Yanders wrote: ↑24 May 2021, 13:25
I thought Paul's vocals were good on NC.
That's why I agree with Stan about mkiii. The point being that they had the potential to continue to write new material rather than just stall. It wouldn't matter if Paul's voice didn't quite fit mki songs because they would've been performing mainly new work with a bit of the old stuff thrown in.
Seriously, I would have loved to have seen a situation where Paul had never left the band and they kept up the streak they were on with both Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI and found themselves in a position where they increasingly didn't have to rely on the classic era back catalogue and were able to play mostly new material with the occasional Hugh-era classic thrown in. I also would have loved for MKIII to have eventually branched out from the type of material on Norfolk Coast/Suite XVI and found their own sound and explored their own potential. While it wouldn't touch the Hugh-era years (or Hugh's solo work) it'd be a miles better situation than the band have been in since Paul has left (as well as of course being better than MKII) ...
... but of course, I can picture certain fans imagining going to a Stranglers gig and not hearing all of their favourites from the first four albums and beads of sweat dribbling from their foreheads, because many go to Stranglers gigs for the nostalgia. Of course, this is partly the reason why they've had to rely on the classic era back catalogue. Take someone like Paul Weller for example, aside from a very early tour when he first went solo, he refused to perform any Jam or Style Council numbers for years, wanting to establish a career based on his new music - which he did, because he had faith in the music that he was making, and so did his audience. I couldn't ever imagine a situation where The Stranglers would have been able to get away with playing nothing from the first ten albums - the closest it could have ever came was if they'd put out Suite XVI with Paul still in the band and on vocals, and they'd had the nuts to just play sets with Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI songs only. Alas, this didn't happen, and the nostalgiafest continued.
Yanders wrote: ↑24 May 2021, 13:25
I thought Paul's vocals were good on NC.
That's why I agree with Stan about mkiii. The point being that they had the potential to continue to write new material rather than just stall. It wouldn't matter if Paul's voice didn't quite fit mki songs because they would've been performing mainly new work with a bit of the old stuff thrown in.
Seriously, I would have loved to have seen a situation where Paul had never left the band and they kept up the streak they were on with both Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI and found themselves in a position where they increasingly didn't have to rely on the classic era back catalogue and were able to play mostly new material with the occasional Hugh-era classic thrown in. I also would have loved for MKIII to have eventually branched out from the type of material on Norfolk Coast/Suite XVI and found their own sound and explored their own potential. While it wouldn't touch the Hugh-era years (or Hugh's solo work) it'd be a miles better situation than the band have been in since Paul has left (as well as of course being better than MKII) ...
... but of course, I can picture certain fans imagining going to a Stranglers gig and not hearing all of their favourites from the first four albums and beads of sweat dribbling from their foreheads, because many go to Stranglers gigs for the nostalgia. Of course, this is partly the reason why they've had to rely on the classic era back catalogue. Take someone like Paul Weller for example, aside from a very early tour when he first went solo, he refused to perform any Jam or Style Council numbers for years, wanting to establish a career based on his new music - which he did, because he had faith in the music that he was making, and so did his audience. I couldn't ever imagine a situation where The Stranglers would have been able to get away with playing nothing from the first ten albums - the closest it could have ever came was if they'd put out Suite XVI with Paul still in the band and on vocals, and they'd had the nuts to just play sets with Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI songs only. Alas, this didn't happen, and the nostalgiafest continued.
Intresting read...well for me that is the whole problem with such a new vocalist with mk11 trying to go in a different and new direction in their own right after so many years with Hugh.I would of prefered them to stay well away from the previous years of Hugh and his songs that is just to distinctive in his own successful right.I would have no problem and would of thought it better if they had taken the Paul Weller approach of not playing previous material,the problem is Hugh tried it and eventually had to please the paying public who want to hear the old hits,so you can't get away with it.Paul and the band were only giving the fans what they want to hear at a gig along with their own material too which to be fair is what they gave them.Its just the Hugh songs never worked live with Pauls vocals everything else they did of their own in mk11 was very good live and with full energy cant knock it.
