Talk:Be Here Now (album)

Citation for Noel/Liam Gallagher quotes
The set of quotes at the bottom of the page from the Gallaghers which have been flagged for citation are from the film/documentary "[Live Forever]"
 * Can you confirm whether Noel says "bass" or "base" in "There's no [bass/base] to it at all…"? Thanks. —Squalla 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"First week" sales
About Oasis' first week UK numbers for BHN. Their album went on sale on a thursday (Aug 21 1997) and the 696,000 figure is for sales from that Thursday to Sunday, with Sunday being when the charts are updated for each week.

Its first 'Weeks' sales, were actually for Thursday to Saturday - 3 Days. The UK Chart is calculated from 12.01am on Sunday to Midnight the following Saturday. So, when 'Be Here Now' was released - on a Thursday - its 663,000 1st 'Week' Sales were actually for Thursday, Friday, & Saturday. There were no Sunday Sales in there.

In its actual first week of release, the official numbers are in excess of 810,000 from Thursday to Thursday.

Just to clarify some of the facts hidden behind the numbers. --Madchester 17:02, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

It would be assumed that he is talking about bass, because int he sentence before, he talks about the acidic guitar sound, and bad production. - Jakobi

As of March 2009, The OCC say that this Album sold 663,000 in its first 3 Days - not 696,000. As The OCC actually calculate the UK Charts, I think we can say that their figure is the accurate one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.127.229 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Double album
Can anyone confirm or deny this theory? It's the first time I've ever heard it. double lp, but one cd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.180.195 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Charts
Why is the UK charting position not counted? Considering they're a british band and all... I mean ok, probably everyone knows that it went to Number 1, but still...

Pushing a point of view...
Quote:

''It was Oasis' most eagerly-awaited album, and while it was commercially successful, it failed to live up to the expectations that preceded its release. Retrospectively, the album is criticised for being over-indulgent and bloated''

This is quite weaselly worded and seems to be pushing a negative opinion of the album. I mean, it failed to live up to what expectations? Criticised by whom?

If this album isn't universally criticised (which it obviously isn't judging by the review scores in the infobox), then some more positive opinions should be mentioned to provide a bit of balance. 217.155.20.163 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We've lots of citiations and quotes to back up this pretty universal opinion if the album.--Crestville 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that it isn't universal judging, for example, by the three review scores in the infobox, which are completely at odds with what's written in the opening section. Just having a large quantity of citations is meaningless, as you can cherry-pick these to back up any opinion you choose. To achieve a balanced article you need to include quotes representing a range of opinions. The article itself should be completely neutral. 217.155.20.163 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find a competant source saying Be Here Now is good, use it. But so far as the ratings go, Q gave it 5 when it first came out. In 2005 they gave it 2. This backs up the point that, while originally well recieved, the album has been retrospectively critisied. The fact the it was reported on BBC news, preceded by a televised documentary on prime-time terrestrial TV and the news footage itself show just how eagerly anticipated it was. As such, statements such as these do not break neutrality, it merely ststes facts.--Crestville 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated in the article, the album was given favourable contemporaneous reviews. These are the reviews attached to the article. However, as also stated, it is a commonly held retrospective view that the album was no great shakes. Oh, and by the way, in the 'reception' section, I changed the word contemporary to contemporaneous. Contemporaneous meaning (of the moment) whereas contemporary means (of THIS moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.28.38 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 July 2007

The article does seem a bit harsh on the album; the impression I get from the article is that Be Here Now was nothing short of a disaster, and is universally considered to be such by critics now. Pitchfork, for one, disagrees: "While that infamously excessive LP [Be Here Now] was a clear step down from previous heights, it's also more ambitious and tuneful than any album they've released since." æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;09&#x2011;03t20:46z
 * Just on the point that Crestville was making, um, 10 months ago, this gives a very revealing insight. Ceoil 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent move
I do not follow this topic: I'm just flagging that I reversed a recent cut-and-paste move. I have no idea whether the earlier move (from Be Here Now to Be Here Now (album)) was discussed: I couldn't find such a discussion. If the article does need to be moved back, I think it will need admin assistance because the #redirect created by the move has now been edited into a disambiguation page. --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph...
'''In recent years, the record has gained its original praise that it had once possessed, being placed within the "Top 50 Greatest British Albums Of The Past 50 Years" in 2008. The band sees it now as a "fine record" and comments that the album "might withstand the test of time if rock 'n' roll music takes its toll on harder sounds and a younger audience".'''

This whole paragraph sounds pretty opinionated - there's no citations for such bold statements at all, except for one single list - and being ranked in one list doesn't automatically mean it's gained some kind of universal approval. And besides, I expect it only got into that list simply because it was Oasis (heck, the top two spots were taken by the album's predecessors). If you look at these comments from 2007, you can see plenty of people still dislike it. I think the whole paragraph should be either altered or simply deleted.Kohran (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On Amazon the reviews average it on 4 stars, it's rated on 3.15/5 at 'rate your music', and came 22nd in this greatest Q albums poll. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3671266/Full-list-of-Britains-favourite-albums.html ...maybe this could be included?

