Talk:Be Here Now (album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Be Here Now (album) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
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. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
 |
This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
| FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
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. double lp, but one cd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.180.195 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[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)
-
-
-
-
- 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 ✆ 2007‑09‑03t20:46z
- 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)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oasis Be Here Now album cover.jpg
Image:Oasis Be Here Now album cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Oasis D'You Know What I Mean.ogg
Image:Oasis D'You Know What I Mean.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 ♬ talk 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
