Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Bar Italia Forum -> Bar Italia Forum -> The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Post Info TOPIC: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Oh Wayne


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

A Long Rant About Pulp

 

Or, How To Completely Fall Out Of Love With Your Favourite Band In Two Short Years.

 

Hello, friends. Long-time Bar Italia voyeur here. In fact, the last time I posted was to break the news that the band were parting ways with Island Records back in 2002. Doesn't time just fly by? Particularly when your clock passes thirty.

Firstly, let me be very clear about this. I love all of Pulp's music intensely. Have done for nearly twenty years now. Their music helped me through a very bad time in my life, changed me as a person and altered my entire outlook on the world (hopefully for the better). But I'm sorry, I simply can't stay silent about it longer, I absolutely hated the reunion. In almost every conceivable way. So much so, in fact, that it's hard to even know where to begin criticising it.

Still, let's have a try. Well, when the whole thing was first announced, like most of you folk, I was naturally thrilled. Everything was suddenly okay again. The band had a future, all doubt was cast aside, the hiatus was over. Even Russell was back in the fold. Bonus! Then came the dismaying news that there would be no new material and the (admittedly self-deprecating) admittance from Jarvis that they were motivated to reform mainly for financial reasons. Hmm, okay, I thought...

Thinking it through, I found it hard to begrudge them touring the hits, really. After all, they never originally did it back when the actual Hits album was released and by 2011 a whole new generation of indie kids had grown up who had never had the opportunity of seeing them perform live. Still, what was troubling me was this: reforming just to tour the greatest hits - it was just all far too predictable for a group like Pulp. Just ask yourself this question - when else in their long, tortuous career have they ever been a group to take the easy option? To only do what's predictable and safe? From Russell's provocative Will To Power lyrics to the La Monte Young benefit concert, or pulling off a performance at the Homelands dance festival in 2001, they were always consistently imaginative and surprising in the moves they made. Sure, some of it infuriated, such as the Venetian blinds they played behind for a few concerts, but still you've got to give them credit for it. Their imagination was another reason why we loved them. And yet here there were, so many years later, predictably dragging their greatest hits set across the globe, chiefly in order to pay off their mortgages. As a long-time admirer one can't help but feel bitterly disappointed, cheated even, at the startling lack of imagination and creativity. I mean, at the very least, just think of how much more exciting the shows would have been (for them and for us) if they'd at least dared to drop two or three new songs into the set and tantalise us with the possibility of a new album on the horizon.

However, this grievance was quickly downgraded to being relatively trivial once I'd fully digested their new live sound. On first listen, I actually have to admit I was quite impressed. The sound was bigger, beefier, slicker and closer than ever before to how they sound on the Britpop records. But again, something was not quite right. It was almost as if they'd lost that quality that Jarvis so accurately pinpoints in the Hits sleevenotes - their ramshackle charm. Hearing songs such as Babies or Lipgloss, both of them on record imbued with that endearingly naive musical quality, performed now in such a bludgeoning, ruthlessly slick and professional way was a deeply unsettling experience for me. I love both of those songs like they were my own children and yet here they were just sounding... well, wrong. As though an ultra-polished but soulless Pulp covers band were playing them. Remember - a bad imitation of Pulp is not the real thing. And where were the surprises in the arrangements? There were none. No extended Live Bed Show. No Krautrock Common People. Nothing of the sort. Just a rather uninteresting, slowed down, clap-along Razzmatazz. Finally and most crucially, for me, the new live sound lacked something absolutely fundamental to the group in my opinion - edge. That palpable yet indefinable tension that the old Pulp used to have in spades. Unfortunately, the reunion-era line-up are just far too slick, too polished, too over-rehearsed to retain it anymore. So, what then are you left with? Even what little remains of their original home-baked charm has been submerged forever underneath all this new-found slickness.

And then there's the small matter of Jarvis's singing. Now it's been apparent ever since his performance on the Sky Arts Songbook programme that his voice has noticeably deepened in recent years and that most of the high notes are now completely beyond him. And I'm afraid the awful truth is that, with the exception of songs predominantly spoken or sung in a lower register (such as Sheffield: Sex City or Party Hard), he no longer has the vocal ability to competently perform most of Pulp's back catalogue. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most of his reunion-era vocals are nothing short of downright embarrassing. I guess this also explains why, when performing live, he's now more inclined to talk and whisper his way through the songs instead. But failing to show off these songs' wonderful melodies is doing them a great disservice, rendering them all rather flat and one-dimensional in the process. Perhaps that wag who described a reunion Pulp concert as 'Right Said Fred with a Yorkshire accent' wasn't so very far off the mark. But by far the most annoying trait he seems to have acquired is the tendency to emphasise and stress certain parts of the lyrics in ways that he's never done before (For a perfect example of this watch I Spy on Pulp: The Film and listen to the way he camps up his Sheffield accent with the line, 'I can't help it, I were dragged up". It's completely unnecessary and does nothing other than distract from the melody and undermine the mood of the song.) It did occur to me that perhaps his tinnitus is the problem here, interfering with his hearing of the band's playing and causing his singing to go astray. But I fear what's sadly more likely, is that this new cavalier approach to his vocals is an unfortunate combination of over-compensation for his otherwise faltering singing and possibly all he can do to keep himself interested in performing these songs for the umpteenth time around (thus reaffirming the notion that the reunion was born more out of financial reasons than creative ones).

I was actually there for the Sheffield homecoming concert. I thought they put on a decent-enough show for an arena (Jarvis's vocals aside) and I'm sure the majority of the crowd went home happy after the Different Class-heavy set, though, rather predictably, for me, the interest and excitement only grew when they dug out the more obscure stuff (Countdown, Born To Cry, My Lighthouse, etc). Oh, and another thing, exactly when did Jarvis's between-song banter become so utterly banal and shamelessly crowd-pleasing? Alright, fair enough, I know he's been introducing some of these songs for twenty-odd years now and probably has little new left to say about them, but did anybody else, like me, cringe a little inside when Jarvis dedicated Something Changed to 'all the lovers out there'? And prefacing it with 'I know it sounds a bit corny but...', doesn't excuse it. Truly, this is the worst kind of clichéd rock star nonsense. And when could you ever have said that about Jarvis's banter previously? Even his onstage antics now grate on me. Where his unique take on dancing always used to appear genuinely spontaneous and perfectly natural, now it just seems forced and self-conscious - almost as though he's going for it a little too much, trying just a bit too hard to do his trademark 'funny little dance' and give the punters the performance they expect from him. Again, audience-pandering. So uncharacteristic for him. Or so I used to think. But again, maybe he feels the need to push it harder just to compensate for his obvious vocal shortcomings.

Still, I've got to hand it to them, the Xmas cards were a nice touch and, despite the disappointment that all they could muster creatively was to tart up a twelve year-old demo, I actually think After You is pretty great, even if I can't quite shake off the feeling that the new version sounds a tad laboured compared to the freshness and simplicity of the demo.

The film? Well, I thought it was good, but it told us nothing new and was ultimately pointless. The cynic in me even thinks it was just the most convenient way to get a new Pulp product out there in the marketplace without the bother of them actually having to come up with new material. And even though he wasn't part of the Sheffield show, completely omitting Russell from the proceedings was, in my view, unforgiveable. I was completely unmoved to go to a screening of it, and owned the DVD for about two weeks before reasoning that the live footage annoys me so much that I'd never be inclined to watch it again, so I sold it on eBay. Something I never thought I'd ever do with any new Pulp release. The end of an era. 

