Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Yes Mona, I was aware of 1996/1997 interviews where Nick admitted being really pissed off about Neil ending the band, however I don't remember him ever saying stuff like this:

"Neil had a particular way of maintaining his authority. The threat of breaking up the band was always hanging over the band, and delivered by Neil.

and

"It was one of those mind games that, towards the end, just became annoying until he finally, ultimately, pulled the pin."

quote:
*never* trust what you read in the papers.
So you don't think Nick spoke to the news reporter? Or quoted him correctly? I know what you're saying & I'm not always that happy @ newspaper reports, but this one exists because Nick actually went out of his way ot publically embarras Neil Finn 7 years after the split. Or are you saying an actual news item about the band in the biggest newspaper in Australia wasn't worth starting a new topic about?

Also notable was the reporter thinking the band had split up in 1993... Roll Eyes

It looks like I won't be going to see Tarmac Adam tonight.
quote:
this one exists because Nick actually went out of his way ot publically embarras Neil Finn 7 years after the split
I don't get what's so embarrassing about it. IMO, it all makes sense. Neil had to have thought about a solo career long before the breakup, we already know about some of the internal problems within the group (Nick being fired by Neil among them), and it's clear to everyone that Neil was the controlling force behind the band. Taking all that into account, the only thing left is the individual band members' opinions and perceptions about what happened -- I'd say Nick's certainly entitled to his. He may still be sour about the whole breakup, but it didn't stop him from playing with Neil (and Paul) at the Cold Live at the Chapel gig in 2001. In short, I personally think you're making a big deal over a small thing. Smiler
Not that I really mean to take Neil's side here or anything, but how do we know that comments he might have made to Nick about breaking up the band were really a "threat"? When Nick says that Neil "threatened" to end the band, it implies to me that he thought it was something said for spite. Maybe it's just what Neil was really feeling at the time. And maybe when he said those things he really meant them at the time he said them! People say they're going to do a of lot of things when they're stressed out - believe me, I know - a couple of times within the past few weeks I've nearly quit a job that I actually like for the most part. And when I was thinking I might quit, I MEANT it - but of course, then things calm down and you get over it and go on. But sometimes things get to a breaking point, so as for Neil eventually "pulling the pin," well, why was it Neil's responsibility to stay in a situation where he wasn't getting what he wanted anymore? It's not like he was married to Nick and Paul. Yes, maybe they were friends, but the band was likely to end at SOME POINT, as most bands do. I can see why Nick might take this personally, but we don't really know if it was meant that way when it all actually went down.

However, having said all that, I can certainly understand why Nick might might feel this way, and he's certainly entitled to his opinion about it. This sort of situation is fraught with emotional overtones, and while it's one thing for me to comment as a third party observer, I might feel very different about it if I was in Nick's shoes, and might very well feel exactly the same way he does. I don't think Nick should be crucified for making these comments - he's only human, after all, with feelings that can get hurt, just like the rest of us. Smiler
quote:
I can see why Nick might take this personally, but we don't really know if it was meant that way when it all actually went down.

However, having said all that, I can certainly understand why Nick might might feel this way, and he's certainly entitled to his opinion about it. This sort of situation is fraught with emotional overtones, and while it's one thing for me to comment as a third party observer, I might feel very different about it if I was in Nick's shoes, and might very well feel exactly the same way he does. I don't think Nick should be crucified for making these comments - he's only human, after all, with feelings that can get hurt, just like the rest of us.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. I wouldn't take this version (or Neil's) as fact -- it's all perception.
Weird as I was just responding to Mo/Maureen on the List that out of Nick and Paul it was Nick who really wanted the band to go on, Paul had long long left, and really Nick was pissed off. It's his right, especially at the time.

Saying all that it's actually been quite awhile since the split and you would expect that most people would move on.
Several things to think about:
1/ Nick has had quite a few occasions to tell Neil what he thinks, and from the times I have been around have never heard him say a thing

2/ When Split Enz broke up, it was Neil Finn who gave Nick Seymour the chance to be in this amazing band, he came to Neil cap in hand, and has benefited incredibly well, in all areas. Financially Neil has been very generous to all of us, from royalties to Nick getting a brand new 4 wheel drive , to owning his own apartment at Prahran and Dublin... each time Neil tours Crowded House sell CDS, and a percentage goes to Nick, and Paul (Mark/Peter/Tim)... they do not have to do a thing.

3/ I was never on every tour, on every tour bus or in every backstage band room, but I have to say during that whole time I never once heard Neil threaten to break up the band as some sort of power play... not saying it didn't happen but I can never ever remember one time..... while I was present and I was around A LOT.

Even when Nick was sacked for those few weeks, there was talk of a replacement, but not of the band splitting. There were times when Neil did feel that a huge weight of the band was on his shoulders, especially around interviews etc, and you know what, it WAS... and maybe he did say this is getting too much BUT I never witnessed him playing mind games etc as quoted...

Was Neil a controling force behind Crowded House, yes and I am so glad he was, in many cases, but I can think of hundreds of examples where Nick and Pauls input was always part of it.... Neil was the leader, I think everyone would agree with that...but Crowded House really was Neil, Nick and Paul...

I'm not sure if the article was taken out of context, etc, but it just feels like a really cheap shot, because Nui (journalist who we have all known for years) couldn't get a Tarmac Adam article printed in the Sun without some sort of
beefed up Crowded House piece for placement......

I don't think Nick should be crucified, but if the reason for doing this is to scrape in some mention of Tarmac Adam's gig tonight in the paper it really is a piss poor. We do have to ask- would Nick be saying the same stuff to a journalist if there wasn't a show that could well be only 1/3 full! Give us the dirt and we'll give you a mention of your show...

I remember the day that Neil decided to break up the band, 5 of us (maybe 6?) were in the room, no threats no big drama just Neil saying
it's time to move on, I want to break up Crowded House. He looked really relieved, and I laughed (weird reaction I know)...but it wasn't a big drama or any threats thrown at people....

Anyway nuff said from my side....Nicks a really good mate love him to death but I felt it was a really cheap shot at some media attention for this other project and really a bit sad.

None of us are saints but I can honestly say that the reason why I put in all these hours of work is simply that, Neil Finn has been an exceptional person, and incredibly kind... you'd think after 23 years I would of noticed one half decent threat !!! *GRIN*. maybe I'm just a bit slow!!

Peter
Interesting to read these perspectives...all I can say is that if Neil was hinting at going in new directions or trying to prepare his band-mates for a break-up, this could come across as a threat rather than a kindness, it all depends where you are sitting. I certainly would not miss a gig on account of it...why not go and see what Nick has to say for himself? It's a great album.
Wuntie
Pretty sure Neil never hinted at going solo, that was just natural. You have to remember that
demo's had been done for some songs (with Peter Jones) as possible tracks for the next Crowded House album.
The plan was release Recurring Dream and tour and record the new CD off the back of that
no talk of any solo stuff etc. It all happened when we were in London VERY quickly, just a decision to finish and yep Neil lit the match! (:
I agree,
I think fans should see Tarmac Adam and maybe have a listen to the CD before you buy it. So far we have had a massive 6 emails regarding the CD, and 5 people hate it to one liking it. (Two if you include Wuntie). Everyone's different, some may love it,.if you are asking me,I think it is so bland, I truly dislike Matt ODonnells voice and the songwriting is horrid. It put's the "S" in HIT.
Nick did ask me what I thought, so I was honest.

