Britpop : Time For Reevaluation?

Back in the '90s, years prior to getting internet access (which I didn't until at some point in late 1997) and Napster (which didn't happen for another couple of years after that), I was getting my musical education from a small number of sources. My parents record collection was one, but in terms of discovering music, I was basically limited to a small number of sources: MTV Europe and VH-1 (on "old" analogue Sky), and BBC Radio.

I keep forgetting this myself sometimes, but CD's were ludicrously overpriced back in the '90s... if you were lucky, you could pick up a CD for something like £9.99, or if there was a sale on, take advantage of some kind of "2-for-1" or "3-for-2" offer that happened to be going on. But mostly, new albums and reissues by "classic" bands used to cost something ridiculous like £15.99. Being of the age I was at the time, there was no way on God's green Earth that I'd even think about buying an album with the limited pocket money that I had unless I was quite sure that I was going to like it. I would never buy an album, therefore, unless I'd heard 2 or 3 singles off it, which is where the likes of MTV Europe, VH-1 and BBC Radio helped. Later on, of course, I'd be able to use Napster, download a couple of tracks, and that would help decide whether I'd want to purchase the album or not. Spotify of course has made it even easier (and would have been a dream come true for me if it had existed in the '90s), but of course these are very different times now.

Because of the avenues I was using to discover music at this time, I find it really mind-boggling when I read retrospective pieces of this period, because while a lot of bands that would be (for worse, in my opinion) lumped together under the name of 'Britpop' were getting plenty of airplay; MTV Europe, VH-1 and yes, even BBC Radio weren't just mining, or existing in, some kind of strange 'Blur vs. Oasis' vacuum. Both MTV Europe and VH-1 used to play a lot of chart stuff on one hand (of which 'Britpop', or whatever you want to call it, was included), but the pre-digital MTV Europe also used to play foreign language music, there was still a bit of a grunge hangover and have shows dedicated to stuff which was happening apart from the UK/European charts. It had shows dedicated to hip-hop, rap and non-chart oriented stuff also. VH-1 was still very young in the UK at this time (I think it only launched in 1994 here) and continued to play a lot of "older" music... '60s/'70s/'80s stuff, and Tommy Vance had his own show on there dedicated to classic rock (for example). I was of the right age to soak it all up, and soak it all up I did, and a huge part of my musical education came from those times. When I finally got Napster, and Spotify, I'd made a mental note of everything I wanted to check out further, and went on a phase of "further exploration", should I say.

I'll make no bones about it, I enjoyed the '90s for numerous reasons. Some of the music from that time still stands up, and some of it doesn't. What I will say is this though: getting into Blur and 1994-1996 Oasis gave the young me a catalyst to find music for myself that wasn't part of my parents record collection. It set me off on a voyage of musical discovery, and while I may not listen to early Oasis very much by choice now, they definitely served their purpose. Looking back, it could have been any band that set me off on the path that led me to eventually find myself here, but that's how it turned out. I don't regret a thing, and as a result I'll always look back on that time fondly. It wasn't the only thing going on, but I'll very seldom have much bad to say about Britpop, apart from what it eventually turned into. But, by the time that Be Here Now was released, I was already moving on anyway, as I suspect many people were.

we never heard recorded music until 2003, we used to entertain ourselves by banging tin cans together and singing made-up tunes to the writing on the back of oven chip packets. we was poor but it was real.

By the way, it really gets my goat when, during discussion of 'Britpop', some smartarse always comes out and says "yeah, but you only rate those times because of nostalgia". Well, duh. I'm not exactly trapped in some '90s timewarp, and continue to enjoy new music as well as old, but if I want to put on Blur's Parklife, and it just so happens to remind me of some very pleasant moments in the past, then I'm perfectly entitled to do that. As does everyone who has their "own" music that soundtracked their lives at a particular age. I don't find anything particularly wrong with this. Was music "better" then? No. As everybody on here will no doubt be aware, there is good music and bad music released every year. I'd be the last person to say that Britpop was a "movement"/"scene"/"(whatever)" that outshone everything that has come along since; that would be absolutely ludicrous. Did it mean a lot for me at the time, though? Yes. And do some of those releases continue to be important to me for personal reasons? Yes.

and TP's problem with women has been noted before.

what is this, dl?

on Sundays tho dad would let us listen to the Home Service on the crystal set, we used to gather round and here Tony Blair making a speech about the Third Way and the need for a modern democratic socialism that better represented the aspirations of the Bluetones roadie on the street

I loved the 90s esp early and mid 90s but NOT due to most britpop. But turrican kinda otm but for different reasons

it were a better time really, i remember the first kid in our street to get an Ocean Colour Scene cassingle, lads would be trading him a week's worth of Blackjacks and Fruit Salad just to have a read of the cover

nv was that before you got up before you even went to bed?

looking more like Alec Guinness every year, only now after he got out of the hotbox in River Kwai

http://www.holymoly.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_651w/big-pictures_t_damon-albarn-homeless-bum-2212a.jpg

The Taylor Parkes Parklife review is an interesting piece of fiction set in the Brit-pop era.

xp
That little shit wishes, more like a halfpint o' stale guinness.

