na it was doo doo doo, doo doo doo do doo doo doo (you know!) then it finished
then the next time the same then i think he sang'oh deborah do you recall' but that might not be right as i was shocked he'd got the words wrong, except he didn't as it was just another segment bit. know what i mean?
meant to say there will be lots of bits of jarvis in the backstage bit, sitting next to attenborough and brand - you could see on the screen while filming
candida's head kept getting in the way at one bit it was cute
oh! there was a bit with dolph lundgren about who was the fittest, then there was a bit to the back stage bit, jonathan ross said something like jarvis i'm not being funny but you must be the least fit.. he took that well, i mean he was next to a man in his80s
i bet jarvis is the only one who can do the plank that long and hump monitors.
Adding to that, I wonder if "diaries are empty" just means no gigs, which could most likely mean they would have time for recording. So "diaries are empty" could be true in a way, if you don't count today's performance of course.
-- Edited by Brayds2006 on Thursday 31st of January 2013 10:33:41 AM
Stephen wrote:Does anyone else feel the phrase "our diaries are empty" sounds a little...over-rehearsed...?
Maybe "diaries are empty" means "busy recording"
Example:
November 2012 - 'There won't be any more new Pulp music' means 'Pulp will release a re-recorded old demo track next month'.
Not a lie because After You is not "new", but certainly a form of doublespeak disguising the truth...
It must be hard if you are in a situation where you can't talk about something for whatever reason (marketing?, just not wanting to start a feeding frenzy, pressurise yourself into having to produce something to meet hyped-up expectations ...), yet you are in a situation where you get asked very direct questions. You either a) end up saying something you didn't want to/weren't meant to b) say I can't answer that which is an answer in itself that all sorts will be read into or c) basically lie. I was intrigued in the Q interview when Jarvis was asked about a new album, he said "I'm not stoking those particular rumours" which is just a frilly version of "no comment" to me, it doesn't actually tell you anything about what they are or are not doing, he didn't simply say "no" which would have been the simplest thing.
Agreed. I think the Pulp return has been really good. The drip feed has been far more interesting than if they came out two years ago and laid out exactly what they were going to do. It's exciting when they announce new dates, and release new recordings. They are going to be asked these questions, so best to have a party line to adhere to and leave the likes of us to read betweeen the lines
-- Edited by ArrGee on Thursday 31st of January 2013 10:39:08 AM
But mostly if your diary is empty, it means that you have too much stuff to do and don't have time writing them down. Or you're not having anything interesting in your life to write about. I'd go for the first one in this case.
and speaking of diaries didnt Jarvis said that he never keept diary, thats why he wrote songs, to remember things..
-- Edited by Perfect on Thursday 31st of January 2013 01:58:33 PM
Stephen wrote:Does anyone else feel the phrase "our diaries are empty" sounds a little...over-rehearsed...?
Maybe "diaries are empty" means "busy recording"
Example:
November 2012 - 'There won't be any more new Pulp music' means 'Pulp will release a re-recorded old demo track next month'.
Not a lie because After You is not "new", but certainly a form of doublespeak disguising the truth...
It must be hard if you are in a situation where you can't talk about something for whatever reason (marketing?, just not wanting to start a feeding frenzy, pressurise yourself into having to produce something to meet hyped-up expectations ...), yet you are in a situation where you get asked very direct questions. You either a) end up saying something you didn't want to/weren't meant to b) say I can't answer that which is an answer in itself that all sorts will be read into or c) basically lie. I was intrigued in the Q interview when Jarvis was asked about a new album, he said "I'm not stoking those particular rumours" which is just a frilly version of "no comment" to me, it doesn't actually tell you anything about what they are or are not doing, he didn't simply say "no" which would have been the simplest thing.
__________________
We'll use the one thing we've got more of, that's our minds.
Just clutching at straws here but knowing Pulp they could mean that their personal diaries are empty because the whole year is going to be spent doing Pulp stuff! Hehe I did say clutching at straws didn't I?!
I was intrigued in the Q interview when Jarvis was asked about a new album, he said "I'm not stoking those particular rumours" which is just a frilly version of "no comment" to me, it doesn't actually tell you anything about what they are or are not doing, he didn't simply say "no" which would have been the simplest thing.
He did say "No" when asked about doing a new material though if you check the article. He was less definitive on "Will we see Pulp playing liveagain? I'm not stoking those particular rumours".
And with most of the few bits of press they've done post-reunion they've shot-down the idea of new stuff, Nick especially.