I guess the true test is how many copies the public buys and if the people who love it will still be playing it 6 months down the track.

At least LIVE the Seymour/Hester personality's can come out which is always entertaining.

Gryph.
Thanks for the great post Peter.
quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
When Split Enz broke up, it was Neil Finn who gave Nick Seymour the chance to be in this amazing band, he came to Neil cap in hand, and has benefited incredibly well, in all areas.
Exactly. He lived off the genius of Neil Finn for more than 10 years playing bass lines already written, enjoying the life of a rock star, earning heaps of money... and yet he still wants to make Neil look bad to the general public (and a page 9 article in Australia's highest selling tabloid is appealing to the dumbest demographic - people who's perception of Sir Neil will change for the worse).

quote:
...each time Neil tours Crowded House sell CDS, and a percentage goes to Nick, and Paul (Mark/Peter/Tim)... they do not have to do a thing.
Make that Nick living off Neil for... 18 years? Wink

quote:
Was Neil a controling force behind Crowded House, yes and I am so glad he was, in many cases, but I can think of hundreds of examples where Nick and Pauls input was always part of it.... Neil was the leader, I think everyone would agree with that...but Crowded House really was Neil, Nick and Paul...
Neil (IMO) had every right to be the controlling force behind the "band" - he started up the band, sang lead vocals... and of course wrote the songs - which (IMO) cancells everything else out. I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with what you're saying PG, just incorporating my opinions in & using your post as a base Big Grin .

quote:
I'm not sure if the article was taken out of context, etc, but it just feels like a really cheap shot, because Nui (journalist who we have all known for years) couldn't get a Tarmac Adam article printed in the Sun without some sort of
beefed up Crowded House piece for placement......
Yeah, quite possibly. It just so happens that there was another article in the Herald Sun's Hit Entertainment Liftout that same day (today) about Tarmac Adam:
TARMAC ON THE ROAD: Crowded House fans might like to check out a new band by the name of Tarmac Adam when they play their first gig tonight at 8:30pm at the Corner Hotel, 57 Swan St, Richmond. Tarmac Adam don't necessarily sound like Crowded House, but do feature two former members of the Australasian supergroup, bassist Nick Seymour and drummer Paul Hester. The band will use the gig to launch debut album Hand Held Torch. Tickets are $17.60 + BF from the venue. Phone: (03) 9427 9188.

I actually met Nui Te Koha 2 years ago @ the Herald Sun & he didn't really talk much. He had his own little closed off office & seemed a bit preoccupied with work. Ah well...

No offence to anyone who may be... er... offended. Just my views.
quote:
Originally posted by gryphon:
[qb] Wuntie
I agree,
I think fans should see Tarmac Adam and maybe have a listen to the CD before you buy it. So far we have had a massive 6 emails regarding the CD, and 5 people hate it to one liking it. (Two if you include Wuntie). Everyone's different, some may love it,.if you are asking me,I think it is so bland, I truly dislike Matt ODonnells voice and the songwriting is horrid. It put's the "S" in HIT.
[/qb]
YIKES! I'll admit that it's not for everybody, my sister gave me the CD for my birthday and said something like "sorry, this is sh*te" whilst it played in the background at my birthday dinner. I'd recommend it to fans of Coldplay or Travis...certainly not music to change the world by any stretch but an enjoyable, optimistic little album (in my very humble opinion)...I probably would not have bought it without hearing it first myself.
Hmmm. I'm still not seeing how Nick's comments are a "slam" but I'd like to be able to read the rest of the interview. Just finished saying yesterday that the board was needing a little controversy...
Acutally I'm in doubt about the seriousness of this article. I mean this Nui doesn't even know the right dates about his topic.
I don't know so much about CH than you all do, so maybe I'm not quiet qualified to say something about it.

We all have to remind that these guys are humans and nobody is flawless even Neil Finn. And actually no one of us was backstage and no one can say what really happened.Their surely had some conflicts and fights between them, that happens everytime when people are together especially for so long time.
In my opinion Neil Finn was the leader of CH and he had the right to break the band up. He was the mainspring of CH, but he couldn't have done it in such a way without Nick and Paul. In my opinion they were an inspiration for him, and they involved a whole lot more then we all really know as well.

Well, Neil was in the position to do this things but it's all about the point of view. And do you think he would have wanted to destroy the good vibes with such behavior?

What's kind of strange is the fact that this story appears again after all this years and after a few performances of them together. If Peter is right, and Nick only wants to get some media attention, then it's really sad. I think he's not in need for that poor advertising.

In my opinion a journalist only wanted to get a good headline and mixed up some lines he once heard.
I'm kinda wondering if these comments were just a small part of a much longer interview. That's why I agree with Mona and what some other people have said, don't always believe what you read. Not because I believe Nick's words were twisted around, but it might have been just a tiny blurb taken from the whole interview. Yeah, it's possible Nick is trying to stir up controversy to sell records...or, the interviewer is trying to stir up controversy to sell a few papers. We just don't know.
quote:
Was Neil a controling force behind Crowded House, yes and I am so glad he was, in many cases, but I can think of hundreds of examples where Nick and Pauls input was always part of it.... Neil was the leader, I think everyone would agree with that...but Crowded House really was Neil, Nick and Paul...
Oh, I certainly agree with that. I don't care that the group members didn't contribute equally -- they all contributed in some way.

quote:
Neil (IMO) had every right to be the controlling force behind the "band" - he started up the band, sang lead vocals... and of course wrote the songs - which (IMO) cancells everything else out.
It's easy to have that viewpoint when you aren't the one who feels like you're being controlled. Smiler BTW, I'll never understand the swipe at CH being a band. Performing songs written and sang by Neil Finn doesn't make them any less of a band.

quote:
If Peter is right, and Nick only wants to get some media attention, then it's really sad.
In fairness to Nick, it's a two-way street just like Peter said. I'm sure anyone interviewing Nick about Tarmac Adam is going to inevitably ask about Crowded House. I can't really blame Nick if he still has some bitter feelings about it. He was obviously hurt the most by the breakup, so it's only natural (heh) that he's taking longer to "move on." It's been my experience that the timeline for moving on is an individual thing.

While I'm defending Nick because I don't think he's done anything wrong, I am not trying to put down Neil at all. I love both of them. Well, as much as one can love two guys he doesn't know.
It's always sad when a group breaks up after being together a long time, but Nick really needs to let this thing go already. I think it's nice that he and Paul are back together in a new project, but the CH break-up was over seven years ago. This attitude of Nick's is getting really old, most people are past gving a **** and it can't be healthy for him.

