Maybe not five years, but I do feel Be Here Now was released at the wrong time. I think it should've been in Summer/Autumn '96 to follow Knebworth (like Owen Morris suggested) when they were still untouchable, or otherwise waited til around late '98.

Basically, Be Here Now didn’t singlehandedly kill feel-good Britpop like some say; by mid-'97 it had already peaked. Things were changing; with OK Computer and Urban Hymns, high-charting rock shifted to a more melancholy and less accessible sound. Hence full-on mainstream pop moved toward teen/dance acts like the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys. In the UK at least, that 94-97 era basically was the last time that rock totally was the mainstream pop genre, rather than just being a part of the mainstream. If Be Here Now had equalled Oasis’ earlier albums, it might have prolonged Britpop for perhaps a year, but the end was inevitable.

Ive often said that Blur were somewhat lucky, in that they had their BHN-type “comedown” earlier with The Great Escape in 95-96. Overrated by critics on release and sold well, but by Summer '96 most agreed it wasn't as good as Parklife. Which then enabled them to make their big change with Blur in early '97; before Britpop ended. And that change basically saved their artistic credibility.

I think if Oasis had waited til late '98 to put out Be Here Now, even they would have realised a need to update their sound. It would have been better-produced, and have a better general reputation. Also, they'd have avoided that reputation they seemed to have outside the fanbase from around 1999-2004, which was that of a relic from a past era trying to recreate their two great albums. As a kid whose friends all liked whatever was hip, I remember it was with Don't Believe The Truth that they started to regain some mainstream credibility, as they evolved into more of a classic alt-rock band.

Ye i guess we’re kind of partly in agreement. I was too young to remember, but like you I don’t really buy the theory that Diana’s death depressed the whole nation and killed a feel-good era on its own. It was a tragic shock I’m sure, but I think its aftereffect has been exaggerated since.

I also totally get that the press never fully warmed to Oasis; the ridiculous initial acclaim BHN got was basically responding to how they got MG wrong. And on the other hand, I don’t feel it deserved the later beatings they gave it (like The Great Escape, it was overrated then underrated).

I guess there’s endless “what if” theories with BHN and how things would’ve gone had it been as good as MG. Like you say it’s a huge “if”, but sadly I feel that it even if it was better, they were never going to recapture the heights of 1996. As looking back, with MG going 12x platinum within a year and all the gig attendance/demand records, no rock act had really had a year so big since The Beatles (at least in the UK). They came about at the right time with the right album. I personally think BHN being as good would have kept them at the very top for 1-2 yrs longer, but not as big as they’d been. Still, just my take.