And so, in conclusion, it seems that this once brilliant group, who, in 2001, were so determined not to be pigeonholed as Britpop that they played almost an entire tour without Common People in the set (remember Jarvis saying, 'We want to get away from it'?) are now perfectly content to be forever associated with the movement. And even trade off the connection. Right down to using the old Pulp logo and Different Class-era cardboard cut-out images of themselves on promotional materials. And all this achieves is to cement in the public's minds that they are a solely a Britpop nostalgia act with nothing else to offer. And should they ever actually cook up any new material (yeah, right!) it'll make it even more difficult for people to take them seriously. Particularly if the music doesn't conform to the Britpop sound they'll undoubtedly be expecting. Which I, for one, seriously hope it wouldn't.

So... new material. That's the only thing that can win me back now, I'm afraid. Good new material, of course. With an interesting new direction. Take your Different Class Part II and shove it up your ass. And I know it's unlikely what with Candida's arthritis and the whole band's indifference after the difficulty of making the last two albums, but seriously, guys, it's put up or shut up time now. Tell us something new about ourselves and our times. Cut Cameron's Big Society Britain down to size. Please. Don't just peddle nostalgia like so many others. You're worth so much more than that.

Anyway, that's enough from me for now. Many thanks to you all for reading this extended rant and I'd be interested to know your thoughts or if any of you feel at all similarly, because I feel completely out on a limb with this viewpoint otherwise.

Pulp, 1978-2002; remember them this way.



__________________

'Wasting all my time on all those stupid things that only get me down...'
Ian


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1718
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

reforming just to tour the greatest hits - it was just all far too predictable for a group like Pulp. Just ask yourself this question - when else in their long, tortuous career have they ever been a group to take the easy option?

Hmmmm, we did get "Dogs Are Everywhere", "Little Girl (With Blue Eyes)", "My Lighthouse" and "Back in LA" (!) to name a few.

As nice as it would have been to have "The Fear" a bit more often and "Seductive Barry" at all, it obviously wasn't going to happen. Also, at the festivals, they only get so much time on stage so are obviously going to play the most likely crowd pleasers (bearing in mind that the majority of the audience probably hadn't heard (of) them before)

Oh, and "I Want You" is probably the only song that we can class as obscure that frequented the 2001/2 setlists (I'm sure "Anorexic Beauty" made an appearance too) plus if my memory serves me correctly, effectively no 1980s songs were played in 1995/6 (which was arguably the best time to try and get people interested in their older recordings). They have never really been interested in playing obscure stuff to be honest so I don't think we did too bad out of the reunion.



-- Edited by Ian on Sunday 1st of February 2015 04:53:33 PM

__________________

What is this feeling called live?
www.feelingcalledlive.co.uk

For the latest Pulp news and information, sign up to our mailing list.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A DELUXE VERSION OF WE LOVE LIFE
VoxPop


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Interesting read. Thanks.
Since you took the time to write I figured I'd add my 2 cents for the hell of it.
"For a perfect example of this watch I Spy on Pulp: The Film and listen to the way he camps up his Sheffield accent with the line, 'I can't help it, I were dragged up".  - Was PULP not always reflecting on Sheffield? He has not lived there is so long he now hears the accent more and exaggerates it.


"The cynic in me even thinks it was just the most convenient way to get a new Pulp product out there in the marketplace without the bother of them actually having to come up with new material." - There still is a record company behind all this stuff. Cant avoid it.

"And even though he wasn't part of the Sheffield show, completely omitting Russell from the proceedings was, in my view, unforgiveable" - Totally agree with you here.

 

"And so, in conclusion, it seems that this once brilliant group, who, in 2001, were so determined not to be pigeonholed as Britpop that they played almost an entire tour without Common People in the set (remember Jarvis saying, 'We want to get away from it'?) are now perfectly content to be forever associated with the movement. And even trade off the connection. Right down to using the old Pulp logo and Different Class-era cardboard cut-out images of themselves on promotional materials. And all this achieves is to cement in the public's minds that they are a solely a Britpop nostalgia act with nothing else to offer." - When we all reach our 50's we will all reflect back on our life and realise that what we've done did matter and that what we did made us, shaped us and should be proud about it.

"And should they ever actually cook up any new material (yeah, right!) it'll make it even more difficult for people to take them seriously. Particularly if the music doesn't conform to the Britpop sound they'll undoubtedly be expecting. Which I, for one, seriously hope it wouldn't." - Have PULP ever cared about what others think??? You did comment on some odd things they've done. Their doing thier own thing. Whether we join them or not

 

"Good new material, of course. With an interesting new direction. Take your Different Class Part II and shove it up your ass. " - New direction.....there was Jarvis' National Trust album. Was that not shoved up far enough!?

 

 



__________________
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Your indifference to the reasoning behind the whole re-union doesn't  invite any argument from me. I think we all knew how it was going to present itself. I agree & disagree with just about everything you say but so what?  It really doesn't matter does it, its over!



__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
Oh Wayne


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Hmm, if nothing else I hoped my post might stir things up a bit.

I agree that a new Jarvis solo project does seem more likely at this point, unfortunately, but I always felt right from the start that unless the reunion led to new material that it would leave a bitter taste. I just feel they've tainted their legacy forever by cashing in on it. I just naively hoped they were better than that. And I can understand the nostalgia factor kicking in for them, but they're only around their early-fifties for god's sake, they're not dead yet. Plenty of artists have continued to reinvent themselves at this stage in their career (Bowie, Dylan, to name just two). And I'm sorry, there's just no way of getting around it, he just doesn't have the vocal chops to tackle those songs anymore. Plus, the new ruthlessly slick live sound is diametrically opposed to the nature of the spirit in which those old songs were written and recorded. But then, maybe that was all Leo Abrahams' fault. After all, a virtuoso musician is the last thing Pulp need in their ranks. Oh, but then, there was Hawley, wasn't there?


__________________

'Wasting all my time on all those stupid things that only get me down...'
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1903
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Thanks for posting this it was an interesting read. It's not my place to defend the band and, in fact, I wont. However, I do believe that one of the driving factors in the reformation, beyond money, was the sudden and unexpected death of Jarvis's guitarist and songwriter Tim McCall. He was only 37 when he tragically died and this has been stated as one of the reasons for the reunion 'cos you just never know what might happen'.
I'm not necessarily going to disagree with anything else you've written about the reunion, it was what it was and they went out there to entertain plain and simple. It was never going to recapture a spirit that is long gone, for every band that reforms in my opinion, a spirit that only lives in the memory I expect. I think it probably entertained for more people than it upset or left disillusioned. At least that was the impression I got at the Sheffield Arena gig. it's sad to think on but they didn't do it for me or for you and they didn't do it to play sets composed of obscure b sides or forgotten album tracks (mores the pity). Besides when Russell was no longer involved I'm quite relieved that they didn't because to me he was irreplaceable.
However, the music endures.

__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Oh Wayne wrote:

 

... How To Completely Fall Out Of Love With Your Favourite Band In Two Short Years.

 ...

Pulp, 1978-2002; remember them this way.

 Did you really fall out of love with them because of the reunion?

FWIW Pulp existed for me between 1992 and 2002 at I suppose was the period my life changed most, so they were effectively were the main soundtrack of those years.

When they returned, I didn't exactly rush to get tickets for Hyde Park, but did go in the end and enjoyed it so much I saw them at Brixton and The Albert Hall.  I never really expected them to return so these three gigs were a bonus.  I would say The Albert Hall gig is the best gig I have been to this century by anyone (I do go to about a dozen a year).  It was a bit of an interlude into my life rather than what it was in the 1990s but none the worse for it.

It would have been great if they had come back with a superb album, and I would have liked it if they had delved deeper into the back catalogue, but just because it wasn't perfect didn't mean it wasn't worthwhile.

But not loving a band any more for reforming for a couple of years?  Seems unlikely, you can't throw away your memories.



