It's interesting seeing Britpop bands reforming and 'doing things'. Obviously Pulp are following in the trajectory of Blur to an extent, although they have played more foreign festivals and done less (no!) interviews which is a little interesting. However, whilst Blur have chugged out two (ish) new songs, Pulp are still reticent on this front. Then there's Suede (sorry weed!) who have finally started showcasing new material at gigs. It's not been too warmly received, but at least they're doing it.
And I've just been reading of the strange case of the reformed Dodgy. They played a couple of 'comeback' i.e. greatest hits tours a couple of years ago, but their most recently tour has consisted entirely of their newly recorded album. In its entirety as, apparently, an antedote to all the bands who are touring their 'best' album. Said newly recorded album (funded by fans) is being released around now...and has garnered the best reviews of Dodgy's entire career! I suppose when you were always considered the 'also-rans' you have to try and be brave, but it is an impressively brave thing to have done all the same.
Maybe if Pulp had more on the line they'd be willing to take more risks...?
It's a tough call. I can see both sides of the arguement when it comes to new material. i.e. they don't want to ruin their legacy but to be honest could new material really do that. If they were to release a new album it's fair to say that there are at least as many eyes and ears paying attention since Different Class was being recorded. I wonder if they just don't want that level of attention any more.
I was a bit grumpy & drunk the other day when I snapped about comparing Pulp to other bands recent output and I can see quite clearly why it's tempting to do - but they do have a habit of bucking the trend a bit so it does seem a bit pointless (to me) to do that.
Although having said that I do agree that it's no complete coincidence that Pulp's reformation occurred shortly after the success of Blur's - it'd be interesting to see if Blur actually do turn out a new album or not.
In my opinion as a musician I find it hard to believe that you rehearse as extensively as Pulp obviously have and not, albeit accidently, come up with even the bare basics of something new.
Jarvis at least, in recent years has been coming across as a bit more of a singer/songwriter type and I'd imagine he'd like to carry on in that vain. A couple of the other band members may not & I'm sure they all had differing reasons to want to reform in the first place.
If they were to present some new material I'm sure characteristically, it would avoid any hype, be a complete unexpected suprise and hopefully be challenging and different warrenting their reasons to be artistic rather than commercial.
Don't worry about the paragraphs. I still have penance to pay for anything I wrote in the RAH queue with my blue hands.
Jarvis stated as much about seeing how Blur's performance at Glastonbury/Hyde Park went down before deciding what he wanted to do re: Pulp, so they are following the trajectory there, I believe.
Also as 'musician' (I'm using quotes for me, not for you!) even if you're breaking in a new band member by running through 'the set' you still end up jamming something or other. Remembering some early/mid 90s soundchecks, Pulp could improvise a song that sounded none too appalling (Cheesy Lady wasn't it?) so it would be surprising if this has genuinely never happened in the rehearsals.
Even the Velvet Underground managed to write one new song during their tension and hate-filled reunion!
Temperamentally, Russell as John Cale. Candida as Moe Tucker, Nick as Sterling Morrison and Mark as Doug Yule. Discuss.
I do think there's a lot of the Jarvis stuff that could easily be Pulp stuff - or to be a progression of where Pulp may or may not have been heading since '95. Off the top of my head, Don't Let Him Waste Your Time (His 'n' Hers album?), Fat Children (TIH?), I Never Said I Was Deep (WLL?) Caucasian Blues (TIH B-Side?), You're in My Eyes (HnH?) could all have been (good) Pulp songs with a bit of a change in production...
If a couple of Pulp band members don't fancy carrying on as a songwriting version of Pulp, then let them do their own thing, I suppose. Now that Russell has gone, I feel less precious about this sort of thing and if a core of Jarvis, Steve, Nick and Mark wanted to carry on with some well recruited other musicians (Antony Genn? Simon Stafford?) then I'd be all ears!
Technically Jarvis could put together an entirely new band and call it Pulp. Like Eels and The Divine Comedy he's the only constant member. Not saying he should.
Eels and Divine Comedy used to vary a lot between albums anyway though, didn't they? From 1988 until they split up, Pulp had only one member join (who was already involved with them anyway) and one quit...
Don't worry about the paragraphs. I still have penance to pay for anything I wrote in the RAH queue with my blue hands.
Jarvis stated as much about seeing how Blur's performance at Glastonbury/Hyde Park went down before deciding what he wanted to do re: Pulp, so they are following the trajectory there, I believe.
