Sunday, April 23, 2006
Britpop Wave 2
I used to listen to a lot of Britpop during its heyday. In fact, it was the only "type" of rock music I listened to. Cool Britannia (Ok, it was really a Tony Blair "New Labour" government thing but Brit music really did latch onto it big-time). How could anybody not be seduced by such a term? I certainly was and my musical diet consisted much of listening to Brit bands such as Oasis, Blur, Pulp, Suede, Supergrass and Radiohead (amongst numerous others) and lapping up reviews by Brit media such as the NME, Q and Select.
By now, everybody knows how far Britpop has fallen. Oasis looks and sounds like an overblown dinosaur, Blur's Damon Albarn is a cartoon by the name of Gorillaz, Pulp is still capable of greatness but releases albums too infrequently and Radiohead has simply become a sub-Aphex Twin. Others like Suede, Supergrass, Sleeper, blah blah...most of them are long gone by now. So what went wrong? Pretty much everything.
First off, the biggest culprit must be the Brit press. Almost every Britpop band that came their way was hyped to high heavens without consideration of their actual quality. Geneva, Gaydad, who? Yeah, you probably never even heard of them. When Oasis' overblown and monstrous "Be Here Now" was first released, NME gave it an 8 or 9 and called it an epic or something like that. Later, on hindsight, they thrashed it just like everybody else did but I won't let their initial praise of the monster simply slip away like that. Britpop was made on a crest of enormous hype and simply did not have the legs to carry itself over a longer term.
Secondly and let's face it, a number of the bands were actually rather good but eventually lost their way and cranked out shite records. Blur was brilliant with "Parklife" but then got overfanciful with "The Great Escape". After that, they simply became a slave to the punk sound after getting a massive hit with "Song 2". Oasis' defining moment came and went with "Morning Glory". They broke the US (which no Britpop band had managed at that time) and could have been kings of the world. And then they played Knebworth and actually thought they were kings of the world and well, "Be Here Now" was born. And Pulp, much to my disappointment, never went anywhere close to the brilliance of "Different Class" again when fame got to Jarvis Cocker's head and he simply lost touch with the "common people" and started singing about the baggages of fame instead.
Why did I give such a long background about Britpop? Because I sense a second wave is already upon us and it's only recently that I've latched onto it. The Brit press has been smart not to give it silly terms like NWONW (New Wave Of New Wave) and Britpop this time, naming it post-punk revivalism and/or post-punk new wave instead. But the amount of overhype is coming back into overdrive again.
This new "Britpop" wave 2 could justifiably be said to be led by Franz Ferdinand (the most successful of the bunch of Britbands right now) and include the likes of Bloc Party, Kaiser Chiefs, Hard-Fi, Futureheads and now, infamously, the Arctic Monkeys.
Now, I do NOT have anything against these post-punk bands because there are a number which are seriously good. FF is definitely one of them (and deserves every success they are enjoying) and so is Bloc Party. Even Kaiser Chiefs is good in spurts but a recent NME review of the Arctic Monkeys release, kinda, put the doubt in me again.
NME, of course, gave the Arctic Monkeys something like a ridiculous10/10 for their debut. Now, I don't believe in shite like this. No album can possibly be worth a 10/10 (that basically means it's perfect, doesn't it?). The closest I would say that came to such a score in the last 10 years or so was Radiohead's "OK Computer" and read the reviews for that album, I don't believe too many critics have disagreed on the fact that album is regarded as one of the all-time classics. Arctic Monkeys 10/10? Give me a break. They might be the biggest new Brit band (in terms of sales) since Oasis and be pretty good at post-punk but their music is nowhere near the kaleidoscopic beauty of "OK" nor their lyrics that incisive enough.
