W. Kasper comes to that inevitable point in the rock critic’s lifecycle that he has to bemoan the kids today:
The most interesting, fruitful aspect of British pop in the 90s was when it was, well, mixed race; if not physically at least sonically. Any innovations (however minor), and the sense that you were hearing something said differently, was related to this (Two Tone had a more important social impact than punk: discuss). Considering this, Britpop was even more hideously reactionary than many assume, which may be why Gorrilaz are more listenable and inoffensive (in a good sense) than Blur. The chronic social/racial stratification of British pop (since the end of the 90s) sealed the lid on its coffin as anything relevant. If experience is anything to go by, ‘the kids’ are now more starkly divided into ‘indie’ (white) or ‘urban’ (black), with all the class division that implies.
Really? I’m not sure this last complaint is a) true or b) different from any other point in British pop history. 2-Tone was only a blip and its most succesful band, Madness, wasn’t all that multiracial. If you look at it from far away British pop has always been about a few pioneers getting inspired (stealing) Black music and making it palatable to a white audience, followed by a backlash as it all becomes a bit too mixed: hence Oasis, or a few years earlier, The Smiths, or even earlier The Kinks: all self-consciously English bands as response to a pop culture that had become too un-English, too American and too dancable. Crossover has always been more rare than coexistence, yet the reality of most people’s musical experience is much more pick ‘n mix than their self indentification as “indie” or “urban” suggests.
