Steve Shealy posted:
No matter what, the label says Crowded House, so who are we to say otherwise?
I guess it depends on how important Crowded House was/is to anyone. For me, Crowded House was as close to a religion as one could get: I ate, slept, breathed CH for years. They were the only thing I played. That isn't about the brand, it's about the people who were in the band. I find it hard to reconcile the notion that anyone could love Crowded House but not care who was considered to be in it.
Of course, if Mark had been invited to take part in those sessions but had turned it down, I would have had less issue with Neil and Nick carrying on as CH on their own, but Neil very specifically chose to invite Mark back when he decided to reform CH.
As I said earlier (and I'm aware I'm repeating myself) I find it hard to accept an entire sessions' worth of material as being band material when it was recorded while the band was in abeyance, while there was apparently some doubt as to whether the project was a solo album or "not-Crowded House-band" album, without a key member of Crowded House and before it was decided to formally reform the band and invite back that missing member.
And I find it hard to understand how anyone who loves Crowded House can accept a random set of session players as being "Crowded House".
Clearly I'm being too precious