The Libertines: why?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

This is a band who only managed two top 10 singles and probably only have one single you can actually hum, and yet they seemed to be THE MOST IMPORTANT BAND OF THEIR GENERATION to quite a lot (far too many) impressionable youths. Why? OK, they probably did the rise and collapse thing a little more entertaingly than So Solid Crew (if you're going to get arrested, at least make sure it's for a crime you're gonna get convicted of), but other than that...?

Surely Mansun did the Carl/Pete hoyay bullshit ten years prior, and vaguely more entertaingly. Was it just the heavy handed poetry and dreams of albion bullshit? Were the Libertines just a metrosexual Billy Bragg at the end of the day? Help me out here.

― White Collar Boxer (DomPassantino), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:34 (seventeen years ago) link

Surely Mansun did the Carl/Pete hoyay bullshit ten years prior, and vaguely more entertaingly.

"x did y ten years ago" is a rubbish argument when talking about impressionably youths. They're impressionable youths, therefore they need it done NOW.

I'm sure we've done this one a million times before but I'll lay off the usual kneejerk reaction to hypothesise that The Libertines are the one instance of haircut indie doing whatever it is that emo does for its fans. And I'm not talking about lyrics or sound or anything here, just intangiable sense of connection with the band, no matter how imagined.

Or alternatively, they happened because the Manic Street Preachers got too old and unfashionable.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Carl/Pete in "better looking than Mansun" shockah.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:42 (seventeen years ago) link

he looks like a tortoise mark.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:43 (seventeen years ago) link

Tortoise in "better looking than Mansun" shockah.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:43 (seventeen years ago) link

Actually, I thought the first album was rather awesome and brilliant, so nuts to you, White Collar Boxer.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:51 (seventeen years ago) link

How good or bad The Libertines were is kinda irrelevant to this conversation though, there's plenty of bands better and worse than them who've failed to make their mark as they did. I'm just curious as to what it was that the Libertines (or their PR) did right when it comes to their fanbase.

― White Collar Boxer (DomPassantino), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:54 (seventeen years ago) link

a bit like...

BELLE AND SEBASTIAN

amirite?

seriously, though, same kind of thing going on, just five years later and now with added east london bullshit.

― temporary enrique (temporary enrique), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:54 (seventeen years ago) link

"What A Waster" went top 40 in June 2002, which was an odd month for music. Nu-metal hadn't gone away yet (top 20 singles for Puddle of Mudd, KoRn, Papa Roach, and Chad Kroeger's awesome "Hero"). There was also a strain of support for pop-punk with A and SPUNGE of all fucking people having hits. It's like looking at a different universe looking at that chart. The only "SIGNS OF THINGS TO COME" are the lower end of the chart hits for The Libs and Jimmy Eat World.

― White Collar Boxer (DomPassantino), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Belle and Sebastian fans wouldn't take a bullet for Murdoch tho.

― White Collar Boxer (DomPassantino), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:58 (seventeen years ago) link

who cared about belle and sebastian in 2002?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:58 (seventeen years ago) link

what a waster and i get along are classic!

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:01 (seventeen years ago) link

The Libertines are what happened when we were all waiting for grime to go big.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:03 (seventeen years ago) link

This is a band who only managed two top 10 singles

The Stone Roses only had three or four top 10 singles and yet they seemed to be THE MOST IMPORTANT BAND OF THEIR GENERATION to quite a lot (far too many) impressionable youths.

There'll be another THE MOST IMPORTANT BAND OF OUR GENERATION around any minute.

― Captain Purple Items (nu_onimo), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Who will likewise be kept off number one/out of the top ten by the Jive Bunny de nos jours.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:04 (seventeen years ago) link

their first album is one of the best british indie albums of the past 10 years i reckon.... its not hard to see why arctics and so many others lapped it up - they sounded genuinely VITAL back then...

― titchy (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:36 (seventeen years ago) link

The best recordings were done with Bernard Butler.

― M Grout (Mark Grout), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Chad Kroeger's awesome "Hero".

jeeeeeeezus. thanks for reminding me of that. that's a month of nightmares ahead.

― mister the guanoman (m the g), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 14:10 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah butler should have produced all their stuff but they seemed to like mick jones' 'approach' better

― titchy (titchyschneider), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 14:43 (seventeen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.