The odd title of my post is a thought I had this morning. I was thinking about bands that through their music have accompanied my life so far, comparing their presence and history with long-life bands of the generations before (i.e. Rolling Stones, Eagles, ELO) and after (Keane, Coldplay, Killers) wondering what to make of CH's latter stage revival period since 2007. Two albums and various tours in 12 years, set against increased solo activity in various constellations by Neil.
Don't get me wrong; I like those, and I salute Neil for going his way and experimenting with different formulas. But what did he need Crowded House resurrected for, save that mourning period after Paul's death? I dig "Time on earth" as a "coming to terms-album", but "Intriguer" in 2010 did not feel like the opening of a new chapter to me. It's been almost nine years since. The band is in storage, I guess, waiting to be taken out of mothballs once Neil thinks it's a good idea. But will there be such a time? *Should* there be such a time?
Neil and Nick will turn 61 this year, Mark 66. I know, Jagger & Co are way older than this, but the Stones as a band are a completely different animal when it comes to energy and originality (not better or worse, just different). What corner could CH take into a new direction? I'd love them to do so, if it feels right for them to push off into unknown waters. But please, no occasional "An Evening With Crowded House" greatest hits tours for CH in the future. I'd rather see this chapter closed and their legacy undiminished.