Umm, yeah, it is around the ballpark with DM and MG. The only real difference is the attitude and majesty surrounding those first two early albums. In all fairness, both albums have less-worthy tracks on them (i.e. Shakermaker, DD, HN, 2 tracks of the swamp song)

Everybody has different taste though.

"2 tracks of the Swamp Song" - such trolls them Oasis boys were back in the day

Yes, really.

Albums that are given 10/10 are rarely given a 10/10 on the sole basis of the songs. When most give MG or DM a 10/10, whether consciously or subconsciously, they are also usually taking in account their memories behind the albums, the commercial success of the albums, the cultural and social impacts of those albums. When MG came out and it was getting battered by the press for not being as good as DM, if one of us had said in 1995, "I'd rate MG a 10/10 or a 9/10", the journalists of that time would be saying the same thing that you're saying. They would say, "really?" The commercial success, the musical impact, and the influence, along with brilliance of the songs led that album to becoming a 10/10.

Take Sgt. Pepper's. When people say that Sgt. Pepper is the greatest album of all-time, it's not really on the sole basis of the songs. There are albums with better songs on them. It's the cultural, social, commercial, and influential components of that album which makes it the greatest album of all time. Also that album has built up an aura of its own over the plus 40 years since it was released.

It really depends on the criteria that you're judging by in the end. Which is why I said in my post that I was judging the album on its songwriting. Bring It On Down, Shakermaker, Up In The Sky, and Digsy's Dinner are on DM. Are any of those songs world beaters or truly great songs? Not in my opinion. Same as with MG (She's Electric, the Swamp Song excerpts, Roll With It, and Hey Now). The production on MG and DM aren't that good either. Is that keeping those albums from being a 9/10 or a 10/10?

As I said, on the sole basis on the songwriting, I'm rating HFB as a 9/10. Yes, 1 point behind DM and MG. IF that makes me crazy, then so be it. But I believe that the songwriting is hands down Noel's best since BHN and that the level of songwriting on HFB warrants it being rated a 9/10.

I was just making a joke, but you are totally right. You gotta judge an album as a whole. Saying an album is complete shit because of 1 or 2 things is stupid

Didn't vote at the time but I think with the dust settled it is somewhere around a 9 for me. The only track I wouldn't put on individually is Soldier Boys and Jesus Freaks. I love about 5 or 6 and have plenty of time for the other few. And I couldn't disagree more with the criticism of the production on of I Had a Gun because for me that song is as close to perfect as it gets.

i voted for 8/10 .fair enough

I don't think it has something to do with it. DM and MG are some of the most important album of all time (in rock anyway) because they are masterpieces. Of course they have a couple of medium songs each, but they work splendidly as an album and word can't express the degree of masterpiece of some song.
They also have an attitude, some roots, an atmosphere, very different from one another. They can sum up Oasis in all in diversity, the rough urgent from the Rock N roll of a bring it on down to the classy eternal pop song of a Wonderwall. I don't need those albums to be acclamed to see that. I'm stunned by the beauty of those album everytime I listen to them.
And I don't agree on the production , DM's rough sound fits it perfectly and song like CS or Wonderwall are model of pop production.
HFB's production doesn't fit some song, it makes them too fat, too creamy like IIAG when it wasn't necessary at all. Too much violins, too much choir on many songs.
DM and MG had the best singer of his generation at his zenith, we're far from this type of vocals with Noel. EOTR can never reach the epic and highness of a CS.
You can't juge an album only on his songwritting, the production and the vocals count too.

But then if I just judge the songwritting, I'm not that impressed either. EOTR is a excellent song ok. IIAG is a great song, but it's no Wonderwall IMO. RM is a nice anthemn but it's not a 90's classic either.
If you count the number of classic on DM and MG (not just classic made by history, just the amazing songwritting) you get :

Rock'N'Roll Star , Live Forever , Columbia, , Supersonic , Bring It On Down, Cigarettes And Alcohol, Slide Away , even Married With Children has a real atmosphere.
Wonderwall , Don't Look Back in Anger, Some Might Say , Cast No Shadow , She's Electric , Morning Glory ,Champagne Supernova

What's so amazing in HFB that can stand the comparision with a supersonic or a slide away, or a DLBIA or a CS or a Wonderwall ?

The album is nice but far from the greatness of those two first album, let's be honest. How someone can even compare a Columbia to a SOTWB ? a Cast no shadow to a STC ?
They're nothing special on most of HFB. And there's nothing new as well, most of the song sounds like what Noel had done before, and it doesn't even show all his talent, since the rockers are baned of it.

HFB will stay like a very nice Oasis related album, along with DBTT, but it won't stand the test of time like DM and MG, not just because it's less important in music history but just because the songwritting doesn't stand the comparition except on 3 songs maybe.

But I get the exitement, in 2005, I thought DBTT was amazing, now I see it as what it is, a very nice album.
When an album become a classic like MG and DM have become, there is a reason. Nostalgia isn't enough for me, the reason is the songs.

