I've seen on the forum a few people expressing their dislike for the 21st Century iteration of Crowded House. And I can't understand that. I genuinely love both of their albums and really feel like they were taking strides forward. I love the life and energy that Matt Sherrod brings. I still hope for a third album with the Finn/Seymour/Hart/Sherrod line up.

C'mon let's get some love for the now over a decade old "current" Crowded House.

Original Post

As someone who discovered the band only in late 2017, I would be thrilled if they reunited again in any form. I have never seen them live. Seeing Neil live in September for the first time in NZ. If they reunite, no matter where the concert is, I'm buying a ticket immediately!

PS I love Time on Earth. I have not explored Intriguer enough.

You are not the only one! Of course we all miss Paulo, but this different incarnation of the band is still my favorite band! I live in hope that they reunite and make another album sometime soon.  In 2007–2008, I saw them a bunch of times and another bunch in 2010. With the announcement that they are to play the Sydney Opera House show in Australia on tv pretty soon, I am still kicking myself that I didn’t go to Australia... I think it was November 2015? 2016? I’m sure that was an amazing show and anyone who went is so lucky.  Rest assured, when they reunite again  (WHEN!) I’m sure a lot of us will be traveling far and wide to see them more! 😃❤️

Personally I would disagree with the above posts regarding the 2007+ era of Crowded House. I have seen Crowded House several times (1989 Concert of the Decade, 1991, 1993, 1996 Farewell To The World) & I followed everything they did, collected everything I possibly could & I would happily say that nothing will ever beat the 1986 - 1996 era of Crowded House. They were catchy pop songs from a band that were looking for stardom, trying to get somewhere starting from nothing.

The 2007 - 2010 era is very different with 2 albums of fillers that could not be considered to be anywhere near the catchiness of the songs that appeared on the first 4 albums. I even rate the Afterglow album better than Time on Earth & Intriguer.

Time on Earth & Intriguer (for me) were albums where Neil & Nick & Mark did not have anything more to prove as they were never going to reach the same heights of the first 4 albums (with Paulo). It was just a band playing a few new songs to keep the fans happy. They weren't creating anything better, just a new version of Crowded House with different songs that just did not quite fit the same mould as what we have heard previously.

Even though I liked the idea of Crowded House re-uniting, I saw them in 2010 in Brisbane & I did not enjoy it as much as what I should have due to the sound mixing being extremely loud especially knowing that Matt Sherrod likes to really bash the drums & he sounds so much louder than he should which drowns out the sound. I was born hearing impaired & I found my ears were just ringing badly with the sound piercing my eardrums in 2010.

I applaud them for giving it a go but the songs for me are just no match for the pre 2007 releases.

I just revisited the last 2 CD's.  Firstly, I find that TOE is much better than Intriguer.  It seems more raw and real....as if it was more hastily created and recorded which to me makes the songs sound better.   The only hiccup for me on TOE is She Called Up (the song that seemed to try too hard to be Crowded Houseish)  They should have replaced that with Lost Island and it would have been a classic.  Intriguer seems too polished and worked on for too long (tried the songs out on the road for too long....then seemed like they went into the studio too prepared). So that CD just does not seem to do resonate as much for me....I even seem to get a bit down by listening to it.  

For both CD's, seems like they sound like a mature Crowded House.  This probably reflects the fact that Neil had matured even more as a musician and songwriter.  The rest of the band too had gone through more maturity too having been in other bands etc.

So the past CD's especially debut, Together Alone and Afterglow are, to me, leaps ahead of the last 2, in terms of lasting power.  TOE has creaped up there though.

Pajama Club to be is ahead of TOE and Intriguer in terms of lasting power...once again, less polished.  All the classics are the less polished CD's....to me.

 

I love Time on Earth, and as an album I even like it more than their debut — the debut’s first 4 tracks are classic but I don’t need the rest. None of TOE reaches the band’s greatest heights, but it’s solid all the way through & there are some really great highlights: Nobody Wants To, Pour Le Monde, People are Like Suns. I enjoy all the other songs, including You’re the One to Make Me Cry. TOE is the last album of Neil’s I really loved.

I enjoyed the Intriguer process, hearing early versions of the songs, etc, but the final product was a let-down. Even tracks that really felt like classic CH in the development stage, like Amsterdam, somehow fell flat on the album. I’ve never gone back to it.

I think they have one more album in them — I hope anyway — and I think they could still do something great. I hope it happens in the next few years.

I really like Time On Earth but Intriguer is just pleasant background music to me with no standout tracks like all the other albums. My only issue with Time On Earth is that Mark and Matt only appear on four tracks. I know that it started off as a Neil solo album with Nick guesting before Neil decided to reform the band. But I was disappointed that they didn't get Mark and Matt to add to or replace parts on all of the album. Instead their appearance feels token and an afterthought. I guess as Neil and Nick are both original band members they can justify calling it Crowded House. But to me it under values Mark's role in the band. 

