I really enjoyed Britpop. I think it made being 16/17 a lot more interesting and fun than it otherwise would have been.

I also bloody love Neil Kulkarni, he absolutely GETS what makes Pulp great in a way I could never articulate, and his current work injects a certain zip into being a grumpy middle aged git.

I should probably also admit that my enjoyment of Britpop is Exhibit A (or maybe exhibit B) in Kulk's assertion that the whole thing did well because it made musically unadventurous white middle class males feel comfortable.

Stumbled across this just now on youtube...

Yeah, I was about to x off at that point too but I always thought Donaldson came across as a friendly chap on the radio so I stuck with it...

.

-- Edited by Jean on Friday 11th of August 2023 04:13:15 PM

-- Edited by Jean on Friday 11th of August 2023 04:20:19 PM

-- Edited by Jean on Thursday 14th of September 2023 06:19:28 PM

Eamonn wrote:

---

Stumbled across this just now on youtube...

---

 Wow. I didn't think people were this casually idiotic! Folk are allowed to dislike Pulp but this is one of the strangest and perverse arguments I've heard.

-- Edited by lipglossed on Friday 11th of August 2023 05:03:30 PM

I appreciate this guy's passion but to me saying Pulp are not Britpop is like saying Nirvana are not Seattle Grunge.

Of course they are. They are both exemplars and progenitors of their scene.

Britpop as a unifying concept would not exist without Pulp's influence all over it. When people talk about Britpop being a vague collective of indie bands that shared an arch and lyrical richness that was distinctly British in both style and sensitivity, they are talking about Pulp, moreso than any other band, even if they don't realise they are (I can't tell you how many times I have seen Pulp songs being mistaken for Blur by the uninformed or disinterested).

Put into context of the mid-1990s, Britpop was an antidote to the miserablism and navel-gazing of American Indie that was dominating the mainstream. Britpop embraced charity shop glamour where the Americans professed to dress your worst. Dancing and going out, and making an effort, despite your limited means, was something the scene proselytized to teenage outsiders. It was exciting and felt new and fresh at the time. It was a thing that happened, and Pulp were centre stage to that. For all the differences inherent within the big tent of Britpop, I think all the major players at the time can agree to that.

Perhaps the most Britpop thing about Pulp is that they never really aspired to be stars outside the UK. Break America? No thanks, touring was too much of a faff. And no, they weren't going to drop British slang or references from their songs, thank you very much. To this day I think the members of the band are bewildered to learn they have fans outside Sheffield. What could be more "Britpop"?

I think the real argument can be made, and where the Britpop waters get murky, is that Oasis were the ones who were never really Britpop. Oasis didn't have the art school pedigree or sophistication of the other bands that (I think) defined the scene (ie Blur, Sleeper, Elastica, The Divine Comedy, Echobelly, Space, Suede, Denim etc). Oasis aspired to be a classic rock band, and they had ambitions to world domination. They made music for people who don't read, and that's ok. If Britpop was an antidote to Grunge, Oasis were the antidote to Britpop. Oasis inspired their own brand of imitators and became a genre onto themselves. But somehow the Music Journos missed that and lumped them all into the Britpop big tent because it was easier to sell records that way (and because they were lazy).


To the video rant posted above, I think its funny that despite the differences between Pulp and Oasis, the two bands have always had a mutual respect for each other, whereas I think there's not much love lost between the members of Pulp and Blur, despite their more obvious similarities. I can see where the video guy might think Jarvis is an effete snob, but I haveca hunch that Jarvis would probably enjoy a spirited and entertaining conversation with the ranter more than he would with any of us anorak weirdos.

Pip wrote:

---

The guy's entitled to his opinion, and he's quite right about Oasis being the biggest band of the time, but also seems to believe sales are a legitimate indicator of quality which is always a huge mistake.

It is also fair to say the majority of the people at the gigs this summer were only familiar with/interested in the mid-90s material, and that interest in the band largely dropped off in the late 90s. Different Class went multi-Platinum, We Love Life barely scraped Silver. I know which one I'd rather put on.

---

Very true. And in any case, the issue with his Mount Rushmore thing is that Gorillaz have sold far more, and gone much bigger worldwide, than Oasis, anyway.

-- Edited by lipglossed on Saturday 12th of August 2023 05:34:03 PM

ArrGee wrote:

---

Pip wrote:

---

The guy's entitled to his opinion, and he's quite right about Oasis being the biggest band of the time, but also seems to believe sales are a legitimate indicator of quality which is always a huge mistake.

It is also fair to say the majority of the people at the gigs this summer were only familiar with/interested in the mid-90s material, and that interest in the band largely dropped off in the late 90s. Different Class went multi-Platinum, We Love Life barely scraped Silver. I know which one I'd rather put on.

---

It's a shame that Pulp Mk III don't widen the scope of the live material.  Nothing from Separations, precious little from Hardcore and We Love Live and overkill on Different Class.  Last night I went to see James, who just play material from a dozen different LPs and B-sides in the space of 100 minutes.  Whilst I am most familiar with Laid, Seven and Gold Mother, it is good to hear music across their whole career.  They regularly omit some of their most well known songs; Born of Frustration the most notable omission last night.  Yet the audience lap it up.  With six LPs worth of material (including Intro), Pulp could be more wide ranging and still put on a great show.

---

 Don't think you'll get any arguments about that on here. I remain somewhat disappointed by the recent setlist selections. There's no shame or embarrassment in playing Countdown or Death II or MLG. Pulp always seem so reticent and lacking in confidence. You don't need to explain why you're playing an old song, if you play it the crowd will love it.For me, they should have played Your Sister's Clothes or HnH or Acrylic Afternoons.