Dad-Pop? : Where do you stand on Crowded House?

My football prediction: Sol Campbell to stay at Tottenham, to be joined by Teddy Sheringham, but not Petit. And Spurs to finish about 7th next season. I've a feeling there could be a shock result tonight.

Fulham will be pretty active in the transfer market as well. ;)

But don't you already like 'high quality song craft' (if not the Crowded House variety)? But seriously, won't you still like the things you like now when you're 40? And if not, why not?

I blame Ned. Even if he didn't start it. I know him. He has powers.

Great game. I went for a walk with my daughter when L*****l went up 2- 0 came back it's 3-1, I sit down and before I know it's 3-3. Nice to know there are still games like this one. LFC would have won on penalties anyhow, only the Dutch are worse penalty-takers than the Spanish.

Second up: Tom E, you are wrong to equate 'finely-honed song-craft' with 'dull dad pop'. OK, we could take a detour into Stevie's very good, well-put, and largely unexplored, point about how 'adult pop' might be a good thing - we really ought to take that detour soon. But for the meantime, I'm going to put that aside, assume that we are talking denigration, and say, Tom, for heaven's sake, you are really out of order here. Why is it OK to slag off - en masse, and with no discrimination - songwriters who think for 5 minutes about what they're doing and are interested in how melodies work, when anyone who slagged off DJs, hip-hop producers, Geri Halliwell's publicists, or whatever, would be machine-gunned at 200 paces? And how would you like it if I said something like 'All computer programmers from Oxford are boring bastards?'

OK, refinement of my comments - drawing attention to 'songcraft' is perhaps the parallel of what I was talking about in the pop thread i.e. drawing attention to producercraft. Whether this is a reason to talk more about songcraft or less about producercraft is up to the individual reader.

I've now even written about Lloyd Cole on FT to assuage your ire.

And while I'm not exactly happy with my job, I'm not a computer programmer, so you can abuse Oxford computer programmers as much as you like.

Shocking attitude Tom. First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I said nothing. Then they came for the freemasons, but I was not a freemason so I said nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, so I said nothing. Then they came for Dani Behr, and said 'She's over there, hiding in the cupboard'. etc.

Tom:

>>> drawing attention to 'songcraft' is perhaps the parallel of what I was talking about in the pop thread i.e. drawing attention to producercraft.

I think I understand this - in the pop thread you were saying it was maybe a (slightly) bad thing for people to do that, right? In fact, if memory serves, you were saying that it was a way of denying emotion (or rather, a way of talking that didn't really do justice to emotion); so you're saying that talking about song-craft has roughly the same effect?

But then this -

>>> Whether this is a reason to talk more about songcraft or less about producercraft is up to the individual reader

- has me a tad stumped.

Naturally and predictably, I would rather talk more about the former and less about the latter, at least insofar as the latter means the kind of producers that interest you. But to be honest I'm still not sure I understand this comment.

>>> I've now even written about Lloyd Cole on FT to assuage your ire.

You mean FT exists?

>>> And while I'm not exactly happy with my job, I'm not a computer programmer, so you can abuse Oxford computer programmers as much as you like.

Hey, everybody! We can abuse Oxford computer programmers as much as we like! Who wants to start?

There is a bigger issue here, somewhere, about the way that certain ways of talking about music - which concern sound, texture, atmosphere, rhythm, technology, plus contexts and reception - have, on one hand, provided a tremendous enrichment of the critical vocabulary (visible, I guess, in a lot of what people write on FT / ILM), but have also displaced a sense of 'the song' as a unit of attention, or even a belief in 'the song' as an autonomous entity (I think I mean: analytically relatively autonomous from the other things I just mentioned). While I think the enrichment is (like I just said) terrific, I feel out on a limb in terms of conceptions of the song, because in my world 'the song' is still the primary unit of thought about music, and I have what might - probably pejoratively - be called a 'Platonic' sense of it. As I have in part said before, the only alternatives are musicology proper (to which I am inadequate) and earnest lyrical analysis (which I have argued in the past is largely inappropriate and should, indeed, be integrated into a more holistic sense of what's going on in a musical track or situation). So I still think that something is missing from the critical vocabulary.

