I was reflecting on my habits as a music fan during my morning commute today (50 minutes, mostly in traffic, ugh). I was considering the fact that I've never been a completist; I've moved from favourite band to favourite band but never gone and got, or even listened to, any artist's entire back catalogue, no matter how taken up by them I was at the time. When I was into U2 I stuck with just "Achtung Baby" and "Zooropa"; when it was Black Grape I only got the first album; even with the Clash I only went a few albums beyond "London Calling". I suppose for me it's never been about buying into anyone's entire career or oeuvre; it's more about the individual work that I may intensely like, while being able to keep things in perspective and realise that not everything by any given artist is going to be good. Plus I think I lack the attention, especially these days, to really focus on any one thing for too long.
This was all prompted by hearing "Sing" by Blur on 6 Music today. It got me thinking about Blur and their sound and trajectory. "Sing" is off their first album, "Leisure", which I don't think I've heard fully, so what I'm about to say may sound like complete balls to anyone who's a real Blur fan. My Blur fan-hood is kind of like my fan-hood for every other band -- there are a few albums I've listened to a lot, and that's it. So I'm hardly the person to really know enough about Blur to say what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway.
When I heard "Sing" this morning I was struck by the thought that it sums Blur up in a way. The song itself is pretty non-traditional for a pop song; it's experimental, with no easily decipherable verses to sing along or relate to, and it barely has a chorus. It's a great song, but very far removed from those which made Blur famous -- songs like "Girls & Boys", or "Country House", or "Song 2". Even if I consider Blur as an indie act instead of a pop one, "Sing" is a lot more ambitious than anything else I've heard from that period -- and they produced it themselves. "Sing" sums Blur up as a band who are actually very experimental and who've had many different sounds and phases in their 28 years. And when I hear "Sing" and consider some of Blur's other music it seems not at all surprising that the band eventually fell apart; because it would be hard for any band with so many different ideas and sounds to capture it all in one outfit. It makes sense that Damon Albarn ended up starting and being part of many other acts, and worked solo, as did Graham Coxon. Blur was never going to be enough to encapsulate all the ideas those two, and particularly Albarn, had.
This is probably not news at all, or fresh original thinking. Really this is me trying to figure out who Blur are to me. I'm re-examining them and re-thinking who they are as a band. Britpop Blur wasn't really the Blur I loved; the Blur I loved was the Blur of Think Tank and what I realised today is that Blur were always the band that would make Think Tank; that album isn't an anomaly, it's actually who Blur are. And "Sing" is what proves that to me.
This was all prompted by hearing "Sing" by Blur on 6 Music today. It got me thinking about Blur and their sound and trajectory. "Sing" is off their first album, "Leisure", which I don't think I've heard fully, so what I'm about to say may sound like complete balls to anyone who's a real Blur fan. My Blur fan-hood is kind of like my fan-hood for every other band -- there are a few albums I've listened to a lot, and that's it. So I'm hardly the person to really know enough about Blur to say what I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway.
When I heard "Sing" this morning I was struck by the thought that it sums Blur up in a way. The song itself is pretty non-traditional for a pop song; it's experimental, with no easily decipherable verses to sing along or relate to, and it barely has a chorus. It's a great song, but very far removed from those which made Blur famous -- songs like "Girls & Boys", or "Country House", or "Song 2". Even if I consider Blur as an indie act instead of a pop one, "Sing" is a lot more ambitious than anything else I've heard from that period -- and they produced it themselves. "Sing" sums Blur up as a band who are actually very experimental and who've had many different sounds and phases in their 28 years. And when I hear "Sing" and consider some of Blur's other music it seems not at all surprising that the band eventually fell apart; because it would be hard for any band with so many different ideas and sounds to capture it all in one outfit. It makes sense that Damon Albarn ended up starting and being part of many other acts, and worked solo, as did Graham Coxon. Blur was never going to be enough to encapsulate all the ideas those two, and particularly Albarn, had.
This is probably not news at all, or fresh original thinking. Really this is me trying to figure out who Blur are to me. I'm re-examining them and re-thinking who they are as a band. Britpop Blur wasn't really the Blur I loved; the Blur I loved was the Blur of Think Tank and what I realised today is that Blur were always the band that would make Think Tank; that album isn't an anomaly, it's actually who Blur are. And "Sing" is what proves that to me.
