -5
The Pink Floyd example The Chief brings up is definitely the best comparison to use if thinking how it could have happened.
By the time Roger Waters left in 1985 he essentially was Pink Floyd, he had written and sang 95% of the bands last three albums and was also the driving force behind the previous two. However Gilmour took over and whilst in the studio they were pretty poor in my opinion, live they sold out massive venues around the world and put on some of the biggest gigs ever. People wanted to hear the stuff from the 70’s which Waters had written but didn’t care he was no longer in the band. Meantime he toured in venues much smaller because he didn’t have the name.
That could have happened with Oasis. Yes in the studio it would have been poor but an Oasis world tour would still sell out. People want to hear Wonderwall and Live Forever live, makes no difference that the man who wrote them is no longer in the band, look at the fact Liam can sell out Knebworth. Did those people go to hear Shockwave and the River?
I agree it shouldn’t have happened and glad it didn’t but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented and wouldn’t necessarily been a failure
|
|
|
|
Post by GlastoEls on Jun 12, 2023 13:35:41 GMT -5
The Pink Floyd example The Chief brings up is definitely the best comparison to use if thinking how it could have happened. By the time Roger Waters left in 1985 he essentially was Pink Floyd, he had written and sang 95% of the bands last three albums and was also the driving force behind the previous two. However Gilmour took over and whilst in the studio they were pretty poor in my opinion, live they sold out massive venues around the world and put on some of the biggest gigs ever. People wanted to hear the stuff from the 70’s which Waters had written but didn’t care he was no longer in the band. Meantime he toured in venues much smaller because he didn’t have the name. That could have happened with Oasis. Yes in the studio it would have been poor but an Oasis world tour would still sell out. People want to hear Wonderwall and Live Forever live, makes no difference that the man who wrote them is no longer in the band, look at the fact Liam can sell out Knebworth. Did those people go to hear Shockwave and the River? I agree it shouldn’t have happened and glad it didn’t but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented and wouldn’t necessarily been a failure I agree in general at post-Waters Floyd being the nearest precedent - but I do have a much higher opinion of the Gilmour-era Floyd stuff, and Division Bell in particular which I think is really strong. |
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 12, 2023 14:24:17 GMT -5
The Pink Floyd example The Chief brings up is definitely the best comparison to use if thinking how it could have happened. By the time Roger Waters left in 1985 he essentially was Pink Floyd, he had written and sang 95% of the bands last three albums and was also the driving force behind the previous two. However Gilmour took over and whilst in the studio they were pretty poor in my opinion, live they sold out massive venues around the world and put on some of the biggest gigs ever. People wanted to hear the stuff from the 70’s which Waters had written but didn’t care he was no longer in the band. Meantime he toured in venues much smaller because he didn’t have the name. That could have happened with Oasis. Yes in the studio it would have been poor but an Oasis world tour would still sell out. People want to hear Wonderwall and Live Forever live, makes no difference that the man who wrote them is no longer in the band, look at the fact Liam can sell out Knebworth. Did those people go to hear Shockwave and the River? I agree it shouldn’t have happened and glad it didn’t but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented and wouldn’t necessarily been a failure I agree in general at post-Waters Floyd being the nearest precedent - but I do have a much higher opinion of the Gilmour-era Floyd stuff, and Division Bell in particular which I think is really strong. Don’t get me wrong there’s some decent stuff from that period, Sorrow is a great song and High Hopes is in my top 10 Floyd songs but it’s few and far between for me however I do like how prominent Wright is on The Division Bell. Also it’s easy to forget that there was 7 years between the two main Gilmour albums, that’s a bloody long time and it’s because by his own admission he’s not a prolific writer and I imagine a post Noel Oasis would be the same as I don’t think they’d do two albums like DGSS and BE because the pressure would be on more they'd take more time to do the first Oasis album without Noel |
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Jun 12, 2023 14:32:41 GMT -5
If they'd continued as Oasis then they wouldn't have had the freedom to do as they please because of the pressure to conform to the oasis brand. I doubt bring the light would have been the first single for a start. And Ignition wouldn't have dropped them at the first opportunity either.