__________________
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Ruthlessly slick live sound???  Would you really have prefered the band of yore? false starts, under-rehearsed, out of tune, scrambling to recall the words And played through dodgy amplification? I went to quite a lot of these presentations and although kind of entertaining for 5 mins it was quite clear if this is as good as its gonna get then these guys are going knowhere fast..That said, I have a lot of love for this period of pulp(the fire material still my absolute favourite) and its took me a bloody long time to accept that they needed to progress to a more professional set up if anyone was gonna take them seriously as contenders. 



__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
Oh Wayne


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

saw119 - I knew Tim McCall's tragic death was the trigger to reform in Jarvis' mind but it's simply the idea of them returning only for nostalgia (and/or financial) purposes that bothers me. A Pulp with nothing new to say is no Pulp at all to me. Would it really have been so hard for them to jam a bit in rehearsals and see what came of it with no pressure or expectations on them? God knows, in the times we're living through just now we need songs with something to say and a powerful message now more than ever. Pulp excel at doing this. And if they could somehow channel this new-found slickness into the songs too - well, wonderful things could happen. And if the idea of them writing and recording a whole album's worth of material puts the fear of god into them, why not just do an EP or let one song at a time emerge when they're ready? It's not too much to ask, is it, surely?

ArrGee - I'll undoubtedly love all of Pulp's music from 1978 to 2002 for the rest of my life and I'm sure I'll maintain a healthy interest in whatever Jarvis gets up in the future as well. But I've just lost a lot of respect for them and him.

DEF2 - I don't pine for the amateurishness of the Fire era, I just miss their ramshackle charm which was always present at their live shows right up until the 2002 farewell at the Magna Centre.

__________________

'Wasting all my time on all those stupid things that only get me down...'
Eamonn


Must Evolve

Status: Offline
Posts: 5950
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I don't think they're naturally confident people and they probably felt that practising for a few months solid in their own rehearsal space was the least what was required to get the songs up to scratch. I think they were all genuinely very nervous and unsure how things would go before the first few shows they did.

As for Russell, we all would have loved for him to have been involved more, the film would certainly have benefitted from his outspoken nature but he alone decided when his involvement began and ended so it's pretty unfair to chide the rest of the group for that.

I do agree with the disappointment at times in hearing Jarvis exclaim rather than sing some of the trickier vocals but age/tinnitus must explain most of that.

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
Sturdy


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1936
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I kind of think most of what's in the original post is probably right. I also don't care, because I thought the reunion was massively enjoyable on its own terms.

In a way Pulp can't win can they? In 1996 when they were in their imperial massive pop phase, some of us were going "meh, it's all a bit safe and mainstream innit, you'd think they might chuck in one or two mid-80s B-sides". Then circa Hardcore/WLL, we were going "meh, if only they were a bit more pop like they used to be, and why can't they just play Common People properly?". And now they've stopped resisting and re-embraced the big hits and the funny little dance, we're going "meh, if only they were a bit awkward and unpredictable again like before when they were desperately trying not to be pop stars".

You're right, the reunion wasn't the same. I'm not sure how it could be really; 2011/2012 is a long way down the track from 1996/1998/2001. I'm more minded to see the reunion as a lap of honour - a celebration of Pulp, not really a continuation.

Can't really see what the point would have been in new material - if you went to see Ray Davis, would you want Sunny Afternoon, Waterloo Sunset and Lola, or new stuff? What if Brian Wilson headlined a festival and didn't do anything off Pet Sounds? If the collective impetus to come up with new songs wasn't there (which apparently it wasn't, according to Russell), to force something new out would have been a contrivance - and for what? New stuff was not the reason any of us (band or audience) at those gigs.

Apparently the recent Suede album is pretty good, but who cares at this stage in the game? Great, they've done something that's nearly as good as Coming Up. I'll just go to the gigs and stick with Coming Up thanks!

__________________
"Yes I saw her in the chip shop / so I said get yer top off"
Ian


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1718
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy wrote:

Apparently the recent Suede album is pretty good

 It is. I'd certainly recommend it (if there was ever an album released between "Dog Man Star" and "Coming Up" then this is probably what it would have sounded like).



__________________

What is this feeling called live?
www.feelingcalledlive.co.uk

For the latest Pulp news and information, sign up to our mailing list.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A DELUXE VERSION OF WE LOVE LIFE
Oh Wayne


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy - you're absolutely right. Viewed as a celebration rather than a continuation the reunion did work. Obviously not for me personally, for the reasons I've already outlined. I just have a huge problem with the nostalgia that seems to surround us everywhere these days. It's surely got to be indicative that modern culture is slowly dying. I saw Paul McCartney live a few years ago and whilst I did rather guiltily enjoy Hey Jude and Let It Be, I felt I must have been the only person out of the thousands there who'd rather have heard more of his recent stuff or some of those lost gems that he tucked away on his 70's albums. Conversely, I also saw Bob Dylan at the Albert Hall. His set list was predominantly based around his last studio album and was, in my opinion, all the better for it. Sure, he played Blowin' In The Wind and All Along The Watchtower but the arrangements were so different to the originals that they might as well have been completely new songs. I just always hoped Pulp would follow Bob's path not Macca's.

You're right about new material too. If their creative spark has gone they should just leave it alone. Forcing themselves to do it invariably wouldn't produce great results and would only permanently dent their legacy. Regarding Suede, if it's the Bloodsports album you're referring to, stick to Coming Up and don't bother. I used to be a huge fan of theirs too. Not any more. While the quality of songwriting and lyrics are better than they've been for years, their whole sound is predictable, tired and anachronistic. And the idea of seeing the nearly-fifty Brett singing Animal Nitrate, still whirling his microphone around and slapping his arse like it was 1993 makes me want to scratch my own eyes out. Even if they'd released Bloodsports fifteen years ago it still would have been utterly redundant and irrelevant the minute it hit the shelves. It would just about break my heart to see the same fate befall Pulp if they turned in a similarly underwhelming album. So I guess we should be grateful that it never will... Probably. Also, given the alarming mediocrity and inexcusable lapses of judgement that have crept into Jarvis' solo songwriting (I'm thinking Baby's Coming Back To Me, Heavy Weather and Girls Like It Too) there's absolutely no certainty that they'd be able to maintain their earlier standards. So maybe we got off lightly, who knows?


__________________

'Wasting all my time on all those stupid things that only get me down...'
Sturdy


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1936
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Yeah, it would have been nice to see the reunion wandering off the beaten track a bit more. Bearing in mind Jarvis' comments about not wanting to scare big audiences off with obscure stuff, I wonder why they didn't do one or two smaller gigs specifically to play deeper cuts, more Fire stuff etc. And if they could have come up with some relevant new material that would of course have been great too - generally I really like Jarvis's solo stuff (including at least two of the songs you mention), and a Pulp album with songs of the calibre of, say, Big Julie or The Loss Adjuster would have been lovely. But they were obviously trying to keep the reunion fun for themselves, and post-DC, writing and recording new material was obviously something they found very difficult, so I can understand them not wanting to sentence themselves to two years in a windowless room with Chris Thomas. In the end, though, none of that happened so I'm content just to enjoy the reunion for what it was.

__________________
"Yes I saw her in the chip shop / so I said get yer top off"
Eamonn


Must Evolve

Status: Offline
Posts: 5950
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Girls Like It Too is feckin' ace.

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
Fuss Free


Hardcore

Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Oh I don't know. I had my issues with the reunion too. For instance I thought it was shite the way they milked fans by announcing each show as if it would be the only one/last one. I'm still bitter about spending £75 to see Pulp at The Wireless Festival when I'd have much rather saved my money for the fan-oriented shows in Brixton or Toulouse (I missed both because I couldn't afford it). The Brixton shows were announced almost to the minute that Pulp finished their set at Hyde Park. Bastards.

