quote:

want to hear Bart's song, Twice If You're Lucy. That sounds VERY intriguing

Oops!! Not as good as 'Thrice if You're Mary'!!

quote:

Originally posted by BART:

quote:

want to hear Bart's song, Twice If You're Lucy. That sounds VERY intriguing

Oops!! Not as good as 'Thrice if You're Mary'!!

Or.....'Once if you're Harry'

Funny, Twice if You're Lucky was easily my favourite of the new songs but I like it the least from Neil's solo show behind Amsterdam and Elephants. I'm not a big fan of the piano/solo version much. Cannot wait to hear them all finished and spiced up! First time hearing Elephants too and it sounds great!

It's funny how we see things differently. Elephants, I'd never heard, I like the tune but am unsure about the lyrics to be honest. Alligators don't live in Africa, for a start and it's one of those "them against us" type songs and I don't usually buy that sentiment (I'm more for "them against me" which is more Tim than Neil).

I think TIYL works the best of the trio within that framework and Amsterdam the least and it was my favourite along with TIA.

TIYL was definitely my favourite of the versions of the 3 new songs played at Bush Hall.

Elephants is doing nothing for me.......yet;

Amsterdam - didn't like the the song stripped down to just acoustic, and that's probably the first time I've said that about any NF song. Surprised none of the crowd tried the harmonies on the chorus!

For me, TIYL was also the highlight of the new songs played. Does the new structure of the song, and the fact Neil chose to play it on piano and not guitar mean it will not be the searing version that it was originally?

If thats the case, then I don't think it is going to be a bad thing. The new lyrics are quite different now and with a sad verse and the uplifting chorus it works really well for me as Neil played it, heartbreaking infact. I wouldn't be too suprised if the final version was not too disimilar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf5LMDSPcn0

...Though I suppose if you try to sing the new words to the original version it could work?

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4802471/12816725

It does sound different on piano, doesn't it? But it's clear from this clip that Neil and the band have pretty much returned to the first arrangement of the song, albeit with somewhat different lyrics and a new middle eight (which I rather like). The piano figure in the last part also suggest that the band have probably resurrected the searing guitar solo from the first version too.

Maybe the piano changes the mood of the song, making it sound more wistful and introspective. But in this performance, the sheer joy of the live version seems to have evaporated ... as if the song should now be called "Actually Come To Think Of It Maybe I Wasn't So Lucky."

quote:

Originally posted by Noel Crombie's Hair:
It's funny how we see things differently. Elephants, I'd never heard, I like the tune but am unsure about the lyrics to be honest. Alligators don't live in Africa, for a start...

Hehe...yeah, to be accurate he should have made it "crocodile."

I'm a little disappointed in Elephants as well, honestly. Everyone on the board had pumped it up as being "knocked out of the park," in the same league as "Into Temptation" and so forth. I don't think it's a matter of getting my hopes up too much..I was just thinking, "Well, it might be pretty good." But it's not doing much for me, and is nowhere near "Into Temptation."

I'm sure it is beautiful on the album - the melody is nice enough and I'm sure they've done something cool with it production-wise. But going by the youtube clip, especially the lyrics, I'm just not tickled by it, not the way I was when I heard an early preview of "Gentle Hum" in Minneapolis...

I keep waiting for a lyric to jump out and sell it to me, the way "And I wake up blind / like my dreams were too bright" sold me on "Pour Le Monde." But nothing yet.

Well, what can I say.

I'll ultimately have to trust Neil and the band's judgement on which version to go with. There's a great possibility that there is another tune which is occupying the sonic or emotional territory of the 2nd version ("Lucky Lola"). I can understand if that nudged the decision, and there was a greater need for a melancholic and "simpler" (as Neil himself calls it) number.

For me, all I can say is, the "complicated" 2nd version (again, as Neil himself dubs it) was the first time in many years, where hearing a new Finn-penned song for the first time, I jumped out of my skin, wooped and hollared, and thought, "Yes! I can't believe it! That is the perfect, new, and adventurous voicing and progression that would truly revive and breath life to that all so fragile and difficult chemical bonding known as 'a band'. This is really a continuation of Crowded House, a reincarnation, if you will, and not Neil Finn solo or a 'return' of Crowded House, nor a ressurrection".

