Keep Britpop alive!

OTL Britpop arose from faint stirrings in late 1992 to become the hot new thing in 1994 and a globe-straddling titanic New Sound by 1995. And then it collapsed like a pricked bubble in the first months of 1997, and that was that.
From beginning to end was just over four years. Even for a modern pop musical movement, that's rather short.



So: can we keep it going another year? Two? All the way to 2000? -- That one seems a stretch, but hey, make it a challenge.



Thoughts?



Doug M.
 
The problem is that by 1997, the front-runners of Britpop were either changing their artistic focus (Blur), reaching the end of their creative heyday (Oasis), becoming generally disaffected (Pulp) or splitting up (Suede). New bands were either pastiching established artists (Embrace) or deliberately softening their image as a reaction against the perceived 'laddishness' of Britpop bands (Travis). Added to that, Britpop was intensely tied to the 1997 election and the rise of New Labour, and following their election there was nothing for the movement to build on (only underground scenes thrive on mainstream decline). Once Princess Diana died, the public's interest in Britpop was utterly terminated. Intelligent, invigorating rock was provided by Radiohead's 'OK Computer'; radio-friendly pop came courtesy of Robbie Williams.

As to extending Britpop's reign... well, there are a number of solutions. Maybe find some way to make 'Be Here Now' be not shite, or get Pulp to put 'Cocaine Socialism' on 'This Is Hardcore'. My personal theory, though, would be to have the wonderful Shack become a success in 1997 with their glorious 'The Magical World Of The Strands' album. This leaves the way clear for 'HMS Fable', their 1999 release, to become the closing statement on Britpop it should've been all along.
 
Top