quote:

Originally posted by Watney Sideburns:
It's only begun to sink in during the last day or two that [the new album] will be the first new full studio album of Crowded House songs to have been originally conceived and performed *as* Crowded House songs in 17 years.

Indeed, Watney. And I'm beginning to feel a tad emotional about it all. As you say, no offence to any of Neil's other projects (I love them all) but there really was nothing like Crowded House and nothing has really compared to the magic of a new CH album.

That said, my excitement is being tempered somewhat 1) by the fact that TOE was inaccurately billed as a CH album, making me (sort of) feel like I've been here before, and 2) by the fact that this won't be the CH I revered all those years ago. I think CH made a superb choice in selecting Matt to replace the irreplaceable Mr Hester and he brings something new and interesting to the table. But that's a double edged sword: while I don't want the next CH album to sound like the band circa 1993, I also miss the feel they had back then. Hessie and Nick had a way of playing together that just enraptured me and, there's no two ways about it, the new CH can't recapture that without falling into pastiche.

So the new album will be a real emotional watershed for me: it will be the follow-up to Together Alone I've yearned for since 1994 but it will also be an album by another band. Given the passage of time, it couldn't be anything else, regardless of personnel.

I await the arrival of these 11 new songs with much anticipation.

While I'm here (and apologies for replying to my own post - bad form, I'm sure) I will say that if the stories of CH recording 12 tracks but leaving ONE off the album are true, I'll be very annoyed.

I understand (and agree with) Neil's view that shorter albums are usually more enjoyable. And I'll accept that if a band has recorded, say, 16 or 17 tracks, some should be sacrificed.

But culling ONE song from a set of sessions is just unnecessary. The album won't suffer a jot from the addition of ONE song and yet, as fans, we're deprived of having one concise collection of all the songs recorded this time round.

Admittedly, the faff of having to seek out a single for it's unique B side is much reduced these days: if Turn It Around does indeed appear on a physical single it can easily be ordered online and imported to one's music library and mp3 player. Indeed, most singles these days appear to be download-only, making the process even simpler.

The drawback of all this remains that music fans who like to hear their favourite tracks on the best medium (I'll let you decide whether you prefer CD or vinyl) played on a dedicated hi-fi, will either have to put up with swapping CDs or vinyl (if a physical release actually happens) or utilising an inferior quality lossy download to create an unnecessary CDR.

Like I say, I could appreciate the issue with TOE: Neil had recorded more tracks than he needed BEFORE deciding to record four more with CH. But if only 12 tracks have been committed to tape this time round the decision to leave just one of them off the record seems nothing but churlish.

(Of course, I should qualify this rant by saying that CH OBVIOUSLY have the right to omit anything they feel isn't good enough or "right" for their new record. I'm assuming in all of this that there's nothing fundamentally "wrong"/inappropriate with TIA.)

Paul H lets hope there were more than 12 songs recorded and all the leftovers find themselves as part of "b" sides to single releases like the nugget "Lost Island " did.

"Like I say, I could appreciate the issue with TOE: Neil had recorded more tracks than he needed BEFORE deciding to record four more with CH. But if only 12 tracks have been committed to tape this time round the decision to leave just one of them off the record seems nothing but churlish."

Why? If the 12th track is not deemed worthy, why should he include it, just for the sake of including them all? That doesn't make any sense to me. It's not as if he's cackling with satisfaction at having withheld a track from you personally. Besides, we'll hear it somehow eventually anyway.

Where did the information come from that they recorded precisely 12 songs, anyway? This would be significantly fewer songs (like 4-5) than Neil has recorded for most projects in the last 20 years, so it seems kind of suspect.

After listening to the 11 video links Romer posted back on page 16 I can honestly say that I'm not very excited about what I'm hearing. Those early versions sound like they all need a lot of work if they're going to become timeless classics like the rest of the CH catalog. That being said, I understand that those live performances were supposed to be rough and unfinished so I won't judge the album by them. But it isn't like One Nil, where I heard Neil perform "Driving Me Mad," "Wherever You Are," and "Anytime" and was instantly excited about the album's upcoming release.

This feels more like Everyone is Here where the original Tabac bootleg performance was 90% horrible but they really turned it around in the studio and made a great album out of it.

