For my part, I say that if the anachronism beats the original, I'll listen to the anachronism. :-) But yes, if it's gettable in finished form, that's the main thing I want. To me it doesn't seem too much like it would stick out! I know others have said (even others in favor of the song) have said they can see how it might not fit in, but it seems to me like a nice change of pace can be a swell thing to have.

But then, I'm the wrong one to talk. Come draft day, I'm very much on the "pick the best available players' school. I've never had a lot of affinity with the "build the best album by leaving out some of the best tracks" sentiment.

I mean: Woodface. That side two is a glorious mess. Love it!

Good post, however, I somewhat disagree to your first point. If the original is markedly inferior then yes, however, the anachronism (as we say) also often tries to out-credit the original.

Sometimes we only have hindsight to tell us when something is 'inferior'. It's often a case of robbing the past to pay an undeserving future. Context is worth a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Noel Crombie's Hair:
It's often a case of robbing the past to pay an undeserving future.

Indeed! That does happen, and it isn't right then, either. But neither should the deserving future be robbed, merely to pay respects to the deserving past.

Of course I should point out, here: I'm not at all talking about cover versions - I'm talking about separate, orignal songs about which it is said (or might be said) "this song couldn't have existed without that one going before."

What I was getting at before when I said, it doesn't matter to me how hard a song is to make, is that even if a new song couldn't possibly exist without all that's gone before, when you take two works and judge them side by side, none of that matters. It is possible to judge them on what they are alone: each by the song itself. To pay cede too much importance to context diminishes the intrinsic worth of every artwork.

Whoops! Which thread am I in? The best part I like on "Turn It Around" is actually the earlier-on, rumbling drum-roll rhythm as the song builds. I love the big bash-it-out part too, but the momentum picking up steam there just curls my mind's toes.

I like that part, too, now you mention it.

Back to the story - It depends just how far removed or not the latter work is to the earlier one.

I can remember my brother trying to devalue latter day Split Enz because at that point they sounded like the Beatles. I mean to say, they weren't that much like them.

It does irk me sometimes, however, when someone obliviously says that something new is 'better' when there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the original. Sometimes it isn't even (better, that is). It becomes difficult, and convoluted to debate the issue when whatever it is that supposedly makes the newer thing 'better' was not available to the original.

Anyway, it is getting well beyond the issue of 'Turn it Around'. If we do get to hear it, I highly doubt it will be a remake surrounded by a bunch of songs that sound like Neil channelling Beyoncé Knowles so I need not worry.

Aw man I would LOVE to hear CH tear through a cover of "Bootylicious." I can just picture Neil chugging on the Stevie Nicks riff and singing us in to the intro!

"Mark...can you handle this? Matt...can you handle this...? Nick Seymour...can you handle this? I don't think you can handle this, WOOO!!"

But yes, you are quite right - that sort of vibe won't be on the album.

I'm wondering more and more about the unknown tunes.

I also REALLY wish somebody at the Fillmore had recorded that particularly pounding "Turn It Around"!

Say, everybody who loves "Turn It Around" - what are all your favorite parts? Did you see them do it live? How was it on the night you saw it, vs. some of the videoed versions? What's your favorite take that you've seen?

I enjoyed the story about "dogs" vs. "drugs" someone posted in another thread. I wonder if - I hope this wouldn't be the case, but I wonder if for this particular track, maybe the issue wasn't so much an issue with sound dynamics as it was difficulty crystallizing the thematic/lyrical aspect? Neil can be particularly demanding in that regard, with his songs!

Mr. Sadly is providing the philosophy on music vs. context I've had for years! It's exactly what I bring up when I argue that Crowded House and other artists I like are better than the Beatles.

-Comp

quote:

Originally posted by cinnamon:
thanks Gracetoo and Telly gone bung.

Personally I can't see the problem with posting the unreleased songs on the net. The Crowdies are such a laidback bunch that I'm sure they don't care either way.

I think the rule of thumb is so long as it isnt comercial stuff etc.. Neil is well aware of our lust for the stuff thats out there and in the interview i have seen him do he says he doesnt have a problem if people want to spend thier time listening to live stuff or whatever...

we have a choice some i know wish to wait for offical album releases to hear the tracks some dont get a chance to hear them live in person so vids like this are a gift a goodie thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Comp:
Mr. Sadly is providing the philosophy on music vs. context I've had for years! It's exactly what I bring up when I argue that Crowded House and other artists I like are better than the Beatles.

-Comp

Yeah, typical! Take MS's angle why don't you!

Notice you said "I like" which is not exactly definitive.

As long as the thing that you think is 'better' about CH is not merely a technical update.

I would personally say that a band containing both Neil and Tim at the peak of their form had the potential to be better than The Beatles but I would definitely not say that CH as an entity are better.

It is difficult in exactly classifying what one means by 'better'.

I would rate The Beatles as the 'best' band ever on sheer weight of quality recorded material but I would certainly not call them the most 'talented' band, not by a fair margin. I would rate Ray Davies as being more talented than Lennon or McCartney. I would also say The Small Faces had the potential to be a better band and The Zombies early singles had a sharper, more modern emotional vibe than the contemporary Beatles stuff. The Easybeats could have been the Fab Four's equal if they had have had George Martin producing them and a good manager. The list goes on... You see, it's all relative.