Britpop : Time For Reevaluation?

It's the weak card in the whole argument - why should it be Britpop's job to be political? Especially in light of a pan-generic, pan-global music scene that was suffering from severe post-agitprop embarrassment. I'm sure DL can school me better on this but it feels like we're only just starting to see a re-emergence of the protest song after twenty years in the wilderness. I don't think Britpop is the cause so much as part of the effect of this.

Can you remember where the R. Young article was, Tom? I'd like to read what he had to say. A brief google failed to turn anything up. No doubt his lambasting had the zeal of the convert.

I don't know a single person whose record collection is predicated on whether bands are political or not but it's often used, cynically and inconsistently, as a stick with which to beat the ones you don't like.

My suggestion is that we abandon this approach and just use real sticks instead.

It's the weak card in the whole argument - why should it be Britpop's job to be political?

Britpop was politicised by politicians. There was a clear attempt to bring it into the Blairite narrative of a bright, new, confident, hip, meritocratic, liberal Britain. Some deeper interrogation of that might have been useful, in retrospect. Britpop was the arguably first era of British indie rock that actually had to make a decision about whether it stood with or against the government. The number of indie stars accused of being aligned with Thatcher could be counted on one hand. Labour surrounded itself with people from the culture industry.

More broadly, some deeper interrogation of the mild nationalism that went along with would have been useful as well. We were constantly told at the time that the revitalised pop-culture industry spoke to what it meant to be British and feel proud to be British. As Parkes points out, that kind of fell apart when you tried to look at specifics.

The difficulty is that it's hard to pin that on any particular band, though. It's not specifically Blur's role, more than anyone else's, to pick apart some of those ideas. It's easy to say that "Britpop" was politically loaded and politically naive but if you take the view that it was a media invention rather than a coherent movement, who can you really call to account?

The media?

Oasis played Blair's game and got their photo taken with him at Number 10. Labour for a very short time were seen as the good guys thwarting the Tory forces of evil and I guess this PR move was good for both sides, not too different to Stevie Wonder and friends singing at Democrat rallies in the States etc. But yeah, this was the media's fault, a media thing. You could just as well blame cricket for boosting John Major.

Everything that is published on a popular subject is clickbait. You want people to read it. That's the whole point of writing it. Also, as I've said before, the stuff that people deride as clickbait is what buys editors and writers the chance to do the stuff they really care about.

For my Britpop piece, this was the process. The editor of G2 wanted a piece about how Britpop ruined everything. A couple of writers were asked, who couldn't do it. I decided to do it myself because a) By this point, it was going to be quicker than getting someone else to do it and the piece was needed urgently b) The proposition was close enough to what I felt about Britpop that I didn't mind doing it.

But it was an opinion piece, and that means expressing yourself in the most forceful terms, rather than umming and ahhing, so yes, you do end up with something that is overstated (and I regret using the term cultural abomination, especially once it ended up in the headline). However, I've had shedloads of people accuse me of trolling, and I wasn't trolling. That word appears to have changed its meaning. It now seems to be: a strongly expressed opinion with which I do not agree.

You know how some people start out. They want to do something they really love, something they really believe in. But they can’t because it doesn’t pay enough for them to live on. So they do something else. It might not be what they want but they think to themselves: OK, this is not ideal, this is maybe not what I was put on this earth to do, but if it puts a roof over my head and food on the table I’ll keep at it for now and carry on doing what I actually enjoy doing as a sideline.

But as time goes by and circumstances change you find that you gradually have less and less time and resources to subsidise your own passion, and so reluctantly – SADLY, TRAGICALLY – you knuckle down without necessarily realising that you’ve just turned into a robot, a machine of habit, like everybody else. And whatever OTHER was inside you is now buried deep, too deep ever to be reclaimed or reused.

So it is with writing, and with clickbait. Wanting people to read something is not the same as writing something you know people are going to read, because clickbait is set up to annoy people deliberately in order to maximise revenue – that “pays” sticks out like the sorest of thumbs, and it has to be said; pays for what? Toynbee saying we should be nice to a right-wing “Culture Minister” who thinks that ticket touts provide a vital service to the market (as a for instance)?

