Talk:Britpop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to cleanup and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.

Music Portal

	Alternative music Portal This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

There are some mistakes in this article that i'm not too sure about. Shoegazing was Influenced by jesus and mary chain and my bloody valentine, weren't both of these bands part of this movement, i know for a fact that MBV formed in the late 80's. And the cultural origin, 1993? Pulp have been around since the 70's.

Contents 1 Invasion? 2 Quite poor 3 Um, yeah 4 Better, but... 5 Major Edit 6 Anyways 7 Still not as good as before 8 Chart 9 Post-Britpop 10 General comments 11 Influences 12 Too Narrow 13 Proposed changes - please read 14 My opinion 15 Quite. 16 BTW 17 typos and Britrock 18 iconically / ironically 19 Images 20 Paul Weller 21 Great article. 22 Edits 23 Timeline 24 "Third British Invasion"? 25 Contradictions 26 Some ideas for improving this article/perceived faults 27 Suede's "decline" 28 Jarvis Cocker and Pulp 29 What about the resurgence of Plastic POP? 30 Suede as important band 31 Britrock redirect

[edit] Invasion?

What is a British invasion?, as in 'The movement is regarded as a direct continuation of the British Invasions in the 60s and 80s'. And why is an article on BRITpop seemingly written with an american perspective? It should be written with no perspective, just give the facts etc, or at the very least write with a british perspective.

The british invasion was pretty much the beatles. It's a common term, it means the success of british bands in America.

[edit] Quite poor

This article really has very little to do with Britpop, which is certainly NOT synonymous with the mellotron! Better research is needed to make this article at all informative.

Exactly. Lots of bits and pieces strung together into an article.

--Madchester 03:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um, yeah

I'm going to revert this. Painbearer has taken completely replaced the original article with a bunch of waffle on the significance of the mellotron which is also a copyvio (cf http://freespace.virgin.net/andy.thompson/britpop.htm) Djbrianuk 26th Jan 2005 0249 GMT

[edit] Better, but...

Painbearer has redone the article without the copyvio. I'm still somewhat askance at his decision to completely delete the consensus article created between 2002 and 2004 with a completely new article written solely by himself. I feel wikipedia works best when there is a synthesis of contributions combined into one article rather than a single source. I'm also not certain if the Oasis vs Blur material is NPOV. I invite others to scrutinize his work vs the November 2004 incarnation by Jumbuck and make their own comments. Djbrianuk 12:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major Edit

I've decided to be bold and take a large axe to this article, which IMHO contained far too much information of peripheral importance. A lot of it is far more appropiate to individual band pages rather than here. I've also tried to tighten the article up considerably, remove a lot of excessively wordy phrasing, and NPOV it as much as possible. Considering this article is one of Painbearer's pet projects I'm anticipating flak, but it needed to be done Djbrianuk 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anyways

Maybe it had to be done - it's people's right to have an opinion. Yet I think that my article couldn't be cut so harshly with the axe being so big. In my opinion this edit is rather radical and inconvinient, with the article more or less unsuitable at places. To clarify the things about the incompabiltiy, it's very visible where the article was cut in pieces and that there were things that didn't match a lot and give this sense of incompability. With more complicated, respectfully and carefully editing, it could be turned to the best, but in my opinion the Britpop section turns to be mediocre. But if any of you guys can propose something better than this - I'd gladly hear it... You'd better do it, because I will leave this project at once...--Painbearer 15:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still not as good as before

It's better this way, but I still think it could be better. Considering it's still my revisited article, I'll still consider it as my project. But taking the cut to the fore, I'll try to reach the balance, between good information and quantity. – Painbearer 22:26, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

I like this since it's been done up, but that chart gives me a headache. It's dead confusing and it dosnt seem that helpful. Can anything be done about tha-hat?--Crestville 00:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Britpop

I really don't think there's any need for the Second Wave stuff - a lot of these bands have nothing to do with Britpop, it's like calling Blur a Second Wave English punk band. I think the article gets by just having the death of Britpop bit. I'd add a bit about the NME 'Noel's burning guitar' issue, just because it was funny that the NME decided it didn't want to have any readers any more, so stopped record executives pouring money into rubbish Britpop bands by declaring it dead.