If any song does sound like it has classic CH potential it's "Twice if You're Lucky". I was at the 930 Club in DC when they performed it and it was definitely a standout track of the evening. AS for the rest, I just have to sit back and wait and see.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul H:
While I'm here (and apologies for replying to my own post - bad form, I'm sure) I will say that if the stories of CH recording 12 tracks but leaving ONE off the album are true, I'll be very annoyed.

But what if it stank?

More seriously, I'd be shocked if they didn't record more than 12. Obviously, the songs that are working best, the band will turn their loving attention more to those, but I'd be surprised if they only had 12 songs to pick 11 from.

What if the album were expanded to twelve, and the 12th was not the one you wanted? 13 then? It does have to stop somewhere.

(says the guy who said they should put out a deluxe edition with a full bonus disc! - but I really do feel there's a decent disc's worth of material that could be included on such a funky platter, yet technically "left off the album" - everybody would be happy!)

An argument exists from an artistic standpoint, that an album should be cohesive, and that if a song doesn't "fit," then that's reason enough to leave it off. It's not an argument that I personally endorse, but some people seem to think an album that "works as a whole" is something to shoot for - and a good reason to leave off the song that sticks out badly, even if it is itself not a bad song.

Needless to say, Crowded House has not strongly kept to that principle in the past...

quote:

Originally posted by Paināporo:
That being said, I understand that those live performances were supposed to be rough and unfinished so I won't judge the album by them. But it isn't like One Nil, where I heard Neil perform "Driving Me Mad," "Wherever You Are," and "Anytime" and was instantly excited about the album's upcoming release.

Wasn't Neil's performance on those One Nil tracks more in the nature of a preview of (pretty much) finished songs? Or was it very early in the process like these?

I think that when the first germ of an idea forms, surely the majority of Neil's songs need a lot of work (if they're going to become timeless classics). Sure, sometimes a song will just tumble out, pretty much done. But I believe the majority of songs are songs that Neil does indeed put a lot of work into, and the fact that they needed that work is borne out by the end result: which is often a timeless classic, but is almost always pretty great.

I do agree with you of course - re: the early versions needing work. Those early versions are pretty brave. Putting them out there like that. Very early going. Very much needing work.

But is that a reason not to be excited? Having heard the early version of "Now We're Getting Somewhere" among others, I've got some trust in the work process!

I think Watney is right about this being the first 'real' CH album in 17 years. TOE was essentially a Neil solo album with a couple of songs added at the end by CH.

In regard to 11 or 12 songs I think it matters little. If it is 12 great songs then that is what it should be. Obviously fans want as much as they can get.

It is interesting that the Finns collectively seem to revisit this issue of how many songs a lot. There was a great deal of fuss around EIH and I seem to remember Eddie Rayner once saying of Neil and Tim that they were great songwriters but terrible at song selection.

Of course an album has to hang together, have light and shade etc but I always thought John Lennon had the right approach when he said he wrote every song as if it was a single and then chucked them together.

I have not been a fan of the CH reunion. In my view it would have been best to leave this entity and its wonderful history. This album will really determine whether reforming CH was a wise or backward move.

I think for it to succeed this album needs to sound fresh and not like CH circa. 1995 or like a Neil solo work. There needs to be a new rationale for CH in 2010. For mine a couple of tracks from TOE might point the way forward - Transit Lounge (new rythmns and more modern sounding) and Your the One (different vocal technique from Neil). Here's hoping!

quote:

Originally posted by titus:
It is interesting that the Finns collectively seem to revisit this issue of how many songs a lot. There was a great deal of fuss around EIH and I seem to remember Eddie Rayner once saying of Neil and Tim that they were great songwriters but terrible at song selection.

TERRIBLE at song selection, maybe; FUSSY about it, definitely. If the two versions of EIH and the two versions of One Nil/All are anything to go by, Neil seems to spend a lot of time visiting and revisiting the track selection of his albums. Back in '07, a friend of Neil's played me a preview copy of what was to become Time on Earth several months before its final release; this earlier version, if I remember correctly, started with People Are Like Suns, ended with Nobody Wants To, and didn't have (as yet) any of the tracks with Matt on drums. So who's willing to wager that the final version of the new album may have a different running order and/or contain one or two different tracks from the preview copy that Gryph has listened to? I'm not a betting man, but the odds must be pretty high.

quote:

Originally posted by titus:
I think for it to succeed this album needs to sound fresh and not like CH circa. 1995 or like a Neil solo work. There needs to be a new rationale for CH in 2010. For mine a couple of tracks from TOE might point the way forward - Transit Lounge (new rythmns and more modern sounding) and Your the One (different vocal technique from Neil). Here's hoping!

