|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jun 5, 2016 14:51:16 GMT -5
From the same guy's review of The Masterplan: This is indeed sophisticated music, Pitchfork critics!!
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 5, 2016 17:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 5, 2016 17:18:23 GMT -5
Must have been in the days before Pitchfork rapidly disappeared in their narrowboats along their own anal canals
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 5, 2016 17:39:36 GMT -5
Must have been in the days before Pitchfork rapidly disappeared in their narrowboats along their own anal canals Or Thom Yorke anal canal. I remember when they changed their "best albums of the 90's" list, where Loveless used to be the first on the list, but they changed it only to put Ok Computer at the first place. Of course there is nothing by Oasis on the list, despiting that they released two of the most defining albums of that decade.
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jun 5, 2016 18:13:41 GMT -5
Perhaps they ought to start taking their own advice?
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 5, 2016 18:36:40 GMT -5
Perhaps they ought to start taking their own advice? I wonder since they've become part of a major corporate whether they will be allowed to carry on as they were, or perhaps be more homogenised so as not to upset advertisers and rival media companies who have signed the artists?- Conde Nast Buys Pitchfork- NY Times Oct 2015A list from Wiki of the publications that Pitchfork has to fit in with in the US market as part of Conde Nast- Conde Nast Digital Assets and Publications (US)
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jun 5, 2016 18:45:42 GMT -5
Perhaps they ought to start taking their own advice? I wonder since they've become part of a major corporate whether they will be allowed to carry on as they were, or perhaps be more homogenised so as not to upset advertisers and rival media companies who have signed the artists?- Conde Nast Buys Pitchfork- NY Times Oct 2015A list from Wiki of the publications that Pitchfork has to fit in with in the US market as part of Conde Nast- Conde Nast Digital Assets and Publications (US)Conde Nast owns Vogue, Glamour, GQ, Wired, Ars Technica, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, and Pitchfork?? Talk about corporate empires!
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 5, 2016 18:54:25 GMT -5
Conde Nast owns Vogue, Glamour, GQ, Wired, Ars Technica, Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, and Pitchfork?? Talk about corporate empires! It's only part of the Newhouse descendants family empire- Advance Publications 4th largest private company in NY and 31% shareholder in Discovery Communications cable entertainment company. The family net worth is circa $18,000,000,000- Forbes- Newhouse . As Bill Hicks stated in the eighties and nineties media ownership is becoming more concentrated, with ninety percent of US media ownership gone from around fifty companies in 1983 to just six by 2012- Business Insider Ultimately it means less choice and more uniform views with no room for dissent being fed to the masses. It is a similar situation developing at various stages around the world unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 6, 2016 3:15:08 GMT -5
Rumors of a Be Here Now reissue. Any truth to that whisper?
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Jun 6, 2016 6:50:07 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day.
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jun 6, 2016 7:11:10 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day. What d'you think of it now?
|
|
|
Post by idleroses on Jun 6, 2016 7:53:11 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day. I was gutted on release day too. All that hype had me sure I'd be hearing the greatest album ever.
|
|
|
Post by themanwithnoname on Jun 6, 2016 10:36:04 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day. What d'you think of it now? Pretty much the same. I think a bit of judicious editing and swapping a few songs (I'm a big fan of Going Nowhere in particular) would have helped, but it's still a let down after albums one and two and the succession of great B-sides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 10:41:39 GMT -5
^
But, but... it still has It's Getting Better (Man!!) on it !
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 6, 2016 10:47:44 GMT -5
Just had eBay confirmation order dispatched so the Q hype issue from September 1997 will be with me Friday- I'll scan and post ASAP when it gets here business depending as promised
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 6, 2016 15:32:20 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day. Aye it was such a let down after the previous 3 amazing years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 16:10:04 GMT -5
I think the BHN effect can be felt in adele at this current time...
|
|
|
Post by underneaththesky on Jun 6, 2016 16:34:35 GMT -5
Daily Telegraph review: Reading all these again it's no wonder I was so pissed off when I finally heard it on release day. Aye it was such a let down after the previous 3 amazing years. no it wasnt. I guess 'fans' like you let them down too. or they were just glad to kick em away with some madness you can't fucking handle...
|
|
|
Post by Headmaster on Jun 6, 2016 17:20:09 GMT -5
BHN was a big missed oportunity for the band, the songs were there, great songs btw, the album could have been another classic, a masterpiece, but no, it wasn't, it wasn't because they stretchd every single song to epic lenghts and put layers upon layers of noises.
Also there is not much variation on the album, guitar solos are everywhere, it need more acoustic moments or something, pianos maybe, it's all overdone, and a bit laboured in places.
