While no one in their right mind would complain about the wealth of material on the second discs of these excellent deluxe editions, I'm left wondering they didn't put the Crowded House version of "She's Not There" on the Temple Of Low Men set. I'm guessing it was around that time that the track was recorded (when it was on "The Crossing" soundtrack album c.1989). It's quite a good version and a genuine rarity so was it overlooked or the powers-that-be (Messrs. Ansell and Finn) deemed it unworthy of inclusion? Or was it even an issue of copyright?

"That cheeky cat strikes again"

Original Post

Okay I respect their decision but can't help feeling that sometimes it's best not to leave these decisions to the artists themselves! Especially when their version was great regardless of Neil's opinion. This is also a problem with the McCartney remasters bonus tracks. Grateful what we have but there are a lot of holes in the discography not covered by these "definitive" re-issues. It appears that a certain amount of revisionism is at play here!

Dazz posted:

 what we have but there are a lot of holes in the discography not covered by these "definitive" re-issues. It appears that a certain amount of revisionism is at play here!

I don't think Neil or anyone else ever promised these reissues would include EVERYthing they ever did. That was never the point. So I don't get where the "revisionism" accusation comes from. There were always going to be choices of which tracks made it and what didn't. The goal as Neil stated was, every track had to have a solid case for why it should be included. He also didn't want to spoil the myth of the band too much. There are several interviews at this point explaining the thoughts behind the bonus tracks.

slowpogo posted:
Dazz posted:

 what we have but there are a lot of holes in the discography not covered by these "definitive" re-issues. It appears that a certain amount of revisionism is at play here!

I don't think Neil or anyone else ever promised these reissues would include EVERYthing they ever did. That was never the point. So I don't get where the "revisionism" accusation comes from. There were always going to be choices of which tracks made it and what didn't. The goal as Neil stated was, every track had to have a solid case for why it should be included. He also didn't want to spoil the myth of the band too much. There are several interviews at this point explaining the thoughts behind the bonus tracks.

The revisionism accuisation comes from judging that NOW is something is not good enough to release when apparently it was good enough back then. In this case, there is nothing wrong with it at all except that Neil doesn't like it. So to ignore it, or anything that was previously issued, seems to be another way of saying it never happened and we only ever issued real good stuff that we liked. In some cases you can understand why a band would rather not acknowlege some excrement that they issued but there is nothing at wrong with CH's version of "She's Not There" other than a member doesn't believe it's as good as the original (or even Santana's 1977 version apparently, so abhorrent is the CH version). Which in plain language is a carp assertion.

 

Dazz posted:
So to ignore it, or anything that was previously issued, seems to be another way of saying it never happened and we only ever issued real good stuff that we liked. In some cases you can understand why a band would rather not acknowlege some excrement that they issued but there is nothing at wrong with CH's version of "She's Not There" other than a member doesn't believe it's as good as the original (or even Santana's 1977 version apparently, so abhorrent is the CH version). Which in plain language is a carp assertion.

 

Wow. What about the many live tracks included on B-sides over the last 30 years? I'm pretty sure many of those aren't included with the reissues either. Is that also some insidious attempt to rewrite history? Sorry, but that's some supremely paranoid thinking, and I can't make much sense of it.

Maybe Neil's viewpoint has changed in the course of 20 years? Does he need anyone's permission anyway? I don't see any justification for attaching sneaky motives to these decisions.

I once had an mp3 of that track, and honestly, I remember thinking it was quite a generic, serviceable version. Yes, well played and sung of course, but forgettable. So I can't agree that it's anything special and personally don't care at all that it's not included.

"NOW is something is not good enough to release when apparently it was good enough back then".

I don't think this is what anyone has said.

There is a bonus disc for each album, containing mostly never before heard writing, demos, home recordings, alternate takes. The aim for these sets was NEVER to round up all the stray tracks that appeared on CD singles, soundtracks etc. I'm amazed at the stunning opportunity fans now have to trace the development of songs from composing demos and early takes , and to peak into a favourite artists archives and hear gems and works in progress. If the reissues simply rounded up odd tracks previously released I'd be weeping.