|
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Jun 13, 2023 19:05:55 GMT -5
Bonehead gets in and here they are 1. The Roller 2. Take Me 3. Sons Of The Stage 1. Four Letter word 2. World Outside My Room 3. Kill for a Dream 1. Four Letter word 2. Millionaire 3. The Roller 4. Bring The Light 5. Evil Eye 6. The Beat Goes On 7. Man Of Misery 8. (In The Bubble) With a Bullet 9. Wigwam 10. Ballroom Figured 11. The Morning Son 1. Millionaire 2. For Anyone 3. Standing On The Edge Of The Noise 1. The Beat Goes On 2. Three Ring Circus 3. Wind Up Dream In this alternative universe, Beatles and Stones didn’t stand the test of time? |
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Jun 13, 2023 19:14:39 GMT -5
who are you and me to say what's wrong and what's right? Just giving an opinion as people do on the forum. I'm glad Bonehead didn't get in and that they didn't continue without Noel under Oasis name. It would have been a disaster IMO. It was a bad time for old time rockers from the 90s, the manics ended their string of top 40 UK singles in 2011 iirc. |
|
|
|
Post by AubreyOasis on Jun 14, 2023 17:10:40 GMT -5
The Pink Floyd example The Chief brings up is definitely the best comparison to use if thinking how it could have happened. By the time Roger Waters left in 1985 he essentially was Pink Floyd, he had written and sang 95% of the bands last three albums and was also the driving force behind the previous two. However Gilmour took over and whilst in the studio they were pretty poor in my opinion, live they sold out massive venues around the world and put on some of the biggest gigs ever. People wanted to hear the stuff from the 70’s which Waters had written but didn’t care he was no longer in the band. Meantime he toured in venues much smaller because he didn’t have the name. That could have happened with Oasis. Yes in the studio it would have been poor but an Oasis world tour would still sell out. People want to hear Wonderwall and Live Forever live, makes no difference that the man who wrote them is no longer in the band, look at the fact Liam can sell out Knebworth. Did those people go to hear Shockwave and the River? I agree it shouldn’t have happened and glad it didn’t but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented and wouldn’t necessarily been a failure I agree in general at post-Waters Floyd being the nearest precedent - but I do have a much higher opinion of the Gilmour-era Floyd stuff, and Division Bell in particular which I think is really strong. Same here, the latest Pink Floyd era is vastly underrated imo |
|
|
|
Post by The Chief on Jun 15, 2023 6:00:30 GMT -5
The Pink Floyd example The Chief brings up is definitely the best comparison to use if thinking how it could have happened. By the time Roger Waters left in 1985 he essentially was Pink Floyd, he had written and sang 95% of the bands last three albums and was also the driving force behind the previous two. However Gilmour took over and whilst in the studio they were pretty poor in my opinion, live they sold out massive venues around the world and put on some of the biggest gigs ever. People wanted to hear the stuff from the 70’s which Waters had written but didn’t care he was no longer in the band. Meantime he toured in venues much smaller because he didn’t have the name. That could have happened with Oasis. Yes in the studio it would have been poor but an Oasis world tour would still sell out. People want to hear Wonderwall and Live Forever live, makes no difference that the man who wrote them is no longer in the band, look at the fact Liam can sell out Knebworth. Did those people go to hear Shockwave and the River? I agree it shouldn’t have happened and glad it didn’t but it wouldn’t have been unprecedented and wouldn’t necessarily been a failure I agree in general at post-Waters Floyd being the nearest precedent - but I do have a much higher opinion of the Gilmour-era Floyd stuff, and Division Bell in particular which I think is really strong. Same. I love Division Bell. My favourite Pink Floyd record remains Wish You Were Here but no one can argue against High Hopes. We all knew that LAG couldn't equate or surpass Oasis levels of songwriting without Noel but, to be fair, neither could Noel between 2000 and 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jun 27, 2023 17:51:31 GMT -5
