|
|
Post by SlideAway on Dec 13, 2004 20:50:18 GMT -5
First off, let me disclose my own feelings about Be Here Now. I realize that many fans absolutely love it. The music press and much of the general public and more casual fans profess to hate it. Personally, I'm somewhere in between. I vastly prefer DM, MG, and TM compilation. Taken as a whole, BHN is just too bombastic, too overproduced, too long, and many of the songs too insubstantial. But I do enjoy the album, and I don't think any of the songs are *bad* - I just find many of them to be relatively insubstantial and while there are some excellent songs, even the best ones don't hold a candle to the best songs off of DM or MG.
It's interesting to look back and look at the reaction to the album. It debuted to unanimous five-star reviews and incredibly strong record sales. Even in late 1997, the readers of Rolling Stone voted BHN best rock album of the year.
So when did the famous "backlash" begin? Firstly, let me say that the backlash is probably partly myth and partly true. It's partly true in that many more casual fans grew bored with BHN and for many it lacked the replay value of the first two. Also, Oasis' popularity had climbed so high it was bound to come down. So some of the supposed "backlash" was really more due to the natural levelling of interest in the band. The press, of course, exagerrated this backlash and, trendwhores that they are, began to slag off on the album relentlessly.
When did this backlash begin to occur? When did the general public begin to lose interest and when did the attitude towards the album in the music press begin to turn? Winter 1997? Spring 1998? Or was it just overshadowed by other albums like OK Computer and Urban Hymns?
As a US fan who discovered Oasis much after 1997, I'm curious what the mood was really like.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunken guitar pop on Dec 13, 2004 23:53:55 GMT -5
I also live in the US. I bought BHN in late '97 as my first Oasis CD after seeing the videos for DYKWIM and AATW, and it was also one of my first ever CDs. I totally fell in love with it. Then I got WTSMG and really liked it but I didn't think it was quite as good as BHN. And when I got DM and listened to it the first couple of times I thought, "this is crap."
After a long while of not listening to it again I gave DM another chance and suddenly it blew me away. I couldn't believe I was hearing the same album. So as my tastes matured and I kept growing out of having to hear over the top melodies all over the place my favorites out of the first three went DM> MG> BHN.
Your theory about the press exaggerating the natural levelling of interest in the band is probably correct. I can't really say how it must've happened in England but I can picture that here.
|
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Dec 14, 2004 1:33:46 GMT -5
It may sound bizarre but in terms of the general public, the mood of the country seemed to change in September 1997 after Princess Diana died.
The whole nation went into a state of (what I consider) to be irrational mourning - every radio station played sombre tune after sombre tune, that Puff Daddy song I'll Be Missing You became huge and then of course we had that awful Candle In The Wind remake.
To be honest, I think a lot of people (myself included, even after listening to it about 10 times all the way through on the day it was released) were already a bit disappointed with Be Here Now, but the change of mood in Britain from the celebratory era of Britpop's apex (1994-early 97) was replaced by a more introspective one.
Therefore, people turned to bands who were a lot less bombastic than Oasis, the chief beneficiaries seemed to be The Verve, who suddenly seemed to become the biggest rock band in Britain thanks to their more earnest take on life, propelling The Drugs Don't Work to number one. Their rise was helped of course by the fact that Urban Hymns was such a great record, but before that they had split up because they hadn't seemed to be breaking through.
I know Liam still defends Be Here Now, which is quite refreshing compared to Noel's readiness to wash his hands of it, blaming it on overproduction due to an overly high intake of coke and a lack of time spent on writing the songs.
However, I think most (not all, but most) fans would say, hand on heart, as you did, that Be Here Now is simply not of the same quality as the first two albums.
Sure, there are some really good tunes on there, but overall it is a bit of a letdown compared to the classic status of Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory.
Furthermore, as I have said, it wasn't helped by the fact that its overall sentiments and sound (guitars to eleven etc) suddenly became out of step with the prevailing mood of the public.