This week's show is getting a bit of coverage today - predictably focusing on Brand and not much mention of Pulp that I can see. But there is a pic on the Mail website (of all places) with all the show's guests, including the band, on it. Getting a bit of publicity for the show I guess.
Russell Brand was on 6Music this morning talking about Comic Relief, something also involving Eddie Izzard, so presumably that is why they are both on.
__________________
We'll use the one thing we've got more of, that's our minds.
Is that the same dress she wore at Sheff? Her hair looks great. As does Steve's shirt....fuck, they all do. What a great family album. But show some teeth, Pulp.
Interesting that Leo ain't there. Would have thought After You a six-person job at least. Fair bit of backing tracks I guess.
Leo's contribution extended to every song of every gig of the comeback though in fairness. And he possibly still felt awkward bowing with the rest of them. He's a good guy.
From today's Telegraph Review. Love the way the best is left til last.
The Jonathan Ross Show ITV, 9.45pm
In the green room this week are comedian Eddie Izzard, Sir David Attenborough and Swedish action-man Dolph Lundgren (once a bodyguard for singer Grace Jones but perhaps better known for his testosterone-fuelled films such as Rocky IV). Ross also welcomes his Radio 2 prank phone call pal Russell Brand, and, more excitingly, indie rock band Pulp perform their first single in 11 years. Rachel Ward
-- Edited by ArrGee on Saturday 2nd of February 2013 09:20:13 AM
Leo's contribution extended to every song of every gig of the comeback though in fairness. And he possibly still felt awkward bowing with the rest of them. He's a good guy.
I've got eternal respect for Leo playing the American shows with his arm in a cast/brace. We met him before the first NYC show and expressed our sympathy but he was in high spirits even then. That's pretty dedicated.
__________________
The trees, those useless trees, produce the air that I am breathing
I thought it did too! Mind you, bit of a mixed reaction online! Well actually, most of the negative stuff came from teens... and not normal teens. The ones who do things like wear Beatles, Nirvana and Rolling Stones t-shirts and then can't recognise McCartney, Cobain or Jagger. God I hate those people so much. ANYWAY, the rest of the internet world seemed to enjoy it!
So no great loss.
-- Edited by PulpBristol on Saturday 2nd of February 2013 10:56:16 PM
I thought it did too! Mind you, bit of a mixed reaction online! Well actually, most of the negative stuff came from teens... and not normal teens. The ones who do things like wear Beatles, Nirvana and Rolling Stones t-shirts and then can't recognise McCartney, Cobain or Jagger. God I hate those people so much. ANYWAY, the rest of the internet world seemed to enjoy it!
So no great loss.
-- Edited by PulpBristol on Saturday 2nd of February 2013 10:56:16 PM
Yeah, I guess a lot of the slagger-offers wouldn't have been massive Pulp fans anyway, and not everyone's going to like every song... Had to laugh when I saw one person say they were "really really really weird" or something similar - like they've not heard that one before! (unless they were talking about 'bits' in orange juice which a good proportion of the tweets seem to refer to)
Chaps who feel compelled to comment fall into "Love/hate" categories, remember! (aside those with verbal diahrrea on social networks) - better than moddle of the road no response crap!
This marks the first time I have spelt diahrrea correctly without looking it up.
No longer trending! But I'm sure that'll change when they perform! Honestly wouldn't be surprised to see After You shoot up the charts, it's hardly a rubbish song!
Bit cruel and uninformed of Wossy to slag off Jarvis' fitness/physique. He's obviously not seen his energy on-stage with Pulp lately..
He's probably fitter than Ross! Depends what he means by 'fitter' I suppose, if he means strength I think a Jarvis vs Attenborough fight would be both competitive and interesting fight...
Looked forward to it all week, wasn't impressed, partly due to the massive editing and shortening of the tune, and the fact that the performance was fucking boring. Maybe my opinion will change, we'll see.
Generally great feedback on Twitter - though there are some idiots who think they were 'shit', but ho hum they are called 'X Factor fans'
Everyone - it would be worth responding to some questions about the band with people asking the name of the single and tour dates etc, it may help generate extra sales and a tour!
I thought it did too! Mind you, bit of a mixed reaction online! Well actually, most of the negative stuff came from teens... and not normal teens. The ones who do things like wear Beatles, Nirvana and Rolling Stones t-shirts and then can't recognise McCartney, Cobain or Jagger. God I hate those people so much. ANYWAY, the rest of the internet world seemed to enjoy it!
So no great loss.
