Acrylic Afternoons is reporting a violinist from Sheffield will be joining them on Dec 8th. Must mean Russell is out then. Sob.

Aaaah, come on Russell. Stop being a grump and get on the stage one last time!

On the plus side it makes She's A Lady and OU likely

Wow. Interesting spin there! She may well be "brilliant", but the fans want Russell. Especially as he's on the posters! If I was going, I'd be pretty upset at that!

I don't know why I bother looking forward to anything, it always shits on me. I'd rather they didn't play any tracks that feature violin than have someone else play them.

-- Edited by saw119 on Friday 30th of November 2012 07:30:18 PM

Oh...hang on...I misinterpreted Acrylic Afternoons' tweet. Assumed as he mentioned She's A Lady that it would be the same lady as in Chile?

Just because they have another violinist doesn't mean Russell won't be there (wishful thinking maybe). In any case I am massively disappointed if he doesn't show- really missed him at the RAH

-- Edited by Jazza on Friday 30th of November 2012 07:38:28 PM

Why not? They have been doing a fair few this year.

I see what you mean, but remember the gigs featuring My Lighthouse, Back in LA etc didn't have Russell either and went down a treat. I'm really gutted about the lack of Russell and think it taints it somewhat but I'm still expecting a storming send-off.

Silly things like when he puffs his face up on Underwear or gives Something Changed some Pete Townsend arm windmilling are irreplaceable. Him, more than anyone else is the misfit and the misshape. They just seem too slick without him.

I think that the fact he's unable to rehearse with them might be a factor - so you might see him making a guest appearance at one point, maybe.
But, to be honest, who knows what's going to happen? Maybe Captain Sleep will emerge from the wings like the phantom of the opera.

I remember wishing he'd come back for Auto but it didn't spoil my enjoyment of that night too much

twiggy wrote:

---

Do we know that Russell is unable to rehearse with them??

---

 

I'm just assuming, but with them being in South America and him being busy with his play it seems very likely.

You can't stand Hawley?!

Well I can see how he's an acquired taste. His latest album is a bit more varied than usual though and I reckon would sound great live.

Looks like there's going to be a fair few miserable Bar Italia members next Saturday night then!

Ah lads, come on, don't be like that. If Russell's not there how about we all march over to his house and demand an explanation?

Hawley's solo music is one of the reasons why I was disappointed when 6Music wasn't shut down.

saw119 wrote:

---

shotoki wrote:

---

I don't understand why people expect him to do this show, he isn't part of Pulp anymore and we were lucky he showed up at all during the reunion.

---

 Well, I would just point out that unlike all the other shows he hasn't done he appears on the poster advertising the Sheffield Arena show.

---

 Wasn't he also on some of the other posters for previous gigs without him, like RAH? Just sounds like lazy advertising.

liltman wrote:

---

I thought he was cropped out of other posters for gigs he didn't appear at.

---

 Correct, the band started doing posters with him cropped out yet he is placed centrally in the, obviously, bespoke poster for Sheffield as it features the 'Day that (almost) never happend' spiel.

I do have to concur with Hawley. I adore the Longpigs (first 'wow' band I ever saw) and love his work with Pulp, but solo - and live - there were only about three decent songs. Lovely chap though, with a great line in audience banter, but cripes he was 'worthy.

Finally someone sees some sense!

Frankly i couldnt care less that russell wasn't there in Paris. Mark is another (but different) misfit. But i guess those guys are Pulp fans since the 80s maybe ? he's had a huge impact on the band then but i'm more of a Jarvis fan myself. 

liltman wrote:

---

Yeah not on. Come on though people, are we going to let the band go out on a tidal wave of hate?!

---

 Probably.

liltman wrote:

---

Think I'll be avoiding this thread for the next week, it's ruining the anticipation

---

 I agree - I love Russell (probably my favourite member) but Pulp is Pulp and the concert is sure to be amazing regardless. It's a shame but to debate whether or not to go to their homecoming gig seems to me to be massively over the top. If you make this into a big deal it could ruin the concert but if you just accept the fact that Russell probably won't be there then I'm sure you'll enjoy the gig for what it is.

