>Suede breathed new life into glam rock, developing a sound

>>74724972
they made good songs

Oasis wrote good songs at the end of the day while the others wrote posh art school wank for nme journalists to jerk off to instead of a real lad

>worldwide superstars
Erm, anon, they were one-hit wonders

Americans didn't get Suede, Pulp, or Blur because those guys made Americans only British people could understand

>>74724972
Because they had the catchiest songs. In a pop setting, that's all that matters. Blur never wrote a single song that comes close to "Supersonic" or "Champagne Supernova".

>>74725008
They all sound effay and wussy to me.
t. American

>>74725030
just because one hit was a lot bigger than the others doesn't mean they weren't hits

>>74724972
>implying blur weren't huge
>implying Radiohead didn't start out as britpop

how many special people change

>>74725080
Blur were only huge in the UK and only for a brief period of time in the mid-90s. Following that, they were merely very big in the UK and moderately big in certain parts of Europe(whereas Oasis was a fucking inescapable pop phenomenon everywhere you went, from Tokyo to NYC to London to Belgrade). I don't think Blur had a single Top 40 hit in the US, whereas Oasis were, for a few years at least, nearly as big in the US as they were everywhere else.

>implying Radiohead didn't start out as britpop

Radiohead started out as post-grunge, and while their work enjoyed more consistent critical acclaim than Oasis did, they never came even close to competing with Oasis on a purely commercial level.
Oasis still filled up stadiums in 2009. Radiohead never has and most likely never will fill up stadiums.

>>74725290
>Radiohead never has and most likely never will fill up stadiums.
Radiohead played not one but 2 sold-out nights at Madison Square Garden.

>>74725373
So did Oasis, and this was in the mid-2000s when they were almost 10 years away from their last huge US hit.

>>74725391
They also played in front of 30.000 people in fucking Boston on the same tour.

yuck

>>74725413
oasis always sold fairly well in the us, even after their peak their albums still went like top 20

Why did Americans choose Oasis out of the britpop bands? Blur 13 alone is better than Oasis entire discography. Why wasn't The Universal or Beetlebum as big as Wonderwall? Are Americans that stupid?

>>74725545
Oasis is less wussy than the others, though still wussier than most American music.

File: mansun.jpg (138KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1440x1080px

>>74724972
And most talented band wasn't even that famous in the UK

>>74725641
Mansun were quite big in the UK for a while. Their debut album was a surprise hit and went straight to no.1 in the charts IIRC, resulting in them getting kicked off of a tour with Blur that they were supposed to do because Damon Albarn felt threatened by their success.

Lowest common denominator

>>74725641
>>74725798
Yeah, they were pretty big until they did Six and that, very sadly, ended up jeopardising their success somewhat. Totally worth it for that album though. I just wish the critics had enough sense to see it as the great work it is

>>74725867
>made one of the best selling albums in UK history
>were ready to become the next big band since Oasis were declining
>decided to break up

>>74725391
Ok, but the point of my reply was proving that Radiohead does play stadiums.

File: shaun ryder kitkats.png (747KB, 1878x584px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1878x584px

Britpop is shit aside from a couple bands Madchester is the far superior genre.

Also the reason why Oasis were more successful is because they actually made good music, despite what contrarians will say on here.

>>74725290
>Thinking Radiohead started out as "post grunge"

Supergrass is good aswell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNIMuvbiZcc

>>74725859
Six is one of the best British albums ever.

Brits love it because MUH FEELS oi wot a time to be British look at us thatcher yout we are so repressed :'(

>>74725545
Because Blur is shit and the only decent song they have is WOOHOO

>>74725545
Because Americans like their radio pop to be immediate and hooky and unpretentious as possible. Blur appealed to a British tradition in pop music, not an American one.
I still think Suede could have been far bigger in America than they ended up being if only they had the right promotion tactics. Obviously not nowhere nearly as big as Oasis, but they could have been a very big left-field pop band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PdKGDMhau4

This could have been a fucking massive hit on US radio.

>>74724972
honestly embarrassed that britpop was even a thing. "hey look at those chavs with guitars!". the whole thing was pathetic.

File: loureed_001.jpg?itok=upneGfjY.jpg (45KB, 845x700px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 845x700px

The British shouldn't play rock and roll. They suck at it.

>>74726351
do you blame politics for every personal problem? lmao

Blur > Pulp > Suede >>>> Oasis

>>74728041
A-A correct opinion? On MY /mu/?!

>>74724972
>Blur
overrated, poor melodies, literally just ripped off American music like Pavement but did a shit job of it and were embarrassingly try-hard "indie slacker" on terrible albums like 13

>Pulp
>most charismatic and intelligent frontman since Morissey
Morissey sucks, Pulp sucks pretty bad too

>Suede
so boring holy shit

Did Brits aside from the Beatles ever actually make decent pop or is Brit-Pop just an ironic 90s meme?

>>74725545
13 is literally the shittiest thing Blur ever did, and that's saying something

>>74728041
So close anon
Blur = Pulp > Suede >>>> Oasis
although this is talking about overall careers if you're looking for the best britpop ranking yours is perect

>>74728471
>>74728509
>being this pleb
The state of /mu/ is appalling.