By now, everybody knows how far Britpop has fallen. Oasis looks and sounds like an overblown dinosaur, Blur's Damon Albarn is a cartoon by the name of Gorillaz, Pulp is still capable of greatness but releases albums too infrequently and Radiohead has simply become a sub-Aphex Twin. Others like Suede, Supergrass, Sleeper, blah blah...most of them are long gone by now. So what went wrong? Pretty much everything.
First off, the biggest culprit must be the Brit press. Almost every Britpop band that came their way was hyped to high heavens without consideration of their actual quality. Geneva, Gaydad, who? Yeah, you probably never even heard of them. When Oasis' overblown and monstrous "Be Here Now" was first released, NME gave it an 8 or 9 and called it an epic or something like that. Later, on hindsight, they thrashed it just like everybody else did but I won't let their initial praise of the monster simply slip away like that. Britpop was made on a crest of enormous hype and simply did not have the legs to carry itself over a longer term.
Secondly and let's face it, a number of the bands were actually rather good but eventually lost their way and cranked out shite records. Blur was brilliant with "Parklife" but then got overfanciful with "The Great Escape". After that, they simply became a slave to the punk sound after getting a massive hit with "Song 2". Oasis' defining moment came and went with "Morning Glory". They broke the US (which no Britpop band had managed at that time) and could have been kings of the world. And then they played Knebworth and actually thought they were kings of the world and well, "Be Here Now" was born. And Pulp, much to my disappointment, never went anywhere close to the brilliance of "Different Class" again when fame got to Jarvis Cocker's head and he simply lost touch with the "common people" and started singing about the baggages of fame instead.
Why did I give such a long background about Britpop? Because I sense a second wave is already upon us and it's only recently that I've latched onto it. The Brit press has been smart not to give it silly terms like NWONW (New Wave Of New Wave) and Britpop this time, naming it post-punk revivalism and/or post-punk new wave instead. But the amount of overhype is coming back into overdrive again.
This new "Britpop" wave 2 could justifiably be said to be led by Franz Ferdinand (the most successful of the bunch of Britbands right now) and include the likes of Bloc Party, Kaiser Chiefs, Hard-Fi, Futureheads and now, infamously, the Arctic Monkeys.
Now, I do NOT have anything against these post-punk bands because there are a number which are seriously good. FF is definitely one of them (and deserves every success they are enjoying) and so is Bloc Party. Even Kaiser Chiefs is good in spurts but a recent NME review of the Arctic Monkeys release, kinda, put the doubt in me again.
NME, of course, gave the Arctic Monkeys something like a ridiculous10/10 for their debut. Now, I don't believe in shite like this. No album can possibly be worth a 10/10 (that basically means it's perfect, doesn't it?). The closest I would say that came to such a score in the last 10 years or so was Radiohead's "OK Computer" and read the reviews for that album, I don't believe too many critics have disagreed on the fact that album is regarded as one of the all-time classics. Arctic Monkeys 10/10? Give me a break. They might be the biggest new Brit band (in terms of sales) since Oasis and be pretty good at post-punk but their music is nowhere near the kaleidoscopic beauty of "OK" nor their lyrics that incisive enough.
Arctic Monkeys: Overrated by NME.Because of the indiscriminate 8-9/10 scores that NME seems to be giving to every Brit band, I've had to resort to reading reviews by US critics instead (besides Rolling Stone who also give rather unreliable reviews) who seem to have a sharper ear and a keener sense of judgment than their British counterparts (Pitchfork sensibly afforded the Monkeys a more believable 7.4 and also fittingly mocked NME on their 10/10 rating)
What's the point of this post really? I am also not too sure...besides the fact that I was warning rock music fans against the irresponsible hype that Brit critics seem to be heaping on their own bands (again). But then again, maybe the best way to judge is simply to buy the record yourself and listen to it. Decide whether you like it or not first-hand... but I think we, consumers, can't possibly have that much money to burn, buying up every band's LP that gets an 8/10 (or 10/10?) review by a magazine that doesn't seem to know what (and how influential) its ratings mean anymore.
Batman spun on 3:21 PM.