Take from that what you will... I do not feel right to say it and post it in black and white like that as if my thought matters or hold any weight, let alone one that sits in idle transience like this..., but I must admit to it being my honest and most sincere opinion.

Mr Sadly will mock my concerns of influence and my overly protective, shell-enclosed chamber of subjectivity... yes I believe an artist must be sheltered from all the debates and (at times, it seems like) self-filled petitioning that its audience indulge and revel in. Yes, it is ultimately his or her choice. All I can say is, talk to any creative body who have had their works dissected by a mass, faceless public, and then be required to return to their opportune of inspiration... and I think you will find sympathetic declarations.

As I said before, I do trust the band's final decision and have no right to impose my own selfish desires. The fact (as someone pointed out earlier) that Jon Brion is involved in the final recorded version is also going to turn this out to be a very tasty treat indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
Well, what can I say.

I'll ultimately have to trust Neil and the band's judgement on which version to go with. There's a great possibility that there is another tune which is occupying the sonic or emotional territory of the 2nd version ("Lucky Lola"). I can understand if that nudged the decision, and there was a greater need for a melancholic and "simpler" (as Neil himself calls it) number.

For me, all I can say is, the "complicated" 2nd version (again, as Neil himself dubs it) was the first time in many years, where hearing a new Finn-penned song for the first time, I jumped out of my skin, wooped and hollared, and thought, "Yes! I can't believe it! That is the perfect, new, and adventurous voicing and progression that would truly revive and breath life to that all so fragile and difficult chemical bonding known as 'a band'. This is really a continuation of Crowded House, a reincarnation, if you will, and not Neil Finn solo or a 'return' of Crowded House, nor a ressurrection".

Take from that what you will... I do not feel right to say it and post it in black and white like that as if my thought matters or hold any weight, let alone one that sits in idle transience like this..., but I must admit to it being my honest and most sincere opinion.

Mr Sadly will mock my concerns of influence and my overly protective, shell-enclosed chamber of subjectivity... yes I believe an artist must be sheltered from all the debates and (at times, it seems like) self-filled petitioning that its audience indulge and revel in. Yes, it is ultimately his or her choice. All I can say is, talk to any creative body who have had their works dissected by a mass, faceless public, and then be required to return to their opportune of inspiration... and I think you will find sympathetic declarations.

As I said before, I do trust the band's final decision and have no right to impose my own selfish desires. The fact (as someone pointed out earlier) that Jon Brion is involved in the final recorded version is also going to turn this out to be a very tasty treat indeed.

Admirable sentiments, for the most part. If all I've done before constitutes mockery in your eyes, I'll have to reconcile myself to the fact that what I'm saying in this post probably also is mockery in your eyes. OK. We appear to set the threshold at different levels. To my eyes, the tone from the various participants throughout this impassioned discussion has been very civil, very respectful. I'll continue in that vein.

Pardon me, though - are you saying you consider it likely the band changed the arrangement due to concerns voiced here on this messageboard? The way I heard it, they just felt it had more life played with the current arrangement*. I'm sure many of us would love to think the band's creative element monitors our humble opinions, but that certainly wasn't given as a factor in Neil's account of the song's progress. I suppose it's barely possible that Neil's account of the song's evolution was wrong or simply misleading on that score.

*Which is not the old arrangement by any stretch, by the way! I mean in terms of song structure, not instrumentation. I'm a little bummed at some of what's gone missing, but like you do, I trust the band. Overall I think the new verse leading into the old-verse-as-prechorus and then chorus (and the new bridge) is as strong as either previous structure, and in some ways captures good elements of both. I can't wait to hear the final arrangement with full band behind it.

quote:

Originally posted by slowpogo:

I'm a little disappointed in Elephants as well, honestly. Everyone on the board had pumped it up as being "knocked out of the park," in the same league as "Into Temptation" and so forth. I don't think it's a matter of getting my hopes up too much..I was just thinking, "Well, it might be pretty good." But it's not doing much for me, and is nowhere near "Into Temptation."

