Noel Gallagher's Rick
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
Vigierman
Noel Gallagher's Rick
Does anyone know what model this is? And what color? He uses it on the video to that single, the name slips my mind at the moment but it was the first one from the new album. It's not that I'm fan (their claim to like the Beatles certainly never surfaced in their music or personalities), but it looked superb. Thanks.
-
oruga65
You can see Noel's Rickenbackers at Oasis Rickenbackers
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
-
Adam_Bruce
If anybody is interested I am a Rickenbacker owner and I own http://surf.to/supernova.co.uk, which is a site about Oasis Instruments, I have an entire rickenbacker section detailing every rickenbacker that the band has used.
I am interested and thanks Adam for posting the link to your site.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
-
FATRAT
i liked oasis when they first showed up in 93,i thought cool, they sound like a cross between the Beatles, T-rex, and Jam.... but i thought Blur was better at writing songs, more cleaver at stealing from the original bands, kinks for one.....but all that Blur vs. oasis stuff was so fake and tiresome, it was so Beatles vs.stones B.S., i cant believe that the English fell for that again....you can tell that both bands are into the same haircuts.....,and probably laught and drank all the way to the bank.... why would they be so hateful to each other in the press, all that class **** that Oasis brought up, "We're working class", what a load of load....yeah, I guess they were poor when they were growing up and when the band got started, but you cant keep saying that when your riding around in a Rolls, it looks goofy, but I guess it fools the kiddies...how could you say all that stuff about blur and then rip off every lyric from John Lennon???? Lennon wasnt working class...he was middle to upper class, not rich but not starvin, yeah Lennon had a **** up bringing, his mom and dad taking off, but he wasnt poor living over with his aunt and uncle...now Ringo was a poor BEATLE....does anyone really listen to Oasis anymore???? its sounds so dated now....I'll just put on a Jam cd..thanks...
FATRAT
FATRAT
For anyone in North America that’s interested…
It’s not easy to give a comprehensive lesson in the British class system.
Firstly, it is very important to stress that lines are blurring – especially in the broadening/expanding “centre” grouping.
However, the nine (three levels to each broad class grouping) social (as opposed to economic) classes continue, and were still at the fore of post-war British life.
It is also very important to stress that the relevance or recognition of class very much depends on where you see yourself and where you stand socially, economically, and politically.
An ever-increasing number of Britons define themselves as middle class – the broadening “centre” – and of course you’re free to think of yourself however you like. But, economics, politics, and ambition can mask the underlying realities, if you so choose, or if you move in circles where your underlying class is not restrictive.
The broadening “centre” (or the increasing upper-working to middle-middle class) is not restricted in their everyday lives, but IMO, you can still see that this is far from a homogenous grouping. Of course, this is outwardly similar in most Western societies.
In the UK, class isn't solely or even mostly determined by the amount of money you have, or education you have. Money still doesn't buy you class – certainly not upper middle class and the upper classes – or acceptance, or respectability. You can be as poor as a church mouse in the UK, but you can be very much a member of the upper classes, and the opposite is also true.
By definition, the UK’s upper classes, including the upper middle class, are *essentially* restricted to those born to (and relegated to) these classes. This hasn’t changed.
As in all other Western nations, the rest (the majority non-elite) of British society is essentially in a state of “generational class flux”.
If you were brought up at either the bottom or the top of British society you still very much know all about class.
Definitions between the upper working classes and the lower middle classes blur with educational achievement and economic status, but no matter what, most of those brought up at the very bottom proudly proclaim their working class origins for the rest of their lives. The situation is obviously very different for their children.
So, no matter how strange it may seem to North Americans, and their largely economic perspective of class, the Gallaghers will always be working class, because they have entrenched working class attitudes and values. They haven’t broken free of these through education and/or socialisation.
And, depending on you perspective, in the 1950’s, John Lennon was either upper working class or lower middle class.
It’s not easy to give a comprehensive lesson in the British class system.
Firstly, it is very important to stress that lines are blurring – especially in the broadening/expanding “centre” grouping.
However, the nine (three levels to each broad class grouping) social (as opposed to economic) classes continue, and were still at the fore of post-war British life.
It is also very important to stress that the relevance or recognition of class very much depends on where you see yourself and where you stand socially, economically, and politically.
An ever-increasing number of Britons define themselves as middle class – the broadening “centre” – and of course you’re free to think of yourself however you like. But, economics, politics, and ambition can mask the underlying realities, if you so choose, or if you move in circles where your underlying class is not restrictive.
The broadening “centre” (or the increasing upper-working to middle-middle class) is not restricted in their everyday lives, but IMO, you can still see that this is far from a homogenous grouping. Of course, this is outwardly similar in most Western societies.
In the UK, class isn't solely or even mostly determined by the amount of money you have, or education you have. Money still doesn't buy you class – certainly not upper middle class and the upper classes – or acceptance, or respectability. You can be as poor as a church mouse in the UK, but you can be very much a member of the upper classes, and the opposite is also true.
By definition, the UK’s upper classes, including the upper middle class, are *essentially* restricted to those born to (and relegated to) these classes. This hasn’t changed.
As in all other Western nations, the rest (the majority non-elite) of British society is essentially in a state of “generational class flux”.
If you were brought up at either the bottom or the top of British society you still very much know all about class.
Definitions between the upper working classes and the lower middle classes blur with educational achievement and economic status, but no matter what, most of those brought up at the very bottom proudly proclaim their working class origins for the rest of their lives. The situation is obviously very different for their children.
So, no matter how strange it may seem to North Americans, and their largely economic perspective of class, the Gallaghers will always be working class, because they have entrenched working class attitudes and values. They haven’t broken free of these through education and/or socialisation.
And, depending on you perspective, in the 1950’s, John Lennon was either upper working class or lower middle class.