Then again maybe he is over the break-up, and is just slagging off Neil to score some publicity for his new bands album. And no, I don't buy the theory that the writer manipulated Nick's words or just printed parts of the interview. Nick's got a history of slagging off both Neil and Tim off in the press.

Whichever of the above is true, the quotes imply more about Nick's character than Neil's. The more interviews I read like this, the less credability the guy has.

It would be interesting to see how Paul Hester feels about the comments in the article. I always got the impression that Paul stayed good friends with Neil and Tim.
I'm with you, Sandra, I don't know a tremendous amount about the personal relationships within the band members... but I'll agree with Jenn, we have no idea what the conversation was between Nick and the reporter. Nick might have talked at length about Tarmac Adam, and then only made one small remark (probably when prodded) about CH, and the reporter chose to let that part go to the press, instead of anything else (more relevant) that was discussed. JMHO.
Oh dear. Nick. If you want to make a fresh start with a new band, you really shouldn't begin by criticising your previous band. It goes without saying that it severs ties, but it also associates negativity with a new product, ie. Tarmac Adam. If the press ask you about your time in CH, then yes, respond. You are more than entitled to have your say. But respond appropriately. It's no secret that you and Neil had problems - hell, everyone had problems with Neil at one point or another. But discussing them sourly now will only cast a bad light on your new band. And to be honest, if you're with a band that is starting from the ground up, you can't afford to piss anybody off. So if Neil said something unflattering about you when CH broke up, you don't come out seven years later and retaliate. It gives the impression to the press and the public that you really can't let go of grudges, and i'm sure that's not the case.

In saying that, i'd also be careful about who you discuss things with in the media. As evidence shows, they have a sneaky way of getting quotes from people that may have been said off-handedly, and milking it for all that it is worth.

*steps down from the soapbox* I didn't say that as eloquently as I would like, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
Yeah Wuntie this will shake it up...did you slip Nick that $10 just to do that *grin*.

Hmm I don't know -I like Coldplay and Travis even more.....I can understand why some people think Nick has slammed Neil, the amount of industry calls we had about this pretty much all thought that, I know Neil is too sensible (and as my other half Mark said too classy) to bite at this. ..and he's aware how the press can chop things up and go for an angle... Nick seems to of given them what they wanted.

Sandra ,I think Nui knew what he was doing, he penned the Paul 'why I left Crowded House' article........it's the one with Paul at our typewriter and a blank sheet of paper with the caption super-imposed, that was one of Nui's.
So he's been around CH for awhile etc
Actually I was backstage at most shows, and the split stuff wasn't from that area, that i can remember.... I'm not there all the time but if there were power trips like that, and it seemed like Nick was saying it was a continual thing, I would of heard or spotted it, simply because
I'm sure various members would of been in very bad moods or some discussion would of taken place.....I don't know, it was while back now. Nui's interview was done only a week ago so it isn't old or heresay etc...and Nui does record everything....so the quotes would be exact. I get the feeling it would of been a longer interview and The Sun simply took out this bit to beef it up..... I'm sure Nick would of said it (otherwise he'd be suing) but I bet a big chunk of the interview wasn't used...we have to give the old Scrote (Nick)some benefit of the doubt (myself included).

Yep Laver, I agree 100% everyone is different, I just find it very strange that after 5 years of never mentioning this, media, friends and especially to Neil that suddenly it was mentioned again. It's not like this is the first Nick interview since the band split.... that's why I think it's a bit odd. I've probably had some pretty intense talks with Nick over the last few years, (all good), as I said he is a friend, but this Neil stuff has never surfaced, and several times we have talked about CH breaking up...
as a mate it does worry me a bit....

Anyway I've exhausted my comments, from what I gather from NZ it was a shrug and 'silly tosser' so I'm glad that is the case.....

Not much else I can say, but no one stress on this too much....... just one of those 'odd' things.

Peter
My ten cents:

I think things put in print can become very polarised. I've fallen foul of this myself on a number of occasions where the context and emphasis get lost.

Its entirely possible that the interviewer asked a very specific question about the break up and Nick gave an honest answer that, in his angle, Neil would from time to time, when disagreements ensued, mention that he could just break up the band if he wanted to.

Its entirely possible that Nick IS over it, that it doesn't bother him, but he's just telling it like it was. No different to me talking to friends about arguments I had with ex-partners, for example. It doesn't mean I'm not over it, in fact, possibly the opposite: I'm over it and I can talk about it...
quote:
Its entirely possible that Nick IS over it, that it doesn't bother him, but he's just telling it like it was. No different to me talking to friends about arguments I had with ex-partners, for example. It doesn't mean I'm not over it, in fact, possibly the opposite: I'm over it and I can talk about it...
Well said, Paul. Once again, I'd be inclined to say he was "telling it like he perceived it to be." Also, I think you touched on something else -- a lot of this is probably hyperbole. I don't think Nick's saying Neil literally held a possible breakup over his head constantly. As time goes on, a few fights here and there might seem more like "all the time."

Peter, I recognize your unique situation as a friend of Nick and Neil. IMO, it's natural for you to read a little more into the comments. OTOH, I still say everyone else is overreacting. It's not like they showed a picture of Nick eating babies. Roll Eyes
Just my two cents on this, from the angle of someone who deals with the press from a PR side:

I was more off-put by the headline than the actual story. In the story, Nick actually defends his position a little bit by saying the following before digging into Neil:

"Any band that is close will be prone to the internal politics and egos of its players, and we would all somehow manipulate that," Seymour said.

That said, in my experience, the editors of the papers' specific sections write the Headlines and the headline BANDMATE ACCUSES FINN sets the tone for the entire article for what could have been off-handed comments in the middle of an interview.

I'm in the camp of Mona - never trust the press completely. Everyone has their own narratives and they always color an article or headline...the concept of fair and balanced press free of bias is a fairly new myth that can never truly exist...any one person's definition of fair and balanced is biased in of itself, thus nothing can be fair and balanced to everyone.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now and back on topic...
annefrancis
Lavar hmm knowing the Sun the Nick eating babies photo will be next week *grin*. (In a Tarmac Adam Tshirt I expect).

Yes it's always a strange position to be in, at the end of the day, I tend to try and weigh up all the bits and pieces, media 'editing' Nicks memory and did I ever witness this. It's never an enjoyable thing when it's friends and work mates. The only thing that it does for me is create extra work, people asking, emails etc. All of them are big boys and have to say and do what they think.