I need to think this through more.

Mark S, and everybody else, will be unsurprised to hear that I don't know what 'Get Your (Ur, was it?) Freak On' (?) is.

First TH says,

>>> Two phenomena have recently violated the wholeness of the Song. Dance music and DJing is one. DJs generally playing tracks that are explicitly meant to be shut off well before the song ends, and begun well after it's started. The songs are relational, and not sufficient unto themselves. [etc]

I don't doubt that this is true, and that you have described the situation very well. But it doesn't affect my 'argument' - I mean, my view of what, for my purposes, a song is - because I am not really interested in that kind of music.

>>> The second 'ting, which is still as yet a bit unformed in my mind (so take me apart please) -- is that clearly, somewhere along the line, most pop artists have REALLY started paying attention to production detail.

Again, this is probably right, and is well-observed. But once again, I really don't think that it affects my conception of the song one way or another. You can write a song, then stick any number of details on it (in a titchy and unknown way I have done that myself) - the song remains the song.

>>> I think this begins roughly when pop artists became expected to write their own songs, be "original." ... I guess what I'm proposing is that once the expectation was set that studio recordings of pop musicians were to be original, authentic, sui generis, it stood to reason that the sonic texture (which people were just starting to notice as hi-fis and headphones became more common) must be as well.

Hm - you seem to be equating the moment when people had to *write their own songs* with the moment when bands had to *have their own sound* (roughly speaking). I don't really see why these two should necessarily be the same at all. That's partly because I view writing a song and forming a sound / tinkering in the studio as two different things; partly because I can imagine distinctive sounds being applied to any number of people who did not write their own material. Your overall point about a trajectory towards distinctive sounds seems right - I just don't quite see the link with songwriting.

>>> None of this really argues that the sonics and lyric significance of a song can't be holistically balanced.

Well, to repeat: I am not particularly talking about *lyrics*, which I tend to view as the poor relation among the parts of a song. Perhaps I shouldn't. Stevie T has argued very well, in the past, for the ongoing importance of lyrics on pop records.

>>> I think Get Ur Freak On does this very well, actually.

Again - don't know what this is.

>>> But I think the historical moment when a song could be complete in and of itself (am I demagoguing you pf? or not understanding?) has passed, and the body really is violated with all kinds of glitter paint and textural nipple-piercings.

No, I don't think you are misunderstanding me; and you put your case beautifully. But I think that I disagree with you quite strongly all the same. From my point of view, nothing has ever changed re. the integrity of 'the song'. If 'the song' has ever had any integral identity in and of itself, then it still does. From my point of view, it would be quite nice to think more about sonic textures and funny effects; but most of the time the only resources available are a pen, a sheet of A4, and an acoustic guitar that needs restringing. As a 'sonic effect', that gets rather samey; the 'effects', such as they are, had better be in the 'song'.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/neil-finn-interview-crowded-house-dreamers-are-waiting-fleetwood-mac-1180529/

I saw him with Crowded House here, because he was in the band at the time. Also opened.

That Rolling Stone interview is actually pretty good for once.

Don't know much about this band beyond the '80s hits - but a song from their last album just came on a mix ("Sweet Tooth"), and I had to check out what was playing, like it immediately caught my ear.

i loved time on earth and especially intriguer. no idea they even put out a new `crowded house` record (and totally missed the discussion here last summer, obviously). gonna check it right now! thanks for the word.

yeah, this is really good! on first listen, i like it at least as much as intriguer and more than time on earth. kind of some wilco-esque vibes throughout, and holy schitt "love isn't hard at all" is pretty solid — damn good stuff.

