Music Oasis reuniting for tour in 2025?

McGrathsipan said:
are they back as a band or are they back temporarily to make a few million and then fug off again into the wilderness?

Can we expect new music?
Click to expand...
i would actually expect a new album. Noel is constantly writing, and wouldnt be suprised if most of it is written
 
Mockney said:
See, I do think there’s a difference between ‘dated’ and ‘young people don’t like this anymore’ … I was VERY much in the age range when Oasis were big. Slightly too young if anything to actually enjoy Britpop proper. I’m of the generation where it was your mates cool older siblings who were listening to it, which made it even cooler! but now I’m older the likes of Blur and Radiohead have definitely aged better and I personally hear in more TV shows/ads etc. Granted there are still pubs that play Oasis more, but their sound was a lot less sophisticated and so a lot more “of” that era than even a lot of their contemporary’s. Even those 2 big Ocean Colour Scene songs still get a huge amount of play, cos they’ve dated quite well, musically.

I mean a lot of Bowie stuff hasn’t dated, but a lot of Prince stuff has. Soul largely hasnt dated but Hair Metal has. It’s not just about the passing of time. Oasis are one of those bands where you watch a retrospective and hear people say “their music was edgy and raw and for the people!” and then they cut to a clip of “Some Might Say” and it sounds incredibly naff. Like when people talk about the Satanic panic era and then cut to the cheesiest glam metal bollocks you’ve ever heard. Or even early Beatles stuff with women screaming over clean cup boppy love songs. But then nothing on Revolver has dated. Nor have a lot of The Stones stuff. Nirvana havent dated, etc

The difference obviously was that - unlike the Beatles - Oasis never l progressed from that one sound* There’s some stuff that hasn’t dated for sure sure - Live Forever, Supersonic, fecking In The Bushes etc - but a lot of it has to me, and some of the ballads just sound a bit twee now, even to someone who grew up with them. It was post rave and electronica and people really wanted guitars and catchy choruses but then it never went anywhere else and we all moved on.

* Ironically the best Britpop Beatles rip off was Beetlebum, which is way more like their later stuff than any of Oasis was.

But hey, that’s just my take on it. Im not an outright hater. I enjoy quite a few. I’m certainly a lot more generous towards them than some…


Click to expand...

To be fair, I was whisky'd up and clearly half taking the piss when I wrote that post I barely even remember writing. I'm surprised I didn't lean into the sarf-London middle-class ponce blur fan thing more :lol:

But, I don't disagree with you on any of that. Well apart from that video you posted, I listened for about 90seconds then gave up as that guy doesn't have the first clue about where Noel's songs were coming from and his influences and just started banging on about "proper music" and "mildly racist"...it smacked of looking back on the 90's from the perspective of the world today and making it about gammon culture or some such shit...which misses the point of the era but a long way imo. So yeah, I'm not interested in listening to more of that.

Anyway, back to Oasis, there is definitely a big downplay of the songs they put out and the size they got to and why they made it to where they were. That's fine, people shit on the past all the time, even on here there have been people slagging off the Beatles and Keane and lately Schmeichel seems to have been getting that treatment to some degree. I always say that Noel Gallagher inspired me to pick up a guitar, as he did for more people than anyone else for a long time I'd argue, but Graham Coxon inspired me to actually learn how to play the thing.

And that about sums it up for me. Oasis had the songs, properly underrated ones too, but others had the artistic talent. And that's fine, why does everyone have to evolve anyway? You only have to look at the very few times Oasis tried in some manner, and lately one of Noel's Albums (and I think some ep's?) where he did some, albeit still very middle road, attempts and people just didn't want it. But musically, it's always been a bit naff. Noel says that himself constantly, that he knows melodies...which he clearly does...but doesn't really rate himself as a lyricist and definitely not guitarist. In fact all the negative stuff in this thread is nothing he hasn't said himself. Mark my words, Gem will be in that lineup to carry him on the guitar front too, I don't expect anything other than the Whitesnake level solo's he's known for at best. (Though I will say, replicating his actual...err style?...is very difficult. At least when he plays you know it's him :lol:)

But, they will be absolutely banging gigs and occasions. In terms of big rock bands, I've seen them all old and relatively new (even coldplay multiple times, deliberately too) and even in the 00's with a stadium drummer and a fecked Liam voice, their gigs were always up there for atmosphere alone let alone songs instantly knowable and a band who can stand still and just produce a wall of sound that's going to make the whole place bounce.

And that's what I'm going to pay for, it's an unmissable event.
 
decorativeed said:
So you'd have a 5 day festival cost £50 per night? Like I say, they'd make far, far less in ticket sales that way. And the money is obviously the key motivator here.