Remember my area on a day to day basis is media and our file on mis quotes, chopped up interviews, down right lies is rather chunky . *GRIN* and yep Anne I agree the headline triggered 'stuff' with more people and I think it's the word 'accuses'. Been a long while since people stopped me on the street and asked about this sort of thing.
It's also rare (and I am talking about thousands of interviews etc in our files) that the Finns are betrayed as anything other then good guys, so maybe it's a new angle, 'good guys' rarely make Page 3 of The Sun, dirt will always be what the public wants & I'd say that's what they needed for the story.
I wonder though if this sort of stuff will stop Crowded House ever playing shows, I've got no idea, but just a thought. I'm sure it doesn't improve the odds.

Gryph.
I can't believe you're all getting so worked up over this.

It's the Herald-Sun, fer Chrissakes... just a mere step upwards on the bottom-feeder journalistic ladder from that other (now-defunct) Melbourne bastion of fair and balanced reportage, The Truth (remember them, Peter? Or indeed anyone else in the Melbourne area over the age of about twenty-eight?)

In other words, this paper caters to the lowest common denominator. To a paper like this, tension (or better yet, intense bitterness etc) sells product.

My first thought on reading that (very truncated) piece from the Herald-Scum (oops, typo - or was it?! Roll Eyes ) was that no dates, no timeline was mentioned... (except for the "1993 breakup" of the band - hmmm, nice to see that this paper still employs sub-editors... apparently NOT). What I mean by this is that not once do we see the words "Nick Seymour said yesterday", or even "Seymour said last week." All this bitterness and indeed all of those quotes may have been taken from YEARS AGO, in other words. Scanning Peter Green's posts here, I see now that that was probably not the case, but I do agree that the headline was inflammatory and the whole focus of the article was manufactured to look like the former members of Crowded House simply hate each others' guts... after all, that kind of ****e has been selling newspapers since the Beatles broke up and probably before then.

Anyway, as they used to tell us in journalism school, "The medium is the message." The medium in this case, is a sadly-overrated tabloid rag known as the Melbourne Herald-Sun and the message, by implication, is a biased, badly-sub-edited, beat-up hack piece screaming of tabloid gee-whizzery. Annoying, yes, but hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not worth getting one's knickers in a twist over.
Hey, isnt' this "Headline" doing a good work?
I mean, look how many people had to say something about it.
How many of us, read the article cause of that, without ever knowing the Hearld Sun before?
The reaction about this article, is what the maker of it expected.

The best think to do, is to calm down and don't take it too serious.
As Kia Kaha said there are no dates mentioned and no proofs that this was a serious interview.
A bit more info, Nick on the phone, and pretty much his first comment was on the article.
Time for the facts.
1/ Kia Kaha, yep it was only 5 days before it was printed, so recent. I thought it would be as I knew Nick was doing a few interviews (a WHO magazine one is coming up too).It's a 'regular' positive interview..and not chopped, the person who is penning it apprently loves the Crowdies...
2/ As I suspected it was a fairly large interview originally, over one hour Nick tells me.
3/ Nick never gave them the headline and he thought that set the tone, he also never said
frontman Neil Finn played CRUEL mind games. All of that was from the paper.
The three quotes are correct but shuffled about a bit from questions etc in the interview.
4/ One of Nicks other points, the same one I made is that the small anti article with the 'New Band Tarmac...' plug just made it look cheap.
5/ Nick also called to get Neil's email again (Nicks email address book is in Eire) he just wanted to give NF the full story, and that came from him not me pushing it. So a degree of caring and honesty, it is the Nick I know, and he hasn't became really twisted or bitter (PHEW).

Nick sounds really good, asked me again what I thought of the album and I told him I thought it sucked (he laughed... they always do! My opinion means so much *grin*) we're
catching up in a few days, going through Crowdies home movie footage for the Retro DVD, or at least collecting it.....

anyway that's kind of it, all pretty much feels ok.

Just thought you guys should get some of the facts etc for what it's worth.
take care
peter
Peter and Sandra, for the record I did say that that was my initial impression only. I also noted that this impression (i.e. that the interview could have and perhaps had taken place as early as say, 1997) had turned out not to be the case, given the info Peter's already given us here on this thread. I have read this thread from start to finish (including your posts), and I also am familiar with this journalist's work, so I would have been very surprised had the interview NOT been recent.

I do, however, stand by my opinions regarding the Herald-Scum and the truly woeful standard of what passes for a) news, b) a good headline and c) sub-editing Roll Eyes at that paper. My point being, why get worked up about what that pathetic rag prints anyway as they (I refer to the newspaper and not the individual journo who has the misfortune to work there) are just out-and-out ****stirrers anyway.

Cheers,
Kia.

Edited to add: Let's hope the article in Who Weekly has a few more facts and a little less "beat-up"... when's that issue due to come out, anyway, Peter? Smiler
I couldn't agree more with Kia Kaha.

Journalists are journalists and its there job to write stuff that sells papers, often using there 'imagination' to read between the lines/beef stuff up. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of great journalists out there who write good and interesting articles. Australia is a great country, but the press sucks, really really sucks in some places. So this article really doesn't surprise me.

So yeah we should move on, see them live if you can (you lucky Aussies! I wanna be back in Oz!) and hey listen to the new album Big Grin .

Cheers

Wilich
quote:
Exactly. He lived off the genius of Neil Finn for more than 10 years playing bass lines already written, enjoying the life of a rock star, earning heaps of money...
This is really unfair. For a start, where is your proof that the bass lines were already written? I can think of only one song that springs to mind with a pre-written bass line that Nick copied, and that's Bones Hillman's bass line from the demo of Can't Carry On. Even when CH played SE songs Nick played his own bass line rather than copying Nigel Griggs. Listen to the SE version of This Is Massive and then the CH version. Isn't it a bit cheap to personally attack someone (by basically saying they had no creative input, it was all written for him) when you have (incorrectly as it turns out) perceived them as personally attacking someone they know very well, and we don't.

I know Hole In The River would be half the song it is today without Nick's input.
quote:
Originally posted by Camus:
[qb]
quote:
Exactly. He lived off the genius of Neil Finn for more than 10 years playing bass lines already written, enjoying the life of a rock star, earning heaps of money...
This is really unfair. For a start, where is your proof that the bass lines were already written? I can think of only one song that springs to mind with a pre-written bass line that Nick copied, and that's Bones Hillman's bass line from the demo of Can't Carry On. Even when CH played SE songs Nick played his own bass line rather than copying Nigel Griggs. Listen to the SE version of This Is Massive and then the CH version. Isn't it a bit cheap to personally attack someone (by basically saying they had no creative input, it was all written for him) when you have (incorrectly as it turns out) perceived them as personally attacking someone they know very well, and we don't.[/qb]
Ouch! Eeker . Hey Camus. How are you doing? Wink

Bassically, all I was saying is that Neil Finn wrote the band's bass lines, because I remember reading something somewhere that Nick apparently used to take longer than Neil wanted to add the bass line to his songs... so Neil then wrote the bass line himself (which anyone would think, considering the majority of the Crowded House songs were credited to: N.Finn). I don't know when this was supposed to have taken place (before or after the sacking?) but if Nick's creative imput was so important, why didn't Neil give him some songwriting credit for songs like hole in the river? (which you claim "would be half the song it is today without Nick's input"). But if you think Nick wrote the bass lines to Neil's songs, then you could well be right. Do you think he "wrote" the bass lines to Paul's 4 or 5 songs also?
I don't know if this is the truth but I remember reading that the parts were pretty much there for Nick and Paul to play on the first album as the band were still finding their feet. But after that album they became more of a 'proper' band. Also, Mark Hart has mentioned in the past how Nick sometimes took a while to find his part in the studio but it was usually pretty special once he did.