But I won't begrudge the setlists, which were the most diverse and best, to my tastes, that the band have played in over 20 years. The setlists after This is Hardcore, right up to the end in 2002, were utterly predictable and not very good either. I'd always like to hear more from Separations, HnHs or the Sisters EP, and I'd love to hear some of the fab b-sides, but I've accepted that will never happen. I also thought the Toulouse fan show set expectations too high. They played a lot of rare songs at that show but never returned to them on tour.

I'm not fussed at all about new material. The band only ever performs about 15% of their back-catalogue; there are literally hundreds of Pulp songs we've never heard live.   

The OP seems to be saying that Pulp sounded too polished, while lamenting that Jarvis can't sing his songs anymore, which strikes me as contradictory. The band are old, in some ways they have improved as musicians, in other ways they have atrophied. Such is life. The music they performed in 2011 is a snapshot of where they were at the time.

Music culture in general has changed a lot since we were kids. I don't think there's much point taking your music too seriously anymore. It all feels sort of trivial.

 

 



-- Edited by Fuss Free on Tuesday 3rd of February 2015 07:57:46 AM

__________________
Sturdy


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1936
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

DEF2 wrote:
Ruthlessly slick live sound???  Would you really have prefered the band of yore? false starts, under-rehearsed, out of tune, scrambling to recall the words And played through dodgy amplification? I went to quite a lot of these presentations and although kind of entertaining for 5 mins it was quite clear if this is as good as its gonna get then these guys are going knowhere fast..That said, I have a lot of love for this period of pulp(the fire material still my absolute favourite) and its took me a bloody long time to accept that they needed to progress to a more professional set up if anyone was gonna take them seriously as contenders. 

And yet we've got documentary evidence of you shouting for My Lighthouse and Maureen in the early '90s, so it looks like you've suffered from the same "if only they were like they were five years ago" syndrome as the rest of us! I bet if I could jump into a time machine and see them at the Crucible in 1983 people would have been shouting for Shakespeare Rock.



__________________
"Yes I saw her in the chip shop / so I said get yer top off"
Oh Wayne


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 11
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

To be honest, the generally conservative set lists of the reunion neither surprised nor bothered me. I knew pretty much what to expect and that's what we got. I too would have loved to have seen some smaller gigs with more obscure stuff (the Separations album being a particular favourite of mine). Not least because he seems to try a bit harder with his singing when away from the obvious songs. (I'm sure I saw them do Don't You Want Me Anymore? on YouTube and thought it was really great). The frustrating thing is that Pulp made lots of great music for many years before they entered the public consciousness and if only they had aired more of that material during the reunion not only would it be critically reappraised but more people would hear it and realise just what an amazing group they've (nearly) always been.

A further thought occurs. Would they even be capable of turning in a great album anymore? Although we may bicker about which ones they are, I think most of us are in agreement that Jarvis solo has turned in a few almighty clunkers. You could even argue that he's kind of lost his edge and some of his critical faculties. Hell, I'm not sure I even like the guy that much these days. And that's pretty hard to admit, even to myself, when only twenty years ago he was my complete idol. Notwithstanding turning Pulp into a Britpop karaoke act, he seems far too content to satisfy the media's portrayal of him as an indie elder statesman and national treasure. Happy to wheel out the same old stories and anecdotes about Britpop and its aftermath in every interview he gives. (And, is it just me, or has he essentially been wearing the same outfit at every public appearance he's made for the last five years? So much for sartorial elegance). Also, I find it's a general rule that when any artist becomes too knowledgeable about their craft and nostalgic about their own work, that's when the rot sets in. For example, take the Island reissues. Now I know there are a few absolute lost classics in there (It's A Dirty World) but really, I can't imagine the Jarvis of 1998 or 2001 being at all comfortable with songs like Catcliffe Shakedown or Can I Have My Balls Back Please? being in the public domain. Or, for that matter, the 1981 Peel session. Even agreeing to appear in that silly documentary where he tried to track down the girl from Common People (what's the point?). These are worrying times ahead for him if you ask me.

So he's working on new material at the moment. What might happen to it? There are two possibilities that I see. (1) It becomes the third solo album with a few members of Pulp making occasional guest appearances. (2) He sketches out rough drafts of some songs on his own and takes them to the rest of Pulp to flesh out. It becomes the eighth Pulp studio album. I don't think the latter is that unlikely to be honest because then Pulp wouldn't have to face the intimidating task of writing songs from scratch but they could still input into them enough to make it a bona fide Pulp record. And maybe while tidying up Jarvis's songs they jam a bit and a few more songs are born. Isn't this more or less the way they've worked in the past, particularly during the This Is Hardcore era?

Oh, and Girls Like It Too; the lyrical idea is sound but the rhythm in the verses is far too similar to Babies for comfort, the repetition of 'what I'm telling you...' in the chorus is annoying and a little bit lazy, and why is he so obsessed with the five-bar gate? Also, Steve Albini's production is practically non-existent here. For the heavy rock of the album it worked fine but a straight pop song like this needs more... I don't know... oomph. Basically, it sounds like a Pulp demo recording that rightly got ditched in favour of stronger material.



__________________

'Wasting all my time on all those stupid things that only get me down...'
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy wrote:
DEF2 wrote:
Ruthlessly slick live sound???  Would you really have prefered the band of yore? false starts, under-rehearsed, out of tune, scrambling to recall the words And played through dodgy amplification? I went to quite a lot of these presentations and although kind of entertaining for 5 mins it was quite clear if this is as good as its gonna get then these guys are going knowhere fast..That said, I have a lot of love for this period of pulp(the fire material still my absolute favourite) and its took me a bloody long time to accept that they needed to progress to a more professional set up if anyone was gonna take them seriously as contenders. 

And yet we've got documentary evidence of you shouting for My Lighthouse and Maureen in the early '90s, so it looks like you've suffered from the same "if only they were like they were five years ago" syndrome as the rest of us! I bet if I could jump into a time machine and see them at the Crucible in 1983 people would have been shouting for Shakespeare Rock.

 Well they did play My Lighthouse some 20yrs later! I wasn't meaning to be critical of the songs/music, it was the often sloppy performances that needed a little spit and polish. I initially didn't have much love for 'his 'n'hers/Different class & Hardcore' when they first appeared but have come to appreciate them in time for what they are...Pulp music! I would suggest that often favourites don't always immediately grab you, they tend to grow like mould in a hidden place and suddenly..Bang, you discover them. I find that also with concerts, you don't always appreciate the live moment..



__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Oh Wayne wrote:

A further thought occurs. Would they even be capable of turning in a great album anymore?

... Hell, I'm not sure I even like the guy that much these days. And that's pretty hard to admit, even to myself, when only twenty years ago he was my complete idol.

....take the Island reissues. Now I know there are a few absolute lost classics in there (It's A Dirty World) but really, I can't imagine the Jarvis of 1998 or 2001 being at all comfortable with songs like Catcliffe Shakedown or Can I Have My Balls Back Please? being in the public domain. Or, for that matter, the 1981 Peel session. 

So he's working on new material at the moment. What might happen to it?

 I don't think they would be capable of another great album given the evidence of the solo material.  That said I think including Intro they have about half a dozen great albums (include A Heavy Night to make seven)  which is at least two or three more than any other band I like. However I am prepared to be surprised.  

I like Jarvis. I am more familiar with him thanks to his radio show and other activities and consider him to be something of a kindred spirit.  Back in the early nineties when I discovered Pulp he was more of a mystery and to be honest  I wouldn't have thought that much of him had it not been for the utter brilliance of the music.

Regarding reissues and demos, most fans desperately seek these out, so I think there is a lot of kudos in making them available.  I always accept that in the main they were never intended to be released, but they can provide insight into the creative process.  Also it is fascinating to hear original demos of songs and be amazed at how rudimentary they are compared to the final versions.  I am currently listening to a lot of Julian Cope and Elvis Costello bonus discs, and find them very interesting.  (NOTE - This is because I got a NAS drive at yule and am ripping every CD I have.  A month later only at C as I get too distracted listening to the music...)

