Just for one moment, try forgetting about Oasis' first two records, try forgetting about the time, and what else was going on etc. etc.
Now, if you listen to that record, you'll probably say 'the songs are too long', which is a valid point. The thing is, there are songs on Be Here Now that are some of Oasis' best.
Critics constantly prattle on about it, and I don't actually think they consider its content when they slag it off. In reviews for Oasis' later records, they go on about how Be Here Now was a 'disaster' and how things 'can only get better' etc.
I'll accept it wasn't as good as the previous two, but it is a fucking good record. The actual songs on the album aren't bad. DiS loves to talk about the lyrics of 'Magic Pie' being awful, which I'm not contesting. But the music is FANTASTIC.
Its like with Room on Fire. Its a superb record. I don't understand why people can't view records in their own context, without constantly scrutinising them by comparing them with previous records.
You get slated if you stick to your original sound, but then you go towards a slightly different direction, and you get raped (Winning Days for example).
So, everyone is wrong about Be Here Now. As well as Room on Fire, and Winning Days. Does anyone concur, or is it pretty much common opinion that unless you're trying brand new things, you're crap?