The fact the majority of songs are credited solely to N. Finn only tells us that Neil wrote the melody/words/chords (essentially the song ) but not necessarily the bass parts, drums, keyboards, etc. As the main songwriter you would only tend to give someone else a songwriting credit if they provided a decent part of the lyrics or melody or changed the structure or style of the song in a major way (ie Mitchell Froom's credit on "Something So Strong").
Hi Secret God,

I agree with what Seven Worlds wrote. I find it hard to believe that Neil arranged the songs totally by himself. There is a distinction here between writing a song, and arranging it. It's in Something So Strong that Mitchel Froom wrote the solo for Don't Dream It's Over. This is a solo though, so quite rightly he isn't credited, as Neil Finn wrote the song. Let's take it a step further, should Duke Ellington have credited Johnny Hodges (possibly the most famous of all of Ellington's men, Hodges was THE alto sax player in Ellington's band from 1928 until he died in the late sixties) for all those incredible solos on Ellington's tunes? Of course not, because Ellington wrote the framework and the melody that Hodges then improvised on. I firmly believe that when Neil Finn writes a song it is a melody, chords and most likely the harmonies. Bands where the songwriter dictates each and every part to the other performers rarely work. Why bother with a band? Easier to use session musicians. The whole thing about a band is you have the foundation of the song and everybody brings their part to it. Bands usually end when players have no creative input into the arrangement. The songs on Mental Notes are credited to either Judd/Finn or Judd. Do you seriously think that they wrote all the parts? Including ALL of Eddie Rayner's keyboard parts (remember Tim Finn does not play piano to anything near the standard of Eddie Rayner, and as far as I know Phil Judd couldn't play keyboards at all at the time)? But if you look at the sleeve notes, it clearly states that the songs are all arranged by Split Enz. I don't believe for a second that either Finn or Judd wrote Mike Chunn's bass lines. Essentially the song is written, it is arranged by the band. Think how Together Alone was written. Most of the arrangements came out of group jams. Mark Hart turned Locked Out from a slow acoustic ballad to the Ramones version (Neil Finn's own words) that we have today. I notice Locked Out is written solely by Neil Finn though. Re Hole In The River, there was supposedly a hole in the middle of the song and Nick Seymour said we'll just vamp on C#m. I imagine Eddie Rayner then took Nick's bassline and expanded it into the funky piano break (this is my supposition, it's the part of the song that sounds the most like Eddie Rayner to me).

Yes, I do firmly believe that Nick came up with the bass lines to Paul's songs.

My point was a it's a bit unfair to say Nick had no creative input into the band and that all his bass lines were written by Neil (listen to Twisty Bass if you want to hear a Neil Finn bass line). I'm not having a go at you or anything like that (obligatory Smiler ) but to answer your questions, no I don't believe Neil Finn wrote the basslines to all the CH songs. What I do believe is that he would reject bass lines, make suggestions and that he wrote the lyrics (though even this isn't necessarily true Paul Hester wrote the line about blood in the chorus of Four Seasons and we're all aware that Liam Finn wrote the line about Mrs Hairy Legs in Chocolate Cake) the chords and the melody. Do you think Neil wrote all of Paul's drum parts as well? Having heard You Can Touch I'd say Neil Finns keeping his drumming genius very very quiet.

When Neil Finn writes a song I imagine they sound like the demo of Lester, either a solo acoustic or piano, lyrics, melody and harmonies.
quote:
Originally posted by Camus:
[qb] Hi Secret God,[/qb]
Hey there Camus Smiler .
quote:
I agree with what Seven Worlds wrote. I find it hard to believe that Neil arranged the songs totally by himself. There is a distinction here between writing a song, and arranging it.
You seem to be more knowledgable (is that a word?) than me. <<< I thought I better add that before I start talking about something I don't know much about Smiler . Having said that, I know there's a difference between composing & arranging! (not that you were emplying otherwise). You could be right in believing that Neil didn't "arrange" all the Crowded House songs, but I personally wouldn't find it hard to believe, considering he wanted to control everything (and rightly so). The only way I could see Neil letting Nick write the bass line & Paul write the drum track is if he felt they would do a better job than him, AND Neil feeling justified in having someone tampering with his songs without crediting them at all - I've just always had the feeling that what came about on the studio albums was exactly how Neil had imagined and wanted it to sound... and if he required assistance from someone, he would credit them as a co-songwriter, because he was overly kind in that regard. I don't think Nick is uncreative or anything, but I just wouldn't think he brought any of that creativeness to the band's music (apart from that brilliant cover of pale blue eyes - which was only vocals, but...).
quote:
It's in Something So Strong that Mitchel Froom wrote the solo for Don't Dream It's Over. This is a solo though, so quite rightly he isn't credited, as Neil Finn wrote the song.
That, I can't agree with. It's my opinion that a song's solo is part of the song (especially in DDIO's case!) so whoever wrote a song's solo should get credit... like didn't Eddie Van Halen write the solo part to Michael Jackson's beat it? I dunno if he got credit for it, but it's a major part of the song (as is the case with the DDIO bit) & if he did write it, he should be credited.