-- Edited by PulpBristol on Saturday 2nd of February 2013 10:56:16 PM
Yeah, I guess a lot of the slagger-offers wouldn't have been massive Pulp fans anyway, and not everyone's going to like every song... Had to laugh when I saw one person say they were "really really really weird" or something similar - like they've not heard that one before! (unless they were talking about 'bits' in orange juice which a good proportion of the tweets seem to refer to)
Hopefully this is like when YouTube videos don't show the right number of views due to a high volume of traffic, and After You is actually at #5.......
The performance was boring? Shit what do you want someone to do within the space of 3 minutes - dont forget the whole band might have been suffering from nerves as they hadnt performed under the tv lights like that for over 10 years.......dont be so harsh! Whoever said the song was edited - im afraid your totally wrong - the song was as if it was a "single version" rather than the released version - it sounded fucking amazing live.
It's almost as if your favourite band aren't performing their first single for over a decade on tv for the first time in over a decade. That's not exciting at all. I mean they should have had Diversity on to spice it up, or at least some of Cirque Du Soleil.
not seen it yet (well it was on screens at work but no sound) but I'm fairly sure the tv guys edited it. they always cut the music short on these things
What does everyone think were the live parts of the performance? Jarvis's vocal was live, of course, and I think Mark's guitar was... but everything else sounded like backing track to me. The syncopated bass, the backing vocals, the 'whoosh' sound before the chorus - all exactly the studio recording. I was hoping they'd play a completely live version!
What does everyone think were the live parts of the performance? Jarvis's vocal was live, of course, and I think Mark's guitar was... but everything else sounded like backing track to me. The syncopated bass, the backing vocals, the 'whoosh' sound before the chorus - all exactly the studio recording. I was hoping they'd play a completely live version!
I agree. I've just watched it for the first time and was thinking 'surely that's just the recording they're miming along to'. Jarvis was deffo singing live and I agree about Mark's guitar but I think the rest was pre-recorded. I hate to say it, but I'm gonna, Jarvis's voice has really suffered in the past 10 years hasn't it. He's now more of a whisperer than a singer sadly.
I would think that's down the the show rather than the band though. I thought Jarvis sounded brilliant, I know his voice suffered from the smoking but I don't agree with the "whisperer" comment, especially after seeing them in Sheffield.
For being the first performance its good. Surely, it must have been nervous. If they continue to play it it will be even better. Nice to hear the respond from the audience.
Leo's acoustic guitar sounded live - a couple of times during the verses he kind of accentuated the strum at the end of the riff, which was a nice, different flourish to the recorded version.
Jarvis' voice...it's an interesting one. After two and a half hours at Sheffield it still sounded amazing but I remember him doing the Songbook programme on Sky Arts a few years ago and it sounded shot at times. Maybe he just needs a lot of warming-up to get into it. He's definitely lost some of his range (he has to shout rather than sing "you can even bring your...baby" during Disco 2000 now) and sounded a bit breathless last night but that could have been down to some nerves.
I reckon he would have been quite nervous filming the songbook thing as well, sitting in a chair and singing to a bloke about a metre away. He sounded a bit tired later on at Sheffield, but who wouldn't after 20 odd songs? I still thought he was amazing, tired or not :), he always gives everything.
Really enjoyed the performance. The song has grown on me. I actually really enjoyed hearing it live even more I think. Some people who were with me last night who hadn't heard it before were commenting really positively on it on how good it was. Like the lyrics too.
Oh and thanks Will for uploading the Birds in Your Garden performance from Wossy back in 2001. I didn't notice you had uploaded it til today. That's a blast from the past I remember those lonely days feeling like the only 15 year old in the country who listened to Pulp!
I think it was great! Jarvis voice as well, actually I think he is in very good shape. He's almost 50 now. Saw then in Sao Paulo and Buenos aires and his voice sounded really nice.
Having been watching some stuff from '91 it's interesting to note that he does that 'train' move quite a lot back then. I've been thinking about Jarvis's stagecraft a bit lately and he throws himself around on stage much more now than he used to in my experience. At the Arena he was bouncing on his tiptoes nearly all the time, it must really take it out of him. Back when I first saw him he was full of that mock serious, deadpan finger waggling/pointing thing with the occasional high kick and star jump. He definitely gives much more on stage now than he did before Pulp went on hiatus in 2002.
Good observation. I think the mid-90s he was as lively as now but the TIH era ushered in a far more restrained style of showmanship. The whole double of Jarvis to do the crowd-pleasing gestures was really a stroke of genius. A pity no quality footage from that time exists.
Were his train moves back in the day linked to lyrics about trains (though what could they be? "I'm gonna show this town who's master as soon as I get off this train"? "Pissed on a train and he's failling around"?) or just general demonstrations of personal/vehicular movement?