I'm sure it is beautiful on the album - the melody is nice enough and I'm sure they've done something cool with it production-wise. But going by the youtube clip, especially the lyrics, I'm just not tickled by it, not the way I was when I heard an early preview of "Gentle Hum" in Minneapolis...

I keep waiting for a lyric to jump out and sell it to me, the way "And I wake up blind / like my dreams were too bright" sold me on "Pour Le Monde." But nothing yet.

Well, I stand by my opinion re Elephants & Into Temptation.

The lyrics may not be as clever as Into Temptation but they are still adequately clever to please me and the melody and mood of the piece certainly make up for any lyrical shortfall.

I wasn't around when Into Temptation was released but I know how I felt the first time I ever heard it. The hair just stood up on the back of my neck. That's what happened with Elephants--therefore...

Or maybe I was just cold? LOL

Sorry if I misled you slowpogo...just my opinion. I hope it grows on ya

Sorry Mr Sadly, by no means did I mean to imply that I perceived your previous comments as mockery. Don't take it to heart. I have enjoyed your impassioned commentary through out and you have been a courteous voice, standing up for your opinion with much bravado. You have taken conflicting opinions seriously, and with grace, and lent an open ear to them despite disagreement. This is a rarity on online forums, and I for one, appreciate it.

I was saying that as simply a forecast: I felt self-conscious about my stating such a possibly abrasive opinion, and I was reminded of previous moments when you teasingly made fun of such self-consciousness. Comments like:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
Some fans think wild speculation is beneath them, I think.

I never would think of it as being beneath or above anybody or anything. Let alone the whole idea of who's standing where. It's simply what one is comfortable with and what one isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
Pardon me, though - are you saying you consider it likely the band changed the arrangement due to concerns voiced here on this messageboard?

No, no, nothing like that... it's never just about the message board. I really don't think Neil would read this place, given what he previously said publicly about how he loathed (or rather, found it disturbing) reading the Tongue In the Mail list. I think he safe guards his distance (and possibly lapses from time to time).

I think general opinion move fast however, people read something, they form ideas, I saw some comments on Youtube clips which really echoed after some posts here (maybe it's the same people, maybe people have similar ideas independently), but it wouldn't surprise me if people read thoughts and they ripple down into the audiences and people at live shows, and a wave of influence build. That's why I'm not comfortable with these public thoughts (which should merely be transient) that sit here static for people to see.

Again, I'm not saying it's this thread or this message board. I'm just saying when the audience wants the band to satisfy what they want (or think they want), it's one of those strains on any relationship, and in this case, that unspoken and mysterious audience-performer relationship.

And by that same token, I feel no right to impose my desire for the 2nd version, be it spoken or unspoken... I want the band to do what they want to do, and if their belief is in this final arrangement, then that's what I want.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
*Which is not the old arrangement by any stretch, by the way! I mean in terms of song structure, not instrumentation. I'm a little bummed at some of what's gone missing, but like you do, I trust the band. Overall I think the new verse leading into the old-verse-as-prechorus and then chorus (and the new bridge) is as strong as either previous structure, and in some ways captures good elements of both. I can't wait to hear the final arrangement with full band behind it.

I think you said it well here, I agree. We can't quite hear the final arrangement from that solo performance yet so it's hard to say. I think we're both missing elements we've enjoyed in the previous incarnations... but it's one of those difficult things we have to get over, and not be too precious with... and it's a little awkward to say that without sounding like "we want x, give us x". Which isn't what we want at all.

After so much time passing, I must say that when I revisit the clips, I do find there's a great deal of beauty in the "simple" original version, and I am really seeing why you love it so much. In many ways, that form of the song does spring to head almost immediately, and it's classic Neil Finn songwriting, the hook that seeps in and lies passively, almost dormant in its purity and simplicity, but then sprout roots and digs deep.

