Why most of the bands of the 90's brit pop era were such a douchy cunts?
The fanbase of some of these bands are also pretty cringy
Why most of the bands of the 90's brit pop era were such a douchy cunts?
The fanbase of some of these bands are also pretty cringy
was the last breed of working class ppl having a voice in pop culture
Most of them were pretty ok as musicians
But they also had more ego than talent
Other than the Gallaghers, and the one time Blur's drummer bullied Nardwuar, I actually can't think of many of them I'd consider cunts. A lot had egos on them, but most seemed alright.
I don't remember Suede and Pulp as being all that cunty, and the Gallaghers were the likeable sort of cunt, the sort you shoot the shit with at the bar after work.
Blur were the only one of the big Britpop bands I would call genuinely unlikable. Smug upper-class shitheads.
They had to be in order to get any attention in the british press. That's why oasis became so big, they were the biggest controversy makers
Had to agree with jarvis cocker for showing his ass in front of michael jackson on live tv though. Jarvis had morals and reason for doing what he did
The more important question is, why did most of the big Britpop bands feel the urge to put out much of their best work as B-sides on their singles?
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
im guessing because fUCK NORMIES REEEEEEEEEEEEE
I was watching The stone roses: Made of Stone last night
When they weren't performing they just were acting autistic
That shit that they did at the hotel was such a dick move
If you hate Noel and Liam Gallagher you should just come out and admit that you hate and fear the working class desu.
...
Well I just recalled why I thought that they were shit
>good, intelligent, hard-working
What's this even supposed to mean desu.
Oasis are accepted to have released several at the very least "good" albums during their activity, the Gallaghers reveals themselves to be a fair bit smarter and wittier than their reputation lets on if you bother to check out interviews with them and the relentlessness of their touring would certainly qualify them as being "hard working".
And their arrogance is a pretty typical Manchester thing. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, even the "intellectual" Manchester bigshots like Mark E. Smith or Morrisssey, are all arrogant as fuck and always have been.
The social class that they come from doesn't define how good or bad are they as artists or the quality of their work
tbf, I believe him when he says it was brought upon by drug use, not that that excuses him. They did an earlier interview with Nardwuar in written form and he didn't pull anything in that one. Also, while Damon and Alex are laughing at first, you can tell exactly when they stop finding it to be banter when he starts being really mean to him around 2:07.
>Oasis are accepted to have released several at the very least "good" albums
>accepted
>I take other peoples opinions as fact as long as they support my views
the only ones of those bands which were cunts(at least in public) were blur and oasis
blur were cunts because they were elitist rich kids from elitist rich kid schools who grew up in elitist rich kid environments
oasis were cunts because they were all underprivileged and maladjusted blokes from manchester with no real prospects(with the gallaghers in particular coming from a pretty bleak and abusive background), and the only way for underprivileged and maladjusted blokes from manchester to survive is by developing and embracing arrogant and aggressive larger-than-life hooligan personas for themselves
>Nardwuar is playing it off perfectly
This is why I love him so much
>the only way for underprivileged and maladjusted blokes from manchester to survive is by developing and embracing arrogant and aggressive larger-than-life hooligan personas for themselves
This also explains Mark E. Smith, Shaun Ryder, Ian Brown etc.
May I ask how was the economy and social situation of UK at that time?
Quite this