“The editor of G2 wanted a piece about how Britpop ruined everything”; there’s your problem right there. Not a nuanced, multifocal piece about Britpop, but an express remit to talk about how it “ruined everything” (?)*

*and of course with 20+-year-old pictures of Good Guy Jarvis, because we all love him, don’t we, isn’t he a national treasure, might not have done anything of note or value for a good decade and a half, but oh he’s so INTELLIGENT and has so many IDEAS and has so much EMPATHY, and it’s depressing to see how many grown adults still just MELT at the mention of his name, of his being, without ever worrying, well, what’s behind all this? What if it’s NOTHING – or the precise ANTITHESIS of what we had once thought? (Actually if you listen to something like “Mis-Shapes” now it sounds like Cameron and Gove fulminating against the shirking, uncultured plebs, as opposed to upper middle class, grammar school educated Jarv being benched off because some drunken plumber wearing a white shirt laughed at him one time? And what about “Common People”? What about it? Yes, these pallid working class types, they dance and drink and screw because there’s NOTHING ELSE TO DO. Dammit, JC, how would YOU know?)

An “opinion piece” does NOT mean “expressing yourself in the most forceful terms” unless you’re setting out to be Dave Spart or something. What you term “umming and ahhing” is trying to come to honest terms with what you are writing about, attempting a calm, balanced viewpoint – gently persuading people to at least CONSIDER changing their minds - and such writing carries an entirely different tone and resonance from OTT Rants 4U stuff full of arch hype, clever-cleverness and punk rock sweaty shouting which actually, in terms of helping people to understand each other and their art, eventually signifies precisely nothing** – and even five years ago, you’d have been hard pressed to find anything like that in the Guardian or anywhere else comparable.

**Why? Because that kind of writing requires patience, long-term thinking and, yes, that most Cameronite of sins, HARD WORK if you’re going to write something that isn’t clickbait, that won’t provide easy emotional release for people who’ve been led, by whatever means of convenience, to lose their curiosity.

Good writing should be – what word would best describe it? “Awe-inspiring” is far from perfect but yes, writing and reportage at their best should inspire awe. “Intimidating” might be another good adjective, in the sense that the writing in the 1976-82 NME was intimidating, because it made you want to BETTER yourself, to prove yourself worthy of reading it. The “trollumnists” (as somebody else on ILx, I can’t remember who, called them) on the Guardian, New Statesman etc. are intimidating in a smug sense, in terms of getting one up on somebody else, with no greater ambition than stamping their feet, shouting “ith not fair,” aiming their spray can at the wall and running away.

The consequence of clickbait “culture,” however, is that you end up servicing people who really only want their basic story about the world – the world as they, and ONLY they, know it – confirmed and agreed with, because perversely that makes them feel better about themselves. I’ve had people come up to me and say that Church of Me or Then Play Long helped them get through some difficult times. I’m not aware of that ever having been said about any piece of 'tis/'tisn't/black and white with no grey whatsoever clickbait.

the parkes piece didn't accuse britpop of apoliticism -- that's a strawman. the one time apolitical is used its in this context:

In the confusion of austerity a brand new Britishness is afoot, like the old one but fractionally closer to fascism. More than apolitical – actively hostile to radical thought. More than dismissive of class-consciousness – angry at the slightest suggestion that anyone's problem might not be a problem with them, but a problem with Britain. It's everywhere. And every single chance it gets, it guts that "other" Britishness, the kind pop music once personified, the kind that's all about irreverence, vitality and wit.

its very particular about a certain sort of particular attitude about class and culture that blur was heralding and how that foreshadowed where britain was going, etc. and it does feel like in retrospect i can look at blur videos and feel that context in a way i couldn't have seen at the time. the idea that they were on the wrong (but triumphant) side of history is pretty powerful as a central thesis

Also, Blur seemed to coat itself in vague political signifiers on their Britpop albums. Whether or not they were actually political, or just tourists, is a more significant question to raise than if it been about, I don't know, M People.

Pulp also, people always claim they were on the 'right' side of this divide, as opposed to Blur, somehow more compassionate and less snarky, but does Common People really make sense? I mean, it's an amazing composition, but isn't there something condescending and problematic about the narrator basically telling a young woman that he will always be more real than her, because she can always 'call her daddy'?

Dodgy were from Hounslow IIRC

Bromsgrove, actually

Common People: A lyrical discussion/dissection

And what about “Common People”? What about it? Yes, these pallid working class types, they dance and drink and screw because there’s NOTHING ELSE TO DO. Dammit, JC, how would YOU know?

That's what you take from that line??

angry at the slightest suggestion that anyone's problem might not be a problem with them, but a problem with Britain.

But that isn't Blur at all. I know Damon contradicted himself a lot but he did say this when Parklife came out: "It annoys me when we're accused of having this nostalgic romance with a mythical lost Britain. Where are these songs about how great the country is? Nearly every one is tempered with cynicism and aggression."

And what about “Common People”? What about it? Yes, these pallid working class types, they dance and drink and screw because there’s NOTHING ELSE TO DO. Dammit, JC, how would YOU know?

That's what you take from that line??