Yes that stuff about the second wave of Britpop is cobblers. Travis and Coldplay and the like are not part of the same movement at all, not even the same sound. JW 12:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Travis have been around for a long time, they got a big lift from supporting Oasis around 1996. Recently they have copied the Coldplay sound. Catchpole

[edit] General comments

There are still a lot of problems with this page, especially to do with the writing style (sometimes almost semi-literate) and several factual mistakes (Belle and Sebastian in 1995?). I also personally think that we should limit the frame to 1997 or so. maybe there could be a second article about the "second wave" thing - shame the IPC sub-editors decided not to invent a name for them. --Sachabrunel 14:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, that chart at the bottom - what is it supposed to mean exactly? I see what whoever drew it was trying to do but the dates are wrong beyond belief. --Sachabrunel 15:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the rest of the Oasis page, its like its not been finished!

[edit] Influences

The influences section needs to be rewritten, as it currently reads like a brief summary of the history of rock music. We should indicate exactly what Britpop bands drew form these influences and why they matter.

And someone please explain to me how progressive rock was a major influence on Britpop. WesleyDodds 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing needs to be completely rewritten, I'd say 10 - 20 percent is salvagable. I think we need to get the definition of 'britpop' cleared up once and for all. That utterly ludicrous list of the '100 greatest britpop bands' linked includes The Lighthouse Family, Suggs and David Gray. Also there is a section called 'Death of the Britpop'. What language is that supposed to be exactly? I'm going to take a day out and work on this next week, suggestions welcome. --Sachabrunel 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too Narrow

Surely the term 'Britpop' has been around longer than 1987- we used to call The Smiths, Cure, New Order et al Britpop back in the early-mid eighties. The genesis of the word- 'British' and 'Popular' suggests a much broader definition. I'd include the bands listed as influences into the category- were they not British, were they not Popular? If you wish, sub-divide the category into Shoegaze, Madchester, Glam, etc. Here is an admittedly incomplete but I believe instructive list of classic Britpop hits (sort of chronological):

Song: Artist

Making Time: Creation

Paperback Writer: The Beatles

A Quick One While He's Away: The Who

Queen Bitch: David Bowie

Teenage Kicks: The Undertones

Hot Child In The City: Nick Gilder And Time Machine

Jet: Paul McCartney

Slap And Tickle: Squeeze

Peaches: The Stranglers

Pump It Up: Elvis Costello & The Attractions

Canary In A Coalmine: The Police

Save It For Later: The English Beat

Come Dancing  : The Kinks

Undercover of the Night: The Rolling Stones

Age Of Consent: New Order

The Cutter: Echo & The Bunnymen

Yin And Yang The Flowerpot Man: Love & Rockets

Primary: The Cure

The Queen Is Dead (Take Me Back To Dear Old Blighty): The Smiths

Down On Me: The Jesus & Mary Chain

Like A Daydream: Ride

Destroy The Heart: House of Love

I Am The Resurrection: The Stone Roses

I'm Losing More Than I'll Ever Have: Primal Scream

Sproston Green: The Charlatans

Dennis And Lois: Happy Mondays

Son Of A Gun: The La's

Louis XIV: The Wolfgang Press

Soon: My Bloody Valentine

Stutter: Elastica

The Bends: Radiohead

M.O.R.: Blur

Party Hard: Pulp

I Could Be Dreaming: Belle & Sebastian

Jacqueline: Franz Ferdinand

I Predict A Riot: Kaiser Chiefs

Not neccessarily the best song from each band or the most represtantive either, but a good list nonetheless. Feel Free to add. Less about beats, harmonies, lyrics or insturmentation, Britpop should be defined by its attitude: Bombastic, defiant, and ultimately hopeful.

---

Baron Kimball

Re above Pretty poor, Britpop most certainly does not include anything in the 80's. And in any case your list omits Oasis - just shows you how much about britpop! What utter twaddle. PS - The Kasier chiefs - Britpop (dear oh dear)----Chris Phillips