My need for the second version is a craving for identity and possibly an existentialist desire... I can see how Neil would personally choose beauty over that. We all have different shoes.

Thank goodness! My apologies for having seemed defensive - I do take it seriously, if I feel I may have offended. Glad that was not the case!

I will say that on this board, it's almost always a pleasure to take conflicting opinions seriously, since they are almost always so well-expressed.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
No, no, nothing like that... it's never just about the message board. I really don't think Neil would read this place, given what he previously said publicly about how he loathed (or rather, found it disturbing) reading the Tongue In the Mail list.

Indeed. I've always gotten the impression that Neil is far more comfortable with criticism than with objectification! Dare I say (around here) "deification"? Oh yeah. I dare.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
And by that same token, I feel no right to impose my desire for the 2nd version, be it spoken or unspoken... I want the band to do what they want to do, and if their belief is in this final arrangement, then that's what I want.

Almost absurdly noble. I WANT ALL THREE!!!

Oh, I kid. I'm a sucker for whatever Neil dishes out, and I'll be ecstatic with what I get. You know, aki, overall I think I'm probably closer to your view than I've seemed in these discussions. Normally I do pretty much take the final canonical version like a stone tablet from on high. Something about this experiment, though, with the songs being written and rewritten in public - it broke through my detachment and got me cheering and rooting!

What's different this time round (as a result of the development of technology to record and make available globally) is the opportunity we've had to develop an attachment to the alternative arrangements.

I remember years ago hearing a live radio broadcast of a CH gig in Switzerland (Tim was still in the band), and they played a song called Same Language As Me. It was gorgeous. Truly beautiful. And its middle 8 was - very noticeably - later extracted and used in Private Universe.

Having come to it retrospectively, I just treasure it as a lost treasure, an obscure abandoned idea that deserved better. And it lives on in the live recording, preserved for eternity.

And that's how we're going to have to start thinking about all the alternate arrangements that have since been discarded on the new album.

Hey, I remember that one too... "I fall into the sea... the same language as me"

Indeed, they will be lost treasures. But what pains me is...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
You know, aki, overall I think I'm probably closer to your view than I've seemed in these discussions. Normally I do pretty much take the final canonical version like a stone tablet from on high.

Well it's not so much that at all... I don't necessarily accept the final album version (if that's what you mean by canonical) as the definitive version. When I speak of imposition I just mean I let go of expectations and appreciate things as they are, and not demand them to be what I want. It's just an openness of the mind. Nothing noble about it... it's not like I'm doing that for Neil. I just want to appreciate things better for myself.

If anything, I am the exact opposite in regards to criticism. This is far from deification here. Afterall, I did say that I personally don't think Crowded House has managed to really produce a record that captured the energy and emotion of their live performances. It's not just the studio performances... but it's the arrangements. It seems like they always smooth out the edges and "craft" out something in the studio that sounds worlds apart from their live selves... there are infinite example here, but simple ones would be the vastly different arrangement of "Fall At Your Feet" on Woodface, versus the muted electric guitar arrangement that has since taken a sturdy place.

To me, the definitive versions of most CH songs are not their recorded form but their live versions.

And I suppose part of what makes the second version of "Lucky" so special to me was the fact that it really centered around that "live CH sound", to my mind. They always did have a tendency to extend their songs when playing them live, with solos and what nots. And segues from one song to another. The long and elaborate "song in a song" structure felt, to me, like an artistic representation of that side of them. And I was really happy to see this possibility be captured on the album for once... but alas, it was not meant to be.

Anyhow, I've just found a recording of the song from the very night I saw them, the very performance that swept me away. Ah, bliss. I will have this at least. I'll PM it your way Sadly. Anyone else interested can drop me a line.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
When I speak of imposition I just mean I let go of expectations and appreciate things as they are, and not demand them to be what I want. It's just an openness of the mind. Nothing noble about it... it's not like I'm doing that for Neil. I just want to appreciate things better for myself.