And I've just googled Mayercraft. Never mind hell on earth, that souls like floating purgatory. Such a boring brand of self indulgence.
Click to expand...

Yes. Charge more if you like. But that’s what festivals cost.

But I promise you that an Aristocrats field won’t cost £500-750k a day rental the way Wembley does. Nor will many take a 10% cut of the gate. And they will absolutely be a better way to watch live music.

Mayercraft wasn’t being held up as an exemplar of what you want. Only that there are different ways to do something than stand on stage in a stadium, phoning it in, which they definitely will. For what it’s worth, it was incredibly fun and worked well.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Yes. Charge more if you like. But that’s what festivals cost.

But I promise you that an Aristocrats field won’t cost £500-750k a day rental the way Wembley does. Nor will many take a 10% cut of the gate. And they will absolutely be a better way to watch live music.

Mayercraft wasn’t being held up as an exemplar of what you want. Only that there are different ways to do something than stand on stage in a stadium, phoning it in, which they definitely will. For what it’s worth, it was incredibly fun and worked well.
Click to expand...

It's admirable that you're so committed to what is undoubtedly an incredibly shit idea.

What sort of overlap are you imagining between the people willing to camp to watch Oasis four nights on the bounce (and they'd have to camp), and the sorts of people interested in whatever bands you had to scrape together to fill the rest of the line-up, across two stages, for four days?

Those other bands are going to be playing to absolutely dead crowds, particularly by day four, if many even bother leaving their tents/the bars to come and see them at all.
 
Bit bemused to add the extra dates before they've even gone on sale :lol:weird really. Annoying because I've had so much luck down the years with gigs selling out when they go on sale, people clearing logging off giving up, only for a date to be added that same morning and getting tickets with ease.
 
I literally bought Bruce Springsteen tickets and Taylor Swift tickets the day before despite them being sold out (the very front standing as well), so I’m not going to stress too much if I can’t get tickets.
 
Mockney said:
See, I do think there’s a difference between ‘dated’ and ‘young people don’t like this anymore’ … I was VERY much in the age range when Oasis were big. Slightly too young if anything to actually enjoy Britpop proper. I’m of the generation where it was your mates cool older siblings who were listening to it, which made it even cooler! but now I’m older the likes of Blur and Radiohead have definitely aged better and I personally hear in more TV shows/ads etc. Granted there are still pubs that play Oasis more, but their sound was a lot less sophisticated and so a lot more “of” that era than even a lot of their contemporary’s. Even those 2 big Ocean Colour Scene songs still get a huge amount of play, cos they’ve dated quite well, musically.

I mean a lot of Bowie stuff hasn’t dated, but a lot of Prince stuff has. Soul largely hasnt dated but Hair Metal has. It’s not just about the passing of time. Oasis are one of those bands where you watch a retrospective and hear people say “their music was edgy and raw and for the people!” and then they cut to a clip of “Some Might Say” and it sounds incredibly naff. Like when people talk about the Satanic panic era and then cut to the cheesiest glam metal bollocks you’ve ever heard. Or even early Beatles stuff with women screaming over clean cup boppy love songs. But then nothing on Revolver has dated. Nor have a lot of The Stones stuff. Nirvana havent dated, etc

The difference obviously was that - unlike the Beatles - Oasis never l progressed from that one sound* There’s some stuff that hasn’t dated for sure sure - Live Forever, Supersonic, fecking In The Bushes etc - but a lot of it has to me, and some of the ballads just sound a bit twee now, even to someone who grew up with them. It was post rave and electronica and people really wanted guitars and catchy choruses but then it never went anywhere else and we all moved on.

* Ironically the best Britpop Beatles rip off was Beetlebum, which is way more like their later stuff than any of Oasis was.

But hey, that’s just my take on it. Im not an outright hater. I enjoy quite a few. I’m certainly a lot more generous towards them than some…


Click to expand...


Very good post. Exactly what I trying to get at with my "haven't aged well" comment earlier on. And I reckon I'm a bit older than you and can remember having those doubts about their music even right out the gate. They were brash and rude and exciting and their songs were all instantly catchy, so everyone who was into indie or rock music at the time couldn't not get into Oasis. Plus Liam's vocals really were excellent and Noel could write a killer guitar hook. But there was always a nagging doubt that the bulk of their tunes were just a bit simplistic and, as you say, naff. They were the musical equivalent of that song on an album that you think is great on first listen only to end up a bit sick of it and finding the real gems in other tracks that take a bit longer to fall in love with.

But hey, I've pissed on enough chips in that godawful Taylor Swift thread. And I'm sure as shit not going to change anyone's mind about Oasis. Just glad to see my point being made a lot better by someone else.
 
