peteb

33 minutes ago, Misdee said:

Everything changed after Live Aid. Pop music entered the mainstream, and with that the whole culture changed. Sooner rather than later the profit motive overtook  more antiquated ideals of fairness and accessibility for a typical audience. 

I think that you are right there. After Live Aid, the industry started to see everything in terms of major events, where the event was more important than the music.

As streaming started to destroy income streams from releasing albums, there was a move to make more money from huge concerts with high ticket prices, rather than long tours of smaller gigs to promote the new album. As albums were not making much money, why invest in developing a band? You can always find a stream of unremarkable, low maintenance, marionette type singers, put them with a tame producer and get a greater part of the publishing revenues and so on. 

36 minutes ago, meterman said:

Absolute mystery to me how their songwriting still gets praised over the likes of Teenage Fanclub, or Supergrass, etc.

That's because Supergrass never wrote Live Forever, Don't Look Back In Anger or Half The World Away! 

38 minutes ago, meterman said:

Don't forget the massive industry PR machine behind them, ensuring that they wouldn't / couldn't fail. (Arctic Monkeys had a similar push)
 

I remember seeing Oasis at the 100 Club about a month before their debut single was released and the audience (not packed to capacity by any means) was largely made up of label folks and industry figures. Also, there was a 'street team' walking up and down Oxford Street giving out free tickets to the gig.

But that's the way that it used to work back then. A band would slog around unnoticed for ages and then the industry would suddenly decide they were the next big thing and there would be a feeding frenzy as none of the industry players / labels would want to miss out. Many bands would then disappear just as quickly as they suddenly appeared. Oasis were packing out gigs like the Duchess in Leeds, as well as many other northern venues before the industry hype started. 

1 hour ago, ezbass said:

I think this has a lot to do with it, although my fave decade was the '80s and my teens were behind me.

 

My post also had for me too. It's art and, as always, YMMV. The whole Britpop thing left me cold.

I'm not too bothered about whether you're a fan or not, more about the context and the reaction that some people have to Oasis and certain other bands. A lot of my friends love Rush, but I don't like their music at all. However, I don't hate them! 

I'm a 60 yo Van Halen / Led Zep fan who plays in classic rock tributes and a few blues type bands. I am not your typical Oasis fan at all and my favourite music tends to come from the late 70s / early 80s rather than Britpop. However, I can appreciate that they were one of the last big rock and roll bands, that they made it all happen coming from a council estate in Manchester rather than some stage school or being a public schoolboy whose Dad knew someone who worked for a record company, and that they had some genuinely great tunes that really caught the public's imagination! 

They also came from a time when the country was in a far better state, so there is the inevitable nostalgia thing kicking in! 

3 hours ago, ezbass said:

I often think that, for me, the mid to late ‘90s is where music went to die in the UK. 

I don't agree. For me, music of that period was part of a climate when the economy was booming, ordinary people had money in their pocket and grass root small music venues / pubs were packed. It was also the last time that you genuine rock and roll bands in the charts (as well as the new electronic stuff) that reflected the genuine optimism of the time. 

16 minutes ago, Misdee said:

Ticketmaster are in business to make a profit. They will do whatever they can get away with. But once you start limiting what they are allowed to do you are on a slippery slope towards an unfair restraint of trade.

Why would it be an 'unfair restraint of trade'? If companies are manipulating the market or utilising unfair business practices to disadvantage the customer, then surely they should be regulated. Part of the many issues we have in this country is that government has been reluctant to regulate when it should, which partly has led to a lower standard of living for ordinary citizens while giving inflated dividends to shareholders (look at the water companies and the water / sewage issues we are currently having). This doesn't happen in most other countries in Europe (or at least to nowhere near the same extent) to the advantage to the lives of normal people. 

15 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

I think this is an offshoot of the Sunk Cost Falacy. Where, the more time you have spent on something, the more likely it is you will spend more time (and money) to get to the end result. Even to disproportionate amounts* compared to the outcome. 

 

The marketing psychologists employed by these big companies know their stuff. 

 

*a bit like arguing on basschat.

Yes, absolutely! 

Whether this legitimate is another thing and the inevitable kerfuffle about Oasis tickets and the press attention this has achieved has been the trigger for government to look at whether this should be regulated. I would note that there was no dynamic pricing in place when I bought Mr Big / Living Colour tickets a few months ago, where you could still have got in on the night. 

