Travis? Travis? Are you lot serious?
Aren’t they the ones who brought us such masterful lyrics as “Sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing…etc”
and “Turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn, turn”
and “Why does it always rain on me?
Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?”
Huh???
I sometimes think I could write better lyrics than Travis.
So, maybe you could. For me, it’s not about the complexity of the lyrics, but how they are intertwined in the songs.
Putting a band down because of some lyrics isn’t a very smart thing to do.
"Ob-la-di, ob-la-da
Life goes on, bra
La la how the life goes on "
For you it’s not about the complexity of the lyrics.
For me it can be.
It’s not very smart to call someone not very smart for having different criteria on which they judge music…
I thought there was more to being a Britpop band that being British and playing pop. I would never have called the Stone Roses or the Charlatans Britpop… Pulp, Blur, Travis… yes. Am I just horribly misled?
Yes and no. There never was a definition of Britpop any more accurate than “British guitar indie”. I mean, Blur, Oasis and Pulp were always lumped in together despite playing different types of music (well, to my mind anyway). But then you’d see (say) Saint Etienne included in the list, who were basically a laid-back pop/dance group and musically not really comparable at all.
There’ve been attempts at a mini-revival that haven’t quite caught on – two decent (if obvious) compilations I’d recommend are Alternative 90s (bit heavy on non-Britpop though, even if it does have Sultans of Ping and World of Twist!) and Weekender (although criminally lacking “Weekender” by Flowered Up):