As for new material,  I am indifferent.  I dutifully purchased the solo LPs which now gather dust.  Some good tracks, but Further Complications and Cunts aside nothing much that I would consider outstanding.    Maybe third time lucky, but I can't think of any acts that have made a superb album after a decade or more of inactivity.



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy wrote:

And yet we've got documentary evidence of you shouting for My Lighthouse and Maureen in the early '90s, so it looks like you've suffered from the same "if only they were like they were five years ago" syndrome as the rest of us! I bet if I could jump into a time machine and see them at the Crucible in 1983 people would have been shouting for Shakespeare Rock.

 I don't think I'd ever consider setting my Pulp time machine back to the 1980s.  1991 would have been interesting.



__________________
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1903
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Personally, I absolutely love all the bonus tracks on the CD's. In fact I can listen to them more than I can the actual albums oftentimes. 'Horses for courses', YMMV as I believe the current vernacular goes. That '91-'94 period is just solid gold magic for me. Despite some misgivings about the reunion I can happily forgive them anything for giving me the chance to hear them perform Countdown.

__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
andy


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1718
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Eamonn wrote:

Girls Like It Too is feckin' ace.

 

Well yeah it is, it's absolutely amazing and 6 years after i still dont understand why this was JUST a vinyl bside. I Never Said I was Deep is another classic up there with the best Pulp songs.

I'll go as far as to say that Jarvis' second solo record is amazing and very under appreciated: brutal rock n roll, raw production, which i understand hardcore pulp fans can't get into (though i'm hardcore pulp fan and i love it). On the other hand, i think they butchered After You, the demo is way better.

As for the rest : i was at the olympia gig in 2012, i had never seen Pulp live before. Just for that, i cant say the reunion was a miss. It was kinda surreal to be fan of a band for 20 years and see them for the first time, though i had seen Jarvis solo gigs before.

Sure i'd want them to produce new material, but when bands do that, after a long hiatus, it's more than often S.h.i.t You cant revive the past, and Jarvis is too old now (he was struggling to catch his breath in between songs ion 2012).

I hope he will release another record someday, something different, i dont know, or just songs, i'd be happy as long as the melodies are good and the production isn't terrible. In the music world we live in nowadays, that would be already something.



__________________
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I don't have a single Jarvis solo recording! Is that bad? Ive heard bits and went to a show some years ago. Didn't particularly enjoy much of it. It went on for an age and was lost with the over bearing in-between song banter..Which was something i used to enjoy as a spontaneous feature in the past.. And then i saw Venini..As much love as i have for Russell, Venini we're just a waste of tape..Bad '80's!  But perhaps in time i will come to love these things?



-- Edited by DEF2 on Thursday 5th of February 2015 12:19:32 PM

__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

saw119 wrote:

That '91-'94 period is just solid gold magic for me.

 Ditto.  From Legendary Girlfriend to the Theatre Royal, it was pretty much perfect.  Not quite sure when I first heard Pulp, saw them first in 1993, but maybe had latched onto them the year before.  I don't keep a diary!  



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

DEF2 wrote:

I don't have a single Jarvis solo recording! Is that bad? 

 No.  You can have a listen on Spotify, but I have to admit I haven't bothered listening to them again.  I haven't really enjoyed much of anything Jarvis has been involved in after We Love Life including After You. Maybe I just moved on....



__________________
shotoki


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 420
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Me neither, heard some on spotify but it didn't make a big impression.

The reunion was quite DC heavy, but they made up for it by playing some obscurities. I never thought I'd ever hear My Lighthouse live!

__________________
superchob


Rattlesnake

Status: Offline
Posts: 741
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

shotoki wrote:

 I never thought I'd ever hear My Lighthouse live!

 

My mate could see the crew's monitor alongside Candida a few moments before Jarvis introduced his sister (we were up in the chorus' seats). He leans over to say, "Well, I guess this is where they bring out My Lighthouse", leaving me just a few moments to reply, oh-so-knowledgeably: "No way. Never. They'll never play My Lighthouse". Magical stuff. 

I enjoyed the reunion too, for what it was. I was lucky to be at Magna and that remains in my mind Pulp's last ever gig. Pulp ended then. This may have been a testimonial match but at least they took it seriously, avoiding too much self-parody and giving us a fair few kicks along the way. In it for the money, perhaps, but without cynicism. I think it was clear that they still value their fans. Best think of it in terms of the band thanking them? At least there were a decent number of gigs, and tickets didn't cost upwards of £80. (I wouldn't have held that against them either. I had tickets for Jackson and considered selling a kidney for Led Zepp...)



-- Edited by superchob on Thursday 5th of February 2015 08:48:34 PM

__________________

You, Me and My Imagination 
Sleeve


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy wrote:

I kind of think most of what's in the original post is probably right. I also don't care, because I thought the reunion was massively enjoyable on its own terms.

In a way Pulp can't win can they? In 1996 when they were in their imperial massive pop phase, some of us were going "meh, it's all a bit safe and mainstream innit, you'd think they might chuck in one or two mid-80s B-sides". Then circa Hardcore/WLL, we were going "meh, if only they were a bit more pop like they used to be, and why can't they just play Common People properly?". And now they've stopped resisting and re-embraced the big hits and the funny little dance, we're going "meh, if only they were a bit awkward and unpredictable again like before when they were desperately trying not to be pop stars".

You're right, the reunion wasn't the same. I'm not sure how it could be really; 2011/2012 is a long way down the track from 1996/1998/2001. I'm more minded to see the reunion as a lap of honour - a celebration of Pulp, not really a continuation.

Can't really see what the point would have been in new material - if you went to see Ray Davis, would you want Sunny Afternoon, Waterloo Sunset and Lola, or new stuff? What if Brian Wilson headlined a festival and didn't do anything off Pet Sounds? If the collective impetus to come up with new songs wasn't there (which apparently it wasn't, according to Russell), to force something new out would have been a contrivance - and for what? New stuff was not the reason any of us (band or audience) at those gigs.

Apparently the recent Suede album is pretty good, but who cares at this stage in the game? Great, they've done something that's nearly as good as Coming Up. I'll just go to the gigs and stick with Coming Up thanks!

 Dead right. I do remember being deflated by This is Hardcore as an album when it came out. It seemed so MOR, AOR, a series of pastiches from Bowie to Portishead and it generally still seems that way to me. I near completely discounted We Love Life as a fan from '94 onwards. I've always disliked it- Jarvis' singing is cracked and tired but it still has spirit though it's unbalanced and lacks the vital electronic spark that had always made Pulp so compelling in the past. However, the 'renuion' got it as close to 'right' for me as they could. The neon was back, Russell was back, they played BIG venues with people going crazy, they played OU, Razzmatazz, Lipgloss- amazing. I really dislike the recent film, from the content to the horrible hipster flippancy of the tag line (death...supermarkets- how clever, well done- fuck the flying fuck off) but I was very happy at Brixton in 2011 and it was great to be amongst so many enthusiastic and equally discerning fans who I enjoyed the odd beer with afterwards. I'd love to see another and hopefully will. Cheers!



__________________
keithc1983


Mis-Shape

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

It is an interesting debate and thanks Oh Wayne for initiating it. I loved the Pulp reunion if it was a bit too polished so what? It was still better than most live gigs you would ever go to. I think sometimes people read too much into certain circumstances and it seems that it has happened here as well. The Pulp reunion and I am agreeing with Sturdy here was a celebration, a last lap so to speak of the band it seems. It was great when Russell was around the first year of the tour but he made his choices afterwards and that was that with him. I did like the documentary but I would have liked it like many other people on this board a proper full on documentary telling the story of the band with Russell included but sometimes you do not get what you wish for. I thought Further Complications was a good record and I am looking forward to what Jarvis does next. Who knows if we see Pulp again live or make a record but I am not holding my breath but I am thankful that they did reform in the first place and gave me a wonderful memory at Hyde Park. Oh Wayne you should still enjoy what Pulp gave you originally in the first place and don't think about what you perceive at the present you will be better off for it I am sure.