As I said in an earlier post, dynamic pricing can work in the customer's favour on flights, holidays, etc where there are lots of choices and you could weigh up whether it is worth it to get a later flight or go a day earlier, etc to save a few quid. This isn't the case with the Oasis tickets, where supply is limited and only Ticketmaster has all of the information. There isn't any real choice for the punter other than to not buy the tickets at the inflated price, having built up the excitement and then wasted the whole day in a virtual queue! 

4 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Tickets were advertised at "Prices from...", no? There's no deception there. It's like booking a flight or a hotel. It's not even new in music ticketing, I recall those Ozzy gigs they advertised in 2019 which never took place were also "Prices from". People will get used to it quickly enough and cut their cloth accordingly. As Paul says, personal responsibility and all that.

 

I'm not saying that it is new, but it a way of influencing a market and it is inherently dodgy, to the extent that the government is now looking at ways that it can be regulated. 

5 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Widen your scope a bit, you say bands and venues are struggling to break even, so would you not say something needs to change? Perhaps this is it. Perhaps people who are priced out of the "major event" gigs like this see the value of smaller level gigs and might invest into lower profile music instead. Maybe it won't happen but is it healthy for things to stay as they are? Revenue streams have been cut-off for bands. If this is a potential way for bands to get money and not have resort to being vendors of branded tat, then I'm all for it.

No, it won't happen. There are two two things that will improve the lot of artists playing smaller level gigs: 1) an improvement in the economy that translate to an increase in disposable income for working people, so that they can afford to go out regularly to support live music and still be able to pay the mortgage; and 2) a restructure of the music industry that encourages labels, etc to invest in and develop bands rather than disposable solo artists who are less work to promote and cheaper in A&R / tour support costs, etc. Perhaps if the Oasis tour is such a huge success that stimulates a demand / leads to the media talking about 'are bands coming back' or whatever for a prolonged period, then who knows but I'm not betting on it happening! 

52 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

So what? If you don't like the price, don't go. Why shouldn't musicians fully realise their actual value? The music has been rendered pretty much worthless, we expect one revenue stream to be largely nullified and then point the finger of shame if musicians try to make money a different way?
 

If the experience is worth it to them, then they haven't been ripped off. It's not worth it to you, not worth it to me either but who's to say how others would value it in the context of their lives?

I think that you might be missing the point. I have no objection at all to the tickets having a face value of £150 / £300 or whatever - people have the choice to decide whether it is worth that to them or not and if they can afford it. 

However, I do have a problem of people hanging on a website for several hours in order to buy a ticket at the advertised price only to find that they are now being asked to pay three times that amount or more. It is not as if they can invoice someone for the time that they have wasted trying to buy a ticket. The whole process is designed to put undue pressure on punters o pay more than they intended to. 

46 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

Perhaps the way to look at it is that it's allowing musicians to exploit the actual value of the service they provide and, if it does start to proliferate through the industry, fantastic, it might help smaller bands make an actual living out of music instead of squeezing tours into work holidays from the shitty jobs they're having to hold down. Maybe it'll help people become genuinely professional musicians and not live below the poverty line. Maybe it'll mean people aren't asked to play for exposure because musicians are respected and taken seriously for their art and maybe, just maybe, it'll eventually mean your band gets a decent payout for the travel, time and energy behind playing two sets down the Goat and Lobster?

 

I don't understand the thinking behind how musicians getting paid well could be a bad thing.

How much bands get paid is down to the demand for their services. The demand for this tour is down to a certain set of circumstances, a massively loved band that, for many people, were representative of their youth / a better period. This isn't the same scenario for lower profile pro musicians, who are gigging in venues struggling to break even. The only way that it will benefit smaller bands are if the enthusiasm for Oasis playing out again somehow creates an interest for punters to go out and watch bands again, rather than the packaged solo or R&B acts currently dominating the music industry. 

11 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Im guessing that Ticketmaster would have bid for the contract to sell tickets.

 

They’ll be taking a fee from punters and probably one from the band also. The lowest fee paid by the band wins. 
 

It’s a big undertaking to process all the cash, manage data, originate tickets etc. 

