They were pretending to be indie, with britpop? No offense, but that just sounds kind of like a hipster comment.

A good amount of indie is quality material and isn't overproduced. It was the grunge of britain.

Grunge too was about going back to a simpler style without fancy production or the killing of artistic style. Except they were emulating the American garage rock in theory, whereas britpop emulates the style of british invasion artists. The music is very different, though.

Who said it wasn't quality? But bands like Oasis and Blur were prancing about like they were making music that wouldn't appeal to the masses.

Same with the grunge scene. Nirvana were obviously trying to gain mainstream appeal, but acted as though they weren't.

Also, what's wrong with being a "hipster" at least when it comes to music?

Wait, grunge and britpop pretended they were making music that was unappealing to mainstream audiences? Pretty sure that's not true. Trying to bring a different style to the mainstream is more like it.

If you're a hipster you're a hipster, but the whole elitist attitude that the typical hipster brings is becoming a punchline. Your words just looked like what a hipster would say. "trying to be indie" when in reality, many of the best indie artists try to have a mainstream audience as well. It sounds like hipster elitism, thats all.

Oasis said right from their very first interview they wanted to be the biggest band in the world.

Well yeah, we are on a music forum. A bit of elitism is bound to happen. I think we can all man up and take it on the chin.

Also, my initial point was that britpop isn't a genre, it was just a bunch of bands making pretty generic, radio friendly, alternative rock who got popular and started dominating the charts.

Then, other bands copied the already watered down alternative rock sound and you ended up with a sea of rubbish, which happens to every genre in the mainstream.

I think my point about them "trying to be indie" was misunderstood. I am certain that most britpop bands wanted to make accessible music, but I feel that they came across as though they were the alternative to whatever crappy pop was dominating the charts, as if they weren't already making derivative rock music themselves, and there wasn't great music being made outside of what you hear on the radio.

Sure, and I'm not upset at your elitism, I don't think anyone is, but this reeks of hipster elitism and narrow-mindedness. I'm calling you on what you're wrong at. With a message board, there will also be disagreements, which I think we can man up and take on the chin.

I said that like a page ago, that britpop is a loosely defined genre like grunge. It was a movement. The lyrics weren't really what I would consider to be mainstreamy and generic. It was the first time since the 1960s and early 70s that popular music wasn't entirely manufactured, and had some artistic integrity. All the movement was really about was getting back to the basics of rock, and killing off the overproduced and even more "generic" sound of hair metal and new wave.

It wasn't really generic for the 80s and 90s, and if you listen to early grunge and britpop, it definitely is very abrasive.

Also, I don't think that most of the britpop bands had any intention of being alternative and "better" than what was on the charts. Like Hatemonger said, Oasis were always clear about wanting to be huge, and Blur were a hit from their first single.

Don't get Rings Around The World, other than the title track, it's pretty dull.

To whoever asked: No, Second Coming is not any good.
Interestingly, long before I joined MB (full of Brits) I always heard that only Americans like Second Coming - presumably because of Squire's blues guitar wanking (which, I guess, yanks are presumed to love? :rolleyes:).
But, outside of a few classic rock lovers, I never knew any American who likes it much. Now that I've been on MB I've run across many more Brits who defend the album than Americans I've known.
Anyway, it sucks.

Don't remember where I read it.

Allmusicguide says: "Britpop had its most immediate roots in the Madchester scene" and "The Stone Roses' effortless pop hooks and rock-star attitude were the most important part of the foundation". But then they go on to say "but the true founding fathers of Britpop were Suede".