Yanders wrote: ↑24 May 2021, 13:25
I thought Paul's vocals were good on NC.
That's why I agree with Stan about mkiii. The point being that they had the potential to continue to write new material rather than just stall. It wouldn't matter if Paul's voice didn't quite fit mki songs because they would've been performing mainly new work with a bit of the old stuff thrown in.
Seriously, I would have loved to have seen a situation where Paul had never left the band and they kept up the streak they were on with both Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI and found themselves in a position where they increasingly didn't have to rely on the classic era back catalogue and were able to play mostly new material with the occasional Hugh-era classic thrown in. I also would have loved for MKIII to have eventually branched out from the type of material on Norfolk Coast/Suite XVI and found their own sound and explored their own potential. While it wouldn't touch the Hugh-era years (or Hugh's solo work) it'd be a miles better situation than the band have been in since Paul has left (as well as of course being better than MKII) ...
... but of course, I can picture certain fans imagining going to a Stranglers gig and not hearing all of their favourites from the first four albums and beads of sweat dribbling from their foreheads, because many go to Stranglers gigs for the nostalgia. Of course, this is partly the reason why they've had to rely on the classic era back catalogue. Take someone like Paul Weller for example, aside from a very early tour when he first went solo, he refused to perform any Jam or Style Council numbers for years, wanting to establish a career based on his new music - which he did, because he had faith in the music that he was making, and so did his audience. I couldn't ever imagine a situation where The Stranglers would have been able to get away with playing nothing from the first ten albums - the closest it could have ever came was if they'd put out Suite XVI with Paul still in the band and on vocals, and they'd had the nuts to just play sets with Norfolk Coast and Suite XVI songs only. Alas, this didn't happen, and the nostalgiafest continued.
yes well I always thought that those 2 albums ie NC and Suite16 were strong enough to build a set around, with just a few old hits and classic album tracks thrown in.
And if I remember correctly didn't they verge on that for a bit, even after Paul left? Around the 2006/07 time I seem to remember a lot more from Suite16 getting played live with NC material and obviously some older stuff too. For a while I think there was maybe an even split between old and new..
It's almost like that was the point where they could've really gone for it with newer material, but then as audiences increased its like they started pulling out more and more of the old faithfuls...
Although I think About Time is a great album, I suppose having to wait another twelve years or so before the Mk2 got its act together to produce NC and Suite XVI, the cracks had begun to show for band and fans alike.
If they could have pushed through this period, then as suggested, we could have had more of the same and not the nostalgia trip.
toilerinblack wrote: ↑24 May 2021, 22:49
I would have no problem and would of thought it better if they had taken the Paul Weller approach of not playing previous material,the problem is Hugh tried it and eventually had to please the paying public who want to hear the old hits,so you can't get away with it.
I don't know why I have to point this out to you, but it's all relative. Paul Weller was - still is - a bigger name than Hugh Cornwell, having led not one but two very successful bands, and even at his lowest ebb had a sizeable amount of hardcore fans that were willing to stick with him. Also, and I've pointed this out a million times on here, The Stranglers have the brand name which is more recognisable to the average person of a certain age than Hugh Cornwell as a solo entity. You see, even during the heyday of The Jam and The Style Council it was clear who the driving force of those bands was. The Stranglers opted to present themselves as a more democratic entity where all four parties were equal, even though it later became clear to those paying attention where the creativity was coming from. As a result, people can reconcile the name Paul Weller with The Jam or The Style Council, yet they can't reconcile the name Hugh Cornwell with The Stranglers. The reason why Hugh plays Stranglers songs in his set is ultimately to promote his solo material, a lot of which is up there with anything he's ever done, including the songs he wrote while a member of The Stranglers. Also, it's to establish that link in people's minds between his current work and the work they may have loved when he was in The Stranglers. I'm pretty sure if he could get away with NOT playing any Stranglers material, he would. Personally, I would prefer him not to play any Stranglers material as I listen to his solo stuff more these days. The Stranglers play a lot of Hugh-era material in their live sets because they can't get away with playing entire sets of new material because if they did, those expecting to hear stuff from the first four albums would piss and moan in exactly the same way as they turned up to Hugh gigs in the early '90s expecting a greatest hits set and threw their toys out of the pram when they realised Hugh wasn't going to give them what they wanted. Of course, none of this has any bearing on the quality of Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
StanInBlack wrote: ↑25 May 2021, 00:22
Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
"I woke up on a good day, and the world was wonderful"
StanInBlack wrote: ↑25 May 2021, 00:22
Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
Slightly O/T, but anything anyone writes is always their own opinion, there's no need to write it in every post. Toiler always makes a point of writing "that's just my opinion" and "it's the band's choice" and so on in every post, and there's no need for that either, because we can just take it as read. It's just like when anyone posts about how "crap" modern music is - they just mean it's music they don't like. If it were truly "crap", then no-one else would like / buy / download / stream it, and we've never have heard of it. I'm not musical in any way but if I were, I'd like to be able to create some music that's as "crap" as the current crop. I'd do it for a few years, and never have to "work" again by the time Radio 1 have paid me £100+ per minute to play my rubbish songs twice an hour all day.
