They have done good songs!  I don't have any records from that music style though, but it's much better than average radio hit stuff.

Yes, I think many people think that word "pop" stands for electronic dance music, like "R'n'B", It's funny, as "R'n'B" brings an association of ROLLING STONES and such to me!  Rhythm blues, wasn't that term used in old days for that kind of muzak!

ps. That Geddy cucumber is funny!  Did you do it by yourself?

Most Britpop - Blur, Oasis and all those other half arsed lamebrains - was utter drivel. derivative song structures, vapid lyrics, unimaginative arrangements - you got the feeling that record companies were releasing demos rather than telling the bands to go away and finish their songs properly.

Pulp had pretty good lyrics and some surprisingly inventive music to back them up, not prog but there was quite a bit of substance there.

The Verve (if they were really Britpop) also had their moments - Urban Hymns is an excellent 90s rock album.

My wife is a huge fan of it (as well as being an old friend of one of those big Britpop band's lead singers) ...

There are a few albums I've enjoyed over the years myself ...

Mansun's Attack Of The Grey Lantern,
both Kula Shaker albums,
Oasis' What's The Story Morning Glory,
Ocean Colour Scene's superb B-sides collections,
Suede's Dog Man Star,
Gomez's Bring It On and Liquid Skin,
Cosmic Rough Riders' Enjoy The Melodic Sunshine

for starters

We have almost the whole catalogue of Radiohead, Suede, Super Furry Animals and Gomez and a host of other bands (Blur, Dodgy, Elbow, Embrace, Cast, Lowgold, Pulp, Doves, Muse, Divine Comedy, Charlatans, Bluetones, Hothouse Flowers, Manic Street Preachers, Gaydad, Coldplay, Spritiualized, Travis and Verve)

So, yes even though it is kind of derivitive ... there's still a lot of good music to go around, although I'm not the expert  ...

I like Brit pop. Maybe a bias, as I'm English.

I dont mind some Blur. Damon Alburn is a terrible singer, but as a band they have been quite innovative and original. Cant say the same for Oasis. If the word overated can ever be used with justification, it will be with regard to Oasis!

I like the Manics. I've several of their albums, and I also like Supergrass who I think are very underated. Their last album was excellent. Suede, Pulp and Catatonia were all pretty good too IMO.

The best 'Indie' music was around at the beginning of the 90's IMO. Artists like Ride, Curve, Lush, Cranes and the Boo Radleys were at the forefront of a new wave of indie music, combining strong melodies, with lots of 'effect heavy' guitar, and a combination of punk and  hippy spirit.

Thats how I heard it anyway!

I liked the Manics (are they still going?) - I think that 1997 was a fantastic year for guitar driven rock, as there were so many good bands, like the Seahorses, Manson, Garbage, Radiohead, the Eels etc - and even the "2nd Division" bands like Supergrass were very entertaining (sorry Blackie - I've seen them a few times, and was disappointed...).

I like Oasis' music, and I think that some of it probably is almost as classic as the Beatles - but not as much as the hype would have you believe, hence the widespread incredulity. Pulp were fantastic, and Divine Comedy are the great overlooked in my book. Another band whose 1st album really struck me was the Fun Lovin' Criminals - their later stuff was more of the same unfortunately, but I still spin the debut from time to time. Then there was Kula Shaker... Well, I liked them, even if they were derivative to the max!

None of it prog, of course - but I don't restrict my listening pleasures 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Do you know The Electric Soft Parade? Great stuff!

No - they passed me by - but thanks to your heads up I'll check them out!

Certif1ed wrote: I liked the Manics (are they still going?) - I think that 1997 was a fantastic year for guitar driven rock, as there were so many good bands, like the Seahorses, Manson, Garbage, Radiohead, the Eels etc - and even the "2nd Division" bands like Supergrass were very entertaining (sorry Blackie - I've seen them a few times, and was disappointed...). I like Oasis' music, and I think that some of it probably is almost as classic as the Beatles - but not as much as the hype would have you believe, hence the widespread incredulity. Pulp were fantastic, and Divine Comedy are the great overlooked in my book. Another band whose 1st album really struck me was the Fun Lovin' Criminals - their later stuff was more of the same unfortunately, but I still spin the debut from time to time. Then there was Kula Shaker... Well, I liked them, even if they were derivative to the max! None of it prog, of course - but I don't restrict my listening pleasures

Kula Shaker derivative? Well, I wont argue, but surely Oasis are worse, Cert?? They've even admitted they've tried to write songs that sound like the Beatles.