__________________
Keef
Wickerman


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 385
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I consider A Heavy Night and Further Complications the second and third best Pulp-related record after This Is Harcore. The others are great as well, but those three record are legendary for me.

Never cared much for the reunion, as I consider Pulp to be a band in the past (just like Oasis, Blur etc.) and since they did not bother to visit The Netherlands.

__________________
This is the sound of someone losing the plot, making out that they are okay when they are not. You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
Eamonn


Must Evolve

Status: Offline
Posts: 5950
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Brixton 2011 was one of the best gigs I've been to, and meeting a number of people off here contributed to that as well as the setlist which certainly wasn't predictable.

I do wonder what the actual story was behind the recording of After You. Was it a "go" at seeing how they felt about being in a studio again? Was it a spur of the moment creative way to kill time in between concerts? ( The anorak in me is annoyed that recording details for it aren't available to be Pulpwiki'd. I think it would have been in between the French and South American dates in Nov '12, probably in London?) I do like it but it essentially sounds like a dancey remix of the more organic demo with Murphy's stamp. I'd have kept the funky little guitar licks of the "From disco to disco..." hook but lean towards the arrangement of the demo more had it ever gone on an album.

I did have a little chat with Webbo the night of the film premiere and kicked myself after for not asking him about it.

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

superchob wrote:
I enjoyed the reunion too, for what it was. I was lucky to be at Magna and that remains in my mind Pulp's last ever gig. Pulp ended then. This may have been a testimonial match but at least they took it seriously, avoiding too much self-parody and giving us a fair few kicks along the way. In it for the money, perhaps, but without cynicism. I think it was clear that they still value their fans. Best think of it in terms of the band thanking them? At least there were a decent number of gigs, and tickets didn't cost upwards of £80. 

When Magna happened I didn't really believe it was the end, but as years went by it looked like it was and it was probably quite a fitting end.  It would be a shame if Pulp's last gig was on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic in front of what I suspect was a less than committed audience.

I think the reunion was a lot better than a testimonial, it was a step up from the We Love Life dates and there was a true excitement about it that hadn't been there since 1995.  I can't really comment on the tour accompanying Hardcore as I was off on honeymoon at the time.

Getting four gigs in London this time was pretty good. I missed the second night at Brixton so only got three, and there were a fair number of songs I'd never heard live before.  The tickets were towards the top end of what I have ever paid so weren't that cheap, but certainly not over three figures which I see some bands charging.

I also think it was good to do the reunion before the band got too old.  At least they still look like Pulp.

If only all reunions could be half as good.



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Wickerman wrote:

I consider A Heavy Night and Further Complications the second and third best Pulp-related record after This Is Hardcore.

I don't think Jarvis/Pulp did much that was less than brilliant between 1991 and 2003.  Relaxed Muscle may not rank alongside the Pulp albums for me but it is a superb record.   I haven't really warmed to the Jarvis solo work.  I have bought the albums and even seen him live, but it felt like it was more out of duty.



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sturdy wrote:

Can't really see what the point would have been in new material - if you went to see Ray Davies, would you want Sunny Afternoon, Waterloo Sunset and Lola, or new stuff?

I went to see his Americana show last year hoping he would play some songs from the late seventies when The Kinks  were far more successful in the States and were writing about things in the US. Instead I got a load of home movies from travelling around the US and the usual London sixties songs along with some half baked new material.  By the time he played Lola, Waterloo Sunset and You Really Got Me, I had given up.  All seemed a bit pointless. Seems a shame when someone has such an extensive back catalogue that they just play the same thing again and again.

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/ray-davies/2014/union-chapel-london-england-1bc28d04.html



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sleeve wrote:
I do remember being deflated by This is Hardcore as an album when it came out. It seemed so MOR, AOR, a series of pastiches from Bowie to Portishead and it generally still seems that way to me.

 MOR is not how I'd describe it! Can't imagine it on smooth FM.  I would agree that it is adult orientated as Jarvis was in his thirties and there are songs like Glory Days (Springsteenesque even down to the title) and Party Hard (Bowiesque) that are pastiches but I found it a refreshing departure from the pop of Different Class.  I think it is Pulp's masterpiece.   



__________________
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 591
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Oh god, this thread.

Seriously, it's time to move on from this oppressive, conservative indie band narrative. Bands are never, ever perfect little stories just made for biographies and easily placed into the canon of white western rock music. No band *has* to end at a certain time, and no band will ruin its legacy by reforming- the only one who is constructing this idea of the perfect legacy is you (you being everyone, including me- not specifically the person who made this thread). It's like saying you have to die at a certain point because it's all downhill from here. "Oh it's such a shame you didn't die from X disease aged 42, because then the narrative shape of your life would have been much more satisfying than it eventually turned out to be, what with those final 30 years where you sat around on your arse watching Countdown and eating biscuits." Fuck that.

The fact that Big Star reformed in the 90s and released a really shit fourth album doesn't mean I like them less- they're still one of my favourite bands. So the fact that Pulp reformed for a couple of years of gigs didn't make me like them less at all- how could it? Even if the gigs had been soulless and shit, it wouldn't have affected how much I like Pulp. It would've just meant that I was disappointed with a few gigs. As it turned out, the tour was brilliant. So what's to complain about? It wasn't cynical, certainly no more cynical than the act of being a professional indie band to begin with! There was no 'right' time to end Pulp, because a band is not a constructed narrative- it writes itself. I honestly can't think of anything more shallow than being disappointed in a band reforming because it makes their story less 'neat' or because you perceive, entirely arbitrarily, they're not really Pulp anymore.

Pulp could reform again in 10 years and it could still be brilliant, as long as what they actually do during the reunion is good. Bands have multiple roles; they don't just exist to release albums, so having no interest in releasing more material makes absolutely no difference to the legitimacy or authenticity of the reunion. I wish they had released some new music, because Pulp are an interesting group of people who obviously function really well together and I'd love to see what they'd come up with (providing they weren't weighed down by their own 'legacy' and place in the canon). And if they'd written new music and it was crap, so what? All the other albums still exist.

The age of traditional major label indie bands is pretty much over, so we're going to see bands which are much more flexible and which completely reject this archaic Beatles/Smiths band narrative of full time touring and album production until they suddenly burn out leaving the perfect discography for sad sack music journalists to wank over. Bands aren't really full time jobs any more, so having a 10 year gap between albums or gigs or whatever isn't really going to seem that strange in years to come (and isn't really that strange in less commercial musical environments- look at a lot of US indie). There is also the fact that most band splits are down to egotism, the intensity of the work or both. As both the old full-time-band career dies out, and with it the vacuum required for the 'rock star' ego trip to develop, bands won't feel the pressure to melodramatically announce their break up- they'll just put the band on the back burner until they want to resume it again. Like, I can't think of many solo artists who have said that they will never, ever write or perform ever again in their lives, which is basically what bands are saying when they announce a break up.

Obviously Pulp never broke up like this at all, which is kinda the point; despite the fact they just kinda stopped with very little fanfare, the pre-existing rock band narratives we're obsessed with superimposing over every band EVER meant that, in the eyes of the public and the press, Pulp still 'split up' and then 'reformed' in 2011, even though it probably felt much more fluid than that to the members of the band.

