As far as I know there was not much influence at the time (i.e 1991 -1998).
Well, if you keep reading the article you linked to, there are some links at the bottom you could follow. The first genre that came to my mind when I read your OP was Power Pop, and I see it is the first of the associated links in the Allmusic article.
Not really; the 90s britpop groups were too derivative to matter here, and even though we’re thick Yanks, we recognize pale imitators when we hear them. Those groups pretty much put an end to our looking to England for good music.
The rise of grunge pretty much killed off whatever interest there was in British Alternative at
the time. When grunge went commercial, commentators, pundits and things like MTV pretty
much dropped BP off the radar screen. Too bad because there was some good stuff being
made then (and clue to post #3: grunge was derivative as hell).
True dat, nothing new under the sun. However, I think that it’s just my age talking here. When you’ve seen the “original” music that is being recycled, it’s different than when you’re young and you’re hearing it for the first time, from people in your peer group.
I think it did - if only to keep the more pop-oriented, guitar-based rock candle burning while grunge repackaged harder rock and dance got more industrial and punk got mall-punky.
To this day, CD’s like The Stone Roses, Definitely Maybe and Parklife stand out as good music. I think Oasis’s DM is, as **An Arky **says, derivative, but in a good way (takes all the influences and comes up with new songs that sound great - to me, kinda like Jet’s first CD), but I would argue that the Stone Roses and Parklife find new territory.
No. American rock falls into two camps:mainstream rock that’s essentially reheated grunge (Nickelback, Linkin Park, etc.) and indie rockers (Death Cab for Cutie, Shins) who were influenced by previous moody acts like REM and Pavement. The “power pop” movement is actually far more influenced by acts the Britpop bands were based on, like the Kinks and the Beatles. The main problem Britpop faced in the US is that Americans only like listening to British rock when the vocalists sound very American (like the late '60s or early '80s).
Yeah, but I would say Power Pop well predates that wave of Brit Pop. Cheap Trick, The Romantics, The Knack, Big Star, etc…
But the indie rock world has seen a big influx of UK bands in the past few years: Franz Ferdinand, the Futureheads, the Libertines/Babyshambles/Dirty Pretty Things, Maximo Park, Art Brut, Arctic Monkeys, etc. None of those bands have broken as big as Oasis or Radiohead, but I think you could fairly characterize it as a second wave of Britpop.
Futureheads, sure. But Art Brut as “Brit Pop”? Franz Ferdinand? If you’re casting a genre net that wide, then any British rock would fit the definition of Britpop, and I don’t think some of the bands you listed qualify as that.
To me, Britpop refers to a melodic form of guitar-driven pop/rock that takes its musical cues from bands like the Beatles and the Kinks.
Which groups exactly are you referring to, here?
Actually, of the bands I listed, I’d consider Art Brut and the Libs et al. to be the closest to straight Britpop. The others have a pretty strong postpunk flavor but to my ears they still belong to the Beatles/Kinks Britpop lineage. I like your definition of Britpop but I would add one point: Observational lyrics about everyday life in the UK. Ray Davies -> Paul Weller -> Eddie Argos and Alex Turner. YMMV. 
The Libertines are (were) more Clash-y than anything else, thanks in no small part to the guiding hand of Mick Jones. Art Brut, Franz Ferdinand, the Arctic Monkeys, and the Futureheads et al. (along with other, newer bands you didn’t mention, like The Wombats, Bromheads Jacket, and maybe Klaxons) are various flavors of dance-y post-punk, taking their cues from (if anything) the Madchester sound—some with a fair dollop of EMF/Ned’s Atomic Dustbin/Doubt-era Jesus Jones—and moving on from there.
In my opinion.
Mostly Oasis and the like…they’re OK; I’d rather hear people aping the Beatles and The Jam than other things, but I’m kind of meh on it. Like I said before, if you’re old enough to remember the first and second generations of Britpop, then the third, fourth, etc. just aren’t anything to get excited about. I won’t go so far as to say they had no value or impact and I’d much rather hear them than some of the inane glop that’s on the radio these days.
Was there any group other than Oasis at that time?
You mind as well throw in Coldplay and the Spice Girls while we’re at it.
Coldplay can certainly be claimed by Britpop, at least partially. The archetypal Britpop bands of the 90s are folks like Suede, The Stone Roses, Blur, Oasis, and pre-OK Computer Radiohead. Coldplay would certainly fit into that vein and, before they became known as adult-contemporary boresters, were usually mentioned in the same breath as these bands. (I do actually quite like Parachutes, despite calling them “boresters.”)
I would agree with Art Brut being more closely allied with post-punk/art-punk than pop–they’re not melodic in the least (as all Britpop is), and share their lineage much more closely with post-punk bands like The Fall, Gang of Four, etc., than The Beatles. I kind of lop 'em in with bands like The Bloc Party and Franz Ferdinand.
Franz Ferdinand being more New Order-y (and much more melodic) than Bloc Party and, to an even greater extent, Art Brut and Futureheads, of course.
Wow, are we talking about the same Art Brut? When I listen to Bang Bang Rock & Roll I hear echoes of Blur, the Jam, maybe even Sex Pistols. I can’t imagine putting them in the same sentence as Gang of Four and Bloc Party.
You tell me that Good Weekend doesn’t sound at least a little bit like I Love a Man in Uniform.
I will if you tell me that “Emily Kane” and “Moving to LA” wouldn’t feel a lot more at home on Parklife than on Solid Gold. 