Re above- We can't have an encyclopedia article about a vague idea. Britpop does not equal British pop, it is a term applicable to a limited number of bands in 1994-1997 only. A scene in Camden around the Good Mixer (yes, even Oasis went there), a magazine, Select, and less a style of music than a style of dress. Unfortunately because the term itself is so vague people think they can apply it as wide as they like. Perhaps we can divide this into two and have a disambiguation page. Of the bands above, Elastica, Blur and Pulp were part of the britpop movement. Radiohead weren't really. The rest weren't at all. Ditto most of the bands mentioned in the article. --Sachabrunel 19:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about an indie/alternative movement in the 90's. Sure the term Britpop had been around for a while and used as a simple adjective (like New Wave) but it wasn't until 1995 or so that it was applied to a set of bands to describe a genre/movement. Pretty much all the early artists listed are influences who can be filed under "British guitar pop" which describes an awful lot of bands in the hsitory of music. Bands like the Stone Roses and the La's are more the direct progenators of the genre we call Britpop. WesleyDodds 23:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this? We need to seperate this out, much of the information should be in a general history of British guitar music / indie music which should have its own page. This could be explained at the top, perhaps with a disambigation page. Something like "Britpop is a term often applied to a movement in British indie music in the mid 1990s, though it has also been used since as a catch-all term for British guitar music in general." A bit wordy, but you get the idea. --Sachabrunel 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that'd work fine if we put it in the article, but making separate pages would be unnecessary. People don't need to know every meaning of a word (hence the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" mandate). WesleyDodds 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree on this. Is there a general British guitar music article? Could have a explanation and then a link there at the top, that's what I'd like to see. --Sachabrunel 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone make some mention of the gorillaz, i mean, aren't they modern britpop?----SOAD_ROCKS

[edit] Proposed changes - please read

I'm listing here a few of the more major problems with the article for comments, please explain why any of these things should be here if you want them to stay.

Very POV:

"big, catchy hooks"

"lack of innovation and highly derivative nature"

"live performances tended to be exercises in endurance"

"mainly derivative bands"

"unfairly been associated with the Seattle scene by a lazy media"

"the much-lamented Menswear"

"overproduced and bloated "acid" sound, characterised with endless guitar riffs and lack of originality in making the songs"

"more sophisticated acts like Radiohead and The Verve"

"none managed to show the brilliance that they displayed during their first three albums"

Exaggeration / hyperbole:

"incredibly popular"

"In the wake of these revolutions"

"The movement also exercised a brief period of cultural hegemony"

"Suede's poppy 1996 album Coming Up was a needed tonic"

Broken / garbled / bizarre English:

"Oasis are cited as a transcendental band of Madchester, as the initial line-up were all from Manchester."

"This and the sophomore great albums kickstarted the movement and in the following three years (1993 – 1995) other Britpop and similar style acts just poured"

"While this battle raged on Pulp took the spots with the magnificent single"

"The battle was also on a "representative" points as Blur praised Mod bands like Small Faces and the Kinks, while Oasis - obvious Rocker trends"

"because of it massive popularity at the time and because acts represented particular musical influence or movement in their music"

"they granted the movement the chance for rolling for some more"

"Ironically a couple of years after Coxon left, he realigned with Street to record his most successful solo records" (How is this ironic?)

Seemingly endless lists of bands for no good reason:

"Also quite influential were 1970s and 1980s glam idols such as David Bowie, Lou Reed T. Rex, and Roxy Music, as well as punk and new wave artists The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Jam, Buzzcocks, Madness, The Specials..."

Outright fantasies:

"Weller in particular is praised as the founder and initiator of the movement" (by who?)

"(In Britain and Ireland it became popular for a time when asked "What's the story?" (lit. "How are you?"), to answer with "Morning glory".)" (I lived there, it didn't)

"their regular alcohol, cocaine and crack usage" (Heroin was on the scene, not crack at all)

"the public was buying almost everything that was released" (Erm...)

Inclusion of unrelated bands:

"There were also Irish acts such as - the Cranberries"

The problem here is where to start. I'd like to scrap the whole thing and start again to be honest, and not just because of the problems above. The flow of the article is bizarre - it goes backwards and forwards constantly. A lot of the language just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Maybe some hack job in a bad fanzine. There is too much information that should be on other pages, for example that long paragraph about Pete Doherty and the overdetailed information about Oasis. I could go on.

--Sachabrunel 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion

It's quite late and I'm gonna be brief. I think that truly this article needs a lot of editing. But, I don't know if I am the right person to do this. Anyway, I think that Brett Anderson had an addiction to the crack, but I might be wrong. But, I think that the article truly deserves significant editing. Otherwise, I can provide help, but I do not think that I am capable enough of rewriting the article by my own, although most of it information is done solely by me. On the other look, the work here is something very valuable to me as a person and probably I will stay around to do more work. In fact, I am willing to rewrite big portions of it and probably I will scrap some of it. Painbearer 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quite.

In particular there's a lot of hyperbole towards the end about Oasis. OK, they were a significant act but there's no need to try and justify their recent career.

In particular it's annoying when people try and attribute their own music tastes to 'influences', such as early 80s. This has been a problem on other music entries as well, when people have generalised or gone off on tangents.