I'd like to think the presence of The Intriguer and Inside Out on the provisional album line-up, no matter how rough the early live versions may have been, suggests that the band are trying out new ideas. This won't be Together Alone Again, or Yet Another Time On Earth!

quote:

I think for it to succeed this album needs to sound fresh and not like CH circa. 1995 or like a Neil solo work. There needs to be a new rationale for CH in 2010. For mine a couple of tracks from TOE might point the way forward - Transit Lounge (new rythmns and more modern sounding) and Your the One (different vocal technique from Neil). Here's hoping!

Oh gord! I wouldn't want to be using those two as a template, especially the first one.

My hope is that whatever template they use, they just did the best they could do in their own eyes by each song, and that they picked songs and left off songs according what makes them happy. There's no way they're going to make all of us happy - not in every little way! But I have hopes that with all the possible paths that were before them, the way that they picked forward will end up looking (to most of us, in retrospect) like the only way to go.

I mean, we also need to recognize that song selection ain't half as important as what they chose to do with the song. It makes me hopeful that "Twice If You're Lucky" was picked - but it's entirely possible they went with a ballad treatment that will break my heart to hear, while overjoying some others! If that's the way they choose to go, I expect there will be something in the treatment to console and win me over - and more than enough on the rest of the album to kickah my assah.

Everybody's got a different idea about stuff like this. I'd be happy if the four people who matter made decisions they can feel great about, and the album itself will be what convinces me. No knock on Eddie, but some tracks that made it onto Makers albums suggest to me that his idea of being terrible at song selection is one that doesn't match each and every of ours.

Well for me those two tracks were unexpected and seemed to be moving in different directions. I like that and of course I also thought they were great songs as well. Each to their own I guess.

There were also some other great songs on TOE like Nobody Wants To, English Trees, Don't Stop Now but I feel these all sounded very much like we would have expected CH to sound like. There is nothing wrong with that but I think the band needs to move forward, find new sounds etc so they remain relevant, daring, different etc

I am pretty heartened by Watneys comments that some of the new tracks do really move in different directions. I hope this album is great but deep in my heart I really feel Neil's future is elsewhere. I am prepared to eat my words.

For me, it is about what is innate but dormant, finding it (again?) and letting it flourish.

I know a lot of you have broader musical taste to me but "different directions" does not mean you take a totally alien style and run with it no matter what it is. I'm all for "moving on" in fact, I think it is what makes artists stay fresh but in is all a natural progression and should not be forced.

Most older artists lose the plot at some stage, it happens to the best of them but I don't necessarily think it is a permanent thing. You get artists trapped in between trying to do exactly what they were known for (or made them famous) on the one hand and trying to sound 'hip' or modern on the other. Sometimes all in the one song.

To my way of thinking, when the hooks and melodies start to dry up a bit (and they do) you have to have something else to fall back on. You don't, however, go looking for it in dubious places.

I really do think Eddie may have had a huge point. I think both Finns are enormously gifted song-writers but, to add my own take, neither are particularly good at knowing their own strengths. In fact, I would say that the brother who is perhaps the less naturally gifted has probably done more with his 'gift'. It works like that sometimes.

I think judging The Makers is a bit spurious because those probably were the best songs they had. I quite like the first album. Although it does not match the best of Finn/Judd, I would listen to it over either of the 'Finn Brothers' albums, and much of Tim's later solo stuff, any day of the week.

quote:

Originally posted by Noel Crombie's Hair:
I think judging The Makers is a bit spurious because those probably were the best songs they had.

Yes, this is true. I was thinking similar lines myself, but I went ahead with it anyway. It was a bit spurious.

But I think Eddie's point is a double-edged sword. The better you are at coming up with great songs, the more great songs you have, probably the harder it is to choose.