I can't really think of TOE as a CH album because, well, it isn't. All bar four songs were recorded by Neil as a solo album, which was only badged as a CH record when he decided - post recording but pre-release - to reform the band. His choices were either to release the album but abandon it promo-wise, or call it a CH album and persuade the band to tour it.

But a CH album it ain't.

So tired of this, but I’ll repeat my counter-argument for the 30th time. The entire thing features two of the original three members, and more importantly, it SOUNDS like Crowded House through and through regardless of the branding. Would anyone claim Nobody Wants To *doesn’t* sound like classic CH, with “only” Neil and Nick? This is why Neil went that direction, because to paraphrase a quote from him at the time, “everyone was thinking it, that it sounded and felt like Crowded House.” Call me crazy but I’ll go with Neil Finn’s assessment over that of his more hair-splitting fans.

So you don't consider Mark Hart a proper CH member or a key ingredient of the CH sound from at least 93 onward? Yes with Neil and Nick TOE has two original members and I never disputed that. But as Mark rejoined the reunited band I was disappointed as a fan that he didn't get to play on the whole album or at least more than four tagged on tracks. I think he deserved better and the fans did too.

The funny thing is tho that paradoxically TOE sounds like more of a band album than Intriguer.

The most disappointing thing to me about CH since they reformed is that they've now been reduced to just one of Neil's side projects that will be picked up and put down at Neil's fancy. Maybe it's just me but I think the band's legacy deserves a bit better.

Jeremy Loder posted:

So you don't consider Mark Hart a proper CH member or a key ingredient of the CH sound from at least 93 onward? Yes with Neil and Nick TOE has two original members and I never disputed that. But as Mark rejoined the reunited band I was disappointed as a fan that he didn't get to play on the whole album or at least more than four tagged on tracks. I think he deserved better and the fans did too.

 

If the original intention had been to reform the band, Mark would have and should have been there from day one, certainly. But it worked out in a more complicated way than that. It happened how it happened and I’m sure nobody had anything against Mark. And don’t forget, the recording is only part of the TOE story, they toured extensively on that album with Mark and Matt In the band, so all things considered Mark was a major player in that part of the band’s career — not to mention literally everything they’ve done since then.  So I think seeing TOE as slighting Mark is taking a pretty narrow view of things.  I’m pretty confident that if someone asked Mark about it (please don’t) he’d say he’s just happy to be a part of it in any way, he understands he’s in the band at Neil’s pleasure and he holds no resentment whatsoever. And I find the assertion that fans “deserve” anything pretty gross, honestly...I don’t personally think fans should feel entitled to *anything* except possibly a bit of appreciation, which Neil and the band show amply.

Thanks for the condescension. I'm familiar with the sad circumstances that led to Neil and Nick reuniting. I don't doubt that Neil respects and values Mark. I just think it would have been better to let him add more to the album. Just my opinion but I doubt I'm alone. I agree that Mark would never complain, he comes across as to nice of a guy. Everything they've done since? You can only be talking about touring and the one album since.

Maybe deserve wasn't the right word but don't know why you took such offence. It's just my opinion. I respect the hell outta Neil. Never used the word entitled and I agree fans shouldn't feel that way and I don't.

Do you not feel it's sad CH is now basically just a Neil side project? 

By the way I find it kinda gross when fans (or fan) can't handle and respect other fans opinions. I'm starting to remember part of the reason I stopped posting for a while and may well do again. 

Jeremy Loder posted:

Thanks for the condescension. I'm familiar with the sad circumstances that led to Neil and Nick reuniting. I don't doubt that Neil respects and values Mark. I just think it would have been better to let him add more to the album. Just my opinion but I doubt I'm alone. I agree that Mark would never complain, he comes across as to nice of a guy. Everything they've done since? You can only be talking about touring and the one album since.

Also the 2016 Sydney performance. I wasn’t offended. This has clearly deteriorated so I’ll just say, feel better dude.

The 2016 shows were indeed awesome, at least the show they showed on tv and what I saw of the others on Youtube. But they never got a cd/dvd release.

Never my intention to offend you. Just calling a spade a spade. Respect isn't a hard thing to have for others opinions. Sorry you find it difficult. I have no problem with you having a different opinion to me. Just you not respecting mine.

Feel better? Bro I'm all good. It's gonna take more than a disagreement on a music forum to spoil my day. And I hope that's true for you too👍.