And, whereas before, music journalists (many of whom had given WTSMG some pretty average reviews) had thought, "everyone is going to love this album so we'll say it's brilliant because otherwise we'll look stupid", they could now turn round and say, "actually, we lied, we don't think it's very good at all" and slag it off.
The well-worn phrase is "Be Here Now killed off Britpop", but in a bizarre way, I think the death of Princess Di (of all people) may have had a fair bit to do with that, along with the fact that Blur turned their backs on the scene with their album "Blur" and tossers like Robbie Williams started ripping it off for his solo career.
The biggest losers out of all this seemed to be Oasis, so in a way, it's a testament to them that they are still one of, if not the, biggest rock bands in Britain.
I think the effect it had on Noel was to say, right I'm ditching that style of songwriting because people are sick of it now, as he did on SOTSOG, and has only returned to it in fits and starts, such as with Stop Crying Your Heart Out and Little By Little.
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Dec 14, 2004 4:59:45 GMT -5
Also, Oasis' popularity had climbed so high it was bound to come down. So some of the supposed "backlash" was really more due to the natural levelling of interest in the band. The press, of course, exagerrated this backlash and, trendwhores that they are, began to slag off on the album relentlessly. Youve just summed it up all in those couple of lines. Thats what the British press do - build you up just to knock you down. The hype surrounding the band in 96/97 was unbelievable, christ when Liam shaved all his hair of it was the main story on the countrys biggest selling 'newspaper' - The Sun. After all the hype, it was always gonna be down hill in the eyes of the British media, they move on to something else, build them up ready to be knocked down, a new band or something. Yeah BHN was way overlong and way over produced, but there is still some great tunes on there. Personally I'm glad the media started taking pot-shots at them and they became unpopular with your average 'music fan', it had got to the stage where middle-aged women who shop in Marks and Spencers were going around singing Wonderwall. Now its only the people who truley love the band and their music that buy the records and go to the gigs, all the hangers-on are onto something else now. Its probably the same for the band aswell. |
|
|
|
Post by dixonhill on Dec 14, 2004 5:34:21 GMT -5
yeah, i still remember that. i remember seeing it (Liam and Noel both with skinheads) on the front of the daily mirror.
and if i remember correctly, i went straight out and got me a skinhead.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDD- Angelic Child on Dec 14, 2004 6:11:40 GMT -5
Be Here Now is very complex (way more than Definitely Maybe or Morning Glory) The songs are longer and seem to have more feeling (All Around the World for example) is a rock masterpiece, it's like what November Rain is to Guns 'N Roses, it's a long song and can hold it's place in time. However, this doesn't fit in when you place it next to Roll With It, Parklife and Common People (for example)
Brit-pop is party music, it's for good times in the summer. Be Here Now didn't suit that, it's nobody fault. Oasis should have been able to do what they want. Princess Diana didn't really help either as that put an end to the whole party, boys will be boys attitude in Britain. Brit-pop (it wasn't Pop music as we know it now however) is my favourite type of music and although i was what, 6 or 7 at the time. I love the mid-90's mood and feelings towards life.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob on Dec 14, 2004 9:16:27 GMT -5
it seemed to go down hill "commercially" when the fucking spice girls first arrived.
god i still shudder when i think about those songs
|
|
|
|
Post by bluecorn on Dec 14, 2004 14:37:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Dec 14, 2004 14:40:26 GMT -5
i personally love the album. i can do without a few songs, but i love the girl in the dirty shirt, all around the world, dykwim (if it could be a little shorter), it's getting better man (if there was less feedback and you could hear the song), stand by me, you know what i mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by rob on Dec 14, 2004 14:56:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mape on Dec 14, 2004 20:40:01 GMT -5
Oasis had pretty much been in the spotlight of the British music scene for three years from '94 to '97. To stay at the height that they achieved would have been too hard - i mean it would be impossible to follow up DM, and Morning Glory with an even better album.
Times change, people's preferences change, and the moods of critics change. You know how critics are in their nature, they will rate you on how they feel, and not on what they think of the actual material being reviewed.