91rahj.jpg
 
Ffs didn’t even see the presale ballot and now it’s shut. I take it I’m even more fecked at trying to get tickets than I was before? :lol:
 
Jimble said:
anyone had a ballot code yet?

Not the ballot entry confirmation email, the actual code to allow them in to the ballot
Click to expand...
Nope. Ballot entry emails still being sent and got until 10am tomorrow now I think to confirm entry, assume ballot happens after that?

 
Redlambs said:
I always say that Noel Gallagher inspired me to pick up a guitar, as he did for more people than anyone else for a long time I'd argue, but Graham Coxon inspired me to actually learn how to play the thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s fair. Same tbf. In fact all the songs I tried to play when I first got a guitar were Oasis ones I think. They definitely influenced a generation of guitar bands, who then all had more actual talent and people definitely do hate on them a bit because they were so big, but also you don’t tend to have these types of “they were always mediocre actually” arguments about other bands of that size…. which is a bit telling IMO….(Apart from, like, Coldplay!)

Interestingly the only Blur album that has dated is The Great Escape - the peak Britpop one with the novelty oompah.

I don’t agree with everything that vid says but I definitely understand it. Their whole attitude was a very boorish teenage idea of ‘cool’ that has also outlived itself. like their music, it was a reaction against something that isn’t there anymore which is lesser now shorn of that context.
 
Last edited:
they're so accessible that it's impossible to hate their songs, but I never understood their popularity. they are good or very good pop/rock band, yet very few of similarly good bands can match the hype and noise they create. 12 pages already... I just don't get it.
 
Got my confirmation that I’m in the ballot.

Managed to see them on their final tour before the big break up and so I’m hoping to get to see them with my wife.

£150 per person for standing is bang on what I’d expect for something that love them or not is going to be a huge cultural British event next summer.

I can’t think of any other British band touring like this that would generate as much hype.
 
Justify if you want but £150 for standing is ridiculous. I know the comparisons will come out blah blah but they can get stuffed at that price.

Will pick up a resell one for half the price a week out hopefully.
 
Utd heap said:
Justify if you want but £150 for standing is ridiculous. I know the comparisons will come out blah blah but they can get stuffed at that price.

Will pick up a resell one for half the price a week out hopefully.
Click to expand...
Zero chance of the end bit mate
 
BenitoSTARR said:
Got my confirmation that I’m in the ballot.

Managed to see them on their final tour before the big break up and so I’m hoping to get to see them with my wife.

£150 per person for standing is bang on what I’d expect for something that love them or not is going to be a huge cultural British event next summer.

I can’t think of any other British band touring like this that would generate as much hype.
Click to expand...

Did you get the loyal fan email inviting you to register for the ballot in the first place? Or you have received a code to enter the pre-sale? I didn't think they were sending those out until tomorrow as the confirmation emails are still going out (which is the email you need to click to confirm your entry to even have a chance of getting a code...)
 
hodgey123 said:
Did you get the loyal fan email inviting you to register for the ballot in the first place? Or you have received a code to enter the pre-sale? I didn't think they were sending those out until tomorrow as the confirmation emails are still going out (which is the email you need to click to confirm your entry to even have a chance of getting a code...)
Click to expand...
I’m just confirmed as being entered for the ballot. Not that I have actual access yet.
 
Oof. £150 a ticket. That's 10x what I paid to watch them back when they had only two decent albums and a handful of good b-sides to play.

Also, an excellent reminder of why they aren't putting on a 5 day festival for £250 a pop.
 
SuperiorXI said:
They could easily charge triple that and still likely sell out in minutes
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm actually quite surprised.

Catfish and the Bottlemen have had a crack at selling standing for their (extremely ambitious) stadium shows at £80 a pop, with "golden circle" being north of £100, and "early entry" bringing that closer to £300.
 
Alex99 said:
Yeah, I'm actually quite surprised.

Catfish and the Bottlemen have had a cracking at selling standing for their (extremely ambitious) stadium shows at £80 a pop, with "golden circle" being north of £100, and "early entry" bringing that closer to £300.
Click to expand...

The golden circle phenomenon is such a shit development. Late stage capitalism writ large.
 
Mockney said:
Yeah that’s fair. Same tbf. In fact all the songs I tried to play when I first got a guitar were Oasis ones I think. They definitely influenced a generation of guitar bands, who then all had more actual talent and people definitely do hate on them a bit because they were so big, but also you don’t tend to have these types of “they were always mediocre actually” arguments about other bands of that size…. which is a bit telling IMO….(Apart from, like, Coldplay!)

Interestingly the only Blur album that has dated is The Great Escape - the peak Britpop one with the novelty oompah.