(also discussion upthread made me put it on and akm otm— "weather with you" is delightfully overproduced)

(note to self: relisten to more old school crwoded house. they fucking jam.)

(crwoded house fucking jams, too. but i meant crowded house. nothing but fucking jams.)

so i'm going to back to intrguer since i didn't realize there was a deluxe edition and this song is amazing. apparently only ever played live?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU0AgLvmgQI

"the only way to go is forward"

"Don't Dream It's Over" is ageless. I still can't believe a song this taut and wise peaked at #2 in America during the Bon Jovi era.

That '80s pop landscape where Boomers and their kids crossed paths was pretty interesting. As a teenager of course it seemed normal to me because what did I have to compare it to, but the result was a bunch of us grew up with these very mature grown-up songs by mature grown-ups, as part of our adolescent soundtrack. "Don't Dream It's Over" is a prime example. I like plenty of contemporary pop, but apart from maybe Adele I don't feel like that's really part of the atmosphere now.

I’ve thought about that, too – stuff like Graceland, Sting, Tracy Chapman, etc. saturated the pop landscape when I was a kid, and how that kind of “adult”-oriented pop largely disappeared from the mainstream after the ’90s.

(to say nothing of slightly “aging” but top-of-their-game icons like Springsteen, Fogerty, et. al)

The problem was, offal like "Change the World" lingered.

mature grown-up songs by mature grown-ups

Worth noting that Neil Finn wasn't even out of his '20s yet when "Dream" was a hit. He's just a naturally talented great songwriter and has been since he was a kid. Imagine being brother Tim, taking your little brother into you band when he was just 19 or so, and then little bro starts cranking out stuff like "I Got You" and "Message to My Girl." And then gets huge with his own band, which occasionally deigns to include Tim. (Though I will rep for the two Finn Brothers albums, which are great.)

But related to what tipsy said, it's kind of remarkable how much top 40 from the '80s is now considered MOR, music for grownups, when of course it was being made for and purchased by young folks. I mean, MTV Spring Break 1987!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAN14_XejIY

(Though I will rep for the two Finn Brothers albums, which are great.)

co-sign.

This may be of interest:

Well, it’s taken an absolute age to get to this announcement, so come share our joy. The next release on our @needlemythology label will be the FIRST EVER vinyl issue of The Finn Brothers’ dreamy 1995 masterpiece FINN. But that’s barely the start of it… (1/11) pic.twitter.com/VH5CnoY6nI

— Pete Paphides (@petepaphides) May 31, 2022

"Don't Dream It's Over" is ageless. I still can't believe a song this taut and wise peaked at #2 in America during the Bon Jovi era.

Mournful organ lines too.

True, it’s the “Whiter Shade of Pale” of its time.

Chamberlin! And in the case of "Dream," a nod to Bach's "Air on a G String," by way of Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade of Pale."

lol

R.I.P. Gary Brooker

"Pour le Monde", from the late-era album Time On Earth, might be their best Beatles pastiche:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M96Afkkgas4

Heard an interview with Steve Earle decades ago at this point, and he cited Neil Finn as a writer who sounds like the Beatles without sounding *like* the Beatles. Related, there was some dude on Twitter some time ago that was extolling the songwriting prowess of "Neal Finn," and Jason Isbell chimed in with just "First of all, i ..."

And just because:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sije12JaKdA

These guys were, predictably, great last night. What a salve. It's got to be both a blessing and a curse that Neil Finn writes so many great songs. They played a couple of brand new ones, too, one that he joked he wrote the day before, practiced on the bus, and perfected by the time they hit the stage, then muttered "if only it were that fucking easy ..." Yeah, no shit, your fault for making it look easy! Got a couple of deep cuts, got the two best known Split Enz songs, got some quality goofing around, even got a bit of Patrick Hernandez’ 1978 disco track “Born to Be Alive""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFSWh2jzKeQ

have we solved the controversy over the bridge in "Weather With You"

what's the controversy?