I miss Blackjacks :( I guess these anti-Britpop rants engender feelings of butthurtness in some people, not necessarily due to love of the music but, because it takes a dump on our memories maaaan

could never figure out which part of britpop was the arse-end tbh

"every retreat into nostalgia is an embracement of fascism" - Keith Chadwick

As for the Blair/New Labour angle to the (*sick forms in the back of the throat*) "Britpop story"; I didn't give much of a shit, or even pay attention to politics at that time. I was way too young, and I was more preoccupied with more trivial things (as any person in their mid teens is). Being North-Eastern (a staunchly anti-Conservative area), though, one kinda has it drummed into them from an early age that the Conservative Party are "the enemy", so when Blair was elected there was this sense of "thank fuck for that, the Tories are finally out". The understanding of politics came a little later for me; again, due to the age I was at at the time, and I make no apologies for that.

But in terms of New Labour's "role" in Britpop, when Noel Gallagher took to the stage at the Brits and announced that Tony Blair was "one of the most important people in the room", it didn't mean a great deal to me. Certainly not as much as Jarvis pissing off Jacko, and Noel Gallagher calling Michael Hutchence a "has-been". I'll admit to finding Blair trying to make himself look cool by saying "hey, look, I was in a band once too!" to be a bit crass, but my reaction to Noel Gallagher sipping champagne with Blair at Number 10 at the time was not "oh god, look at the future war criminal hitching a ride to the prevailing bandwagon for his own ends", it was more "shit, I wasn't expecting things to blow up to this level... from playing the Barrowlands, like every other band does in 1994, to 3 years later playing Knebworth and sipping champagne at Number 10..."

I think everyone has a moment where they suddenly start paying more attention to politics, but I wasn't doing that during the "Britpop" times. Just as the likes of Blur/Oasis were the catalyst for me to strike out and discover more music of me own, it was (tragically) 9/11 that made me sit up and take notice of what was going on politically.

The death of Princess Diana meant fuck-all to me.

It was 9/11 that made you pay attention to politics?!

The Taylor Parkes Parklife review is an interesting piece of fiction set in the Brit-pop era.

― everything, Monday, April 28, 2014 7:24 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

get this distinct impression, and I wasn't even there (really)

xpost:

Yup, I'll readily confess to not giving a shit about politics until I was 17.

I didn't give much of a shit, or even pay attention to politics at that time.

that is one of his points that no one gave a shit and continued to not give a shit and now politics has been removed from pop and that these people are now in charge everywhere.

i remember 9/11 it as if it were yesterday, the pavements still littered with spent fireworks, Tony Blair's rousing speech calling for OMOV to be seriously debated at the spring party conference, Cerys Matthews playing a Waylon Jennings joint when she was filling in for Jo Whiley on Radio 1

frantically combing Usenet for Spyro the Dragon cheats

this bit is otm.

: "back then, this stuff seemed more like a reaction against recent British music, which had been dreadful, rather than Nirvana, who everybody liked)

The Select cover was quite a bit before Oasis etc took off and doubt most people buying britpop had seen that cover. The narrative I recall was that this was "better music with commercial ambition" rather than "neds atomic dustbin/sultans of ping/kingmaker shite".

There was tons of great music being made in the UK prior to this. Was Brit-pop a reaction against that too or just neds/sultans/kingmaker?

perhaps a clue can be found in the early Marion single "Fuck Off Neds/Sultans/Kingmaker"

Or more specifically:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NKGz2l6Erg

Weird that Neds/Sultans/Kingmaker aren't included in that lot.

Plenty of them liked Nirvana, Pavement and so on, and plenty liked dance music too. I agree that the main target was really the Neds/Carter axis, which I haven't seen anyone rushing to defend recently.

xp I don't even think it was predominately a retreat into nostalgia, NV. I remember a sense of excitement that this - and all the other mid-90s music that doesn't fall into a neat box and which, as many people have said itt, liked alongside Britpop - was all happening now. Sure there was a fetishisation of certain 60s elements (mod fashion, World Cup 1966, Michael Caine in Alfie, etc) but that wasn't the main driver.