>>74728590
>projecting this hard
13 is objectively a godawful album. BLUREMI is the best song on there and it's still shit. It's actually incredible how irredeemably bad it is. They were out of ideas and just listened to Wowee Zowee and thought "hey, if them Yanks can do it so can we, eh wot?" and shat out the most insultingly garbage "songs" of their lives. It takes a devout pleb to pretend it's anything more than a collection of sonic diarrhea

Because Oasis weren't private school wannabe artsy wankers. They were as Noel says "A couple of lads from a council estate" and that DRIVE to get out of that council estate led to Oasis becoming the most memorable and catchy Britpop band. Unlike Poshboy Damon Albarn and the rest of cunting Blur.

>>74724972
I think you're seriously overestimating the impact English music even has in America post Beatles

>>74728776
13 is actually better than the self titled to be honest

>>74728776
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/831-13/

>9.1/10
>godawful album
pick one

>>74729454
>pitchfork
>indicative of good taste

pick zero you fucking faggot

File: damonalex.jpg (102KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x373px

>>74728876
>implying you wouldn't

>>74728776
How can you live with yourself?

>>74725008
this

all southern puffs, other than pulp, who wish they were southern

>>74729574
Hmh anon how did you get my pc wallpaper?

>>74729587
it's not easy, but I make it a little easier by not subjecting my ears to utter trash

>>74728776
That's a whole lot of words for a post that doesn't say very much.

>>74729837
it says all it needs to say
>13 is a godawful album
>BLUREMI is the best song, still shit
>they were out of ideas
>they ripped off better American music
>only plebs enjoy it

that's quite a few hefty and factual points for a Blur fan to digest, so I understand if it's confusing to you

>>74724972
t. southern poofta

>year 2000+17
>still fighting over britpop bands
Just like those you like and fuck off

>>74730048
>2017
>still believing music is subjective
Reddit is that way >>>

>>74729903
>I don't like it
>this is the best song but I don't even like that!
>I don't like it so they were out of ideas
>I don't like it so they ripped off Wowee Zowee because two albums in the same genre released in the same decade couldn't possibly have similar sounds
>I don't like it

Perhaps if you explain exactly what exactly makes the sounds presented in the album bad or unappealing to you, your post might've held some weight, but as it stands you made a bunch of statements with nothing to support them.

>>74725545
>Why wasn't The Universal or Beetlebum as big as Wonderwall?

I mean, that's like asking why Let It Be is more a popular Beatles song than A Day in the Life. Wonderwall is a perfect pop song, despite how overplayed it is at this point. Oasis also had Don't Look Back In Anger, Morning Glory, and Champagne Supernova on the same album. Blur had the woo hoo song. Britpop as a whole never took off in America since in the United States at that time the most popular music was either grunge or rap. Oasis was the most accessible britpop band for Americans. Same with Coldplay, who for some reason feel the need to out-U2 U2 in terms of appealing to the lowest common denominator with each consecutive album since Viva la Vida. (People like pop music, let's go full pop! Oh, EDM is big, let's get Avicii on our next record. Hey, what if we made our next album sound like sticking crayons in your ear?)

Could you imagine fans of Pearl Jam & Foo Fighters listening to Common People or any song off Dog Man Star? of course not

>>74730359
>two albums in the same genre
kek'd

People here are forgetting about Clear Channel (aka iHeart Radio) taking over the US radio in the mid-90s and monopolizing it and ensuring that only radio-friendly songs that moms driving their kids to soccer practice would like would be played.

I still maintain that 1997 was the year rock "died" in a sense, or at least was the last year rock music was king.
>OK Computer deconstructing the sound of rock
>Urban Hymns as the first modern "indie rock" sounding record
>Blur's S/T album is them going lo-fi
>Be Here Now is the sound of the Britpop bubble exploding in a mess of layered guitars and cocaine
>Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys release their most successful singles, causing pop groups to become the next big thing
>Spice Girls making money also means Simon Fuller makes money, which leads to the birth of American Idol, X Factor, Britains Got Talent, and so on.
>Radiohead goes electronic, Noel Gallagher stops doing coke, Damon Albarn decides he wants to be black and also wants to be a cartoon and goes Gorillaz.

so whenever you see a YouTube comment wondering what happened to music and that they're the defener of good music unlike todays crap, now you know it's because of Clear Channel/iHeart Radio and Simon Fuller

>>74731368
Interesting

>>74730359
You can literally read about the album and how they, Graham especially, ripped off the Pavement/American indie sound. It's not "they just happened to sound the same", it's "Blur was in a different genre but liked this band so they tried to sound like them and it came out like Pavement-derivative Britpop w/"experimental-art" wankery"

How do I explain every bad sound on this album? It's bland, humdrum songwriting, weak melodies mixed with half-assed noise. It just sounds like they were out of ideas (they were, w/ lots of infighting), fucking around in the studio determined to release *anything*. A few songs could've been something if they'd just put more creativity/effort/idk-what into it, like "Trimm Trabb" and "Coffee and TV". "Battle" starts off promising but then they turn it into another boring bloated tune that goes nowhere. Some are just overlong filler, like "Caramel" and "1992".

And this shit gets a 9.1/10 rating by /mu/'s favorite ratings factory. It's ridiculous

Because oasis was better than all those bands you hipster fags love to jerk off