And there was no way in hell that it was going to live up to the hype. I was in england at the time and i had never seen anything like it for a music cd. People lining up outside the local hmv's, woolworths', etc.. it was insane. Everyone was talking the few days before it came out "are you gonna get it?" , "i can't wait". I'm sure most of the other english folk here experienced that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Dec 14, 2004 22:40:01 GMT -5
After princess Di died for me
|
|
|
|
Post by noelfan on Dec 15, 2004 2:40:07 GMT -5
If I remember, it initially got rave reviews by the NME etc. but prob cos of the hype around it and they just wrote some old shite to match that. I really love the whole album, sure some of the songs are a bit long but who cares? It's a great album and I'm with Liam.
|
|
keithlard
Oasis Roadie
The Road Through Life It's A Long, Long Road, There'll Be Joys And Sorrows Too.WE BEAT THE SCUM 2-1!
Posts: 340
|
Post by keithlard on Dec 16, 2004 8:43:34 GMT -5
Good article. I only really got into Oasis about 2 years ago as i'm only 16, so i'm always interested to hear about what was going on then in and around oasis, especially the phenomenom of Be Here Now. Everybody in the world almost has had the say on there own personal views on BHN and i'm gonna do just the same ;D. Personally, i like the album, as others have said it could NEVER live up to or be better than DM or MG. It was all about hype and it never delivered. It never could. Although it could have been better. It's all been said before about, it's over produced, wayne's worldey guitar, too long songs, etc, but i still enjoy it whenever i put it on. Individually, i really like DYKWIM, i never liked it at first but it really grew on me and is now probabley in my top 10 oasis songs of all time. Joint second place are Don't Go Away and Stand By Me. I'm a big fan of these songs but i have always had the feeling that they don't 'belong' on the BHN album. I like It's getting Better although it's a bit to shouty and long. I don't mind All around the world. It's got that 'pub sing-a-long theme to it but is to Beatlesey for me to really like. |
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Dec 16, 2004 9:04:19 GMT -5
Some good points there, Keithlard Although that avatar is a disgrace  |
|
ev
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 199
|
Post by ev on Dec 16, 2004 17:44:33 GMT -5
Be Here Now is by far the worst Oasis album, so people would obviously be disappointed and angry. I never cared much for the cheesy musical imputs. The same old hammerons and style of music they did on WTSMG except taken 10 times farther. Do you really need a fake orchastra and the sappy emotional lyrics for every song? Do Ya Know What I Mean is a great track however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2004 14:27:38 GMT -5
Be Here Now is by far the worst Oasis album, so people would obviously be disappointed and angry. I never cared much for the cheesy musical imputs. The same old hammerons and style of music they did on WTSMG except taken 10 times farther. Do you really need a fake orchastra and the sappy emotional lyrics for every song? Do Ya Know What I Mean is a great track however. u are entitled to your opinion but i think the only problem with BHN was the tunes were a bit long if they were like 5 minutes they woulda been brilliant ,i think the backlas was because its near impossible top live up to expectations after DM and GLORY |
|
|
|
Post by SupernovaLBL on Dec 19, 2004 3:52:39 GMT -5
The downfall of Be Here Now was the astronomical success of Morning Glory. Whether you are a fan of that album or not, it is THE album Oasis will be remembered by.
I really believe Noel is great at writing songs and producing them in a way that mirrors his life. For the most part he was living the life of the working class during the first two albums. By the time Be Here Now came around, he was a full blown rock star. That transition in just a few years is certainly pretty nuts. The full blown production and the larger-than-life songs are a consequence of what the band and the country were at that time. It's also why he writes songs like She Is Love these days...I mean the guy is 37, not 25. This isn't "bad," it's just not the kind of songs that reflect as much the working class.
I'm hopefull that with the current political and social atmosphere right now are not like the introspective Robbie Williams post-Diana period of time. I hope that this reflects a little in the next album, which Gem told me was going to be more rocking.
And Be Here Now is not that bad. I mean there are many bands whose best album would be Be Here Now if they had written it. It is what it is and Oasis would not be the same without it.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5