She's Not There is not too hard to track down (Crossing, Other Enz CD's and online easily enough) .

Surely no one is suggesting  to bump never heard demos to make room for a previously released cover? I personally find She's Not There a fairly pedestrian take on the song. Ok but adding nothing to the original.

If I had my way I'd remove the Byrdhouse tracks too! and add more demos!

 

 

 

 

How about the younger fans though who may or may not know of this or other tracks' existence? Good deluxe editions shouldn't be just aimed at the long time fan who has bought any and everything concerning the band. I've bought plenty of the CD singles over the years for the live tracks (some good, some not as good) and face it, demos can and often be boring so to fill a disc up of nothing but demos can test one's patience. Be honest, how often are you going to play the demos of tracks? Good for a listen then filed away.

 

And She's Not There is bloody hard to track down. The Crossing album has been deleted for years and fan club CDs are not available to Joe Public. I had a bugger of a time trying to get a decent sounding mp3 and then had to resort to YouTube (not always desirable).

 

 

slowpogo posted:
Dazz posted:
So to ignore it, or anything that was previously issued, seems to be another way of saying it never happened and we only ever issued real good stuff that we liked. In some cases you can understand why a band would rather not acknowlege some excrement that they issued but there is nothing at wrong with CH's version of "She's Not There" other than a member doesn't believe it's as good as the original (or even Santana's 1977 version apparently, so abhorrent is the CH version). Which in plain language is a carp assertion.

 

Wow. What about the many live tracks included on B-sides over the last 30 years? I'm pretty sure many of those aren't included with the reissues either. Is that also some insidious attempt to rewrite history? Sorry, but that's some supremely paranoid thinking, and I can't make much sense of it.

Maybe Neil's viewpoint has changed in the course of 20 years? Does he need anyone's permission anyway? I don't see any justification for attaching sneaky motives to these decisions.

I once had an mp3 of that track, and honestly, I remember thinking it was quite a generic, serviceable version. Yes, well played and sung of course, but forgettable. So I can't agree that it's anything special and personally don't care at all that it's not included.

Wow. Slowpogo quick to jump to conclusions about paranoid thinking. The irony is delicious really. I'm just saying it would have been nice to include it for historic value if nothing else.

And yes, it would have also nice to include all the B sides of the singles as well for the same reason.

sinner62 posted:

 

Surely no one is suggesting  to bump never heard demos to make room for a previously released cover? I personally find She's Not There a fairly pedestrian take on the song. Ok but adding nothing to the original.

If I had my way I'd remove the Byrdhouse tracks too! and add more demos!

 

 

 

 

This. Can't believe some are getting so worked up over a cover, that they already had, rather than Neil songs that we know exist and didn't get. 

Is it really hard to understand that maybe Neil wanted to focus on his own songs rather than a cover they did of someone else's? 

I love "She's Not There" and it's a bit annoying that it appears to be the only CH studio track not included in the deluxe editions. However, it's also the only cover song CH has ever recorded in the studio so I can see how that might have resulted in its exclusion. But man, I think it's a great recording and totally fits the ToLM vibe better than any other non-album track in the CH catalog.

It's really not that hard of a song to track down. The Other Enz CD is on Amazon for $27. Unfortunately is virtually the only song on that collection that is worth owning, so that will probably be the most you have ever paid for a single song. But hey, you get more copies of the Byrdhouse tracks! I guess "Dots on the Shells" is pretty decent too.

Dazz posted:

Wow. Slowpogo quick to jump to conclusions about paranoid thinking. The irony is delicious really. I'm just saying it would have been nice to include it for historic value if nothing else.

And yes, it would have also nice to include all the B sides of the singles as well for the same reason.

"Just saying it would have been nice"? Well now you've walked things back quite a bit from claims of revisionism, and the band pretending tracks they don't like never even happened. That's some Fahrenheit 451-sounding stuff. But if "it would be nice for historic value" is your real intention I'm happy to stick with that.

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.
×
×
×
×
×