Basically, these 'rules' about what is 'right' for bands to do are utterly meaningless. The only thing that matters is whether or not the members of the band are being true to themselves, and true to their perception of the band. I'd hazard a guess that simply wanting your kids to see you perform probably legitimised the reunion for the members of Pulp, never mind the countless other great reasons for doing it. And issues like Pulp's last gig being on that cruise- that is only sad or disappointing if Pulp themselves felt it was sad or disappointing. Maybe Pulp do really care about the small details of the band narrative, or maybe they just think that no aspect of life is perfectly rounded and feel that aiming for some very formal farewell is kinda trite. Or maybe they don't care either way- they thought that the Sheffield gig would be a nice way to draw a line under the reunion, but got offered the cruise and really wanted to play it, so they did. But that's Pulp's business, not ours.

Rant over!

__________________
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Imagine discovering something in the permafrost? thats pulp!



__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 591
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

ArrGee wrote:
Sleeve wrote:
I do remember being deflated by This is Hardcore as an album when it came out. It seemed so MOR, AOR, a series of pastiches from Bowie to Portishead and it generally still seems that way to me.

 MOR is not how I'd describe it! Can't imagine it on smooth FM.  I would agree that it is adult orientated as Jarvis was in his thirties and there are songs like Glory Days (Springsteenesque even down to the title) and Party Hard (Bowiesque) that are pastiches but I found it a refreshing departure from the pop of Different Class.  I think it is Pulp's masterpiece.   

 

Exactly- This Is Hardcore plays on MOR/AOR tropes to basically draw a conceptual triangle between fame, sex and middle age. The concept doesn't quite stretch across the entire album unfortunately, but when it works it's genuinely incredible and underlines the fact that Pulp are probably the best conceptual rock band of all time. Although I definitely don't think it's their masterpiece- Pulp don't have a masterpiece, which is essentially the reason that people like us are sat on internet forums talking about them, in my opinion. Pulp's flaws make the band what they are, and their inability to translate the magic of Pulp into a single, definitive recorded work is what makes them so exciting. Though I wish wish wish they'd put It's A Dirty World and Like A Friend on TIH :(



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

calumlynn wrote:

 And issues like Pulp's last gig being on that cruise- that is only sad or disappointing if Pulp themselves felt it was sad or disappointing. 

I agree with most of what you wrote except that when I wrote it would be a shame they didn't have a final gig in front of a committed audience that was from my perspective.  I wouldn't consider it sad nor disappointing as far as Pulp were concerned.  I was delighted to see them three times on the reunion which is three times more than I ever expected four years ago.



__________________
calumlynn


Cocaine Socialist

Status: Offline
Posts: 591
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

ArrGee wrote:
calumlynn wrote:

 And issues like Pulp's last gig being on that cruise- that is only sad or disappointing if Pulp themselves felt it was sad or disappointing. 

I agree with most of what you wrote except that when I wrote it would be a shame they didn't have a final gig in front of a committed audience that was from my perspective.  I wouldn't consider it sad nor disappointing as far as Pulp were concerned.  I was delighted to see them three times on the reunion which is three times more than I ever expected four years ago.

 Oh yeah I understand that, I wasn't having a go. I just meant that we should try to suppress our desire for arbitrary endings. Pulp did plenty non-festival gigs for dedicated fans during the reunion, there's no logical reason why their final concert should be in front of such a crowd. If they'd only done festivals in 2012 or something then I might feel different, but fans were well served.



__________________
Eamonn


Must Evolve

Status: Offline
Posts: 5950
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Please don't tell me 33/34 is middle-aged! (Though I guess in pop terms it's probably old-age). Calum, you studied music at uni didn't you? Shines through in your posts, (not being patronising, more impressed with your arguments).

__________________

Tell mester to f*ck off!
Panther


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I agree with what Eamonn said about your posts, Calum. I haven't had such an interesting read on this forum for ages. It's like old times Sigh!

Just one quick point from me about the reunion: for those, like me, who never saw Pulp live in their heyday, having a chance to see them live AT ALL was stupendous. I couldn't have cared less where, what or how they did it - as far as I was concerned, it was one big bonus in my life that I never expected.

One overriding memory I have of the 2012 Sheffield gig was hearing a bit of the sound check as we walked past the stadium to go and eat before the concert. Jarvis was singing Countdown, I think, and his voice sounded so young and full-bodied to my ears (and I am his age), that I thought for a minute they were playing the record, not playing live. It gave me chills it was so exciting.

__________________
Three blind mice go owww
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Eamonn wrote:

Please don't tell me 33/34 is middle-aged! 

 I suppose it is an age when many of my peers were getting married, having kids, buying houses etc., so the start of what would be considered adult life. Middle age may be pushing it.  I was at a radio show recently whe some sixty year old plus people talked about doing things in their middle age, so it is a hell of a span from 30s to 60s.

Anyway, I read 50 is the new 30, so I look forward to my 31st birthday at the end of the month and finally making it to middle age...



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Panther wrote:

I haven't had such an interesting read on this forum for ages. It's like old times Sigh!

... for those, like me, who never saw Pulp live in their heyday, having a chance to see them live AT ALL was stupendous. I couldn't have cared less where, what or how they did it - as far as I was concerned, it was one big bonus in my life that I never expected.

... and I am his age

 I agree, first thread I have written on for a long time.

As you like me are 30, being the new 50, how did you not get to see them?     



__________________
Panther


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

ArrGee, I was just too busy with other stuff I was into at the time. Even though I ADORE Pulp, there were tons of other things at the time (and now, too, of course) I adored just as much and you can't be everywhere and do everything. For example, if I could afford to spend my life in the Alps skiing and not have to go to work, I probably would.

The making up for lost time is still going on and I am still doing lots of things now, besides seeing Pulp, that I never had the chance to do when I was 30. Sometimes I think life is one long compensation exercise!

Thank you for saying 50 is the new 30. I feel younger and sparkier already.

__________________
Three blind mice go owww
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Panther wrote:

you can't be everywhere and do everything...

I had a good go at it in the 1990s!  Lived in Paris, London and Amsterdam and spent large chunks of time staying with people in New York and San Francisco.  If anything I have far less time to do anything nowadays with kids to consider.   Have to schedule nights out weeks in advance.

When I mooted seeing Pulp at Hyde Park my wife wasn't that happy that I would go off on a Sunday to see a concert rather than head off to yet another soft play party with my daughter.   Having more or less stopped going to gigs when I hit 40 (the new 60?), I suppose it was a mite surprising that I would suddenly have the interest again, especially to go and stand in a field, but then again your favorite band doesn't reform every year.

Of course, she ended up coming to The Albert Hall the following year and left exclaiming it was the best concert she'd ever been to and wondering why we hadn't seen Pulp in the 1990s.  She had totally forgotten those numerous Pulp gigs we went to at Brixton and Kentish Town...

 

 



__________________
Panther


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Yes, it sounds like you fitted a lot of adventures in before settling down, very sensibly, and you must have had a lot of fun. I think everyone should spend some time living abroad and learning another language and culture, if they can manage it.

And it's true what you say about your wife's experience: sometimes it takes the action of doing something different to remind you of all the amazing stuff that's out there in the world to enjoy. I am constantly dragging my city-loving friends out to the country to remind them that trees and fields and rivers and lakes exist!



__________________
Three blind mice go owww
weej


Legendary

Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Hello, popping up here as this is a fascinating thread and the sort of thing we should be discussing a great deal more.

The issue at the heart of this is what sort of artists we imagine Pulp (and in particular Jarvis) to be. The fact that we think of Pulp as a '90s band' at all is a demonstration of the fact that they were always ready to rip everything up and start again when things start getting stale. The way Jarvis did this was to switch collaborators - he's always taken the role of a catalyst in the group, allowing the sound to change completely from year to year. The last we saw of this instinct was the Relaxed Muscle album. Solo, he lacks that spark.