Some posters have their own distinctive way of writing, and we just have to be used to it. I reckon you could block out some poster details and I'd still be able to tell who they were. And long may it continue. At least there's some stuff to talk about for a while.
StanInBlack wrote: ↑25 May 2021, 00:22
Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
"I bathed in sun and walked in rain
It taught me how to laugh again"
StanInBlack wrote: ↑25 May 2021, 00:22
Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
All Stan’s opinions are stated as fact so it’s well worth reiterating that they’re still just opinions.
Anyway...let’s get back to more discussion about Hugh Cornwell in the newly created Mark V forum...
As with anything on here it's for consideration for the reader. People can say what they want (within reason). You'd be crazy to take everything as fact that's laid out in front of you regardless of how adamant the author is (thinking here of a certain forum member's recent "I know who the keyboardist is" outbursts for example)
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
All Stan’s opinions are stated as fact so it’s well worth reiterating that they’re still just opinions.
Anyway...let’s get back to more discussion about Hugh Cornwell in the newly created Mark V forum...
"I bathed in sun and walked in rain
It taught me how to laugh again"
aldinblack wrote:
Well to not have liked Sewer live is extraordinary, I mean I can think of no better experience than watching The Stranglers play Sewer, so it must have been really shit with Paul, which it was.
I think Paul did some nice stuff live with them but others for me just didn't work with the vocals.The music live has never been in question for me including toiler and sewer it has always been top notch at all times, it was just some of the vocals on some for me.The band now i think have it as good as they are going to get it live post Hugh and Baz and JJ are good together in the studio and live in just my opinion.Paul has done some great stuff and versions live in his time with them no doubting that.Thats all long past now and cant wait for Dark Matters which is here and now with the band.
Sir yes Sewer and Toiler were shocking with Paul's vocals, but I agree his vocal tone worked with songs like North Winds, Paul had a deep vocal tone that was ill suited to alot of the Hugh sung songs, sorry to say when I think of it, he was terrible on most of the Hugh sung songs, but band chose him, they did lose alot of fans when Paul joined, Baz had an easy ride as was already in band when he took over the vocals, what he lacked in technical ability, he made up for with his attitude that was a sort of tribute to the Hugh lineup of band, but he does put his own touches in. On balance I prefer the Baz incarnation of the band to the Ellis, Roberts lineup. Its all in past and we have to look forward to what happens in the remaining time of the band now. Lt Kudu.
StanInBlack wrote: ↑25 May 2021, 00:22
Hugh's solo work, which is a wonderful back catalogue that quite frankly outshines the body of work the band did without him.
You appear to have missed out the words "in", "my" and "opinion" again.
Indeed. All one has to do is listen to Coup de Grace alongside Hi Fi, or Written in Red alongside Guilty, or Totem and Taboo alongside Giants and it all speaks for itself.
