|
|
Post by supersonicmonkee on Jun 26, 2005 21:37:05 GMT -5
I have always been confused by how Oasis was ever dubbed "britpop" and lumped under that label. Early "Britpop" always seemed to be more aligned with what early blur ( Modern Life, Parklife, etc) and Suede were doing -- you know, using overt "british" music styles and talking about growing up in the UK. When compared to blur, suede, pulp, etc., Oasis just seems to be that odd one out. Perhaps, "britpop" became to be specifically associated with Oasis post-Morning Glory? That would certainly shed light on why bands such as Cast, hurricane#1, etc were classified as britpop, though don't share anything with the blurs and suedes of the early scene --- you know, leaning more heavily on the 'pop' part of the term  What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear them as this has been on my mind from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by jobero on Jun 27, 2005 6:15:06 GMT -5
Err...i agree. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 27, 2005 6:28:39 GMT -5
I have always been confused by how Oasis was ever dubbed "britpop" and lumped under that label. Early "Britpop" always seemed to be more aligned with what early blur ( Modern Life, Parklife, etc) and Suede were doing -- you know, using overt "british" music styles and talking about growing up in the UK. When compared to blur, suede, pulp, etc., Oasis just seems to be that odd one out. Perhaps, "britpop" became to be specifically associated with Oasis post-Morning Glory? That would certainly shed light on why bands such as Cast, hurricane#1, etc were classified as britpop, though don't share anything with the blurs and suedes of the early scene --- you know, leaning more heavily on the 'pop' part of the term What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear them as this has been on my mind from time to time. Read this book  It was called 'Britpop' in the USA though. |
|
|
|
Post by jobero on Jun 27, 2005 6:32:24 GMT -5
I have always been confused by how Oasis was ever dubbed "britpop" and lumped under that label. Early "Britpop" always seemed to be more aligned with what early blur ( Modern Life, Parklife, etc) and Suede were doing -- you know, using overt "british" music styles and talking about growing up in the UK. When compared to blur, suede, pulp, etc., Oasis just seems to be that odd one out. Perhaps, "britpop" became to be specifically associated with Oasis post-Morning Glory? That would certainly shed light on why bands such as Cast, hurricane#1, etc were classified as britpop, though don't share anything with the blurs and suedes of the early scene --- you know, leaning more heavily on the 'pop' part of the term What are your thoughts? I'd like to hear them as this has been on my mind from time to time. Read this book It was called 'Britpop' in the USA though. Or you could save yourself a few days and watch the Live Forever movie/docu. ;D I suppose they are on about the same thing...again. |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 27, 2005 6:34:45 GMT -5
Read this book It was called 'Britpop' in the USA though. Or you could save yourself a few days and watch the Live Forever movie/docu. ;D I suppose they are on about the same thing...again. Well aye, I guess you could ;D The book has a lot more detail in it though. Its a very good read. Although the author is in love with Damon Albarn I think  |
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jun 27, 2005 6:48:40 GMT -5
oasis is part of kool britianina rather than britpop imo, the became bigger than just music
|
|
|
|
Post by supersonicmonkee on Jun 27, 2005 11:34:43 GMT -5
Read this book It was called 'Britpop' in the USA though. Oh yeah, I read The Last Party two years ago [great read, btw!] and have a pretty extensive britpop cd collection for someone from the US (considering how much it can cost to import records or scour around indie record stores  , but the book just seems to document the musicians who are considered to be a part of 'britpop'. I'm just thinking about the quality of the music itself --- e.g. , how blur used ska & music hall-styles and talked about particular british places and such ca 1992-1996 -- and how certain bands came to be associated with it. I think Dominic's point is good about Oasis being part of cool britannia rather than just the music. I dunno; it's tough to gauge something which you're not a part of, since I live in the US and it happened across the pond. Or maybe what I'm saying isn't making any sense!! Either is possible |
|
|
|
Post by Bizzle on Jun 27, 2005 13:46:23 GMT -5
Oasis were brit-pop because they mixed styles of music from decades gone by and put it all together in a 90's package. The 60's were mostly used for the music and the lyrics were inspired by Tory britain which Oasis and Blur did write about.