Excellently put: by setting expectations one simply sets oneself up for a fall.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
I personally don't think Crowded House has managed to really produce a record that captured the energy and emotion of their live performances.

Another excellent point. Even if CH recorded these songs using the same arrangements it's entirely possible that they'd still end up being far more mannered than their live counterparts.

Neil did say that this was part of the reason for road testing the songs in the first place; to try to arrive at their "live" feel before taking them on the road. However, I think that the process has actually morphed from being an attempt at capturing the band's live feel to testing the very structure and composition of the songs themselves.

Obviously, this depends on the song. Some won't have changed much, others obviously have. But I think the gap between ending their 2008 tour and beginning the recording process (with 7WC crammed in between) may have eroded that original intent.

What I find is that I greatly enjoy BOTH versions of Crowded House. I love the more polished, mannered studio recordings (they are, after all, what draws us to the band in the first place). And I also enjoy the sparser, more robust live renditions. They're like different flavours of high quality ice cream: all good.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:
Indeed. I've always gotten the impression that Neil is far more comfortable with criticism than with objectification! Dare I say (around here) "deification"? Oh yeah. I dare.

Are you implying that he's NOT a deity?

I'm having an absolute love affair with Twice if You're Lucky. When I first listened to the songs from Bush Hall, I would have ranked the new songs, from favourite to least favourite: Elephants, Twice in You're Lucky and Amsterdam. After many listens, I would rank them: Twice if You're Lucky, Amsterdam and Elephants. I love all three, but TIYL has sure taken over as my favourite! You know.....until I change my mind again

This is all very interesting but I think aki was actually saying the opposite of the implication that Paul H was given. It is largely the arrangements that suffer in the studio, the other factors such as 'feel' and 'energy' are far too elusive concepts to contemplate. All I can add is that in the studio the recordings become Neil's beast to an extent and live it is a meeting of many people and that 'vibe' is captured.

It is great in theory but I had always expressed my doubts about the 'trialling the songs on the road' method simply because Neil takes far too long to do things that it is only natural that things would revert back to the concept of the songs as 'songs' bundled into neat little packages as opposed to a full musical experience. I championed the idea of getting a good (a really good as opposed to someone with a currently big reputation, necessarily) and sympathetic producer. I always thought that would work even better than what had already been planned.

I'm not saying that we won't get these songs in their ultimate forms, merely saying that it's far from a forgone conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by aki:
My need for the second version is a craving for identity and possibly an existentialist desire... I can see how Neil would personally choose beauty over that. We all have different shoes.

Well put and pretty much where I stand as well.

This is not a direct reference to the quote but I think that if you pander to expectation you just receive a facsimile of the real thing as opposed to the genuine article.

I've always wanted to hear a CH album free from the confines of the romantic-pop trappings. I'm not saying there can not be some influences from those elements but not to be defined or burdened by them. I think that is why I like most of Neil's solo material because there is a lack of that romantic and sentimental bombast that you get in a CH record. However, the solo albums have other limitations.

I had some thoughts on the subject that I thought were deep and meaningful but it really is a trial for me to capture them in words - oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by Noel Crombie's Hair:
This is all very interesting but I think aki was actually saying the opposite of the implication that Paul H was given. It is largely the arrangements that suffer in the studio, the other factors such as 'feel' and 'energy' are far too elusive concepts to contemplate. All I can add is that in the studio the recordings become Neil's beast to an extent and live it is a meeting of many people and that 'vibe' is captured.

I would agree that the arrangements differ but I wouldn't agree that they suffer. CH's studio songs are - I'll use this phrase again at the risk of repetition - mannered. They're polite. Slightly restrained. Live, they often soar. And I like both.

What - I think - Neil was trying to achieve was a way of getting the studio versions to soar by playing the songs live before taking them to the studio.

What actually appears to have happened is that the songs themselves have morphed; something of an unexpected intention, I'd suspect.

Either way, I'll be surprised if the new album sounds more like their live persona and less like their more restrained studio selves.