Talk:Definitely Maybe

Regarding Slide Away

I see my edit got removed for lacking a reference, so I'll explain my reasoning. In the page text, Dave Batchelor is mentioned as the producer of the first sessions at Monnow Valley. Then in the personnel section, he is only credited with production on "Slide Away". Therefore, I thought it a logical conclusion that must be the only song from the Monnow Valley sessions to be put on the album, since the Sawmills sessions were produced by Mark Coyle. 95.76.25.220 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I found when Definitely Maybe was recorded

According to this Melody Maker article from October 1994, the making of the first Oasis album was a bit different then what is listed.

"Supersonic" was recorded on 19 December 1993, though the article implies that it was recorded throughout the 17-20 December session.

Recording for the overall album began on 8 January 1994 and finished on the 23rd, at Monnow Valley. Only "Slide Away" would survive from these sessions. From 24-27 February 1994, mixing for these sessions is attempted at Olympic Studios in London, but Alan McGee and Marcus Russell abandon the mixing, and later on the 27th start new sessions at Sawmills Studios, lasting until 4 March 1994. From 7-25 March, Mark Coyle, Anjuli Dutt and Simon Wall attempt to mix the output of the Sawmills Studios recording session at Eden Studios in Chiswick, London. As it "didn't sound like Oasis", Owen Morris is contacted in a last-ditch effort to save the material.

On 14 April 1994, Oasis re-record "Shakermaker" at Out Of The Blue Studios in Manchester. They previously recorded a different version in October 1993 at the same studio, but had to re-record some elements (such as the vocals) to remove the Coca Cola references. (this initial October 1993 version was eventually released in 2014 as the "Slide-Up Mix"). While the Melody Maker article lists 17-18 April as the date of when this re-recording session began, a spreadsheet from the studio shows that it was actually on the 14th.

Owen Morris begins mixing with a 23-24 April session at Loco Studios in Wales. The first two songs mixed are "Columbia" and "Rock 'n' Roll Star"; during this, Liam Gallagher is asked to re-record his lead vocal. At Matrix in London, the final mixing occurs on 2-3 May (although Owen claims that it took four days). During this session, Liam Gallagher re-records vocals on five tracks, including Cigarettes & Alcohol, Bring It On Down and Up In The Sky.

And one last small titbit; after debuting the song on 7 June 1994 for a BBC Radio session, Noel Gallagher and Owen Morris head to The Windings studio in Wrexham, North Wales to record "Sad Song" on 22 June, for the vinyl version of the album.

I used the Oasis Timeline website as a source for finding this information. BuggleJuggle (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Slight update but since the article was updated recently I'd try and research further on the hoo hahs of two of the tracks.

As I said in my first post, "Supersonic" was actually recorded on 19 December 1993. This is confirmed by the Manchester Evening News article I listed, as well as an official tweet by the band's Twitter. The article says the 17th was when recording began, but that appears to be the day that the session began (only "Supersonic" and "Take Me Away" would surface from the session, with the latter being released as a b-side.)

As for "Married With Children", while we don't know the exact date we know that it was recorded sometime in 1992/93. Sometime in the middle of 1993, they "released" a demo tape called Live Demonstration, with MWC appearing alongside "Columbia" (the white label demo version), "D'Yer Wanna Be A Spaceman?" (which ended up on the "Shakermaker" single as a b-side) and early versions of songs that appeared on their first album. According to the Oasis Timeline site, two sessions were done for the tape; the first in "Late 1992/Spring 1993" at Mark Coyle's Home Studio (producing Married With Children, D'Yer Wanna Be a Spaceman? and early recordings of Sad Song, Going Nowhere, Hello, Rockin' Chair and She's Electric) and the second in March 1993, at the Real People Recording Session in Liverpool. The latter produced the remaining six songs, all were full band recordings. BuggleJuggle (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It would help if there were books detailing their recording sessions. This one is slated for release next month, I might grab it to see if it offers anything useful. And there's also this one releasing in just a few weeks. This one is a little older but it could also be useful... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Getting High is in my opinion a reliable source. That and Forever The People (also by the same author) as well as Paul Marthurs' Take Me There. Though I've only heard excerpts from each book. BuggleJuggle (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've had my eye on doing a rewrite of DM for years now, hopefully one day I'll pull the trigger. If that happens I'll definitely check those books out. I already have the 33&1/3 book on DM. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I should note Forever the People is more about the Be Here Now tour, whereas the other two are focused on the band's history up to 1996 and 1998 respectively. Tim Abbot’s (1996) book on Oasis does also show some studio stuff (though it's mostly just pictures). BuggleJuggle (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bring It On Down into Definitely Maybe