Oh come on now this is bloody ridiculous! He wasn't even in the band for how many years and he hasn't been with them since September 2011. It's not like Candida or Nick have suddenly quit and they're playing without them!

It's Russell I'm cross with if it's his decision and there isn't a medical reason but I really don't want to hear somebody else play his violin parts. I haven't listened to any of the reformed shows they've done without him with the other violinist and I don't have any interest in doing so.

We all know Russell is an awkward bastard at times so it won't spoil it for me if he's not there, sure I would like it but this is going to be my first and probably last Pulp concert besides they are just as good without him.

I am going to enjoy the show with or without Russell. Personally I am more interested in finding out if they are going to put on an extra long show like they did in Mexico.

Stephen wrote:

---

Oops, hadn't meant to cause any upset! It's just that, for me, when I first saw Pulp live (V96), I was right in front of Russell, and he held my attention more than Jarvis even. I already loved the Countdown album by this point, but when I heard his own bizarre songs on Freaks and fell in love with the weird violin playing and also with Separations and its sqwonky guitars, it really became every bit about Russell for me as it was about the rest of the band. I was hugely disappointed when TIH came out, and my memories of going to Uni that year aren't of the current Pulp stuff, but the gorgeous live '92 and '93 bootlegs I was starting to pick up a collection of. He was pretty much the sole guitarist then and to me he's what's so amazing about those gigs with his unique playing getting right under my skin. By the time We Love Life came out I don't even remember listening to it 'til a few months on. It grew on me (as did Tih) but they were nothing really like the Pulp I loved (likewise seeing them play live around that time) as they were just so slick and passionless when they had once been so odd and driving. It's because Russell was involved I was so excited about the reformation, and Glasto and the two Brixton gigs are three of the most amazing gigs I've ever seen. Rah was good, but it wasn't *my* Pulp. I don't begrudge them the homecoming gig, and I hope fans of the later period stuff have a great time, but it's just not quite the same band for me. If it's the Velvets I want Cale, the Beatles; Harrison, the Bonzo Dog Band; Ruskin Spear, etc. I like the odd, difficult members who leave their mark, so it's always gonna be Russell for me!

---

 I understand that feeling. As much as i love Oasis with Gem & Andy, it was different for instance.

There's no denying he had a unique style. I only seen him live once, that was in Hyde Park, and frankly he was too old to pull off his old act (or not in character enough). BUT, he's mind blowing on the Brixton 95 concert (on VHS !). As you said his guitar playing is/was unique and he was part of the sound... of that time. Now that he decided to quit, the band carried on without him and was kind enough to get him back for the reunion shows. Coz in 97, it wasn't an easy time to follow up DC without one of your main band member. There was a lot of pressure and i think they surpassed themselves with TIH, which is to me, still their best record and an absolute classic. Russell is past Pulp, sadly for him, sadly for us. But soon Pulp will also be past Pulp as well, so i guess it won't really matter.

There's still so much passion around that band, the vibe at gigs is unbelievable, i still can't get why they don't want to carry on.

-- Edited by andy on Sunday 2nd of December 2012 07:09:04 AM

I got pissed with Ruskin Spear once. What a guy. Slater, Spoons and Andy Roberts too

Liltman, 3 Bonzos and a Piano? How come you ended up going out on the piss with them? Plus, not wanting to dismiss yr story but isn't/wasn't Ruskin Spear tea-total? Btw their new album, against all expectations, is bloody good!

Sam Spoons sort of invited me and my friends to the pub after a gig of theirs. It was incredible and they regaled me with lots of stories. Memory is hazy but I'm sure he was drinking too!