I'm not saying it's the best album ever, but I think it's seen these days as at least a decent/good album by many people, and not the disaster represented on it's wiki page. The writer of the article from the Guardian isn't exactly the biggest Oasis fan either, seeing as they basically caused 'select' magazine which he worked for to go bust, his book seems to have a vendetta against them aswell.
 * You get the odd exception here and there, people saying its not too bad, but looking at broad coverage, and weighing some more crediable than others, I think the page is a fairly accurate summary. The album's sharpest critics come from within the band, the band's circle and Creation. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rowe on keyboards
Can the person who keeps deleting "Mike Rowe - keyboards" from the credits, please learn how to read, pick up the record and read the liner notes! It says "Mike Rowe - keyboards" so please stop deleting him from the credits on this page. 08:24 28 October 2008 (DRF)

Rock, Britpop, or both?
Please pay attention to Talk:(What's the Story) Morning Glory?. Andre666 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"biggest band" claims
I don’t have access to the source cited, but the description that the band were “widely considered to be, according to Noel Gallagher…” is a little bit odd – should it not be something like “widely considered to be, as Noel Gallagher put it…” to avoid giving the impression that he was the main or only judge of this? Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the source either, but I know that Noel was certainly saying that a lot at the time. I am also suspicious of the 'widely considered to be' bit as well though. Even if it is true, were they "widely considered" by (whoever) in the UK or internationally? FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  14:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

middle eight
in the composition section the phrase 'middle eight' should be highlighted and linked to an article defining/explaining it

The Be Here Now Sessions & Track listing's Update
Can anyone confirm that I can and willingly be able to update the track listing on this article? Also, I seemed to have discovered a rarity of some sort called "The Be Here Now Sessions" on a website, and I was wondering if I could post it up on the article. If anyone can confirm this for me, thanks a bunch and you're not also doing me the favor, you're doing the fans of Oasis a favor as well. Again, thanks a bunch if anyone can confirm this for me. CamStick (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tour and Performance
Has anyone noticed that the only song on the album not to be played live by the band was "I Hope I Think I Know" and i guess the reprise. comment if anyone has noticed it yet. just a reference or note. all the songs are great though. The Girl in the Dirty Shirt is awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.40.242 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone reviews
The referenced Rolling Stone review is actually a brief capsule review from their year-end retrospective by David Fricke. The link is now dead, but can be retrieved from web.archive.org. The posting of the review was cut off. Here's the complete published review from the article "The Year in Recordings", David Fricke, 12/25/97-01/08/98, Issue 776/777, p 155, 7p:

HAVE THEY BEEN HERE AND gone already? As of this writing, Oasis' third album is Stiffsville, U.S.A., at least compared with the sales expectations generated by 1995's triple-platinum (What's the Story) Morning Glory? and the band's rabid U.K. press coverage. But remember, Morning Glory was a slow starter, too, and guitarist Noel Gallagher's best songwriting is based on repetition: elementary riffs and choruses slowly, inexorably digging beneath your skin. He can literally beat a good idea to death; nine and a half minutes of "All Around the World" is at least five minutes of "Hey Jude"-meets-"Let It Be" too many. And why do pop stars think they need big orchestral arrangements to sound important? Everything you need to know about Oasis and how they can rock your world is in the glare-guitar roar and stop-on-a-dime key change in "It's Getting Better (Man!!)" and in the way singer Liam Gallagher can take his older brother's laziest verse ("Down the long and winding road.., back home to you," on "My Big Mouth") and turn it into sour, soaring genius. Bigger than God? No. But better than you think.

Here's an archive link to the subsequent post of their full review through the same link published as "Wonderwall of Sound", David Fricke, 9/04/97, Issue 768, p65: [http://web.archive.org/web/20080401085347/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/oasis/albums/album/301206/review/5945856/be_here_now

No Mention Of Ram Dass?
It was a bit disappointing that no disambiguation page was present, much less a link to the book I immediately thought of, Be Here Now (book). Some generational bias against us older folk, it would seem (80% of this observation is tongue-in-cheek). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone77 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now in English, you want us to violate the disambiguation guideline to include a book, while you searched "Be Here Now (album)"?. Am I missing something? Because common sense indicates an album is not a book. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  23:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. 'Be Here Now' as search term with no qualifiers went directly to the album article. There was no disambiguation page link in the article at that time. My concern was with the exclusivity of the reference. Cyclone77 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Amen break
It says how "D'You Know" has a slowed down drum loop from "Straight Outta Compton". Isn't that just the Amen break? See --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Total Sales
I thought I would clear up the sales situation currently going on. After a thorough search, I cannot find ANYTHING that gives total sales numbers for Be Here Now above eight million. A 2016 source from Billboard states: "To date it has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide, according to a rep for the band." Another site, Chartmasters.org states: "after the massive splash the album failed to have continuity, ending its road at 7.4 million units to date, almost the same number as units shipped upon release." I have updated the article to say as of 2016 instead of 2008 and added the Billboard source, but unless there is actual proof that the album has sold more than eight million (which I'm sure by now it has), then we can update the numbers, but until then, it will stay at eight million. – zmbro (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-free sound sample fails to describe context
The listening example of File:Oasis D'You Know What I Mean.ogg fails to describe what is heard on the sample. Instead, it talks about the length of the song, which cannot be heard by listening to the sample; issues such as this can be conveyed by prose alone. Thus the sample is in violation of Non-free content. I will remove the sample in a few days if no context can be attached to help the listener understand what's going on. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree. The sample page is incredibly outdated as well. The sample itself really only shows that the song's sound is like their older work, albeit louder. – zmbro (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)