It's pretty patronising when you think about it and it is reflected in some of his other songs, e.g. "Fat Children" where he compares underclass kids to maggots.

xpost Not going to argue, Marcello, because there's a lot of truth in what you say. But there's never been a golden age of journalism where a great many pieces were not written to order by editors, because the editor wanted that piece. It was ever thus and always will be. The web means they just get seen by and discussed by an awful lot more people now.

But I'm not ashamed of the fact that journalism is a job (in my case a staff job, which circumscribes my ability to say no to things), not an art. I'm not ashamed that I can turn round a cogent 900 words on a wide variety of subjects in a very short time. The pieces I'm proudest of are those where I've out something of myself into them, and worked on them for a long time. But I wouldn't get the chance to do them if I couldn't also do 900 words to short order. And I will not be made to feel ashamed of having that ability. Your pieces are brilliant, Marcello, but they're also very personal, written for you, and if anyone else like's them that's a bonus. I don't have that luxury. I can't write 12,000 words on an album, because it would take up too much time I have to spend doing other things, because the ratio of readers to effort would be too poor, because that's not what newspapers do.

idk, i think Common People is a song that sits on fault-lines (or mirror-cracks) - the narrator's class-anxious, can't settle himself somewhere, sort of claiming the real, sort of horrified by it, self-dramatising - I think that's some of its real power, its unwillingness to be fixed. There's quite a complicated unpleasantness to Pulp-in-their-prime, that yes, I think Jarvis-as-national-treasure types don't always look straight at -but it's part of why I keep coming back. Messy.

which is all well and good but it has just occurred to me to wonder if Cameron and/or Osborne has ever done a drunken (or coked up) crowd singalong with it. How many weddings have they been to where it was played?

OTM. It's the messiness and neurosis about class identity that makes Common People so compelling, especially in contrast to the pretty horrible Mis-Shapes.

(ithappens xp)

Well, you’re talking about journalism there, which as I’ve said many times before is an entirely different calling from being a writer like what I am. I couldn’t do what you do because I’ve never had any journalistic training, same as you couldn’t do what I do for a living because you’re not, as far as I know, a trained NHS professional. Just because I have to *DON’T TALK ABOUT YOUR DAY JOB ONLINE EDIT* on a daily basis doesn’t preclude me from going home and writing; indeed it gives me the means to do so. No need to feel ashamed of the skills that you do have and I never suggested that you should.

The TPL pieces ARE very personal but they’re not written for me. I could tell you who they’re written for and why they’re written but frankly that ain’t nobody else’s business. You’re right about the poor readers-to-effort ratio, though.

I’ll stop here and get off the bus, though, because then this thread becomes about me and my sodding blog again, rather than Britpop.

Anyway, I'm not seeking a row. I just think it's sometimes helpful for people to remember that jobbing journalists do jobs. Just like jobbing builders, plumbers, NHS professionals and so on.

And you know I'm an admirer of TPL.

might not have done anything of note or value for a good decade and a half

Synchronize is killer and the Nancy Sinatra songs were good

appreciate setting the cut off at Pickled Eggs & Sherbert though

Is Jarvis a "national treasure" anyway? I get the impression no-one gives a toss about him these days.

but isn't there something condescending and problematic about the narrator basically telling a young woman that he will always be more real than her, because she can always 'call her daddy'?

Whoa!

The lyric contains "Common people, like you" but in reply the phrase "Common People like me" is never used.

xp I think he might have peaked as a n/t two or three years ago, & that was largely Observer world.
)

x-post: Uhm, yeah, it is? In the second chorus, right?

But if the good thing with Jarvis is the messiness and his neurosis about class, then why can't we use the same excuse to like Damon?

I said "yeah?
Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here.
Are you sure you want to live like common people,
you want to see whatever common people see,
you want to sleep with common people,
you want to sleep with common people,
like me."
But she didn't understand,
she just smiled and held my hand.

btw has anyone read this? it was mentioned in Taylor Parkes' article

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4irVuZamOhA/TURdDyvl-pI/AAAAAAAAFg0/Fp0pfcEblfQ/s1600/A%2BPhonogram%2BRue%2BBritannia%2BTPB.jpg

Ah, you missed out a question mark, which does make a difference and is what I was meaning.

But, fair point.

Can you remember where the R. Young article was, Tom? I'd like to read what he had to say. A brief google failed to turn anything up. No doubt his lambasting had the zeal of the convert.

Ummmm, I think it was in a review about some book about indie music, a history of indie music or sumthin' ... it was from 2006 or thereabouts, didn't strike me as his finest moment

xpost - I think The PG:Singles Club is better, but it's definitely worth a read. Back in the day (say 97 or so), it took me about a month to realise that David Kohl, Brem X Jones, and Gillen were one and the same…

I'm not sure I understand the significance of 'like me' in this discussion...