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 27, 2005 13:55:51 GMT -5
Read this book It was called 'Britpop' in the USA though. Oh yeah, I read The Last Party two years ago [great read, btw!] and have a pretty extensive britpop cd collection for someone from the US (considering how much it can cost to import records or scour around indie record stores , but the book just seems to document the musicians who are considered to be a part of 'britpop'. I'm just thinking about the quality of the music itself --- e.g. , how blur used ska & music hall-styles and talked about particular british places and such ca 1992-1996 -- and how certain bands came to be associated with it. I think Dominic's point is good about Oasis being part of cool britannia rather than just the music. I dunno; it's tough to gauge something which you're not a part of, since I live in the US and it happened across the pond. Or maybe what I'm saying isn't making any sense!! Either is possible Well the phrase 'cool Britania' was first used in that context by a Tory MP called Virginia Bottomly towards the end of John Majors government as was used extensivley by Blairs 'New Labour' when on the cusp of government and soon after they won power. So that whole thing is just one of these silly slogans that political partys come out with, there wasnt a 'cool britania' scene as such, although I do know what you and Dom mean. |
|
|
|
Post by giggergrl on Jun 29, 2005 22:32:58 GMT -5
good Q ... Listen the the CHIEF ! haha ! we have all have heard Noel say they are pure ROCK N ROLL and he is a "fucking POPSTAR" then Liam made statements about NOT wanting to be in the indie category AT ALL- he was a POP STAR and proud of it - The beatles were pop... For me, my LOVE and PASSION for oasis is that they are everything I love rolled into one : Proper British ROCK, punk, POP and acoustic music ! Viva la Gallagher Bros ! Tam  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2005 14:43:57 GMT -5
Britpop doesn’t mean anything its just a bit of lazy journalism, label everything as though its the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by bankholiday on Jul 1, 2005 2:09:08 GMT -5
Britpop doesn’t mean anything its just a bit of lazy journalism, label everything as though its the same. I think thats overly cynical, there was a britpop scene and people such as the Gallaghers and Albarn have openly said they were part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by LDD- Angelic Child on Jul 1, 2005 12:59:15 GMT -5
I'd say Oasis are.. when i say 'Brit-pop' to people they thing of all this chart shite though.
Brit-pop was just the collective term for the music of the early to mid-90's well actually (1993(ish)-1998(ish)). It was a time period and a revolution in history which was just given a name. I feel that if anything Oasis and Blur were the creators (along with the likes of The Verve, Pulp and Elastica) after the Stone Roses started the ball rolling that way.
Brit-pop is my favourite period in music and above i've probably missed loads of bands out but you get my drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by supersonicmonkee on Jul 1, 2005 19:36:44 GMT -5
I'd say Oasis are.. when i say 'Brit-pop' to people they thing of all this chart shite though. Brit-pop was just the collective term for the music of the early to mid-90's well actually (1993(ish)-1998(ish)). It was a time period and a revolution in history which was just given a name. I feel that if anything Oasis and Blur were the creators (along with the likes of The Verve, Pulp and Elastica) after the Stone Roses started the ball rolling that way. Brit-pop is my favourite period in music and above i've probably missed loads of bands out but you get my drift. Agree! I'm always arguing with a couple friends of mine who slag off any band that's called 'britpop' as meaning the same thing. Bluetones, Cast (yes, even Cast), blur, embrace, charlatans, ocs each takes different influences and their styles are so different [though sometimes the production values are similar, what with the shared producers like Spike Stent and John Leckie]. I think dismissing the term britpop as just a concoction of lazy journalism, duncan172, oversimplifies it. It seems to be a convenient term for marketing, but it seems to also hint at that political and cultural stuff (Cool britannia) which Dominic was hinting at. btw, thanks for your thoughts so far, guys and gals.... appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by supersonicmonkee on Jul 1, 2005 19:37:47 GMT -5
For me, my LOVE and PASSION for oasis is that they are everything I love rolled into one : Proper British ROCK, punk, POP and acoustic music ! Viva la Gallagher Bros ! Tam nicely said, giggergrl. couldn't explain it better myself -- well, sans the 'tam ' signature. |
|
|
|
Post by Black Rebel Motorcycle Pixie. on Jul 2, 2005 2:39:32 GMT -5
Does it really matter what they are?
|
|
|
|
Post by jobero on Jul 3, 2005 13:32:30 GMT -5
Does it really matter what they are? In the grand scheme of things, does anything matter? It doesn't really but people are just having a debate about it, which i am enjoying. |
|
, but the book just seems to document the musicians who are considered to be a part of 'britpop'. I'm just thinking about the quality of the music itself --- e.g. , how blur used ska & music hall-styles and talked about particular british places and such ca 1992-1996 -- and how certain bands came to be associated with it. 
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5