Just cos someone stands their ground, it doesn't follow their not feeling good. 

slowpogo posted:

So tired of this, but I’ll repeat my counter-argument for the 30th time. The entire thing features two of the original three members, and more importantly, it SOUNDS like Crowded House through and through regardless of the branding. Would anyone claim Nobody Wants To *doesn’t* sound like classic CH, with “only” Neil and Nick? This is why Neil went that direction, because to paraphrase a quote from him at the time, “everyone was thinking it, that it sounded and felt like Crowded House.” Call me crazy but I’ll go with Neil Finn’s assessment over that of his more hair-splitting fans.

Personally, I don't feel that "sounds like" and "features x number of members" are good enough reasons. "Yesterday" featured only one Beatle and didn't sound ANYTHING like a Beatles song up to that point. And yet it IS a Beatles song because it was recorded by a member of that band with the intention of being issued as one of their songs. (Compared to, say, Beautiful Night which featured twice as many Beatles but was recorded by them in their capacity as solo artists and was never intended to be issued as a Beatles song.) 

The vast majority of TOE was recorded by Neil using session players (one of whom just happened to have been Nick) with the intention of being the next Neil solo album. Whether it sounded like CH or not is, to me, irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned, for the 31st time , it's the INTENT that's key. Put another way: if Neil had issued the record as a solo project, would you have been complaining for the 30th time that it should have been a CH record because it sounded like them and had Nick on it?

(And for the record, no, I don't think Nobody Wants To sounds like ANYTHING in CH's catalogue up to that point. Name me one other mid tempo ballad in their 86-96 catalogue. That's not to say that I don't think its a fabulous song: I do. But I think it sounds just like solo Neil and nothing like CH.)

Paul H posted:
slowpogo posted:

So tired of this, but I’ll repeat my counter-argument for the 30th time. The entire thing features two of the original three members, and more importantly, it SOUNDS like Crowded House through and through regardless of the branding. Would anyone claim Nobody Wants To *doesn’t* sound like classic CH, with “only” Neil and Nick? This is why Neil went that direction, because to paraphrase a quote from him at the time, “everyone was thinking it, that it sounded and felt like Crowded House.” Call me crazy but I’ll go with Neil Finn’s assessment over that of his more hair-splitting fans.

Personally, I don't feel that "sounds like" and "features x number of members" are good enough reasons. "Yesterday" featured only one Beatle and didn't sound ANYTHING like a Beatles song up to that point. And yet it IS a Beatles song because it was recorded by a member of that band with the intention of being issued as one of their songs. (Compared to, say, Beautiful Night which featured twice as many Beatles but was recorded by them in their capacity as solo artists and was never intended to be issued as a Beatles song.) 

The vast majority of TOE was recorded by Neil using session players (one of whom just happened to have been Nick) with the intention of being the next Neil solo album. Whether it sounded like CH or not is, to me, irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned, for the 31st time , it's the INTENT that's key. Put another way: if Neil had issued the record as a solo project, would you have been complaining for the 30th time that it should have been a CH record because it sounded like them and had Nick on it?

(And for the record, no, I don't think Nobody Wants To sounds like ANYTHING in CH's catalogue up to that point. Name me one other mid tempo ballad in their 86-96 catalogue. That's not to say that I don't think its a fabulous song: I do. But I think it sounds just like solo Neil and nothing like CH.)

It's Crowded House because it was issued by the band and the record company as Crowded House. 

It doesn't have to sound like CH  or include all the members anymore than Yesterday or Eleanor Rigby has to sound like  or include all the Beatles. It's the fact that it was originally issued as CH and subsequently promoted by the whole band world wide that makes it theirs.   They issued it, they own.

Okay. Let's back track. I clearly recall Neil saying in an interview at the time of the release of Try Whistling This that his record company - Parlophone - had asked him to keep using the CH name even though he'd split the band. Neil acknowledged that this would be the most commercially sound thing to do but - in acknowledgement of the contribution of the other band members and the special rapport the band had with its audience - he didn't feel he could do that.

He was clearly acknowledging that CH wasn't just him and whoever he chose to work with at that time. As a huge fan of the band, I was immensely grateful to Neil for that decision and its why - all these years later - I have a hard time accepting the fact that he chose to classify recordings that weren't made while CH was active and only featured one other member as band recordings.

You're right that it doesn't have to include all the members or sound like them: if Crowded House were recording an album but decided that, on a particular song, it only needed, say, Neil and his piano - that's fine. But to make an entire solo record and then after the fact decide to call it a band record for no other reason than convenience isn't the same. It angered me then and it angers me now. I'm actually surprised that fans of the band can feel so blase about this. 

If we accept TOE as a CH album, where do we draw the line? Could every album Neil has made be a CH album in our minds if he'd made a different decision back in 1998 and decided to keep using that name? For me, no.

Add Reply

Post
    All times London, UK.

    ©1998-Eternity, Frenz.com. All post content is the copyrighted work of the person who wrote it. Please don't copy, reproduce, or publish anything you see written here without the author's permission.
×
×
×
×
×