Im not denying the others involvement and influences. The've had a lot. A LOT. But i wouldn't find it shocking if Jarvis decided to go on with a complete new Pulp. The thing is it's a democratic band, but it's always been... with tons of different members... Pulp isn't one band, it's been 3, 4 or 5 different bands already with one common ground : Jarvis.

my belief is that Pulp could easily go on with Jarvis & Steve (& Richard )

-- Edited by andy on Sunday 2nd of December 2012 05:21:30 PM

All good points but I think If Jarvis felt he could just carry on using the name then he would have done before now. Yes the band changed line-ups a lot but other than Russell that line-up has been the same for many years and to be fair to Jarvis he's been very good at reminding audiences the reunion has been about those people being together on stage, not just him. I don't think he'd taint things by carrying on without the others

-- Edited by liltman on Sunday 2nd of December 2012 06:08:50 PM

All Pulp is good Pulp. :)

If Jimmy Sellars doesn't get a turn with the sticks for the early-era stuff I'll be pretty annoyed.

I really wish I was going to be there, I think there'll be some great surprises; but this has always been a lap-of-honour. Okay, I got carried away with the rumours of new material, like many of us did, but Pulp ended as a living force at Magna. We've been lucky to see them again. But I've already said my goodbyes (sob).

I've never really understood why aren't you coming superchob? There are plenty of tickets going on ebay and from what I've seen most of them are going for around face value, some maybe even lower!

But don't you go to a live show to see the people as well as hear the music? If it was all about the music when why not just stay at home and stick a cd on?

saw119 wrote:

---

But don't you go to a live show to see the people as well as hear the music? If it was all about the music when why not just stay at home and stick a cd on?

---

Controvserial answer in : Yeah but in bands there's people who can't not be there and people you can replace. I'm sorry to say, but in Pulp, the only member who can't not be there is Jarvis. As much as i love the other ones, they replaced other people and can be replaced. If Jarvis decided to go on with Pulp with all new members, he would have the right to do so. Just like Neil Hannon went on with Divine Comedy, or Billy Corgan with the Pumpkins. Pulp has always been a "band in progress" and will always. Maybe Jarvis should think about that ?

 

It would be difficult yes, and i doubt he would... but he could. What probably happened is Candida and Mark refused to go on. Pretty sure Steve was okay with it and i felt Nick was too. That's only by judging their attitude onstage.

What if it's Mark E. Smith & Jarvis : is it Pulp or the Fall ?

andy wrote:

---

What if it's Mark E. Smith & Jarvis : is it Pulp or the Fall ?

---

 

Neither. It would be a super group called 'Paul'.

Callum, certainly for me it's a bit of both. I can't really love a band if I'm not a fan of the personalities of at least a few band members. It's while, although I think Blur produce amazing music, the fact that I don't hugely like any of the members (I certainly respect them, but they never strike me as likeable) prevents me from thinking of them in the same way I see bands like Pulp.

So it is for me that it is about both the music and the members. Yeah, it was still enjoyable seeing them play in the early 2000s, but when they walked onstage at Glastonbury with the white suited violinist it really made it all the more special for me.

It doesn't denigrate from their stunning musical catalogue, it's just that I think they're pretty amazing characters, too. Even Mark, despite my occasional teasing on here :)

Andy, I don't think that anything Jarvis writes automatically becomes Pulp - look at his solo albums for example! - certainly, as well, whilst there's a clear progression from the band that Russell and Jarvis started in 1983 (and called 'Pulp' for no other reason than that name was still around) and what they eventually became, I don't think there's that same progression from the early schoolboy band, the It band and Pulp in the mid 90s. I think the 'It' lineup was a dead end and Pulp really do begin in '83 - Jarvis and Russell admitted as much once upon a time.

Oddly, despite all this, I would still be genuinely keen - and fascinated by - any band that did continue under the Pulp banner, regardless of who was in it. I'm well aware the Russell days are over, but new material by Jarvis, Steve, Mark or whoever would be really interesting, I think. As long as it had the democracy that the Jarvis Cocker Band seemed not to!