I love the songs as individuals, DYKWIM?, MBM, FIO, DGA, AATW, IGBM..., but I don't love the album as a whole, it's all too much for me to take (*), maybe I'm getting old and my ears are getting more sensitive, but listening to BHN these days gives me a huge headache.
|
|
scottc
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 379
|
Post by scottc on Jun 6, 2016 17:42:05 GMT -5
Vox dissects D'You Know What I Mean? Thanks so much for this! I used to have this one.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 6, 2016 18:14:36 GMT -5
Aye it was such a let down after the previous 3 amazing years. no it wasnt. I guess 'fans' like you let them down too. or they were just glad to kick em away with some madness you can't fucking handle... For people who would buy anything with an uncritical eye because it had the name 'Oasis' on it perhaps it wasn't, but as this report from a year on in August 1998 shows even Noel wasn't enamored with his own work- BBC August 1998 By 1999 Melody Maker had an article reporting it was the most sold album to second hand record shops in the UK. As one from that era who was there and by the sound of it globe and themanwithnoname were as well, how exactly did we "let them down" by buying the records, concert tickets, T-shirts and other merchandise? I can't speak for those two chaps but I was working in the business back then and the level of hype for what to me was basically an anthems band like Slade, albeit some brilliant anthems, was ridiculous and nothing they put out was going to live up to the hype. Also the brothers were adamant they wanted to be the biggest band in the world not just the UK at the time, so I very much doubt "they were just glad to kick em away with some madness you can't fucking handle...". There is nothing wrong with liking a record or indeed disliking a record, but you seem to have taken personal offence here with that statement as if you personally wrote BHN or are involved with the band in some way. Oasis carried on for twelve years after Be Here Now but the truth is their peak had already past by September 1996, which isn't a criticism it is the same for many artists where you can see the point in their career at which they peaked and ended or carried on at a different level.
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jun 6, 2016 18:46:19 GMT -5
^ But, but... it still has It's Getting Better (Man!!) on it ! Woo! Hey! We're gettin' better, man!! Hey! We're gettin' better, man-ah!! Hey! We're gettin' better, maaaaaaaaaan-aaaaaah!! ... ...
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 6, 2016 18:58:41 GMT -5
^ But, but... it still has It's Getting Better (Man!!) on it ! Woo! Hey! We're gettin' better, man!! Hey! We're gettin' better, man-ah!! Hey! We're gettin' better, maaaaaaaaaan-aaaaaah!! ... ... I think this is the difference right here- those of us who were there at the time went through all the hype, teasers and waiting and in the end nothing could match what was promised, and our views on BHN were formed on that basis. I still listen to songs from the album but not very often as a complete set, and the memories of the era rather than the music are what sometimes brings me back to it. For teenagers and early twentysomethings discovering the album with fresh ears and minus all the hype it is simply a case of "did I like the record or not?". It happens with every generation that follows the preceding ones, they discover things cast aside due to circumstances at the time and can approach them with fresh ears and eyes
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jun 6, 2016 19:36:45 GMT -5
Woo! Hey! We're gettin' better, man!! Hey! We're gettin' better, man-ah!! Hey! We're gettin' better, maaaaaaaaaan-aaaaaah!! ... ... I think this is the difference right here- those of us who were there at the time went through all the hype, teasers and waiting and in the end nothing could match what was promised, and our views on BHN were formed on that basis. I still listen to songs from the album but not very often as a complete set, and the memories of the era rather than the music are what sometimes brings me back to it. For teenagers and early twentysomethings discovering the album with fresh ears and minus all the hype it is simply a case of "did I like the record or not?". It happens with every generation that follows the preceding ones, they discover things cast aside due to circumstances at the time and can approach them with fresh ears and eyes Hopefully it'll start to get the credit it deserves, in the coming years. I'm not getting too hopeful yet - after all, this is Oasis we're talking about, and it was only nine years ago that this Berkeley Hunt Grauniad hack wrote this bag of shite article, failing to ever mention the actual music and preferring to just slag off the Gallagher's and pour scorn on Britpop/Cool Britannia/whatever you want to call it, as well as other critics - but it'd be nice if it did.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Jun 6, 2016 19:49:38 GMT -5
I think this is the difference right here- those of us who were there at the time went through all the hype, teasers and waiting and in the end nothing could match what was promised, and our views on BHN were formed on that basis. I still listen to songs from the album but not very often as a complete set, and the memories of the era rather than the music are what sometimes brings me back to it. For teenagers and early twentysomethings discovering the album with fresh ears and minus all the hype it is simply a case of "did I like the record or not?". It happens with every generation that follows the preceding ones, they discover things cast aside due to circumstances at the time and can approach them with fresh ears and eyes Hopefully it'll start to get the credit it deserves, in the coming years. I'm not getting too hopeful yet - after all, this is Oasis we're talking about, and it was only nine years ago that this Berkeley Hunt Grauniad hack wrote this bag of shite article, failing to ever mention the actual music and preferring to just slag off the Gallagher's and pour scorn on Britpop/Cool Britannia/whatever you want to call it, as well as other critics - but it'd be nice if it did. The Guardian in anti-populist shocker! Maybe they are stilled scarred by their sister paper The Observer's positive review for BHN all those years ago? Looking at writer Neil Spencer's Guardian Writer Profile it appears he has been suitably chastened and no longer covers mainstream culture so in depth
|
|