Not enough independent coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Can merge any pertinent info to Definitely Maybe. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge – not all of these songs need individual pages – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Oasis are a huge band, definitely maybe is a huge album, those who seek info on songs relevant to this album can find it now. 2A00:23C8:9B8D:AB01:DD8D:EA2F:A9C5:C1F7 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, Oasis are huge. But again, that doesn't mean every song warrants a page here on WP. Per WP:NOTABILITY, a decent chunk of the songs on this album can be discussed in the album article itself. The singles are mainly the ones that warrant pages due to their chart performances and the additional information available on them. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• To add, a lot of the information being added in these new pages (I assume by you) constitutes original research, which is not tolerated here on WP. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not doing every single song, but i do believe that these 2 most succeful well known albums should have articles from all the songs on them. They both broke numerous records. I have cited all the things i've spoke about anyway and most of these are well known if you look them up. This song is on the current oasis 25 tour set list, it just makes sense that it has its own article, all the beatles songs have there own article which i guarantee is uneeded. 2A00:23C8:9B8D:AB01:C016:FBBF:704B:1209 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Besides, are my articles harming anyone? 2A00:23C8:9B8D:AB01:C016:FBBF:704B:1209 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  Every Beatles song has its own article because they're the most discussed artist in music history, and almost every song they recorded is considered notable in some way. The articles you wrote had sources in them but a lack of inline citations makes almost every statement come across as, again, orginal research. Songs being sung live also don't always constitute notability either. "are my articles harming anyone" I'm afraid that's also not how WP operates. The site is not as lenient as it used to be regarding excess articles and uncited content. It's just the way it is. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  I accept that the article needs better inline referencing, and I’m happy to work on that collaboratively, as i'm not sure how to add them in myself. But the absence of inline citations doesn’t mean the song lacks notability — it simply means the page needs sourcing work, not deletion.

  Under the notability guideline for music (WP:NSONG), a song is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. While “Bring It On Down” may not have charted as a single, it has.

  Been covered in professional reviews of the album Definitely Maybe (e.g., Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork)

  Been discussed in retrospectives and documentaries about Oasis’s early years

  Featured in live performances central to Oasis’s early identity — e.g., the 1994 Glastonbury set and numerous early UK gigs

  Been included in the 20th anniversary reissue (super deluxe edition), showing enduring recognition

  These collectively meet the “significant coverage” bar under WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. 2A00:23C8:9B8D:AB01:C016:FBBF:704B:1209 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Per NSONGS, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." Plus wouldn't every song from the album be included in a reissue? A 20th anniversary release only suggests "enduring recognition" of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right that a name-drop in an album review doesn’t prove notability—but that’s not what this is. Bring It On Down has been singled out in multiple reviews and retrospectives (NME, AllMusic, Far Out Magazine), discussed for its punk influence, early live presence, and even considered as the band’s debut single. That’s more than just "context of an album."

As for the reissue: no, not every track gets live versions, documentaries, or liner notes attention. Bring It On Down was featured across formats because it’s a fan favorite with critical legacy. It’s still performed live decades later. That’s sustained, independent coverage—aka WP:GNG in action.

This isn’t just any deep cut—it helped define Oasis’s early sound. The sourcing is there. The legacy is clear. That meets the bar. 2A00:23C8:9B8D:AB01:C016:FBBF:704B:1209 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

• Merge. The song isn't even mentioned in the AllMusic prose review written by Stephen Thomas Erlewine. It's just listed as one of the tracks, and unreliable user reviews mention it. The John Harris book Britpop! mentions the song on six pages, none of which call it out as particularly successful in terms of influence. I cannot find the supposed NME cite, not on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine nor on NME's website. Same with the LouderSound cite—both of these appear to be fictional, fabricated by our IP friend from North Ayrshire, Scotland. Far Out magazine isn't considered very reliable, but that cite is also one of the fabricated references provided here. John Harris is the best source, and he praises "Bring It On Down" as among Noel Gallagher's best work: "...but his best work was altogether more adrenalised. Finess and musical sophistication were nowhere to be found, but in the likes of 'Bring It On Down', 'Rock'n'Roll Star', 'Acquiesce' and 'Morning Glory', one heard a mixture that was age-old and intoxicating..." (Preface, page xii.) However, Harris does not describe the song as having achieved larger notability, not by fans demanding it, not by music critics calling it out as extraordinary, and certainly not by chart success or sales. Other musicians are not saying that the song was their inspiration. So with our Scottish IP friend's false cites and the song's fair-to-middling performance in the public arena, I think we must merge it back into the album. Precious little here is worth saving, which means the merge will be more of a delete and redirect. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Merge. After I cleared the article of some unsourced or poorly sourced statements, there is not much left. More concerning is what Bink points out above: there are three citations which seem untraceable.[1][2][3] Trying to think charitably, I initially imagined they were decaying links from old Wiki entries that the IP editor copied-and-pasted here. But as Bink points out, the links do not appear on the Internet Archive. If that weren't enough, I cannot find these articles used anywhere else on the encyclopedia.[4][5][6] Tkbrett (✉) 02:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect - there's virtually nothing of encyclopedic nature to merge.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done - merged all material cited by independent, reliable sources to target.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)