quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:

Version 3 or 4, huh? I have a GREAT idea: just put out a whole ALBUM of "Twice If You're Lucky"! Version 1, version 2, versions 3-11.

The rest of the album could be included as a bonus disc.

I guess the cd would be called "11 times if you're lucky"

quote:

Originally posted by Perfectchord:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sadly:

Version 3 or 4, huh? I have a GREAT idea: just put out a whole ALBUM of "Twice If You're Lucky"! Version 1, version 2, versions 3-11.

The rest of the album could be included as a bonus disc.

I guess the cd would be called "11 times if you're lucky"

Well-played...!

Say, I wish to correct any possible impression that I may be putting this one song so far above the whole batch coming down the pipeline. I love this one! I do I do. But all hyperbole aside I am in no way denigrating the rest of the sparkling jewels that are currently stewing in whatever rich mixed-metaphor broth I might concoct to describe the forthcoming album.

Bottom line is, the music I've heard sounds great to me so far, the songs I've heard are well underway and bursting with verve and promise! I'm going to be shocked and befuddled if the next Crowded House album is not an utter STUNNER, just based on the little we've already seen and heard. "Twice If Your Lucky" is a personal fave, but certainly when the album comes out I expect that as always, I will not be able to choose between the best of 4 or 5 widely-different tracks! We know Neil knows what he doing.

Now take off every zig. For great justice.

Listening to a/the new version now, and I think it's good, but not nearly as tight as the first one. The version I'm listening to is obviously rough, so I expect it to tighten up as they continue to play it and make revisions.

I could see them using both versions on the album, especially if they wanted to work it into a concept. That sort of thing isn't unheard of.

I still prefer the first version, though.

Did anyone notice that U2 have done it on their new album.

Same song at the start and end - different versions (just....)

- I know I'm being lazy and could do it myself but has anybody worked out the chords to the original and son of?

quote:

Originally posted by BART:
- I know I'm being lazy and could do it myself but has anybody worked out the chords to the original and son of?

No, but I'm pretty sure the first chord of TIYL is a C, and (just going by memory) the second chord *may* be the same finger arrangement up two frets, not barred. I haven't tried this out, though. Might be a start.

Excellent Mr Buckley, made my Sunday morning. Now get back to that chocloate teapot!!

quote:

Originally posted by BART:
the original and son of?

"Son Of"! Love it. Very black & white horror franchise!

Oooh. Chords would be sweet. I noodled up some fake-y progressions a couple times but I never really trust my own "arrangements" without independent confirmation!

Yeah....sequel's rarely up to the original though, Mr Sadly!

Mr Buckley - complete forgot it was your handiwork at the 9:30 club. Not a guitarist but after the C, sounds like Gm(c) and into F for the verse. There....a start!

Wow. I just listened to both versions after a couple months break off the new stuff and wow... the 2nd version has nothing on the 1st version. If Crowded House were ever to get a massive hit single again, it'd be the first version of Lucky. I really don't understand why they'd try to change perfection...

I just recently heard a reworked version from The Forum, Melbourne(?) gig from Dec 08 and was really dissapointed to think Neil may have scrapped the original. The original is such a ready made pop tune with some really nice hooklines but maybe Neil didn't like the element of sugaryness about it.

I hope the original survives to make it onto record.

I like to absorb, to reflect, to recollect, to revisit. I will say that the 2nd version is a fine song. A grower.

Now when I say "fine", I mean: fine like sunlight through dewed gossamer, fine like fine things, like fine art. Like gold spun from straw. Fine, from me, is not faint praise.

Yet the other...ah, babe. :-)

I've finally had a listen to "Twice If You're Lucky" and had a read through this thread. I'll admit that I'm a bit shocked by how much people really love the first version of this song. I thought it was good, but it became a bit monotonous after a while and reminded me of "She Will Have Her Way." To me it sounds like stuff that Neil/CH have done before and isn't really breaking any new ground.

I think I am one of the few who heard "Lucky (Lola)" first and I absolutely fell in love with it when I heard that soaring chorus. There are so many more dynamics in this version and I find it a much more interesting song. Even though it's a work in progress I didn't find that the different parts sounded slapped together at all. It will be interesting to see what the album version ends up sounding like, but I do think the band are heading in the right direction with the changes they have made to the song.

No TIYL is nothing new, just a brilliant pop song which would be a surefire hit single, if released. Perhaps they should consider putting both versions on the lead single from the new album. I'm sure that's already been suggested in this thread but worth mentioning again, given how the 'Daddy' and 'son of' have divided opinion.

To me the question is not whether it is a soundalike - and I don't think either version is, really, but if we're stretching for one than stretch for both: the 2nd version sounds a lot more like "Nails in My Feet" than "Twice" sounds like anything it's been compared to. And a great job of nailing that vibe on the second version, too! But of CH songs in that vibe, "Nails" is better. By a lot.

To me, if we're comparing, the question becomes whether a 4th-ish best "moody" CH song is better than a best-in-class sparkler. In my smitten opinion, the first version of "Twice" is acres ahead of any and every sparkling-upbeat CH song you could compare it to. I mean that: WAY ahead. Of every upbeat sparkling vibe song the band has ever done. "Twice" eats Recurring Dream, Something So Strong and any other sunny-ish number you care to name for breakfast, without sounding a bit like any of them in the song itself.

But again, only my opinion. And again: I don't really think either version sounds close enough to any CH song to call either version a retread. Certainly not in terms of the actual song. I mean, if we're talking guitar tone, or the feel of the harmonies, is that really a problem? It's a bit thin to accuse a band with a distinct and characteristic sound of their own, 5+ albums into their career, of retreading a vibe. It seems to me like that's what the knock on the first version over the past 4+ months boils down to.

But if it comes to that accusation, if it comes to retreading vibes, which path is more worn down, with these guys? Honestly? The sunny side?

Yeah. Ok.

EDIT: To me it's not a question of a hit single either. I'd be shocked if today's market responded to either version - but that's no concern to me. It's just a brilliant song. It's a treasure. A work-in-progress, sure. I'm not crazy about every single line, babe, but honey, it's an ever so magical creation!

Tastes vary, and nobody's taste outranks anybody else's. But passionate advocacy on behalf of what one loves is no insult to anyone, either.

You know, I love both. I do love both, but there's an order of magnitude between the two. They're really so far from each other that what they share is smaller than where they differ. A lot of people have suggested to put both on the album. I think both songs are strong enough to make a compelling case for doing just that.

Say, has anyone heard the new version of "Isolation"? They've turned it all major-key and upbeat. I think it's a cop-out, frankly.

I'm late to the table here but I just listened to version 2 for the first time and I MUCH prefer the original version I heard on the U.S. tour last year. The newer version sounds so bland to me, it just seems to meander and the new sections don't mesh well with the old sections. Shame.

when we spoke to neil last may about one of the new songs (specifically Turn it Around) he was very firm that we shouldn't get too attached because the songs were quote "a work in progress" unquote and he didn't want to get nailed down on explaining anything least of all questions on lyrics, which, fair enough. he was open to hearing we thought the new stuff was fabulous

as much as i love the first version, if we end up with the lucky lola version, i don't think you're ever going to see the two versions on any one collection. i think that would cast a shadow on the version he/the band prefers which obviously would be version # 2.

i figure he knows what he's doing way more than me (altho i know what i like!!)

It should probably be pointed out (if it hasn't already been pointed out) that the 'Lola' section probably won't show up on the studio recording either way.

why?