yeah, its pulp. But really, when you see them onstage... its not

you know, just the general feeling you get when you see an act, especially a band. there's an atmosphere, somehting in air that makes you think "yeah, its pulp". now i just see Jarvis with a bunch of session musician, even though steve is here. Jarvis doesnt mean it as much as he meant what he sung live with pulp. i thought the record was full of pulp feelings, even little. but live, its another jarvis, another steve i see onstage. they're not Pulp jarvis and pulp steve. not that its bad.. its just not the same.

-- Edited by andy at 19:26, 2006-11-21

Does anyone else here think that Jarvis dropping the "Pulp" name is more to do with marketing than anything else?

If this were a "Pulp" album, I suspect it would be recieving even less publicity than "We Love Life" - but somehow as "Jarvis" it is recieving about as much publicity as "This is Hardcore" (despite it being a much weaker album :p).

theonewhothrowsthelastbookonthefire wrote:

---

Does anyone else here think that Jarvis dropping the "Pulp" name is more to do with marketing than anything else?

If this were a "Pulp" album, I suspect it would be recieving even less publicity than "We Love Life" - but somehow as "Jarvis" it is recieving about as much publicity as "This is Hardcore" (despite it being a much weaker album :p).

---

In comparison, I suppose a Noel album would generate more interest than an Oasis album, and a Damon album would generate more interest than a Blur album.  Though the Thom Yorke album wasn't anywhere near as acknowledged as a Radiohead release, maybe down to his lower individual profile.

It's an easy trick to pull off once, but a second solo album would probably be little different to an eighth (or tenth depending on your point of view) Pulp album.

I don't believe Pulp will ever appear again; it's more likely that Jarvis will raid the back catalogue on future tours.  And with 2/3rds of the last incarnation of Pulp onstage at Koko (was Hawley a proper member?), I suspect that's the future.

What has happened to Nick? How come he isn't joining Jarvis for the solo stuff?

Eamonn wrote:

---

As for Candida and Hawley, the former has only helped out on one song for the extra synthy bits live (From A To I) and a tv performance of Fat Chizzlers while Richard's involvement will end after the Roundhouse or Razzmatazz gig next month, unless Jarvis writess another record.

---

Candida is probably only going to just make the odd guest appearance.  I didn't notice her being credited on the sleeve notes, so maybe she doesn't want to do the recording.

I would be surprised if Hawley isn't involved more.  He has been with Jarvis for about five years now including Relaxed Muscle.  Obviously he has his own solo work, but should the two not coincide, I see him working a lot with Jarvis.

ArrGee wrote:

---

In comparison, I suppose a Noel album would generate more interest than an Oasis album, and a Damon album would generate more interest than a Blur album.  Though the Thom Yorke album wasn't anywhere near as acknowledged as a Radiohead release, maybe down to his lower individual profile.

---

I don't think that a "Damon" or "Noel" solo record would get more interest than one by Blur or Oasis. Though, yes Damon has had a mildly good solo career, it wasn't as "Damon".

I think Jarvis is of a rare breed in being publicly bigger than his band. I think artists that really stand out from their band are quite rare. Damon Albarn certainly doesn't have as many fans as Blur, though Jarvis probably has more young, indie-head fans than Pulp. So going solo probably makes sense for him, or those who want to make some money from him.

He came 4th in NME's "Cool List" for god's sake.

tensions between mark and richard, between nick and jarvis

arg, ive lived to this day thinking they were not just like any other band