Appreciate that Jarvis's lyric could be interpreted a number of ways. I know, also, how much of a cop-out this might sounds, but I'm often wary of over-analysing lyrical minutiae in pop songs because it's likely that a songwriter can only do so much as the song allows. Writing a song is different from writing an opinion piece or even poetry because you're constrained by factors like metre, length, rhyming scheme and what simply sounds best when rolling off the tongue or belted out in a chorus, so it's not like all songwriters deserve to have their work scrutinised every which way. All too often you have to make concessions.

*might sound

What I mean is, it's unlikely Jarvis sat down one day and said 'I want to write a song about class and sex tourism', wrote out a load of lyrics detailing his exact succinct thoughts on the subject and then wrote a tune around it. It's probably the other way round, and writing smart lyrics like this is tough enough as it is without having to consider ambiguous and implicit meanings that may or may not be construed from outside interpretation. You can do your best, but no matter what you're going to be open to having them picked apart when written down.

aiui the 'like me' question in this thread turns on whether Jarvis is saying that he is a Common Person, or whether he's effectively quoting the Greek girl back at herself with a raised eyebrow of amusement, confusion or disbelief ('You think I'm a common person? well, let me explain…'). (obvs the latter imo)

I'm often wary of over-analysing lyrical minutiae

NOT ME

I'm often wary of over-analysing lyrical minutiae
NOT ME
But she didn't understand, she just smiled and held my hand

Lyrics are designed to be sung anyhow. The way a lyric is sung can change the whole meaning of the song. I actually prefer Bill Shatner and Joe Jackson's interpretation of 'Common People' because I feel Jarvis mutters a lot of the lyrics and it wasn't until I heard the Shatters version that I even understood the all the words.

But… he doesn't have to consider the outside interpretations. He just has to write the lyrics: they may be part-defined by the tune, by the rhymes, by accident - but selecting or intuiting something that feels right or funny, that fits, he makes a thing complicated, probably beyond his conscious intentions (and that's leaving aside the band's part in it all). We sit here and argue about it; we build new meanings and relate it to our lives in fresh ways; eventually we get sacked when the network admin realises how much time we're spending reading ILM at work.

Jarvis published his lyrics in a nice Faber & Faber volume, so they must be meant to be taken somewhat seriously. Here's his brief note on Common People from that book:

http://i.imgur.com/8WoRZys.png

Always find it interesting that, although they seem to be the act most people like out of it, they were eventuallychamstrung with the Britpop label - unlike Blur and Oasis. If you plot a timeline theres no big act more synonymous with the rise and fall of Britpop.

Best Pulp album is well after Britpop imo

Yeah, but people really started to jump off the bus at that point. Help the Aged was successful but their staying power declined. Unlike Blur and Oasis, crappy Be Here Now or not

It's interesting that nowadays Britpop is firmly defined as Blur/Oasis and others. It's easy to imagine a 1990s without Oasis, which would then mean (surely?) no Shed Seven, no Cast etc., at least not under the Britpop umbrella.

The Select union jack cover, in spring 1993, long before anyone had heard of Oasis, had Suede, St Etienne, Denim, Pulp and the Auteurs on the cover. Most of these are not even particularly guitar-y, and they're barely rock. The middle three especially were definitely onto something similar - that I very much liked at the time - and it's weird that history has bracketed them with Cast and Northern Uproar.

The Britpop Now BBC programme in 1995 still didn't have any of that straightforward northern guitar rock: Blur, Elastica, The Boo Radleys, PJ Harvey, Menswe@r, Echobelly, Gene, Supergrass, Sleeper, Marion, Powder, Pulp. Quite a bit of shit, right enough, but PJ Harvey!

OK so on a micro level britpop ws nearly something soecial/inclusive? Shit. St Et ws my fav band in those days, one of them now

I'd argue that it's impossible to imagine the (mid-to-late) '90s without Oasis.

http://www.literatura.hu/irok/szimbol/images/Stefan-George.jpg

I always felt like "Common People" was a pretty direct critique on how art students/rock kids/etc. worship the working class and do so in a patronizing way that embraces and justifies their own nihilism. Basically dressing up self-indulgent 20s hedonism as something profound and authentic because the lower classes do this. Nobody in the club drinking/dancing/screwing is really lower class, it's just full of these entitled elitists judging each other.

The best part of 'Common People' for me is the part they actually edited out of the single version!

Pretty sure theres an entire thread devoted to analysing the lyrics of "Common People" in excruciating detail

why not do it in this thread that is so worthwhile buoyant and inspiring

even more so, now you've made your contribution :P