I don’t agree with everything that vid says but I definitely understand it. Their whole attitude was a very boorish teenage idea of ‘cool’ that has also outlived itself. like their music, it was a reaction against something that isn’t there anymore which is lesser now shorn of that context.
Click to expand...

As Albarn put it: They were the best at showing who they were.

I don't think they were trying to be 'cool' they just fell into a time and place where they were. It's undeniable they spoke to people, and interestingly I think it was the vulnerable side that did that more though. Songs like Slide Away, Live forever, Don't look back, Talk Tonight, Masterplan...there's a huge list juxtaposed to the far lesser wannabe pistols songs. I had a very similar upbringing to them, just listen to whenever they speak about their father for example, so I got it.

Plus the whole wave of Labour getting in and the feel good factor played a massive part. People forget that, and they forget that whatever you want to say about their songs, Oasis bangers are nearly always uplifting. It was definitely a right time and place kind of thing.

Anyway, did you get your ballot email yet? ;)
 
Mockney said:
See, I do think there’s a difference between ‘dated’ and ‘young people don’t like this anymore’ … I was VERY much in the age range when Oasis were big. Slightly too young if anything to actually enjoy Britpop proper. I’m of the generation where it was your mates cool older siblings who were listening to it, which made it even cooler! but now I’m older the likes of Blur and Radiohead have definitely aged better and I personally hear in more TV shows/ads etc. Granted there are still pubs that play Oasis more, but their sound was a lot less sophisticated and so a lot more “of” that era than even a lot of their contemporary’s. Even those 2 big Ocean Colour Scene songs still get a huge amount of play, cos they’ve dated quite well, musically.

I mean a lot of Bowie stuff hasn’t dated, but a lot of Prince stuff has. Soul largely hasnt dated but Hair Metal has. It’s not just about the passing of time. Oasis are one of those bands where you watch a retrospective and hear people say “their music was edgy and raw and for the people!” and then they cut to a clip of “Some Might Say” and it sounds incredibly naff. Like when people talk about the Satanic panic era and then cut to the cheesiest glam metal bollocks you’ve ever heard. Or even early Beatles stuff with women screaming over clean cup boppy love songs. But then nothing on Revolver has dated. Nor have a lot of The Stones stuff. Nirvana havent dated, etc

The difference obviously was that - unlike the Beatles - Oasis never l progressed from that one sound* There’s some stuff that hasn’t dated for sure sure - Live Forever, Supersonic, fecking In The Bushes etc - but a lot of it has to me, and some of the ballads just sound a bit twee now, even to someone who grew up with them. It was post rave and electronica and people really wanted guitars and catchy choruses but then it never went anywhere else and we all moved on.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with your first statement. I do think the fact that Oasis never had what you'd call a 'sophisticated sound' sort of works in their favour when it comes to them being dated or not. Their brand of simple guitar music, to me, doesn't date that easily as guitar music in that way will always work. I also think that since Britpop in itself pretty much is defined by Oasis also works in their favor - the genre itself didn't really evolve, the bands from that era evolved into different sounds and genres. Disclaimer here, I haven't really deep dived into Oasis discography, I'm very familar with the hits and have fully listened to the first couple of albums one or two times.

The main difference between, let's say, Radiohead and Oasis is not that Oasis is dated and Radiohead is not, it's that Radiohead is a much, much, much better band than Oasis. Incomparibly much so. And that's not really a slight on Oasis, it's that Radiohead just is one of the best bands of all time. I don't find any of the other bands that came from Britpop interesting enough to spend real time with them, so I'm not really sure about any of the other bands.
 
Last edited:
All I've heard from friends is the argument of Blur v Oasis.

How come nobody mentions Suede? They did some amazing records.
 
Love Oasis, absolute baffled that anyone would fork out £150 to stand at Heaton Park to watch a band only there for the money.

Based on the solo gigs I've been to half the cnuts paying that'll be so off their tits they won't remember a second of it.

Just go down a YouTube black hole and relive when they actually gave a shit about performing together.
 
"It will not be televised". Are they living in the 80's or something? It will be youtubified for sure.
 
Redlambs said:
Plus the whole wave of Labour getting in and the feel good factor played a massive part. People forget that, and they forget that whatever you want to say about their songs, Oasis bangers are nearly always uplifting. It was definitely a right time and place kind of thing.
Click to expand...

All their good songs came out under John Major … by a good 2-3 years too. Labour getting in coincided almost exactly with the release of Be Here Now

New Labour’s greatest propaganda is getting everyone to think Cool Britannia happened under them, when almost everything we actually remember - Britpop, Euro 96, Trainspotting, Cantona etc - didn’t.

Vibes > reality pretty much sums Oasis up though tbf ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.