 

 

 

The obvious thing to point out that Ticketmaster have sewn up the market to the extent where there is no viable alternative to using them, allowing them to dictate terms, prices, etc. Pearl Jam tried to challenge this while at the height of their popularity / powers and lost pretty badly. 

The Zep tribute was back at one of our favourite gigs on Saturday - The Cluny in Newcastle. 

It was packed as usual with a great audience and treated as well as ever by the staff and tech crew. There were a few technical difficulties, mainly the singer's rack (see on the right in the picture below) containing the receivers for his IEM and mic falling off the two stools it was balanced on at the start of the encore, meaning that his mic stopped working and the sound engineer had to bound across the venue with a new mic so that we could start Misty Mountain Hop again! But apart from that, a brilliant night... 

47 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

It's simple supply and demand. Nothing wrong with it.

 

If people can't afford, they won't buy.

 

Same happens with train and airline tickets in the summer. 

 

It's up to Oasis to question where this 'extra' money will be going and take then to court if necessary to force reimbursements. 

The trouble is that you could argue that the supply side is being manipulated in the face of high demand, in a way that is not in the customer's interest. The difference with train and airline tickets (you can add hotel rooms as well) is that it is genuinely reflecting changes in demand and is more often than not in the punter's favour. The Government would be quite justified in intervening if they feel that it would be worthwhile. 

It is a bit unfair to expect Oasis to police all of this dynamic pricing malarky. They can have an influence on what the face value of the ticket should be, but beyond that they will have little control. Look what happened when Pearl Jam tried to take on Ticketmaster many years ago! 

49 minutes ago, Beedster said:

Just listening to them….

Wonderwall

Don’t look back in anger

Whatever

Little by little

Even if those were their only four songs they’d deserve a reunion, f***ing great songs 👍

I always liked Live Forever. 

Apparently, Noel was a big Nirvana fan but he couldn't understand the negativity behind 'I Hate Myself and Want to Die'. As far as he was concerned, he had f*** all at the time, but he still had things to do and couldn't wait to wake up the next morning to live his life. He wrote LF as a positive response to the Nirvana song. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20240827-why-oasis-defined-the-spirit-of-90s-britain

4 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

I've been wondering recently why almost every rock & hard rock song has a guitar solo? Where did the rule that there has to be a solo originate? Was there a band that started it?

I've heard a lot of clasic rock recently (not by choice) and there seems to be a lot of songs with solos which don't really add to the song, they just seem to be there because there has to be something to fill the time.

 

Basically when 'rock' became a thing in the mid-sixties, it grew out of not only rock n'roll and pop, but also blues and jazz. These forms of music generally incorporated an instrumental interlude that gave featured soloists a chance to shine.

As this new genre was predominantly guitar based, this generally meant a guitar solo. Seeing as the first big stars of this new 'rock' music included Jimi Hendrix and Cream, the solos were sometimes more important than the actual song (especially live). This established the idea of rock songs generally having a default position of there being a guitar solo. This was reinforced by a succession of bands, from Free to Van Halen to Pearl Jam (and many others). 

11 hours ago, tegs07 said:

I don’t hate either Nirvana nor Oasis but just think they were not as good as a lot of their contemporaries and for whatever reasons the stars aligned and they went stratospheric.

Doesn't the same apply for anyone who becomes successful in the music business, or life in general? 

Let's be realistic, Oasis was always first and foremost about the Gallagher brothers. Sure, it would be great to see Bonehead get a payday out of it and it's always good to see people looking after their mates. But, it is about the brothers and always has been. 

When it comes down to it, Oasis (and the bands that they influenced coming just after) were the last to come through and get record deals on the back of playing live, selling out clubs and building a big following. 

If nothing else, I think that it is great that the whole country is talking about a band from a working class background who play guitars and wrote songs that mean a lot to people of a certain age. Also, those songs were massive hits but didn't have autotune, five producers and seven people getting songwriting credits. It's a lot different to most of the stuff dominating the charts today and that's all good in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Leonard Smalls said:

To be fair, people do still go to small venues and watch small bands....

Not to anywhere near the same extent that they used to, although I do take your points about venues not having recovered from the pandemic and the problem of developers building residential stock next to established venues. 