Did I say that nostalgia was the main reason? No. If you're not going to read my post, then don't comment. I said that there were multiple reasons. Read and comprehend. I said commercial success, influence, level of songwriting, nostalgia, and impact on music. There are five different criteria in there, yet you can't seem to be able to tackle an entire point.

And again, I didn't say that HFB would be a classic album or stand up with DM and WTSMG for all time. I said that by criteria that I am judging by, THE SONGWRITING, that I would rate it a 9 based on that single criteria. And you never addressed the fact that if you had asked some one in 1995 if WTSMG was even a good album, not a classic, but a good one, they would have laughed at you in your face. Which was the point of me saying that there were multiple reasons why WTSMG became a classic album. Having great songs doesn't automatically equal a classic. There are albums that have amazing songs, but would not be regarded as classics. And you can't tell me that if WTSMG had bombed commercially and had remained battered and bruised by critics that it would be regarded as a classic today. There's a very good chance that WTSMG would have been a BHN like mistake had it not caught on. Or that Oasis would have remained a a second tier band. There are multiple factors that make a classic album. So no, it's not just the songs. There are albums with great songs that aren't classics, yet there classic album where the songwriting good, yet not great. The Stooges' Raw Power is a classic album, but the songwriting on it isn't phenomenal. There might only be 3 great songs. There's also luck that's invovled with becoming a classic album. Especially when you don't have the commercial success (like Raw Power).

And when you make more than half an argument describing an album by, what it has become, and what it represents, that is nostalgia and it's saying that nostalgia has a lot to do with your criteria.

It's really simple: if you can't properly defend your point or you're not willing to fully read my post, then don't even respond. Learn how to frame a debate and the proper methods to defending your points. Don't cut your argument down by legs before you even get started by trying to say that nostalgia isn't a major part of it, yet more than half your argument has nostalgia written all over it.

I think it's fair to say that HFB is within a point of MG and DM in terms of songwriting.

It has many great songs IMO. There are only 2 fillers on the album...which are still really good (no more than on the other 2...actually less in the case of MG) There are only 3 tunes which I wouldn't have picked as a single. (DO [which is a single so I'm obviously missing something], SB&JF, and STC)

As for vocals. Noel sounds great and all the tunes are delivered credibly. Does he have the vocal tone of Liam in his youth? No. But for the fact that he delivers the tunes how they need to be delivered...I can't see knocking off more than 1 point off a score for vocals because Noel doesn't have the type of vocal tone you like. 99% of singers don't have a vocal tone like Liam's.

And for production. I don't think DM is flawless. For instance, I think Slide Away on record is extremely flawed. They buried so much in the outro. It was so much better live where you could actually hear Noel's part during it.

Also...you can't just pick 3 criteria that you think MG and DM are better at and say that's it. HFB has better use of instrumentation. Oasis' first 2 albums were relatively boring in terms of instrumentation. Does that meant that I should take points off them for that. No, I don't. Because for what they are they are a 10. And for what Noel is he can conceivably be thought to be a 9.

Also albums can be 10's without being classics. Classic implies a social standing. Quality+influence. To be truly classic you have to be a 10...but to be a 10 you don't have to be a classic.

100% correct.

If the general public were in a rock music malaise in 1995 as they are now, I doubt WTSMG would have been herald as a classic, but we would still see it as a great album. The general public tend to makes albums great by being aware of the albums and making it a cultural phenomenon.

NGHFB will never have that longevity nor impact as DM and WTSMG. You can still hear Wonderwall, Champagne Supernova, Don't Look Back in Anger, and Live Forever on the radio (and that's just the US, where Oasis never supposedly "made it" !).

Sadly, NHGFB doesn't have that awareness. It doesn't cross over as DM and MG did. We can debate why not elsewhere, but I think the fundamental reason is because times are different now. But are you really going to suggest that the likes of IIHAG doesn't deserve a place amongst those aforementioned Oasis songs? IIHAG is a classic song, despite not getting that universal appeal of a Wonderwall, and therein lies the point of this post.

But because NHFB doesn't have the same impact as societal deemed classics, it shouldn't be seen as a great album?

Think a good analogy here would be looking at how the US and UK view The Smiths. The latter nation sees them as a great, classic, important band; whereas the former nation barely recognizes them (still waiting for their induction into the Hall of Fame, ridiculous). So because The Smiths aren't well known by the general US public, that should mean they aren't a great band? Nonsense.

Public recognition and etching bands and albums into the culture of society is what makes them classic in the classic sense. Oasis did that as a band practically the world over (yes, even in the US) with DM and MG being their catalyst, highlighting their 2 classic albums.

But if people didn't pay attention to DM and MG, they wouldn't have become classics as we like to think of. Yet the music would have been the same, so of course they would still be great albums musically.

It's kind of like the question: If a tree falls and no one is around, does it still make a sound? The answer is yes. Same concept.