I had no idea that Mitchell Froom actually wrote that solo (from 1:46 right through to 2:24?), so thanks for the news.
quote:
Let's take it a step further, should Duke Ellington have credited Johnny Hodges (possibly the most famous of all of Ellington's men, Hodges was THE alto sax player in Ellington's band from 1928 until he died in the late sixties) for all those incredible solos on Ellington's tunes? Of course not, because Ellington wrote the framework and the melody that Hodges then improvised on.
Um... I have no idea who Johnny Hodges is, let alone Duke Ellington, so I won't put my opinion forward on that topic, but if that Johnny Hodges bloke improvised on one of that Duke Ellington dude's songs, I believe he should be credited for what he did... just as Eddie Rayner and Mitchell Froom were.
quote:
I firmly believe that when Neil Finn writes a song it is a melody, chords and most likely the harmonies. Bands where the songwriter dictates each and every part to the other performers rarely work. Why bother with a band?
Well I don't know really why he did bother with the whole "band" concept... maybe because he didn't want even more attention? Maybe because he wanted a guise? Maybe because it was the logical thing to do back in the 1980s? Maybe because he thought Paul's humorous personallity could help his "band" become world dominant? I doubt it had much to do with Nick Seymour's equally creative genius Smiler .
quote:
Easier to use session musicians.
That thought isn't as strange as it may have originally seemed to readers. Get this: In the 19 songs I have from the Try Whistling This sessions, only 14 of them were solely written by Neil.... and from the One Nil album, it seems Neil Finn only wrote SEVEN by himself. Does that tell us that Neil Finn's new bands have more creative imput than what his various Crowded House line-ups had?
quote:
The whole thing about a band is you have the foundation of the song and everybody brings their part to it.
Yes, in a lot of cases that's probably correct. In REM for example, each member gets equal credit for the songs written... so does that mean each member actually contributed to all the songs enough to warrant a songwriting credit? Probably not, but it would have people / fans thinking everyone brought a part to a band.
quote:
Bands usually end when players have no creative input into the arrangement.
So how did Crowded House last nearly 12 years? Wink (I guess that's where we disagree)
quote:
The songs on Mental Notes are credited to either Judd/Finn or Judd. Do you seriously think that they wrote all the parts? Including ALL of Eddie Rayner's keyboard parts (remember Tim Finn does not play piano to anything near the standard of Eddie Rayner, and as far as I know Phil Judd couldn't play keyboards at all at the time)? But if you look at the sleeve notes, it clearly states that the songs are all arranged by Split Enz. I don't believe for a second that either Finn or Judd wrote Mike Chunn's bass lines.
Good point. I have no idea if Phil Judd was that much of a genius to write all that, so he probably relied on Eddie Rayner's (hopefully I didn't spell his name wrong again) skills, but not enough to warrant a co-written song I guess?
quote:
Essentially the song is written, it is arranged by the band. Think how Together Alone was written. Most of the arrangements came out of group jams.
Well why didn't Neil give a bit more (due?) credit to Mark Hart, ect?
quote:
Mark Hart turned Locked Out from a slow acoustic ballad to the Ramones version (Neil Finn's own words) that we have today. I notice Locked Out is written solely by Neil Finn though.
Ahhh... it was Mark Hart who suggested that? I remember hearing that a while back, but didn't know it was Mark. But if all Mark did was say "Hey, Neil... why don't you make that song slower?", that shouldn't mean he should be credited, but if he re-arranged the song completely, he should. I don't know what sort of changes Mark made sorry.
quote:
...Yes, I do firmly believe that Nick came up with the bass lines to Paul's songs.
Well if he wrote the bass lines to Neil's songs, then I also would think it would be the same deal with Paul. If he didn't come up with the bass lines to Neil's songs, then I'd still reckon he helped out Paul's songs.
quote:
...(listen to Twisty Bass if you want to hear a Neil Finn bass line).
Listening now... & I can't honestly figure out that song. The chorus is too distorted to tell what is where & the drum track is weird. Sorry.
quote:
I'm not having a go at you or anything like that (obligatory Smiler )...
Phew! That's a relief. Nah, it's cool... your post was entertaining & informative & I know you weren't having a go @ me.
quote:
but to answer your questions, no I don't believe Neil Finn wrote the basslines to all the CH songs. What I do believe is that he would reject bass lines, make suggestions and that he wrote the lyrics (though even this isn't necessarily true Paul Hester wrote the line about blood in the chorus of Four Seasons and we're all aware that Liam Finn wrote the line about Mrs Hairy Legs in Chocolate Cake) the chords and the melody. Do you think Neil wrote all of Paul's drum parts as well?
Well I think he probably had some idea of how the overall song (including the drum track) was going to sound... & someone else writing the drum track to a song isn't going to mean the song is going to sound much different, so if he didn't like what Paul came up with, he would have him configure it I guess. I haven't read Something So Strong or anything & I don't know all about the band, so my thoughts are only just that.
quote:
Having heard You Can Touch I'd say Neil Finns keeping his drumming genius very very quiet.
Did he play the drums on that? Are you talking about the studio version? Doesn't the drums sound any good or something?
quote:
When Neil Finn writes a song I imagine they sound like the demo of Lester, either a solo acoustic or piano, lyrics, melody and harmonies.
And what's wrong with a song sounding like lester? Smiler It's a classic song in it's original form although I've believe I've got an even better version of it where Neil performs it live with Crowded House... & Paul actually chips in with some mild percussion halfway through. The harmonys are amazing there, as is the soundboard quality. (Neil: I've got a dog... so has Paul... I'd like to dedicate this to those dogs...).

This would have to be the longest post I have ever posted to this forum! Feel special Camus! Smiler
quote:
You seem to be more knowledgable (is that a word?) than me.
It most certainly is a word, I don't like to say this as people seem to get very nasty when this is revealed (they seem to see some sort of superiority thing which is NOT the case) but I do have a Bachelor of Music majoring in composition and I am classically trained. However everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course Smiler From a personal view point, if I wrote a song (and I've written many) and someone else improvised a fantastic solo over the top of my chord progression using my melody as a basis (also happened many times) I would not give them a credit. If they wrote a bridge to the song, or wrote more than two lines of the lyrics, or completed the melody, then yes I would give them a credit. I imagine when working with musicians who cannot read music (and I think I'm right in saying apart from Mark Hart only Neil Finn could read music in CH) you would discuss the general feel of the song, provide a chord chart and then play the song. It usually all comes together fairly quickly, then you have all those lovely arguments when you want to alter other people's parts or reject them entirely. I'm sure Neil may have said to Nick follow the guitar line in this part, but play something different hear. This is shapoing the bass line by the composer, but also allowing personal creative freedom on the players half.


quote:
Um... I have no idea who Johnny Hodges is, let alone Duke Ellington, so I won't put my opinion forward on that topic
Oh dear, Duke ELlington was possibly one of the most famous Jazz composers ever. His songs include It Don't Mean a Thing, Mood Indigo, Satin Doll, I Let A SOng Go Out of My Heart, I'm Beginning to See The Light, Caravan, The Mooche, Black and Tan Fantasy, Perdido, Cotton Tail, Do Nothing Till You Hear From Me, Solitude, Sophisticated Lady, In A Mellow Tone, Just Squeeze Me, Don't Get Around Much Anymore, I Got It Bad (and That Ain't Good), phew, and that's on;y a fraction of his output, everyone of which is a jazz standard. However he's been dead since 1972 and if you aren't into Jazz, you probably don't know any of those songs. Have you heard of Louis Armstrong? Ellington is just as well known, if not more so.

quote:
but if that Johnny Hodges bloke improvised on one of that Duke Ellington dude's songs, I believe he should be credited for what he did...
Why? He's playing a solo over Ellington's piece. That means that when I play It Don't Mean A Thing and solo over the form, I should have my name next to Ellington's. Or when I play Fingers of Love and play my own guitar solo, the song should read N. Finn/J Richards, as the solo is all mine. Surely you agree that that is idiotic?
quote:
Well I don't know really why he did bother with the whole "band" concept...
Because that's what CH was. Can't you hear the difference between TWT and One Nil and the CH albums? CH has it's own wonderful unique sound. There is a strong feeling of being a band and band unity in CH, which I don't feel in TWT.