Can Painbearer please restrain himself in future?

I doubt it.--Crestville 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

If we're looking for a definitive era (as opposed to including everything from when John Lennon first picked up a guitar), can we limit ourselves to the period covered by the BBC link at the end of the article? (ie. 1994-1998)

[edit] typos and Britrock

The current article is littered with spelling mistakes and prepositions missed. Needs a thorough re-read.

Britrock redirects here but was something separate but much more minor.

-- Beardo 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iconically / ironically

Crestville recently corrected several spelling errors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britpop&diff=45275384&oldid=45255480

One change was to amend "decidedly British singing which would later become iconically recognised as "Britpop"." by changing iconically to ironically. I think iconically was what was actually meant, though I am not sure if it is a real word.

-- Beardo 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I used spellcheck so its very possible your right--Crestville 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Meriam Webster confirms that the word exists - - icon·i·cal·ly /-ni-k(&-)lE/ adverb - I am sure that is what was meant, and have reverted. Thanks for all the other corrections though - it needed that ! -- Beardo 12:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Someone removed the good article tag becuase there are no images. Obviously, thining up an image for a genre would be hard. I suggest either some comtempory Union Jack motif or a band. Obviously, we'd have to vote on which band best encapsulates the movement and knowing this site that would never bloody get resolved. Any ideas?--Crestville 16:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two pictures - one of Blur and one of Oasis ? Record covers ? Something to epitomise the battle of the bands between Blur and Oasis ? Something like this except I assume its copyright http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B0001I2BUS/ref=dp_image_text_0/002-6667518-7704832?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=130&s=dvd -- Beardo 22:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be good - and it might be fair use coz CD/DVD covers often are. My only fear is it sort of marginalises the other improtant bands. Do you think that's important?--Crestville 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A great image to use would be that Select cover with Brett Anderson that said "Yanks Go Home!" from 1993. WesleyDodds 08:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be good in the article, but again, is it right to represent just one band in the opening picture?--Crestville 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a very emblematic image of the period. It defined the zeigeist of change and the idea of "Cool Britannia". Plus, the cover also is supposed to list some other up-and-coming bands at that time. WesleyDodds 10:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Any way to get in in the info box. It looks a bit slack underneath it.--Crestville 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Weller

Surely this is a bit over the top:

"Paul Weller in particular is praised as an initiator of the movement. His solo records Paul Weller (1991) and Wild Wood (1993) are considered seminal forces for the movement."

Whilst there's no doubt about Weller's influence on Britpop, and his assciation with it as it developed (particularly Oasis), it doesn't seem clear to me that it deserves singling out over, say, Ray Davies or Morrissey or the Beatles. I also don't think his debut solo album influenced anyone at all (I do like Paul Weller, but that's not actually a very good example of his work), and the influence of Wild Wood over Britpop certainly needs standing up - it doesn't sound much like a Britpop record.

I propose to do some kind of rewrite, but before I do, would anyone like to speak up for the "Weller invented Britpop" thesis? --Vjam 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he should be mentioned--Crestville 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but at the moment I think the article reads a bit too much like he put the whole thing together in his shed. --Vjam 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it if you had a crack at a more comprehensive intro. The only problem I can see is, Britpop was so dirivative, it could go on forever.--Crestville 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to do some edits, but there might be some entanglement issues, so please be patient with duplication and nonsense that may be produced along the way--Vjam 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Have had a go at something I think is a bit more realistic in terms of the origins of Britpop. Please feel free to let me know if it's a bit too much narritive and too little fact. Could also certainly do with some sourcing, but please nobody try to re-insert anything about Paul Weller.--Vjam 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Poifect--Crestville 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great article.

Everyone always seems to moan about changes. Credit where credit's due, this is a great article. I really enjoyed reading it. I thought a lack of Puial Weller was unfair. Especially as he released singles and featured on the cover of NME and Q along with the moniker "Godfather of Britpop".

