BRITPOP

britpop isn't a genre

the best album associated with it is mansun's six or blur's 13

>>73987328
fpbp

>>73987284
s/t > dog man star

>>73987284
>>73987328
Manics

Teenage Fanclub

Stone Roses were alright too

File: Ian Paisley.jpg (69KB, 484x594px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 484x594px

>>73987328
>mansun's six
Mate!
13's great as well, but it actually gets mentioned here

>>73987344
I actually love all three of those bands, but purists always tell me the Manics aren't Britpop, and I really wouldn't call the other two britpop, even if the Stone Roses were a massive influence

>>73987328
lolno

>>73987412
>but purists always tell me the Manics aren't Britpop
eh depends which part of the manics discography we're talking about

anything after the holy bible apart from journal for plague lovers is pretty britpoppy

and I'm not saying they're the ultimate decision makers but RYM agrees

>>73987387
it's in a league of its own. like their ok computer but both more fun and less commercial, which is quite impressive to pull off

>>73987412
I don't get the point of britpop purism. if oasis and pulp are somehow the same genre, you may as well include the manics too. I can kind of see excluding the stone roses just in terms of timing, but sonically why not

>>73987534
With the Stone Roses, they were really part of the madchester scene, which is a whole different thing. But I totally agree with you on the Manics, I don't get it. Maybe it's because they weren't actually in England, or part of the London scene. Or maybe it's that they were at least nominally a punk-ish band. Idk