I've never understood the hype about Oasis. There's a few anthems in their catalogue (Roll with It, Cigarettes & Alcohol, Champagne Supernova etc) but they write mostly crap IMO.

I always felt that Pulp and Supergrass were the less derivative of the Brit pop bands.

i like oasis and coldplay.

and beatles

Certif1ed wrote: I liked the Manics (are they still going?) - I think that 1997 was a fantastic year for guitar driven rock, as there were so many good bands, like the Seahorses, Manson, Garbage, Radiohead, the Eels etc - and even the "2nd Division" bands like Supergrass were very entertaining (sorry Blackie - I've seen them a few times, and was disappointed...). I like Oasis' music, and I think that some of it probably is almost as classic as the Beatles - but not as much as the hype would have you believe, hence the widespread incredulity. Pulp were fantastic, and Divine Comedy are the great overlooked in my book. Another band whose 1st album really struck me was the Fun Lovin' Criminals - their later stuff was more of the same unfortunately, but I still spin the debut from time to time. Then there was Kula Shaker... Well, I liked them, even if they were derivative to the max! None of it prog, of course - but I don't restrict my listening pleasures

Manics still go on.Last year they've released an excellent album called Lifeblood...Very well indeed

Blacksword wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I liked the Manics (are they still going?) - I think that 1997 was a fantastic year for guitar driven rock, as there were so many good bands, like the Seahorses, Manson, Garbage, Radiohead, the Eels etc - and even the "2nd Division" bands like Supergrass were very entertaining (sorry Blackie - I've seen them a few times, and was disappointed...). I like Oasis' music, and I think that some of it probably is almost as classic as the Beatles - but not as much as the hype would have you believe, hence the widespread incredulity. Pulp were fantastic, and Divine Comedy are the great overlooked in my book. Another band whose 1st album really struck me was the Fun Lovin' Criminals - their later stuff was more of the same unfortunately, but I still spin the debut from time to time. Then there was Kula Shaker... Well, I liked them, even if they were derivative to the max! None of it prog, of course - but I don't restrict my listening pleasures  Kula Shaker derivative? Well, I wont argue, but surely Oasis are worse, Cert?? They've even admitted they've tried to write songs that sound like the Beatles. I've never understood the hype about Oasis. There's a few anthems in their catalogue (Roll with It, Cigarettes & Alcohol, Champagne Supernova etc) but they write mostly crap IMO. I always felt that Pulp and Supergrass were the less derivative of the Brit pop bands.

KS were a brilliant re-interpretation of late 1960s psychedelic rock, with everything in there from early Deep Purple to early Pink Floyd to the Small Faces, Kaleidoscope, the Zombies - the lot really. But with better production and a harder edge.

I'm not sure about Oasis being "worse" - yes, a lot of their stuff has the Beatles' style stamped all over it - but you'd always recognise Oasis against the Beatles, so that's another piece of hype IMO - probably fanned by Oasis in a bid to sell more records. Compare any Oasis album against any Beatles album between 1965 and 1969 and there's not much legitimate comparison - Oasis are more of a stadium rock band, while the fab four deliver stuff right across the spectrum.

I won't get into a debate over Supergrass - but every time I've seen them live it's like a carbon copy of the CD, with little atmosphere except amont the fans at the front. Their "standout" material is catchy and likeable enough, but not really anthem material, IMO. The acid test is simply to make a compilation and see which stand out the most on repeated plays - not forgetting to add in Ocean Colour Scene.

That's mainly down to taste, of course!

Syzygy wrote: Most Britpop - Blur, Oasis and all those other half arsed lamebrains - was utter drivel. derivative song structures, vapid lyrics, unimaginative arrangements - you got the feeling that record companies were releasing demos rather than telling the bands to go away and finish their songs properly. Pulp had pretty good lyrics and some surprisingly inventive music to back them up, not prog but there was quite a bit of substance there. The Verve (if they were really Britpop) also had their moments - Urban Hymns is an excellent 90s rock album.

Urban Hymns (excellent Brit Rock/Pop) and A Storm in Heaven (excellent Brit psychedalia)!!!

I like Oasis, though. I bought Don't Believe the Truth the day it came out. But it's ROCK and POP, so I don't know what you expected the song structured to be like, though.

I love blur

They are my favorite band! And I have all the albums, They don't sound the same at all, the way Oasis does.  Each album sounds different to the next. Well except maybe Leisure and Modern Life is Rubbish