So while listening to Romer's links to youtube clips for songs from the new album, I realized there has been a substantial if subtle change in the instrumentation for Isolation. Here's a brief excerpt from the song's first public airing at the Leigh Saw Mill in February 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...qzn8&feature=related

And here's the full clip for the version they performed in Madrid, five months later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8fTc1Pl9Cc&fmt=18

The difference? Whereas the first performance (and indeed, many subsequent performances, including the one I saw at the 9:30 Club in May that year) is distinguished by the weeping, sliding notes of Mark's lapsteel, the Madrid version has done away with the latter for a multiple six-string guitar arrangement, featuring (if I can see and hear right) Neil and Mark on electric and Elroy (as well as Don?) on acoustic.

My immediate response was to mourn the loss of the lapsteel. I love its melancholy Pacific sound, which is so appropriate for the mood of the song (and at one point in the Madrid performance, Mark seems to try to simulate the sound of his lapsteel with his slidy guitar line high on the neck). But after several hearings, I have come to like the fuller sound of the Madrid arrangement. I miss the lapsteel, but the earlier version sounds to me more like Mark accompanying a Neil performance; the Madrid version sounds more like a band performance.

I'll be happy if either arrangement of Isolation makes it onto the album -- I'll also be happy, for that matter, if it has been reworked into something different. But the transition from Leigh to Madrid shows how much Neil has worked with Mark, Matt, and Nick (and Don and Elroy) to create a soundscape that has the texture of a band performance. This texture alone suggests we can expect a rather different album from Time on Earth.

Hello all---

quote:

Originally posted by Paināporo:
This feels more like Everyone is Here where the original Tabac bootleg performance was 90% horrible but they really turned it around in the studio and made a great album out of it.

Hah! The Tabac performances were rough, but there was a cool vibe to them that was missing on the album, in my opinion. This just proves that we all listen from a different place.

quote:

Originally posted by titus:
I think for it to succeed this album needs to sound fresh and not like CH circa. 1995 or like a Neil solo work. There needs to be a new rationale for CH in 2010. For mine a couple of tracks from TOE might point the way forward - Transit Lounge (new rythmns and more modern sounding) and Your the One (different vocal technique from Neil). Here's hoping!

I agree with the notion, but those two songs and “Say That Again” are probably among my least favorite CH tunes ever. [Love the music to “Transit,” but I cringe at the lyrics and vocals.] “You’re the One…” isn’t a bad song, I just think it could have been performed or recorded a little better.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
Everybody's got a different idea about stuff like this. I'd be happy if the four people who matter made decisions they can feel great about, and the album itself will be what convinces me. No knock on Eddie, but some tracks that made it onto Makers albums suggest to me that his idea of being terrible at song selection is one that doesn't match each and every of ours.

Regarding song selection, I would agree with Eddie in a couple of different cases. I think Neil and Tim left the two best songs from the EVERYONE IS HERE sessions off the record---“The Land Torments the Sea” and “Tell Me C’Mon”---though I admit that the released versions of those songs were missing something. I know it’s not likely, but I’d love to see Crowded House pick them up. [I know, I know. Not bloody likely. I’m not holding my breath on that one.] And then there’s “Spirit of the Stairs,” left off TRY WHISTLING THIS. I understand the reason---it really doesn’t fit with the other songs---but it’s a great song. “Love is All That Remains” is another example of a great Neil song---and one that is a little different than most of his tunes---that never got a proper release. And what about “Convent Girls?” Was it recorded for TOGETHER ALONE and left off the album? We know it was written before the release.

quote:

Originally posted by Noel Crombie's Hair:
I know a lot of you have broader musical taste to me but "different directions" does not mean you take a totally alien style and run with it no matter what it is. I'm all for "moving on" in fact, I think it is what makes artists stay fresh but in is all a natural progression and should not be forced. “

There’s a difference between artistic growth---for example, the growth from the first album to TEMPLE OF LOW MEN---and taking a completely different path. In reforming the band, Neil must have wanted some element of the familiar CH sound. Otherwise, he could have continued doing the solo thing, which would have left him a little more free to explore different sounds. [TRY WHISTLING THIS was just as much a warning shot as it was a very good album.] I’m not saying the band can’t incorporate new sounds into its music; I’m simply saying that, for better or worse, people identify a certain quality and type of song with Crowded House. If the familiar sound of the band isn’t retained as part of the reunion, then what’s the point of using the band name? A huge change in direction would warrant a new band name, I would think.

On the other hand, I don’t want another WOODFACE. I think EVERYONE IS HERE was trying to be that, to some degree, which is why I think it was a little bit disappointing. Certainly not a bad record, but not great either.

