>hold a gig at Knebworth Park in August 1996
>250,000 people attend
>2.6 million people (roughly 5% of England's population at the time or 1 in every 20 persons) apply for tickets to this one gig
How did they do it, Cred Forums?
>hold a gig at Knebworth Park in August 1996
>250,000 people attend
>2.6 million people (roughly 5% of England's population at the time or 1 in every 20 persons) apply for tickets to this one gig
How did they do it, Cred Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
uh they didn't? that's complete bullshit
>hold three consecutive gigs at Knebworth Park in August 2003
>375,000 people attend
>release the fastest and biggest selling live album in British history
How did he do it, Cred Forums?
By appealing to the lowest common denominator.
>hold a gig in Springfield Park in November 1992
>4.5 million people attend
>7.4 billion people (roughly 100% of Earth's population at the time or 1 in every 1 persons) apply for tickets to this one gig
How did they do it, Cred Forums?
nice bait but nobody could ever believe that
I don't know, but they're still dogshit, Blur is miles better.
and both are trite compared to Pulp
meant to reply to this
>hold a gig at the North Pole Environmental Observatory in September 1979
>298,036,253 people attend
>582.9 trillion people (roughly 84% of the population of the Pan-Galactic Confederation) apply for tickets to this one gig
How did he do it, Cred Forums?
>Pulp
>good
pick one cunt
You might as well have written "I HATE HAVING FUN" it would carry the same massage. But yea, this is the plebbiest opinion about britpop I have ever read on this board. I've seen people value Oasis over Blur (which is kinda stupid, but ok, I can see that). I've seen people argue that Manic Street Preachers are rubbish (which I think is ludicrous but they had their edgy phases which might turn some people off). But saying Pulp isn't good? Wow, that is some whole next level of idiocy and lack of comprehension of the whole genre. Delete yourself from this board right this fucking instant.
is that the wonderwall band?
Pulp are fucking terrible lmao
͏>be me three
͏>eat a cake
͏>vomit the cake
͏>cry to mommy
͏>wow
STOP TRIGGERING ME YOU ASSWIPE OR I WILL HAVE YOU LISTEN TO FUCKING THIS IS HARDCORE UNTIL YOU EAT SLEEP AND SHIT JARVIS COCKER
fuck off Jarvis no cares about your third rate band even elastica were a better
>lack of comprehension of the whole genre
which genre is that?
britpop you pillock
suck my cocker
the lads are too great for this world
that's... not a genre
IT IS YOU STUPID FUCKING CONTRARIAN FAGGOT
>Britpop
>NOUN
>[MASS NOUN] British pop music of the mid 1990s that was typically influenced by the Beatles and other British groups of the 1960s and perceived as a reaction against American grunge music.
per Oxford Dictionary
GO CHOKE ON A BURGER
aaaand it doesn't say genre anywhere, great job
this. the only thing all the bands in this thread have in common are is they are all shitty british bands no cares about
ARE YOU FUCKING MENTALLY SUBNORMAL, IF IT DEFINES IT AS A TYPE OF MUSIC IT IS CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT IT IS A GENRE.
>genre
>Pronunciation: /ˈ(d)ʒɒnrə//ˈʒɒ̃rə/
>NOUN
>1A style or category of art, music, or literature.
THIS IS GOING FUCKING NOWHERE WITH YOU, IS IT. WELL THEN, FUCK YOU. YOU WIN, I GO AWAY, I'LL GO FUCK MYSELF, SINCE THIS IS CLEARLY WHAT YOU FUCKING WANT YOU TWAT. GOING TO HELL, I'LL SEND YOU A POSTCARD, CUNT.
Britpop is literally just a catch-all term applied to pretty much any British indie band in the mid-90s who did something other than American style grunge. Oasis and Blur and Pulp and Suede and the like sound nothing like each other. Same thing with the so-called "Madchester" thing. 808 State and The Stone Roses were not even close sonically.
l ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏o ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏l
rude
sorry liam i was only messing
Kind of true. but I'd say the Britpop bands also shared a certain conservative/retro feel. Stuff that was more forward-looking like Massive Attack wasn't counted as Britpop.