Anyway. Great article. It should be featured. Schnizzle 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I've cleaned up some grammatical errors etc. I've also reworked the para regarding influences, as some of it was rather self-contradictory - a good example is citing shoegazer music as both an influence and an 'anti'-influence. I'd argue it was the latter. Very few genuine Britpop bands were shoegazer-influenced, even if some of their contemporaries were, generally those who got lumped in with the Britpop scene by virtue of being British bands active during the mid-1990s. Tpth 06:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed "In Britain and Ireland it became popular for a time when asked "What's the story?" (lit. "How are you?"), to answer with "Morning glory"." - this is uncited and almost certainly not true (I lived in Britain for quite some time and never saw or heard of such a thing) Tpth 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I've also removed the links to John Squire's website and the other Stone Roses link. If we're going to link to individual bands' websites, then fairness dictates we should be linking to Blur, Oasis, Pulp etc etc etc - it'd all get tedious and raise questions of where to draw the line etc. I think it's best just to leave them all out. Tpth 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

This is a bit of a dog's breakfast. I don't really know that it adds a lot of information that isn't already included in the article - does it really need to be here?

If it is to stay, it needs fixing. It's factually incorrect in several places - Pulp are almost certainly defunct, so don't really fit into the category of a 'likely continuation' and Blur have been inactive since 2004. Also, including The Tears as a pseudo-continuation of Suede is a bit misleading - notwithstanding that they contain Bernard Butler and Brett Anderson, they're a band in their own right, and in any case I wouldn't include them here. They formed well after Britpop's heyday and are thus no more Britpop than any of the other Britpop-influenced bands who've come to prominence in the last couple of years.

Finally, having Radiohead and Supergrass go right through while Oasis and The Tears taper off into grey in 2005 is a bit misleading, given that all these bands are still active.

What do people think? Tpth 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Third British Invasion"?

The British media went so far as the brand the movement the "Third British Invasion"...

Really? I'm not very knowledgeable about this so will bow to others' greater knowledge, but it seems an odd thing for them to say. The phrase "British Invasion" isn't all that common in the UK anyway, and (though the passage of time will have affected this) a Google search for the phrase on .uk sites only produces a grand total of two hits. Loganberry (Talk) 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

The opening section says: "The movement developed as a reaction against various musical and cultural trends in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Acid house and the rise of hip hop had led to a renewed interest in groove and rhythm-led songs in British indie music, leading to the Madchester sound."

The Style, roots and influences section says: "The Madchester scene was another large influence."

Huh?!

Fourohfour 20:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on greatly revising the article. I plan to rewrite the lead section. But Madchester was an influence, not the least because the Stone Roses were the main reason Liam Gallagher decided to form the band that would become Oasis. WesleyDodds 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some ideas for improving this article/perceived faults

1. The influence of the post-punk/new wave era seems a little understated, especially considering a lot of the Britpop bands were also labelled "New Wave of New Wave". Wire were a key influence on Blur, Elastica, Menswear, etc, even to the point, I believe, where Elastica had to credit the Wire members with writing credits for "Line Up". The article currently doesn't mention them at all.

2. I'm not sure about the sentence "Blair represented the new face of the dreams and wishes of the British counterculture" at all.

3. I'm not sure that Belle & Sebastian were ever regarded as a Britpop group.

4. How was Father Ted (a very Irish sitcom) part of the televisual arm of britpop? The theme tune was an atypical instrumental by The Divine Comedy, who weren't really a Britpop band. I can't see any other link.

5. Cornershop are mentioned in the 'Decline' section - I would not have classed them as Britpop.

6. Regarding the timeline, Pulp started way before 1989, though maybe that would be taking the timeline back too far.

7. There's no mention of Gene in the article.

Hope this helps - let me know if I can provide any more details.--Michig 22:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

8. "Many bands that would later be grouped under the Britpop umbrella, such as Primal Scream, originally started off as C86 bands." - were Primal Scream really considered Britpop? They were doing Stones pastiches and dance rock in that era. And while they were on the C86 compilation, they started in the early 80's so can't really be said to have started as a C86 band. I can't think of any other 'C86' bands that came to be labelled Britpop.

9. Key influences: obvious general influences are Wire, Magazine, The Smiths. Clear influences on particular bands are The Beatles (Oasis and Oasis only), The Kinks/Ray Davies (Blur), Bowie (Suede), The Smiths (Gene, Echobelly, Shed 7), Wire (Blur, Elastica, Menswear), The Stranglers (Elastica). Glam was a major influence for Suede and Gene (particularly the guitar-work). I'm not sure of a direct influence from The Buzzcocks, James, The Sex Pistols.--Michig 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

10. From the opening paragraph: "In the wake of the grunge invasion led by bands like Nirvana, many bands incorporated a patriotic rhetoric into their music, writing about uniquely British topics and concerns." - the bit about writing about uniquely British topics and concerns is correct, but the reference to "patriotic rhetoric" is in my view incorrect.--Michig 09:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose what I intended to write got mangled in the process, but there often was a patriotic element to Britpop, particularly with most everything that came out of Damon Albarn's mouth during 1993-1994.