Why was it the logical thing to do in the eighties? Sting, Peter Gabriel, Michael Jackson and many others were solo artists in the eighties and never felt the need to be part of a band. IF you'd said the sixties I'd tend to agree....
quote:
In the 19 songs I have from the Try Whistling This sessions, only 14 of them were solely written by Neil....
That's because he went on a writing holiday with Jim Moiginie (I know that's spelt wrong but TWT is too far away at the moment Smiler ) and wrote a lot of songs with him, the same way he wrote a lot of Woodface with Tim. BTW, the WF demos have paul playing drums the whole way through, but none of the songs are credited to him. On p163 of Somethiong So Strong Neil says they called Paul over 'to play along and have a bit of a sing'. These are demos, both Tim and Neil can play drums to varying degrees, so if they wrote all the parts why bother asking paul over? They didn't record those demos live, they're eight track demos.
quote:
So how did Crowded House last nearly 12 years? (I guess that's where we disagree)
Yes it is. I just cannot see CH lasting that long if all the parts were dictated by Neil Finn. SUre I agree he shaped the parts to fit with his song, but I don't believe he wrote them all himself. I DO agree that he wrote all the songs by himself. At the end of the day, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, unless I can win you over to my side Smiler

quote:
I have no idea if Phil Judd was that much of a genius to write all that, so he probably relied on Eddie Rayner's (hopefully I didn't spell his name wrong again) skills, but not enough to warrant a co-written song I guess?
So how is Eddie Rayner's superlative keyboard work (and let's face it, the keyboard solos were the best in SE, oh ok, that's subjective Smiler ) not worthy of a co credit but Mitchell Froom's is? Especially when Eddie is all over those Judd songs? That doesn't seem logical.
quote:
Ahhh... it was Mark Hart who suggested that? I remember hearing that a while back, but didn't know it was Mark. But if all Mark did was say "Hey, Neil... why don't you make that song slower?", that shouldn't mean he should be credited, but if he re-arranged the song completely, he should. I don't know what sort of changes Mark made sorry.
If you can get hold of CH 1994 Fleadh concert you can hear how Locked Out originally sounded. Neil also then goes on to say how the songs used to change drastically when the band got hold of them. This doesn't sound like a control freak dictating all the parts to me, it sounds more like a band where everyone had creative input into the arrangements. Mark Hart sped it up and turned it into a bit of a thrash and presumably improvised both guitar solos
as he plays both. If Neil was such a control freak, wouldn't the songs always sound the same when performed live, that is, playing all his written parts? Like the difference between Eddie Rayner's keyboard work and then Mark Hart playing the same CH songs. They don't sound the same, and I strongly suspect because it is the creative input of either Eddie Rayner or Mark Hart that shape those changes.

quote:
Well why didn't Neil give a bit more (due?) credit to Mark Hart, ect?
He did, Mark Hart is co credited on Together Alone and Kare Kare. Kare Kare is written by all four members and presumably Mark Hart wrote part of Together Alone. I do like his horror stories of Neil rejecting the brass arrangement of that song about four times. Possibly band politics had shifted by that time and Neil was happy to give co credits, Nick is credited for Catherine Wheels. Song writers and composers are very close to their work, we hate to give co credits, unless very well deserving. After all, we do most 90% of the work and if somebody pulls out a rip snorting solo but didn't contribute to the writing of the actual piece or song, then no I wouldn't give them a credit. Same if I wrote a song and someone added a bass line I wouldn't credit them unless it significantly changed the song.
quote:
Listening [to Twisty Bass] now... & I can't honestly figure out that song. The chorus is too distorted to tell what is where & the drum track is weird. Sorry.
Yes but I was talking about the bass line which is clear as a bell, extremely boring and badly played (IMO) and quite exposed for the first minute of the song. The drums are mostly a looped sample, not to some people's taste, but still a good song, and IMO far more creative than She Will Have Her Way, but now I see vistas of cans and worms appearing before mine eyes.

quote:
Well I think he probably had some idea of how the overall song (including the drum track) was going to sound... & someone else writing the drum track to a song isn't going to mean the song is going to sound much different, so if he didn't like what Paul came up with, he would have him configure it I guess.
Not too sure what you mean by configure, but yes, this is what I meant, Paul coming up with his drum part would obviously be complementary to the actual song. So if Neil didn't like it, I'd imagine he'd say so, they'd discuss ideas, he may show Paul what he wants, Paul may then add to this or say that won't work etc... To a degree it's the same with the bassline, Neil Finn has already laid down the guidelines with the chord progression and melody.
quote:
[You Can Touch] Did he play the drums on that? Are you talking about the studio version? Doesn't the drums sound any good or something?
Yes he did, on the studio version that's on Afterglow. He and Paul apparantly had a fight and Paul went to bed, so Neil multitracked each drum part by himself because he didn't have the skill to play it all at the same time. Well, it's all subjective, but I don't think the drumming sounds very competent on that recording, and certainly considering the way he recorded it, it doesn't tally with the idea that he wrote all the other drum parts that Paul played.

quote:
And what's wrong with a song sounding like lester?
Nothing, I never said there was. I used that as an example because I presumed, unlike me, you don't have a huge bootleg collection, and that is a well known solo acoustic demo of Neil Finn's. Also it doesn't have bass or drum parts (pretty much like the WF demos, except they do have drums because Paul is there). I have heard that live version of Lester, but I prefer the demo Smiler Do you own the Finn album? The basslines on that (played by Neil) are nothing like Nick Seymour's CH basslines. As Neil wrote most CH songs and if he wrote their bass lines it logically follows that the bass lines on Finn should sound similar, but they don't.

quote:
This would have to be the longest post I have ever posted to this forum! Feel special Camus!
I'm known for my verbosity and my tenacity Smiler
Sorry Secret God but I have to agree with everything Camus has said Smiler

I can't quote directly but I have heard Neil talk in interviews a few times about Nick's "fiddly" basslines in comparison to the more direct grooves played by Sebastian Steinberg, etc. (note: I don't think Neil was having a go at Nick, just stating the differences in style).

Nick is a very distinctive bass player and his style is easily recognisable and as Camus has pointed out, I don't think Neil could play that way. He's certainly never shown any evidence of it when he has played bass.

I think what made CH so special was the fact they were very much a band . You can hear it on the recordings and you could hear it live. Just because the songwriting credits weren't split equally doesn't mean they were less of a band than anyone else. The Beatles are most people's idea of the ultimate pop/rock band even though most of their work was credited to Lennon/McCartney. You don't hear many people claim George or Ringo weren't a big part of what made that band.

