That's... actually rather good. The original article spectacularly misses the point.
"It is impossible to appreciate Blur (admittedly one of the better Britpop bands) without hearing the thing they attempt to represent."
Of course it is. What if you're 17 and have never heard the thing they attempt to represent? The entire history of popular music is one of derivation. The Sex Pistols were simultaneous the most inventive and most derivative band ever to exist. The question of your 'authenticity' has nothing to do with your music influences and everything about whether what you're doing right now represents what you really think and believe. Blur were not aspiring to be authentic to the Kinks, they were aspiring to be authentic to themselves. That they did so under the influence of an older musical movement makes them no different to the Stones, Beatles, Elvis Presley, or anyone else in pop history.
I recall Billy Corgan saying how Smashing Pumpkins were considered retro and derivative by the music press, right up until Nirvana released Nevermind, at which point they were suddenly on the cutting edge of a new musical movement. Funny that. Of course, the quality of their music has nothing to do with any of that.
But... the claim that the claim that “Blur, and in particular Albarn, were to the left of New Labour and even implicitly anti-capitalist" is pushing it. They are and were textbook Guardianistas, much like Radiohead are. Oasis were more 'culturally' working class, Mirror and Sun readers; whether that's preferable is subject to debate.
Commenting by HaloScan