Also as 'musician' (I'm using quotes for me, not for you!) even if you're breaking in a new band member by running through 'the set' you still end up jamming something or other. Remembering some early/mid 90s soundchecks, Pulp could improvise a song that sounded none too appalling (Cheesy Lady wasn't it?) so it would be surprising if this has genuinely never happened in the rehearsals.
Even the Velvet Underground managed to write one new song during their tension and hate-filled reunion!
Temperamentally, Russell as John Cale. Candida as Moe Tucker, Nick as Sterling Morrison and Mark as Doug Yule. Discuss.
I do think there's a lot of the Jarvis stuff that could easily be Pulp stuff - or to be a progression of where Pulp may or may not have been heading since '95. Off the top of my head, Don't Let Him Waste Your Time (His 'n' Hers album?), Fat Children (TIH?), I Never Said I Was Deep (WLL?) Caucasian Blues (TIH B-Side?), You're in My Eyes (HnH?) could all have been (good) Pulp songs with a bit of a change in production...
If a couple of Pulp band members don't fancy carrying on as a songwriting version of Pulp, then let them do their own thing, I suppose. Now that Russell has gone, I feel less precious about this sort of thing and if a core of Jarvis, Steve, Nick and Mark wanted to carry on with some well recruited other musicians (Antony Genn? Simon Stafford?) then I'd be all ears!
That's a bit mental, I don't think any of Jarvis' solo songs would fit on an existing Pulp album.. you may as well say that Disney Time could fit onto Freaks. However, there is a definite continuation and progression from WLL to Jarvis, and that's quite clearly where Pulp would have gone next.
I dunno...I just don't really see Jarvis' solo stuff as being all that different than what followed before. I can't bring Disney Girls to mind so I can't comment on that one, though!
I do think one of the things about Pulp was that the progression was always unexpected. From the pop of Intro to the heavily produced and slick His 'n' Hers to quite produced pop on DC and then to a pretty heavy album in TIH and then to something that's almost pastoral in its cleanliness with WLL. I think the progression could have gone any way, really.
I was listening to the Auto show last night and it's still imprtant to remember that they never broke up in the first place. Richard Hawley reiterated this in an interview he's just given for a local magazine here in Sheffield (Cube magazine); "Well with Pulp, they never split up. I mean when we finished touring in 2002 everyone just said 'We're gonna have a bit of a break'." So, really there is no reason why they shouldn't produce new material. I've come to the conclusion that Candida is the real songwriting genius in Pulp, she is the catalyst they really brings the best out in Jarvis in my opinion. Think of Pulp/Jarvis before and after Candida and I think you'll agree. If she is resistant then that's probably the deal breaker for me and, I suspect, for Jarvis too.
I'd agree with that, Saw. In fact I was going to say something on the same lines regarding Candida but didn't have the balls to stick my kneck out that far.
Two of the best things on 'Jarvis' were the piano-led I Will Kill Again and Disney Time (Big Julie is good too but just lacks a hook), and I can't imagine him having learned the piano for songs with Pulp.
On the other hand Heavy Weather is a clear part of the semi-acoustic balladry lineage which the latter three Pulp albums all contained (Something Changed-TV Movie-Birds In Your Garden). And Don't Let Him Waste Your Time and Tonite don't sound too far away from We Love Life. Roadkill on We Love Life is also a clear indication as to solo Jarvis (not just cos of it's similiarity to the Loss Adjuster excerpts). I'd like to have heard Jarvis do more songs similar to Big Stuff - i.e. a whole album he would have written for Lee Hazelwood.
Further Complications (and Fat Children which I think fits better with Further Comps) sounds more like a new band and it's hard to imagine Pulp going all garage-rock, though who knows? After all they rarely repeated themselves during their whole career. I can imagine Discosong as a Pulp song - based on a sampled loop, which Pulp obviously had some experience of added to the wistful lyrics which are very Pulpy - Jarvis was a bit more political on the first album and much of the second solo has more bare and open lyrics on sex, lonelieness and parenthood than the average Pulp album. Girls Like It Too of course deserves a mention - the best pop song he's written in years. Crunchy guitar with some nice lighter touches by Tim McCall and nice piano background which again, is not really what Pulp did. The melody line and lyrics wouldn't look out of place in something written by Jarvis in 1995 though.
Re: Candida, I'd love to know how certain songs in Pulp got written, or who were the catalysts for them. I'd never assumed Candida was anything of the sort, but it's hard to imagine any of Pulp producing the material that they did. I think that's part of the attraction for me with regards to the mystique.
And the simply phenomenal rate at which they wrote stuff especially around '84 - '88 or so. At every other gig there's new songs, and a setlist will be entirely changed within six months. Amazing...