In the mid to late 80s, I played in an originals hard rock band that picked up a bit of a following but no more than that. Wherever we played in rock clubs, the place would be near enough full (even mid-week). We played at a club in Birmingham on a Friday night once with a not particularly big band from the NWOBHM era. There were 900 people crammed in, all paying to be there. A similar event these days would be very lucky to get anywhere near 100 punters. 

Just before Covid, I did an album with a band that had previously sold a respectable amount of CDs a few years before, mainly in Europe. There was no serious talk of going out to play live in this country - it just would not have been worthwhile. 

A decent summary from Andy Edwards, the West Midlands' answer to Rick Beato and Robert Plant's former drummer. He describes them as a 90s version of Slade and how they represented a big part the lives of people who grew up in the 90s, not to mention that Wonderwall is apparently the biggest song on Spotify! 

I've just been informed that the missus is going to be trying to get tickets on Saturday morning...! 

12 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I would argue timing and good fortune are part of the recipe for success. Noel has penned some reasonably catchy tunes (first 2 records). Oasis were the right band in the right time in a similar vein to the Arctic Monkeys or Nirvana.

 

...or the Beatles... 

22 minutes ago, Leonard Smalls said:

I've just seen a post from the Music Venue Trust that say less than half of the 34 venues Oasis played in on their first tour still exist.

It's a proper shame that folks will throw their money at multi-millionaires playing venues that are so huge they have to wear their coats, instead of supporting the hopefully up and coming ones before all the venues disappear!

What these venues really need is for some guitar based band to break into the mainstream and create the buzz that Oasis did back in the 90s. Preferably with imitator bands following in their wake, also capturing the public's imagination. 

Then people might start getting back in the habit of going out to watch smaller bands live, like they did in the 90s / 00s 

35 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

If you’re playing in a covered band in a pub you should respect what Oasis did for live music.

 

They acted as a gateway for many people of my age (40s) to get into guitar based music. From there I’ve moved on to more esoteric stuff, but Oasis was the start…

 

 

Absolutely. You can feel the whole room lift when a covers band start an Oasis song in a pub - it's great to see and even better to be part of if you're in the band. 

I have friends who used to work in music shops. They reckon that Oasis sold more guitars and got more kids playing than any other band of the time or since. 

I don't think that the OP is trying to cling on to his youth or whatever the normal motive is for guys going down the botox / fillers path, just trying to get through an audition and look the part in promo photos, etc. 

Although I wouldn't 100% rule it out, I don't think that I would do it. I reckon that I don't look too bad for my age (early 60s), but the (almost) six pack is a distant memory and while I still have longish hair, it is a bit thinner in places. While dying my hair or getting more ink would be OK, but I'm not keen on fillers, etc. I know a couple out in Spain who do this as a matter of course and she kinda looks like a cartoon of a pretty girl, while the (older) guy looks alright but still has that slightly surprised look all of the time. 

I have made a conscious effort to start getting gigs in slightly different genres as I've got older. I can still look reasonably cool onstage in a blues band, but I'm not so sure that I can carry off the leather trousers or whatever I used to wear in a straight up hard rock act these days! 

29 minutes ago, Old Man Riva said:

In my experience it was less about Fender QC at the time and more about there being a different narrative around basses (active p/ups etc.) and the opportunity to mod basses in a fairly straightforward way off the shelf. There was a lot of talk about sustain, and how a brass nut and a high mass bridge would lead to a note lingering around for days (“the sustain, listen to it”). I had an early Fender Squier P bass, which was then modded with a brass nut, Schaller bridge and EMG p/ups, which, quite honestly, I couldn’t really tell if it sounded better before or after! 

 

Would’ve been better off buying a Westone!

I dunno about that, but its true that back in the early 80s, we all had 70s Fenders that we modded and swapped out bridges, pickups, etc. I remember seeing an interview with Rick Wills (Foreigner, Peter Frampton, Roxy Music, Dave Gilmour, etc) on some YouTube bass channel where he and the guy interviewing him agreed that you couldn't really say that a Fender was 'yours' untill you had taken a screwdriver to it or modded it in some way!

8 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

I've played one, albeit a four-string, and I didn't like the neck. Which I was very pleased about, as it meant I wouldn't be tempted to spend ridiculous amounts of money.

The one I played was a four string and I loved the neck. Everything just seemed easier to play...!