If Beady Eye had gone under the Oasis name it would be an utter embarrassment. Spot on, but you wonder why they didn't just carry on with the name given they didn't make any effort at all to differentiate themselves from Oasis. There was no USP to their music. If you're gonna change the name of a band, change the bloody sound. Liam's making it up with his solo career but christ, the unbelievable dreck they churned out was embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by schorman on Jun 27, 2023 22:18:41 GMT -5
A large part of it would also be that song writers have many more rights regarding the release of their songs than recording artists, in general. It basically means that Noel has controlling interest, as it stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy838 on Jul 3, 2023 18:23:16 GMT -5
I think it's just simply that from the very start Noel was seen as the 'leader' of the band aka the chief. If Liam really thought about it from a legal standpoint he could easily have influenced much more but it's not really in his psyche to do that kind of thing. I heard him talking about writing one of his early 00s songs inferring that he was writing to present to Noel like it was a school project taken to the teacher. Them being brothers made it a really complex business relationship. Maybe now if they reunite it will be much more of an equal thing as Liam has matured so much more since going solo and Debbie being involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Jul 4, 2023 2:24:10 GMT -5
I think it's just simply that from the very start Noel was seen as the 'leader' of the band aka the chief. If Liam really thought about it from a legal standpoint he could easily have influenced much more but it's not really in his psyche to do that kind of thing. I heard him talking about writing one of his early 00s songs inferring that he was writing to present to Noel like it was a school project taken to the teacher. Them being brothers made it a really complex business relationship. Maybe now if they reunite it will be much more of an equal thing as Liam has matured so much more since going solo and Debbie being involved. Yeah basically that. Liam's always had a sugar daddy, it was Noel, then Nicole, now the new one whatever her name is. The money comes in, Liam Happy. He probably doesn't care or isn't focused enough to stay in a meeting room for more than 2 mins. There is no conspiracy behind it all. Noel just took care of it because none of the other 4 were busy going to the pub. |
|
|
|
Post by darmin on Jul 5, 2023 3:34:48 GMT -5
I think it's just simply that from the very start Noel was seen as the 'leader' of the band aka the chief. If Liam really thought about it from a legal standpoint he could easily have influenced much more but it's not really in his psyche to do that kind of thing. I heard him talking about writing one of his early 00s songs inferring that he was writing to present to Noel like it was a school project taken to the teacher. Them being brothers made it a really complex business relationship. Maybe now if they reunite it will be much more of an equal thing as Liam has matured so much more since going solo and Debbie being involved. Yeah basically that. Liam's always had a sugar daddy, it was Noel, then Nicole, now the new one whatever her name is. The money comes in, Liam Happy. He probably doesn't care or isn't focused enough to stay in a meeting room for more than 2 mins. There is no conspiracy behind it all. Noel just took care of it because none of the other 4 were busy going to the pub. I swear you guys just say anything. B serious and remind me what business decisions Nicole did for the band(s)? Liam obviously wanted to be involved and wasn’t allowed. I remember from the interviews that one of the biggest rows they had in 2008 happened because Noel picked a support band for their tour w/o asking Liam. Does it sound like someone who didn’t care about anything except getting paid? He wrote the songs etc. I assume a lot of their contracts were signed in the 90s when Liam was young and inexperienced |
|
|
|
Post by andymorris on Jul 5, 2023 4:27:59 GMT -5