Oasis and Ash draw influence from the Pistols and Buzzcocks, respectively.

Most everything else I've tried to address, although I've found I'm mainly interested in fixing everything up to the "Britpop and Cool Britannia" section. I've started some work on it, but right now that's the section most in need of an overhaul. Hopefully when I get my "NME Originals: Britpop" mag in the mail I can contribute more to that section. WesleyDodds 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think more Menswear are the Britpop band who mirror the scene best, they were the ones being hyped most in the music press under the Britpop banner and whose career tailed off quickest afterwards. Catchpole 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suede's "decline"

I just removed the line "Suede never regained critical favour after guitarist Bernard Butler left in 1994 and gradually diminished to a cult act.". Firstly, the period from 1996-97 was Suede's peak in terms of record sales with 5 top 10 singles from Coming Up alone (which was also well regarded by a lot of critics). They also had a number 1 album and 4 top-30 singles in 1999 - hardly what could be described as "diminishing into a cult act". The decline in sales only really kicked in after Head Music - a good 5 years after Bernard Butler left the band.--Michig 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jarvis Cocker and Pulp

On the timeline, Richard Ashcroft is mentioned after the Verve, so Jarvis Cocker - who has just recently brought out his first solo album, should be put on as well.

[edit] What about the resurgence of Plastic POP?

Over the peak britpop years (94/95-97) shouldn't we also include how part of the decline of Britpop as a media force would the rise of the Girl Band and Boy-ballard band.

The Spice Girl's, All Saints and Westlife etc started killing Britpop as the dominate force in the singles charts (though the albums still could sell well) and they emerged late '96 and '97. Part of the Brit pop history is pop acts were shut out of the charts for a couple of years, even former pop acts like Robbie Williams adopted a Britpop-lite sound to gain success.

I think some references to the rise of girl power in 1997 colliding with the decline in quality Britpop acts should be essential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.240.204.141 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

It never happened. Even at the peak of Britpop acts like Take That, Whigfield, Peter Andre, Robson and Jerome and Boyzone had number one singles. Catchpole 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suede as important band

This a minor thing, but shouldn't Suede be listed together with Blur, Oasis and Pulp as the most prominent bands of Brit-Pop. They were one of the first and one of the most successful Brit-Pop-bands and outside the UK certainly more popular than say Pulp.. Allmusic.com's entry on Suede also opens with the line "Suede kick started the Britpop revolution of the '90s, bringing English indie pop/rock music away from the swirling layers of shoegazing and dance-pop fusions of Madchester, and reinstating such conventions of British pop as mystique and the three-minute single" (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:xmez975jkr0t) Cic3r0 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort of undermines the "holy trinity" idea, and they did drop out of the limelight quite early. But it's definatley open for debate. They are mentioned in the first paragraph as an important band. also, from a retrospective point of view, look whose stood the test of time: Oasis are still together and going strong, their music from the 90s being very popular, as is the music of Blur, and Pulp. Cocker and Albarn are still going strong. Brett Anderson brought out a record last year but no-one heared it, and I can't remeber the last time I heard a swuede song on the radio of music tv that wasn't Animal Nitrate. And even that's rare.--Crestville 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britrock redirect

(cross-posted from Britrock talk page - Britrock currently redirects to Britpop))

Have to disagree with this redirect - Britrock was never used as a synonym for Britpop, at least not in the UK. Britrock was, as I recall, a term used principally by Kerrang! magazine (a rock/metal publication) in the mid-late 1990s, possibly as an attempt to pull alongside the Britpop bandwagon, or else as a reaction against it. Britrock seemed to be used as an umbrella term for any British rock bands who happened to be around at the time - examples included The Almighty, Terrorvision, Skin, The Wildhearts, 3 Colours Red, Honeycrack, Feeder and Baby Chaos - but it should be noted that many of these bands had a more commercial sound than traditional metal bands (Iron Maiden et al), and several crossed over into the mainstream, with varying commercial success. Many promising 'Britrock' bands were dropped by impatient record labels and never achieved their potential. I don't yet have any sources to back this up but I'm working on it. Watch this space... --Jameboy 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Clearly Britrock was related to Britpop, but it wasn't the same thing. Not sure if it deserves much more than a note in this article, though. -- Beardo 05:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)