If you look at most bands over the years they usually have one (or two) members who bring the songs to the table and then the rest of the band will add their parts and shape those songs till they become something unique to the band as a whole. The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Smiths, Oasis, Travis, etc all work this way. Then you have bands such as U2, REM, Coldplay and Radiohead where they jam in the studio to come up with songs or members come with half-finished pieces which are completed as a band. Or they have an agreement that the songwriting credits are split equally even if one member has solely written the song.

Back to CH, I would imagine often Neil would hear a drum sound or bassline in his head for his songs and would have to convey that to Nick and Paul. Most likely it'd be distorted in the translation or taken in another direction completely. Other times it'd be solely left to their imagination to deliver the part. That's what makes bands so interesting.
Apologies for the late reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Camus:
...but I do have a Bachelor of Music majoring in composition and I am classically trained...
*Bows out of this discussion immediatley, as I have no credibility at all* Smiler

quote:
if I wrote a song (and I've written many) and someone else improvised a fantastic solo over the top of my chord progression using my melody as a basis (also happened many times) I would not give them a credit.
Fair enough then. I guess you're happy to have people add to your song & not be credited. Although that might be different in other songwriting partnerships / bands. BTW, I'm all for Neil Finn (for example) getting sole credit on HIS dongs on either of the Finn Brothers albums - IF he wrote them... & I find it hard to believe both brothers had equal imput into every song... but we discussed that a while back in another topic & it's of no relevance to this discussion...

quote:
That means that when I play It Don't Mean A Thing and solo over the form, I should have my name next to Ellington's. Or when I play Fingers of Love and play my own guitar solo, the song should read N. Finn/J Richards, as the solo is all mine. Surely you agree that that is idiotic?
Yeah I do agree... but it's a strange example & I never emplied that just anyone should be able to add a solo to a song & get credit for it just like that. What I did find hard to believe is that Neil Finn apparently didn't write the famous solo in don't dream it's over... & with that part being a major part of the song & making him millions of dollars... well you'd feel pretty pissed off if you were Eddie Rayner or Mitchell Froom! Big Grin (or whoever wrote it... I forget).

quote:
Can't you hear the difference between TWT and One Nil and the CH albums?
Not really to be honest. All I hear is Neil Finn's songs being sung by Neil Finn with the relevant people on other various instruments. Sure, his sound has changed a fair bit over the years, but there's no way I'd be able to say... "Hmmm... that isn't Nick Seymour on bass... it sounds to me like Sebastion Steinberg!... or Wendy... or Lisa... or whoever is actually Neil's bassist these days". (reading the linear notes do help though...)

quote:
CH has it's own wonderful unique sound. There is a strong feeling of being a band and band unity in CH, which I don't feel in TWT.
Well I'll grant you that there was chemistry in the band (at the live shows - which I know through bootlegs), but it's my opinion that as long as Neil Finn is present, beautiful music will be made (with or without Paul, Nick, Craig, Eddie, Tim, Mark or Peter)... the whole "band unity" doesn't really do much for me.

quote:
Why was [being in a band] the logical thing to do in the eighties?
When I said that, I didn't mean it to be taken so seriously... hell, I think I even said something about Neil using Paul's humour as a way of getting to the top, but yeah, there were many big solo artists in the 1980s.

quote:
That's because he went on a writing holiday with Jim Moiginie ... and wrote a lot of songs with him, the same way he wrote a lot of Woodface with Tim.
Hmmm... it is strange that all that time Neil actually had a band, he bareley wrote much material with them, but enter Jim M_i__o_gne... (I don't know how to spell that either).

quote:
I just cannot see CH lasting that long if all the parts were dictated by Neil Finn ... I think we may have to agree to disagree on this, unless I can win you over to my side Smiler
Well i'm not really on any side here Smiler ... I guess I just look up to Neil Finn as God & don't believe anyone else has any talent! Big Grin . But seriously, CH DID last that long... & Neil DID dictate the band & the parts. You may be right in saying some other members might have maybe has a tiny part in possibly altering part of a bass line or drum track, but Neil still dictated the band.


quote:
If you can get hold of CH 1994 Fleadh concert you can hear how Locked Out originally sounded...
Yeah I think I've got that somewhere. will seek out. Cheers.

quote:
If Neil was such a control freak, wouldn't the songs always sound the same when performed live, that is, playing all his written parts?
Well the songs regularly DO sound similar live... but the fans don't want to go a concert to hear an emulation of the album! Neil usually does play all his written parts, but there's solos & instrumentals & covers in there to mix it up. It's sort of hard to answer a question when you're not really sure if it IS actually a question or not Smiler .

quote:
Mark Hart is co credited on Together Alone and Kare Kare.
Yeah I noticed that. I meant all the other songs he apparently altered, but it's still pretty nice of Neil to credit him at all.

quote:
Kare Kare is written by all four members and presumably Mark Hart wrote part of Together Alone.
I don't like it when bands give credit to everyone. Do you seriously think "Finn/Seymour/Hester/Hart" had enough input into kare kare to warrant them all a c-songwriting credit? As opposed to the other songs?

quote:
...but I don't think the drumming sounds very competent on that recording [You Can Touch]...
Oh ok. I believe you, but to me, it just sounds the same, but I don't really have an eye (or ear)for detail in poorly recorded songs.

quote:
[qb]
quote:
And what's wrong with a song sounding like lester? [/qb]
Nothing, I never said there was. I used that as an example because I presumed, unlike me, you don't have a huge bootleg collection...
I wasn't having a go at you there.... it's cool... I just really like that song.

Well my bootleg collection isn't that great, but it's getting there... was that 2?... or 3?... :]

quote:
Do you own the Finn album?
YES! 2 times on CD and 2 times on cassette! It took me all of 8 years to finally *get* that album, but I'm just glad I eventually did understand it.

quote:
The basslines on that (played by Neil) are nothing like Nick Seymour's CH basslines.
Possibly. I like the whole raw feel to it, so I wouldn't mind if the bass wasn't up to scratch.

quote:
I'm known for my verbosity and my tenacity
Well there's 2 new words for me! I still don't know what you're known for, but it sounds interesting. Thanks for the post & I cropped a fair bit out of your post (hope you don't mind) because me replying to it all would have me having to think harder! Cool

.

RE the piano arrangements comment, there is an interview with Split Enz from a 1981 Aust Playboy or Penthouse where Eddie actually says that a lot of people believe that Tim writes the piano parts because he writes the songs. Not true at all, Eddie politely but firmly explained. He writes the parts and he felt that his contribution was equal to that of the Finns and that if he didn't he wouldn't be in the band.

Having said that, I'm curious as to what Eddie's contribution was to I Got You. Right or wrong, I get the feeling that Neil didn't present the song to the band with the D to E musical bridge after the second chorus. It just sounds like an Eddie piece to me.

I think one of the Beatles' first songs gave credit to George Harrison as a co-writer and Paul later said that it was because he wrote the solo. But he was amused that two naive teenagers did that cos, as Camus mentions, it's not the norm for song-writing credits to be given for writing a solo.

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.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×