Talk:Be Here Now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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.
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
[edit] Double album
Can anyone confirm or deny this theory? It's the first time I've ever heard it.
>yes, i can. i saw it when down from my (different) cloud. tell yoko to stop selling crap best of albums, my fans already have the orignial albums. like.
IT IS SHYYYYYYYYYNING. IT IS SHYYYYYYYYNING....
[edit] 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...
[edit] 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)
-