Someone mentioned Don---has there been any word on outside participants in the sessions? Does Don or Liam or Elroy or Sharon or anyone else make a guest appearance? Since this is really the band’s first album together, I would hope that the focus would be more on them and not guests.

mattl

Great observation Watney re: Isolation. I hear a big difference between the lapsteel version and non lapsteel version (fuller sound). My opinion on the two is this: I really think the lapsteel seems to go well with the theme of Isolation. In this case it feels lonely, if not subdued, not going as far as depressing but close....when you listen to the lapsteel in this song in this case. The song seems to pick up the moood somewhat when you take that instrument away. I do like the lapsteel in some cases and ironically it may go beeter with the theme of this song, but I do feel it creates too much of a down feeling, for me anyways.

It should be interesting which way Neil goes and how much he uses the lapsteel in other songs. I do like the mood it can create and change from happy to meloncholy. Maybe should have been used more on Time On Earth for some of the slower songs. Brings up the question: was it used on TOE...I guess I should know this.

Cracking discussion going on here. Loving (and agreeing) with much that's being said. I do want to briefly step back to slowpogo's response to my mini rant about lopping off a single song:

quote:

Originally posted by slowpogo:
"Like I say, I could appreciate the issue with TOE: Neil had recorded more tracks than he needed BEFORE deciding to record four more with CH. But if only 12 tracks have been committed to tape this time round the decision to leave just one of them off the record seems nothing but churlish."

Why? If the 12th track is not deemed worthy, why should he include it, just for the sake of including them all? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I did qualify my remarks by saying: "Of course, I should qualify this rant by saying that CH OBVIOUSLY have the right to omit anything they feel isn't good enough or "right" for their new record. I'm assuming in all of this that there's nothing fundamentally "wrong"/inappropriate with TIA."

So yes, slowpogo, you're spot on: if the 12th track isn't deemed worthy, it SHOULDN'T be included. I wholeheartedly agree. And Mr Sadly took this a step further by asking what if they'd recorded 13 tracks? Where would we draw the line?

And I agree, I think it's difficult to draw boundaries. Truth is, there is no way of drawing boundaries. All we can ask of CH (and any artist) is that they put out the album they want to put out.

I was merely suggesting that IF (and it is a big IF) TIA is being left off ONLY because Neil thinks it makes the album too long (ie, that HE'S using some arbitrary boundary) then I'll be disappointed.

If the band have actually recorded 18 tracks, or TIA just doesn't fit musically etc etc, then fair play to them. I'll take it all back. (Like THAT matters )

Slowpogo, I was just listening to the Westonbirt 21/06/08 version of Isolation, and they've changed that line you dislike in this version. I'm not sure which line was used first. And I agree about the line btw. It makes me cringe a little whenever I hear it.

"To remember... to always clean their teeth"

I can't make out the rest of those few lines there.

Love Matt's drumming into the chorus in this song!

Interesting Davoiii..the version I'm familiar with is from December of 2008, so the offending lyric is a later idea.

The line you quoted seems silly at first, but I think it could have interesting implications depending on the surrounding lyrics.

I think we'll find that the songs we know will be 90% the same on the album, lyrically...but a few tidbits here and there, such as the line we're discussing, will be different. And the thing is, with a Neil Finn song, changing one little stem of a lyric could alter the meaning of the whole song.

You never know though, maybe a song or two will end up being massive rewrites...

OK. A while back I came down pretty hard on "Inside Out." The original version I was listening to was very skeletal, barely more than a vague idea of a song, and sounded pretty bad.

I found a boot from many months later to listen to, and after hearing it a few times over a few weeks, I'm actually pumped about the song. Yep, pretty much a total reversal of opinion.

At least, I'm pumped about the way they performed it...they use the classic dual-overdriven-guitar format, Mark and Neil both rocking out with a traditional, unfussed guitar sound. Their guitar sound reminds me of the Radiohead song "The Bends"...right in that sweet spot where it's distorted and crunchy and rocking, but not too much or too little. I've never heard CH do that before, and it's good. Now I'm thinking of the song as a simple, but not dumb, rocker, in the vein of some of Wilco's early, upbeat songs.

I can sense what Neil means when he says this is a "band album," when I think of this song. It sounds more like a vehicle for a certain group of people to rock out to, than a songwriter's composition adapted to a band, if that makes sense.