Yeah basically that. Liam's always had a sugar daddy, it was Noel, then Nicole, now the new one whatever her name is. The money comes in, Liam Happy. He probably doesn't care or isn't focused enough to stay in a meeting room for more than 2 mins. There is no conspiracy behind it all. Noel just took care of it because none of the other 4 were busy going to the pub. I swear you guys just say anything. B serious and remind me what business decisions Nicole did for the band(s)? Liam obviously wanted to be involved and wasn’t allowed. I remember from the interviews that one of the biggest rows they had in 2008 happened because Noel picked a support band for their tour w/o asking Liam. Does it sound like someone who didn’t care about anything except getting paid? He wrote the songs etc. I assume a lot of their contracts were signed in the 90s when Liam was young and inexperienced Where do i say Nicole was making decisions for Liam regarding Oasis ? Liam had sugar daddys in the Oasis days : Noel for Oasis, Nicolas for personal life, then the other woman for both. Better ? Like it or not, the guy is an immature child and always has been. He's got people taking care of business for him and sometimes whines about not making the decisions. You can add Warner to the list for the solo career too. |
|
|
|
Post by darmin on Jul 5, 2023 6:21:12 GMT -5
I swear you guys just say anything. B serious and remind me what business decisions Nicole did for the band(s)? Liam obviously wanted to be involved and wasn’t allowed. I remember from the interviews that one of the biggest rows they had in 2008 happened because Noel picked a support band for their tour w/o asking Liam. Does it sound like someone who didn’t care about anything except getting paid? He wrote the songs etc. I assume a lot of their contracts were signed in the 90s when Liam was young and inexperienced Where do i say Nicole was making decisions for Liam regarding Oasis ? Liam had sugar daddys in the Oasis days : Noel for Oasis, Nicolas for personal life, then the other woman for both. Better ? Like it or not, the guy is an immature child and always has been. He's got people taking care of business for him and sometimes whines about not making the decisions. You can add Warner to the list for the solo career too. “Sugar daddy” doesn’t mean what you think it means lmao You think “being supportive spouse”=“being sugar daddy for personal life”? lmao2 I assume you want Liam to live completely alone, preferably somewhere in a desert, unsigned to any label and personally sell his cds to give him any credit for his work? lmao3 |
|
|
|
Post by mancraider on Jul 5, 2023 7:16:06 GMT -5
I think it comes down more to the fact that Ignition still manage the Oasis brand and Noel, so Noel naturally has more opportunity to be involved. Liams relationship with Ignition is obviously less friendly. They both have equal say in theory but in practice it falls to Noel to steer the ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by defmaybe00 on Jul 5, 2023 8:44:17 GMT -5
I mean, wasn't Noel always steering Oasis?
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 7, 2023 16:20:07 GMT -5
Where do i say Nicole was making decisions for Liam regarding Oasis ? Liam had sugar daddys in the Oasis days : Noel for Oasis, Nicolas for personal life, then the other woman for both. Better ? Like it or not, the guy is an immature child and always has been. He's got people taking care of business for him and sometimes whines about not making the decisions. You can add Warner to the list for the solo career too. “Sugar daddy” doesn’t mean what you think it means lmao You think “being supportive spouse”=“being sugar daddy for personal life”? lmao2 I assume you want Liam to live completely alone, preferably somewhere in a desert, unsigned to any label and personally sell his cds to give him any credit for his work? lmao3 You counted your lmao’s, 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by ournoel775 on Jul 11, 2023 12:45:40 GMT -5
This is an excellent question/topic. I didn't know Liam/BE had a falling out w/ Ignition (who seem quite stodgy, outtatouch anyways).
I assumed Noel's songwriting credits gave him standing, but as was mentioned, it makes sense everything was set-up 50/50 between the two of them back in the day.
I just gotta defend Beady Eye...I think a lot of people slagging them off didn't see them live. We all saw BE/Noel in that 2011'ish window, and BE felt like a rock show, and Noel felt like dad rock.
Yessss..DGSS kinda sux...but the second album was MINT! Liam's personal problems sunk the band when they couldn't tour that album. I'll never get over the fact I wasn't able to see "Flick of the Finger" performed live. BE had balls bcz they refused to play Oasis stuff as well (but didn't they cede on that eventually...?).
As far as I'm concerned, and we're all diehards here, I'm about done buying re-issues of the albums...the horse they're beating has gotta be dead, haha.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5