Mark Fisher's 'slow cancellation of the future' seems relevant here, although I'm not sure how. Off the top of my head, originality is only possible when there is consensus. In the late 90s, the advent of the internet made consensus impossible because - as per Fisher's thesis - everything became available to everyone all at once. It wasn't that Britpop bands were less innovative than most bands of the 60s, 70s or 80s, it was that they weren't *replaced*.
I have contradictory feelings - on the one hand, I look at the Pulp setlist and think "this is just the old stuff, I don't want them to end up a nostalgia act like The Human League" and so I don't regret not going. But on the other hand I haven't bought any of the "new" albums by reformed Blur or Suede and just don't accept that it's the same old band reactivated. Unless you have that relentless million year million-album chronology like The Fall - even if only one of them stayed the distance - it just seems a different kind of nostalgia act.
I think what counts is - as with The Fall - constantly evolving the sound even if there's an identifiable formula that can be heard again and again. Listen to how they incorporated techno across the 90s, in particular 1997's "Levitate", which was very obviously an "influence" (ie. ripped off) for Primal Scream's XTRMNTR.
What about '90s dance music? It may not be your cup of tea, but Brits came up with their own form of techno much like British musicians did with rock music in the '60s. Drum'n'bass sounded like nothing that had come before - even if it put together small pieces of other genres - and completely bypassed the conservative nostalgia of so much Britpop.
Mark Fisher's 'slow cancellation of the future' seems relevant here, although I'm not sure how. Off the top of my head, originality is only possible when there is consensus. In the late 90s, the advent of the internet made consensus impossible because - as per Fisher's thesis - everything became available to everyone all at once. It wasn't that Britpop bands were less innovative than most bands of the 60s, 70s or 80s, it was that they weren't *replaced*.
I don't know. Something like that.
I have contradictory feelings - on the one hand, I look at the Pulp setlist and think "this is just the old stuff, I don't want them to end up a nostalgia act like The Human League" and so I don't regret not going. But on the other hand I haven't bought any of the "new" albums by reformed Blur or Suede and just don't accept that it's the same old band reactivated. Unless you have that relentless million year million-album chronology like The Fall - even if only one of them stayed the distance - it just seems a different kind of nostalgia act.
I think what counts is - as with The Fall - constantly evolving the sound even if there's an identifiable formula that can be heard again and again. Listen to how they incorporated techno across the 90s, in particular 1997's "Levitate", which was very obviously an "influence" (ie. ripped off) for Primal Scream's XTRMNTR.
What about '90s dance music? It may not be your cup of tea, but Brits came up with their own form of techno much like British musicians did with rock music in the '60s. Drum'n'bass sounded like nothing that had come before - even if it put together small pieces of other genres - and completely bypassed the conservative nostalgia of so much Britpop.