I can sense a certain annoyance with Oh Wayne for blaming Pulp for joining the nostalgia circuit. Isn't that just what bands do? And doesn't everyone want to get a chance to see Pulp playing their hits? Well, yes, but this impulse is ultimately an anti-creative one. It fixes Pulp at one moment - the mid-90s - it rewards them for playing the same old songs over and over again. Christ knows how bored they must be with 'Common People' by now. It also adds an unfair weight of expectation to any new material - it has to (a) be as good as the old stuff and (b) not sound too similar or too different. Why would semi-retired people in their 50s want to take that sort of a risk?

I didn't buy the new Suede album, don't know if I could even bear to listen to it. Truth be told, I'm bored with almost all guitar music these days, it has to do something *really* special to arouse any interest. Doesn't everyone feel like that? There's so much more out there now, and the conscious decision to rely on 50-year-old sounds and tropes just turns you into a genre band. The time has passed, we can enjoy it how it was, but new music has to do something new, or else why even bother making it?

This is a challenge failed by the vast majority of musicians, from Ray Davies to Johnny Rotten to Morrissey to Noel Gallagher, and that's sort of ok, if I want to hear Sunny Afternoon or How Soon Is Now, I've got the CD. A small minority of artists manage to keep reinventing themselves, challenging themselves to keep creating - Robert Wyatt for example, or (particularly of interest here) Scott Walker. Our problem is that we imagined Jarvis to be a member of this smaller second group. The case for this impression is everything he did from 1980 to 1995 (possibly we could extend this to even 2004) - constant revolution, a thirst for new ideas, new collaborators, etc. The case against this is moreorless everything he's done in the last decade. Both solo albums had their moments, but both were a step back, extra material for the fans rather than any sort of attempt to make something new.

This isn't necessarily the end though - I think we just need a new collaborator. It's worked a number of times before, and there's no reason it shouldn't again. Unfortunately it should be clear at this point that this collaborator isn't called Candida, Mark, Nick, Russell or even Steve. But who knows? In the meantime we still have our old CDs.

__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

weej wrote:

I didn't buy the new Suede album, don't know if I could even bear to listen to it. Truth be told, I'm bored with almost all guitar music these days, it has to do something *really* special to arouse any interest. Doesn't everyone feel like that? 


This is a challenge failed by the vast majority of musicians, from Ray Davies to Johnny Rotten to Morrissey to Noel Gallagher, and that's sort of ok... ... A small minority of artists manage to keep reinventing themselves...  ...Our problem is that we imagined Jarvis to be a member of this smaller second group. 

Pretty much all acts have a time when they make great music, but once lost it is hard to recapture what made them special.  Some acts have it for a year, some for a decade.   I suspect, even the most ardent follower of Bowie, who would reinvent himself from LP to LP, would concede that what he did in the 1970s from Hunky Dory to Scary Monsters was special in a way that nothing since was.  When I was playing the Next Day in the car recently my 15 year old son wanted me to play Aladdin Sane or Ziggy Stardust, and he was only just born in the last century.  The Next Day excepted, I'd say that I haven't bought anything new by an artist from the last century for ages.

I would say that is a bit unfair on John Lydon.  He only ever made one Pistols LP, so in the main his musical output is Public Image which has been a reinvention albeit not as public as the Pistols.  I never really saw Jarvis as someone who would reinvent himself.  I think he had a incredibly creative period from 1991 to 2003 which I think is as good as it gets.

 

 



__________________
weej


Legendary

Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Thanks for replying, Argee. To clarify, I'd say the window of reinvention was say 1976-1986 for John Lydon and 1980-2003 for Jarvis. A 23-year window of reinvention is already pretty huge.

__________________
Wickerman


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 385
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

weej wrote:


This isn't necessarily the end though - I think we just need a new collaborator. It's worked a number of times before, and there's no reason it shouldn't again. Unfortunately it should be clear at this point that this collaborator isn't called Candida, Mark, Nick, Russell or even Steve. But who knows? In the meantime we still have our old CDs.

 

One of the finest examples of switching collaborators to reinvent oneself is Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds. Main collaborator from the 80s, Blixa Bargeld, felt he was about to overstay his welcome in 2003 after his role was increasingly diminished in the years prior to their 2003 album Nocturama. Bargeld left, leaving a gap in which Warren Ellis could step without stepping on the toes of this massive presence in the band that was Bargeld. From that moment on, The Bad Seeds' sound was revamped and sparked a new height in their career.



__________________
This is the sound of someone losing the plot, making out that they are okay when they are not. You're gonna like it, but not a lot.
Panther


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Who would make a good collaborator for Jarvis?

__________________
Three blind mice go owww
saw119


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1903
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Panther wrote:

Who would make a good collaborator for Jarvis?

Well, what do we think he needs? What are his solo songs missing?



__________________

Where Pigeons go to die.
Sleeve


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 370
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

calumlynn wrote:
ArrGee wrote:
Sleeve wrote:
I do remember being deflated by This is Hardcore as an album when it came out. It seemed so MOR, AOR, a series of pastiches from Bowie to Portishead and it generally still seems that way to me.

 MOR is not how I'd describe it! Can't imagine it on smooth FM.  I would agree that it is adult orientated as Jarvis was in his thirties and there are songs like Glory Days (Springsteenesque even down to the title) and Party Hard (Bowiesque) that are pastiches but I found it a refreshing departure from the pop of Different Class.  I think it is Pulp's masterpiece.   

 

Exactly- This Is Hardcore plays on MOR/AOR tropes to basically draw a conceptual triangle between fame, sex and middle age. The concept doesn't quite stretch across the entire album unfortunately, but when it works it's genuinely incredible and underlines the fact that Pulp are probably the best conceptual rock band of all time. Although I definitely don't think it's their masterpiece- Pulp don't have a masterpiece, which is essentially the reason that people like us are sat on internet forums talking about them, in my opinion. Pulp's flaws make the band what they are, and their inability to translate the magic of Pulp into a single, definitive recorded work is what makes them so exciting. Though I wish wish wish they'd put It's A Dirty World and Like A Friend on TIH :(

 I can well imagine A Little Soul, TV Movie and Sylvia being played on such a radio station. I remember certain band members (Mark in particular) quietly expressing discontent with some of the songs that Jarvis insisted on for the album while many of Steve's attempts to modernise and experiment fell foul of repetitive guitar strangling dirge. Maybe it's an apologists angle to say Jarvis was playing on tropes when it's possible his intentions were genuine especially given the relatively 'safe' solo material. Also, hyperbole and Pulp don't seem to go well together, they're not Pink Floyd; but it's all subjective. 



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Sleeve wrote:
 I can well imagine A Little Soul, TV Movie and Sylvia being played on such a radio station. 

 Having had to listen to smooth for an hour waiting for a haircut at the weekend, these songs are far too rawk.  Mick Hucknall must get about 90% of his royalties from them. Something Changed might just about make the playlist.  Must remember my headphones next time.



__________________
ArrGee


The Only Way is Down

Status: Offline
Posts: 1519
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Panther wrote:

Who would make a good collaborator for Jarvis?

 Alex Turner or Julian Cope, they could do a Scott Walker pastiche... (tongue firmly in cheek)



__________________
maidmarian


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I would like to see him one more time with the weird sisters. That was a good fun.

__________________

Some are born to greatness, some are born to die.
Panther


Quiet Revolutionary

Status: Offline
Posts: 474
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

Maid Marion - that would be brilliant. An entire concert with Jarvis in the shaggy black coat.

__________________
Three blind mice go owww
maidmarian


Loss Adjuster

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:
RE: The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

I loved that coat!!!!!!

__________________

Some are born to greatness, some are born to die.
DEF2


Sorted

Status: Offline
Posts: 45
Date:
The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Permalink  
 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ



__________________

Stop scratching it'll never heal..
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Bar Italia Forum -> Bar Italia Forum -> The reunion: why it just wasn't the same
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard