Judging by how fast the tickets have sold for the few shows I think pulp could maybe to a bigger us city tour on their own.  I keep reading blur are gonna announce a full US tour later this year... I don't think blur would need pulp to sell very well, but anyone think it's a possibility?

Eamonn wrote:

---

Alex James in 2003:

''In a lot of ways, Pulp were even bigger cunts than Oasis. They were in our birds knickers: devious little fuckers. We definitely tried to help them but they never had a kind word for us. I kind of object to them more than Oasis, actually. At least Oasis said were going to shag your bird. There was something a bit snidey about Pulp...And they got all the support slots''.

I'm guessing it's Mr Mackey he's alluding to there.
Payback for nicking the intro to Love Is Blind (for Sunday Sunday) and acting like arrogant twats the first time both bands played together (in Paris, late '91, the real start to Britpop according to Russell).
And, post-Common People Pulp were never going to play support to Blur.

-- Edited by Eamonn on Friday 17th of February 2012 01:02:39 AM

---

 Yeah he was talking about the time Steve fucked his girlfriend. "Steve Mackey was shagging my bird, the cunt"

No matter how fast the PULP shows sold out, I think Blur will always be bigger in the US. 'Song II'. Need I say more?

James wrote:

---

Sorry Eamonn, quite enjoying the hypotheticals here!

VoxPop, I know Song 2 was massive at the time, but surely it's more of a novelty hit?

Also, in Blur's defence, plenty of songs start out with a drum beat, I don't really think we can accuse Blur of nicking it from Pulp.
Songs that start out that way have existed from at least the 60's, I'm sure. And Sunday Sunday has more of a jaunty, almost shuffly feel than the (wonderfully) awkward & jutting Love Is Blind.
Pushed, I'd have to choose Love Is Blind as the better song, but they aren't two songs I'd've even thought to compare without reading this thread!

---

 In a TV interview from Italy (maybe Spain) in '95, I think, both Jarvis and Russell explicitly accuse Blur of ripping off the intro to Love is Blind for Sunday, Sunday.

Pulp played with Blur on their first tour outside of the UK in autumn 1991 so the timing would fit perfectly. Russell talked about it in (I think it was) the Mojo Britpop edition a couple of years back. He mentioned Graham Coxon complimenting the band to his face and something about nicking their ideas. It's only the drumbeat intro but there is a definite resemblance there so I don't think it's a stretch to say Blur lifted it.

Interesting that tonight and next Tuesday both bands pick-up the same 'Outstanding Contribution' award, one at the Brits, the other at the NME. Although the Brits one is more mainstream I think Pulp's long-standing association with the NME makes that one a better fit for them (the kickstart given to their career with My Legendary Girlfriend getting 'Single of the Week' in 1991 will probably get a mention next week) regardless of not being ''well-known'' enough to get one at the Brits. I suppose Jarvis burnt his bridges with them anyway! (Not that they could give a fuck).
And Blur are going to close the Olympics ceremony I hear, crikey.

The Blur Bowie rip-off is from Boys Keep Swinging isn't it? Actually on Jarvis' radio show the other week to mark Bowies 65th birthday he played that Blur song (from the 'Blur' album, can't think of the name) and Suede's New Generation, commenting how they were influenced by Bowie (which he admitted he has been himself).

andy wrote:

---

 How great would it be to have a year dominated by them and Pulp. Back to the good old days.

---

 In many ways it would be sad if that happens.  I'm happy to have Pulp back in their own right, but I'm not looking forward to the return of Britpop and Madchester.  Been a few years since some good indie bands came through, would be good if some new bands made a name for themselves (and there are some promising acts out there).

andy wrote:

---

Well i disagree, i dont really like english music nowadays, US bands emerging are much more interesting... England's struggling to find something new. (Or what bands do you think of ?)

Bring back the grey haired dudes with the good tunes.

---

 I just can't help myself, I really like S.C.U.M.

Eamonn wrote:

---

As a slight aside, one thing that Harris arguably got spot-on in that book was his assertion at the end that Albarn was the movement's star talent and innovator. At the time (circa 2003) I would have said not and personally I think he is hit and miss. But after the book was written Albarn was hugely successful with Gorillaz' second album, did the Mali music and Good, Bad and The Queen things aswell as writing a music opera among sundry other interesting things. If Jarvis wasn't so lazy he could probably have given him a better run for his money over the past decade!

---

 Very arguable.  He has been jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon from the Stone Roses impersonation on their debut LP.   I am impressed with the eclectic nature of Albarn and I like a lot of what he does, but there is sometimes a lack of heart and passion in his work.  

Obviously I think Jarvis is far more interesting, and I agree he appears to have been lazy.  What he has done outside Pulp (All Seeing I, Relaxed Muscle) has been more interesting than Albarn's side projects, though sadly there hasn't been the quantity of material to truly bear comparison.  Albarn, in my opinion, is the Britpop McCartney.  Jarvis is more like Lennon   (Well at the very least he's not Ringo)

Violin Thing wrote:

---

Surely they could co-headline?

---

 Nah, Pulp should tour with Adele. Then they'll get six grammys .

Must admit, I wasn't too impressed with blur tonight.  They should have just done Song 2 & Tender, the Parklife songs sound very dated.  Pulp shouldn't consider playing second fiddle to them.

Eamonn wrote:

---

...are ITV that restricted by advertising rules that they couldn't let it run on for an extra few minutes?

---

 ITV are useless with live events.  They missed the England goal in the last World Cup, and cut a Merseyside derby with minutes to go when the winning goal was scored.

Ironically, one of the first advertisements shown after the Brits ended was,  err, Adele!

andy wrote:

---

Well i know most of those bands and they dont really do anything for me.

There's nothing wrong with thinking a decade is better than others. The 60s were amazing, the 70s ok, the 80s shit bar a few bands, the 90s amazing, the 00s okay and the 10s are okay at best so far.

There's nothing wrong with dont liking the sound of these bands, it's always subjective, but that's how music is, you feel it or you dont. I know 70% of the bands in your playlist and they dont do anything for me, what can i do about it. 

Plus, those "old britpop bands" are coming back with new material, they're not recreating the past, they belong to that era, it's not because they are in their 40s that they should be considered old news.

---

 I often wonder if the 1960s were that good at the time.  Certainly there were some great and influential bands, but there was a lot of pap.   I'm also quite sure that some of the better ones, such as The Velvet Underground, remained undiscovered until the seventies.  As I got into music in the seventies, my memories are of a lot of crap, interspersed with some great acts and I suspect the sixties weren't that different.  

The good thing about the 1990s was that the type of music I liked became more mainstream.  It's probably fair to say that it was the only time what is known as alternative music was more popular than anything else. I remember a good friend at a Suede gig moaning about people jumping on the indie bandwagon who should fuck off home and listen to Simply Red!

There was a programme on Radio 4 a little while back making the same point, the swinging sixties didn't really penetrate beyond Carnaby St and they chose the Pakamac as a more representative object for the rest of the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sh3pm

I do remember wanting platform shoes in the early 70s quite desperately as so far as I could tell, everyone had them, but I was only about 8 and my mum reckoned they would wreck my feet at that age, she was probably right there. The only pop culture you ever saw was Top of the Pops, I haven't been able to bring myself to watch the 1976 repeats, maybe 1977 will be better, but then again, even that is likely to be more Brotherhood of Man than Sex Pistols. I don't remember punk happening at all at the time, passed me by completely at 11. I'm sure if you were to look at a random week's Top 20 from any era there would be loads of cheesey rubbish you don't even remember in between the gems.

calumlynn wrote:

---

The 90s weren't that good...

---

 What!  They were pretty good from my viewpoint.  Having endured the 1980s which should have been my time (Sixth Form/University years), when Happy Mondays and Stone Roses broke through along with Nirvana, leading onto Suede all the way through to I suppose New Labour coming to power, and the demise of what was known as Britpop, I had a blast.  This Is Hardcore symbolises the end of the 1990s for me. Well that and getting married in 1998 

PS - still very happily married)

How about this then, Damon and Noel. It's getting very touchy-feely in the world of that music genre whose name must not be spoken.

http://www.nme.com/news/damon-albarn/62212

calumlynn wrote:

---

andy wrote:

---

Well i know most of those bands and they dont really do anything for me.

There's nothing wrong with thinking a decade is better than others. The 60s were amazing, the 70s ok, the 80s shit bar a few bands, the 90s amazing, the 00s okay and the 10s are okay at best so far.

There's nothing wrong with dont liking the sound of these bands, it's always subjective, but that's how music is, you feel it or you dont. I know 70% of the bands in your playlist and they dont do anything for me, what can i do about it. 

Plus, those "old britpop bands" are coming back with new material, they're not recreating the past, they belong to that era, it's not because they are in their 40s that they should be considered old news.

-- Edited by andy on Wednesday 22nd of February 2012 08:43:00 AM

---

 

Yeah but presumably the reason they don't do anything for you is that most of them aren't songwritery guitar rock that sounds like 60s and/or 90s music. Stuff like that was GREAT in the 90s, and I guess some bands did it quite well in the last decade too, but it's much less relevant now. The alternitive to that doesn't have to be, I dunno, ambient electronic music or something- what I mean is that melodic, lyrical pop music comes in many forms. You can still find music that gives exactly the same kind of feeling that Pulp or Suede at their best do, but without being cliched indie rock. As an example, a lot of people get that from Wild Beasts (I don't personally, just cos I find them a bit posh and pompus) or WU LYF (a juvenile but great band).

It's just really naive to say that modern music is crap or whatever- there doesn't have to be some big, unifying mainstream movement for music to be good. The 90s weren't that good- I guess 92-93 would have been pretty exciting with Denim, Suede, Gift-era Pulp, Saint Etienne, The Auteurs- but there was LOADS of rubbish music too. We don't need indie rock to repeat itself, and there is plently of music around at the moment to enjoy, if you give it a chance, instead of immediately dismissing it as not being "your kind of thing" (obviously i'm not suggesting that you do that, just that loads of people I know do).

---

Oh there was a lot of rubbish music in the 90s, fully agreed. but the cream was covering the bad cake, if that makes sense 

And you're right i dont mean nowadays music isn't my kinda thing, what i mean is that the music i love now comes from unexpected place, little bands that make their music on their own with little to no money and album after album, climb (or not) to the top. This happened with the Black Keys, this is happening with Dr Dog, and hopefully with the Golden Animals someday, three of my fav 2000s bands, although the Black keys tend to go the wrong direction... BUT those bands aren't life changing, and it's got nothing to do with cliché rock or whatever. I dont think of music as genre. 

I could totally see myself get into a band at that life-changing level, as it happened before with Pulp, but i'm still looking for it. Today: good bands yes, life-changing bands, no (at least for me).

but it goes beyond that: maybe it's a sign of time, but music is less important now than it was 15/20 years ago. Buying a CD was an act of militantism, and it was damn expensive, so you had to choose, to be sure of what you were, what you wanted, what you needed in your life. It was a little treasure in your hands. I remember picking both Oasis and Blur records in the 90s, and that was like "wow, are you mad, you gotta choose", "Oh right ? Well fuck that!"... that's how intense music was. And i know a few people on here like those bands here, but the music was good. 

Nowadays what ? Maybe our time is reflecting on the way people make music.

What's in the air, the vibe, is important to music. It's either the right time or not and it seems it's not, although there's some good records being made. I'm not the only one saying it, a lot of people think the same. What band from the past 5 years will we remember in 20 years as something that really meant something to people? So far, i cant really name one. Blur meant something to people, Oasis, Pulp did, Coldplay did (although i despise them), the Libertines did... What now. who's responsible: bands, a&R, people that buy records... probably everyone.

Music became like any other product, i guess we have to get used to it and dig (deeper) for ourselves in every corner of the internet to find decent music. I kinda like that but i also kinda regret those kinda bands not being where they should be: up there in the charts, and going drunk to 10 downing street, mocking michael jackson... stuff like that. Stuff you'll remember for the rest of your life, with their great records on repeat.

Violin Thing wrote:

---

It was the NME Awards two years ago I think when Jarvis hosted.

---

I might be losing my mind... this only rings a bell... I remember reading a pre awards interview in NME... can't actually remember watching it... how could I have missed it...? 

And yes... I am aware that I've used rather a lot of full stops...

Eamonn wrote:

---

andy you make some interesting points but generallly speaking I think it's what music you're into in that period of your life when you're in your teens and early 20's that defines your tastes for years after. There will be plenty of 20 year olds now that in twenty years time will talk of Arcade Fire and the Arctic Monkeys as ''life changing'' like you do about Pulp and Oasis.

---

mmm, I was in my late 20s when I discovered Pulp whose music was the most life changing for me.  Late developer I guess!

The more interesting point is how much music matters these days.  It seems less so in terms of recordings, but the amount people spend on going to live shows suggests it does.   In 1990, a Glastonbury ticket cost £40, last year it was over £200.   In 1994 it cost me less than a tenner to see Pulp at the Theatre Royal, and on Wednesday I spent nearly £60 to see them at the Albert Hall.  I just wish my wages had increased five fold in that period...

So it does seem that music does matter, but possibly not in the record collecting obsessive way it did twenty years ago. 

Has music ever meant a lot to most people though?

There might be something in that theory of memory formation, Eamonn. Pulp and David Bowie for me and the two of them happened during formative years. Pulp when I was 9 and that was me for my childhood and teenage years (and of course I carry the love on into my adult years) and seeing them again was in 2011 was an emotional tornado of memories in a way. The soundtrack to my life.

Bowie when I was 18 and starting university so it was like a new chapter in my life with Bowie. The Actor as he is sometimes known. I felt his notion of who can I be now? (as the song goes) and his role playing of characters fitted in with what was going on in my personal life as I had hated school and was so looking forward to creating a new persona, a new me, for starting university where I wouldnt be shy and nobody there would have known who I was before at school so it was a whole fresh start. Thus, whenever I put on Ziggy its a warm July day and Im 18 and full of euphoria for a new life even if Im listening to it in December when its snowing and Im a lot older and lost some of that euphoria.

Same thing when I listen to DC right the way through, Im thinking of being a child, simpler times, primary school, even though it was out later that year it reminds me of the scorching summer of 1995. Davids Last Summer reminds me of the older uns sitting by the canal in the summer drinking cider perhaps *pretending they were somewhere foreign*. I know I often did while sitting there drinking coke.

Ive never replicated the high these two give me. Pulp for reality, Bowie for escapism. Friends for life, methinks.

But you never know, maybe someone life changing will come along next week

Maybe if you start 'a new career in a new town' you will develop a special connection with whoever you're listening to while you're in transition? Maybe it's just when something pertinent is going on in your life and it coincides with the music no matter what age you are. I dunno.