What's missing from the anti-Britpop pieces I've read is any explanation for why so many people found it an exciting development at the beginning, except "lol people are idiots/racists/Blairites".

if i'm being a snarky little monkey i guess it's more about the 20-years-on nostalgia now than the phenomenon at the time, DL, which i agree was more complex than any of the totalizing narratives being written this year can deal with

Britpop had its discontents from the moment Select published that cover, it wasn't like the nationalistic elements weren't questioned at the time, it wasn't like the whole "scene" wasn't primarily a critics' argument rather than a brand that the kids bought into as it happened. but a horrible, dominant regressiveness was born out of the era i think - alongside other pathways, sure. and for people who like a good narrative, i think there are lots of better ones that could be woven out of commercial mildly alt UK music of the mid 90s

in some ways i think the notion of Britpop preserved the worst possible Whiggish reading of the history of pop music in the UK, and gave it orthodox clout, even as it pushed the other narratives into more interesting (and hidden) places. something in me seriously jibes at the 15 year journey from "We Oppose All Rock and Roll" to "Tonight Matthew, I'm a Rock'n'Roll Star"

It was listening to XFM to wake up to in London in the early 90s, and another execrable Carter USM single, that made me decide to give up on indie. I had better things to do with my time. I tuned my car radio to pirate jungle stations because it sounded exciting. It was friends playing me bands like Suede, Blur, Teenage Fanclub that made me take notice of indie stuff again.

xp Oh sorry, I mixed up my nostalgias.

,, and meanwhile, back in the Jungle...

i recall t n the park 95 and everyone calling it the summer of britpop even though none of those bands were on mainstage tricky and the prodigy and foo fighters i think were on there. But back then you still had the raw/kerrang reading people along with the nme/mm reading crowd but they werent that different. The Prodigy really were big amongst both sets and continued to be. Underworld (who were terrific) played just before the shamen in the dance tent (massive attack headlined the same time as prodigy on mainstage. the nme tent where all the britpop bands played was full of 15 year olds (supergrass was a huge massive crush in that tent) most of those bands ended up playing the mainstage in 96. But even in 96 you got people watching other non britpop indie bands (i got a few ppl i met to go see Afghan Whigs and there was tons of pavement tshirts) as well as britpop and everyone was into dance music. esp the old roses/mondays fans. Everyone was waiting on Oasis' "Screamadelica" and when be here now dropped everyone was gutted and tbh a lot of us got off the oasis bus. But somehow they got bigger and OCS ,Travis and the dadrock got huge and the younger fans of these hated dance music. It wasnt "real". This all happened around 1997. Coinciding with Blair & cool Britannia @ #10.
That is how I remember it.

So why did it (brit indie) go really conservative by 1997 and never really recover?

I'd post a zillion counterexamples to that^^^ last statement, but that would mean engaging with this entire tedious debate

im not talking about music noones heard and only you liked

Ultrasound were not a great band

oh no only 999.99999etc squillion bands you didn't discount there

I'd rather hear Grey Cell Green and Sheriff Fatman than any song by Blur or Oasis.

Well please inform me of a squillion uk indie bands post 1997 who were amazing?
50 will do though, i know you love lists.
I will agree that say six by seven were good, not great, but good. Im sure there will be a few others we agree on but they didnt have the impact of their peers like coldplay or the libertines did. Or landfill indie. And landfill indie was basically britpop part 2

Brian thats still setting the bar low

In answer to the thread q, I think it is time. for a Pee-valuation

And landfill indie was basically britpop part 2

― pfunkboy (Algerian Goalkeeper), Monday, April 28, 2014 9:21 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nah, landfill indie was much, much more horrific than Britpop in my opinion. The worst landfill indie bands seemed like they were going for an extremely diluted version of the very tail end of Britpop or post-Britpop.

In summary then, Britpop was shit music which was a reaction against shit music and left shit music in it's wake.

xpost:

I mean, jesus christ, imagine Scouting For Girls appearing in 1996. I'm confident that they would have been laughed at and mocked even then.

Oh im not arguing that it wasnt worse. Of course it was! There was still a couple of good britpop bands at least.
Scouting for girls did appear - Catch 'Bingo'

So why did it (brit indie) go really conservative by 1997 and never really recover?

― ۩, Monday, April 28, 2014 9:02 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There's no short answer to this. Obviously, after the massive success of (What's The Story) Morning Glory?, record companies were selling massive amounts of albums (at a time when albums were ludcriously expensive to buy, too), and I guess they wanted that to continue at any cost, by signing bands that they felt they could push onto the same audience, regardless of whether they were any good or not.

The established bands either moved on and did something different, produced sub-par follow-up albums or took a while to make a follow-up record, which meant that in their absence, a lot of newer bands cropped up to tide things over or try to "keep it going".

The dad-rock bands, like Cast and Ocean Colour Scene, were dead on their arse by the beginning of 1998 if I recall.

Not up here. They were fecking massive. Ocs still pulled great crowds here long after til they split. They were far bigger than say blur

Pretty much every ocs fan i ever argued with used the "how can you not like them steve cradock is an amazing guitarist'. They crossed over to the mainstream stadium rock crowd up here despite never playing one (except as support to oasis)

I checked out of the Britpop party the day after Diana's funeral, although that actually had to do with the fact that my first son was born that day

Cast were as popular until they changed their sound on the third album and it flopped. Ppl actually though john power was the second coming of john lennon lol