Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

OASIS?


Guest daviesjack

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 445
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just been re-watching the tortuous 2004 performance on YouTube. Some comments:

"pure majic standing there in front off 80.000 thousand fans and just stairing out to the crowd bigest rock star off all time arragance and pure class"
"22 people crashed into wonderwall!! Seriously, how can u dislike this song? What are ya? DEAF??"
"GGGRRRREAT and Liam hits the notes :) Shame I Luv him but he has hard time with them these days"

...this is what we're faced with, people.

Edited by SonOfTroyMcClure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised so many people have jumped onto this. First of all, Noel is recording his new album now so he will be busy. Liam created a Twitter meltdown last night just by writing Oasis. The likely scenario's are he was either pissed or on a windup. The less likely thing that might have happened is he might have made up with Noel and that might have gave him hope for the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt very much that these rumours are true, thats my own personal hunch, but that's not what I popped on here to post.

I find it really annoying that whenever Oasis are mentioned that those who don't like the band feel the need to chip in, slag them off, and condemn all their fans and anyone who watches them, including at Glasto, as a bunch of thugs, or musical imbeciles.

Personally, I can take them or leave them, but they were at the peak of their popularity during my teenage years so I relate their songs to happy times so I certainly dont hate them. A singalong to a song everyone knows can be pretty special at glastonbury, even if its not cutting edge music.

I can see why their style of rock music is considered derivative, bland or dull by many, they are definitely way past their best in terms of live performances and song production, peaking well over a decade ago, and the brothers gallagher's personalities might be offensive to some. I agree their performance in 2004 was very poor. And yes their own gigs do tend to generate some highly antisocial behaviour from a few.

But is it really necessary to directly label those with a nostalgic fondness for a singalong to a few of their tunes to being neanderthals? Or that Oasis attendance at the festival will make any difference to the festival as a whole?

Its as if people really think that if Oasis play the pyramid 80,000 idiot fans appear from nowhere, and then those fans disappear just as quickly. The vast majority of people in an Oasis crowd at a festival will be standing next to you the following day watching whatever other other acts that you assume the stereotypical laddish Oasis fan woudnt be interested in.

Yes, there is a stereotypical Oasis fan, and he's probably a bit of a lout.

But I thought Glastonbury was about live and let live, not making stereotypes, and appreciating that people have different tastes and that diversity is what makes it all tick.

That should apply to Oasis the same way it applies to the Niegerian Psy-Folk Tin-Can Ska Band*.

Seems like people have a selective view of their approach to live and let live. Cut it out!

*I may or may not have made them up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...