You're trying to start another 'Celebration of Mediocrity' strand aren't you?

Can I just say that House of Love were offensively bad, and Guy Chadwick is the most insufferably pretentious wanker in the business. At least Jason Pierce balances being a pretentious wanker with actually producing decent music.

Funnily enough, I quite like the early HOL stuff (not the later bits, ie. anything after "Girl With The Loneliest Eyes". Or "Feel") but can't abide Pierce's stuff... but I'm not going to start an argument about it.

I just mentioned it because I was startled to see a TV ad in which The Pastels and BMX Bandits were cited as attractions.

The Creation records compilation contains a smattering of unrepresentative Ride tracks, and no My Bloody Valentine material whatsoever. Thus I shall be avoiding it like the archetypal plague.

"no My Bloody Valentine material "

Maybe there's a copyright issue. There was supposed to be a compilation of non-album MBV tracks in the early 90s, but that never happened. They signed to Island just after Creation dropped them when they were touring 'Loveless'.

>Can I just say that House of Love were offensively bad, and Guy Chadwick is the most insufferably pretentious wanker in the business.

No, and yes. I think Chris Roberts nailed Chadwick good and proper a few years back for putting pseudo-casually strewn Anais Nin paperbacks on the cover of that B-sides comp and calling all the bloody songs "Love IV" or somesuch. *But*, there were some blinding singles early on and, even as late as '91, he was capable of something as good as "The Girl With The Loneliest Eyes". Christ, even his solo LP from '98 wasn't bad (of course, the lyrics were, but that's no surprise).

Here's a link to an article by an acquaintance of mine, which sums up the whole Creation myth (it's a review of what looks like a very shabby Paolo Hewitt book) better than I could:

www.tangents.co.uk/tangents/modern/creation.html

(though the site was down last time I tried).

There do seem to be three schools of thought on Creation -

[i] They were brilliant for about a dozen singles until '87 - keeping alive the punk ethos in each fizzing release - and then slipped into psych-rock hell.

[ii] They really clicked when the guitar and dance experimentalists took hold at the cusp of the 90s - almost every release seemed essential.

[iii] Oasis saved rock'n'roll and everything prior to them was shambling anorak-toss.

Unfortunately, those who subscribe to [iii] seem to be the ones writing the books and documentaries.

From what I've managed to piece together... EMI Publishing wanted an extortionate rate for the inclusion of any MBV material, presumably in an effort to claw back some of the money that they spent on signing them. Alan McGee, no doubt still troubled by those 'painful' memories of them spending too long in the studio, did not see fit to fight this...

Is this correct? Has anyone heard any different?

My favourite Creation Records story:

Oasis play a toilet in Glasgow.
A Sony A&R guy is sent up to check them out, having been tipped off by insiders that that Inspiral Carpets roadie's new band might be worth a punt.
They're pretty good and A&R guy tells them so, offering them a deal.
Gallagher Snr says he'd never sign to a corporate monolith like Sony (this was a while ago, when indie meant something).
Sony A&R guy pleads.
Gallagher Snr asks him if Sony have got any cred labels under their wing.
The A&R guy tells Gallagher that Sony are a bit short of cred labels right now, but are thinking of buying out Creation soon. Will that do?
Gallagher (a Jasmine Minks fan) says yes. Go swallow Creation, and we'll sign up.

Where was Mcgee? Nowhere near.

He's been dining out on that "I saved Rock and Roll by Discovering Oasis" story for years and it's about time he STOPPED.

Yeah... another thing - when Creation screwed up the release of 'Roll With It' (a lot of copies didn't have proper barcodes on, so weren't counted in sales figures), Gallagher raged in an interview that "that label would have been bust in 3 months if it wasn't for us joining them". Mind you, they must have had a bit of money going spare because the Oasis debut album was recorded before they put out the 1st single.

McGee squandered all the profits on shit bands, which was another reason Gallagher chcuked him in the end. He refused to take part in the Omnibus show about the label.

But Sony got its claws into creation back in 92, when they were basically bust after 'Loveless'.

Giving Magee the perfect chance to let members of his family and Ed fucking Ball to release records - he shouldn't be allowed near money.
This compilation doesn't have enough of The Super Furry Animals and The Boo Radleys on. No, really.

SFA are great. Who have they signed to now?

And isn't there going to be a Primal Scream compilation at some point?

SFA released their last album "MWNG" on their own label. (Like fellow labelless countrymen and unsung geniuses Gorky's Zygotic Mynci.)

I suppose, in the current climate, and with the appalling sales of "Guerilla", they'll be staying independent for a while yet...

(And whenever it was that Sony actually moved in to swallow Creation, it doesn't change the fact that it was Sony who seized Oasis, not Creation...)

Anyway, if the new compilation isn't just "Doing It For The Kids" on CD, I am simply not interested... Did anyone of college age in the entire country NOT own that record?

Mantra is owned by GZM though, is it? I thought it was just some tiny indie label they'd signed too.

SFA's label is Placid Casual - i think they're still looking for a record deal.

Other creation stalwarts include:

Oasis (Big Brother)
Teenage Fanclub (Columbia)
Brave Captain [Kind of] (Wichita)

Who 'does' Primal Scream now?

Sony

Surely it Primal Scream who 'do' Sony - all that corperate cock-sucking they have to do to sell records and... oh dear, i appear to come over all alan mcgee