50th Anniversary Setlist?

[StanInBlack]

Stan - genuinely interested in your view of the band that wrote Norfolk Coast.

I see Norfolk Coast mostly as an attempt by the three originals (plus Baz) to deliberately craft an album that's redolent of early Black/Burnel/Cornwell/Greenfield in a calculated attempt to resuscitate a career that was very much in danger of going kaput, with PR going along for the ride. It worked, as they've been on the nostalgia train ever since.

Having said that, I do think that if there were any post-Hugh version of the band that COULD have (if they'd wanted to) divorced themselves from Black/Burnel/Cornwell/Greenfield, it was MKIII. It's tempting to think of what could have been if PR had remained in the band and they allowed the newer material to dominate their setlists. Instead, they calcified into a nostalgia act.

[Palais23]

Stan - genuinely interested in your view of the band that wrote Norfolk Coast.

I see Norfolk Coast mostly as an attempt by the three originals (plus Baz) to deliberately craft an album that's redolent of early Black/Burnel/Cornwell/Greenfield in a calculated attempt to resuscitate a career that was very much in danger of going kaput, with PR going along for the ride. It worked, as they've been on the nostalgia train ever since.

Still a very good album though?

[StanInBlack]

Still a very good album though?

I'd rate it higher than Dark Matters or Giants, although I can't remember the last time I listened to it.

[Greatkudu]

As I keep on saying I'm only really going to Portsmouth for sentimental reasons,as 50 years is a great achievement whatever anyone thinks of the band now,plus I don't get out much these days apart from Ops in Kenya my second home.Major Ray Lizzo Styles Murrs.

[Greatkudu]

Still a very good album though?

I'd rate it higher than Dark Matters or Giants, although I can't remember the last time I listened to it.

Stan you are right about NC,it was trying to create a sound of old,but it's a pretty good album IMHO.Major Kudu.

[BankMan]

Very valid points,but must correct you on Hugh,on his last tour he performed more solo songs than Stranglers.Major Kudu.

I’m sure he did, and so he should. But that’s not what I said. It’s that he plasters his promotional media heavily with his past involvement, which is different to playing the songs (and which I have no issue with). It’s a shame he has to do this as his solo output should stand on its own without it

Tough one that...
He sure doesn't need to after 10 solo studio albums....but he has the right to.
It probably helps with ticket sales and it's all good CV so to speak to sell yourself as an artist just like we would with a work CV... but they are the facts that's on there so why shouldn't he be proud of his successful 16 year past that he's the original frontman/guitarist and main songwriter.
But yes I think it doesn't need to keep saying what he was in print but he has tickets to sell and a living to make j suppose so I get it.

Yes, I agree that he has a right to and of course he should be proud of his contribution. Just a shame for him that after all these years he has to do it (or his PR team feel the need to do it) with more prominence now than in the past. Shouldn’t his solo work be of such quality and profile that it’s that that should be how he is promoted?

[theraven1979]

I'd say Hugh is going the other way. His recent tour comprised of more solo stuff than Stranglers songs and they were sprinkled in the set. I think he'd like to do less but he knows there's some classic Stranglers stuff that the crowd want to hear.

Didn't see him doing a "50th Anniversary tour" either.


Jim

[BankMan]

Stan - genuinely interested in your view of the band that wrote Norfolk Coast.

I see Norfolk Coast mostly as an attempt by the three originals (plus Baz) to deliberately craft an album that's redolent of early Black/Burnel/Cornwell/Greenfield in a calculated attempt to resuscitate a career that was very much in danger of going kaput, with PR going along for the ride. It worked, as they've been on the nostalgia train ever since.

Having said that, I do think that if there were any post-Hugh version of the band that COULD have (if they'd wanted to) divorced themselves from Black/Burnel/Cornwell/Greenfield, it was MKIII. It's tempting to think of what could have been if PR had remained in the band and they allowed the newer material to dominate their setlists. Instead, they calcified into a nostalgia act.

It was a great album and was Suite wasn’t bad either. Not, in my opinion, an attempt to replicate MK1, just the band as it was then composing stuff that received widespread critical acclaim and proving, for those two albums at least, that The Stranglers without Hugh could make great music. After that, I’m less convinced, I’ll grant you

[toilerinblack]

Lots of things really...Hugh the solo artist isn't gonna push the fact of 50 years of the Stranglers when he is not in the Stranglers and hasn't been for the past 34 years of it..
He sure has the right to revisit any song and put and play them in his set as he wrote them or co wrote them in the band for their first 16 years of their now 50 for sure he has the right probably more than anybody does but like he has often said again and again i've been out of it now more than when I was in it....he probably wouldn't want to keep on about it being the Stranglers 50th year but does like to sing or talk about the songs he wrote when he was in it and he's sure proud of his work and so he should be because for me it's been mainly their best work.
The band post Hugh hasn't really done anything like when he was in it for me and one of their best in NC for me is clearly their and JJs own very good work to be proud of I can't hear any HC influence in that album at all.
For me they have heavily done Mk1 songs on the startings so far of their 50th which is to be expected and probably mostly wanted by whatever type of fans or new fans that go nowday's,I can't really see on their 50th tracks being done off Coup,Giants or others it was always going to be the hits on a half century tour but they still have put some post ones in there.
My own opinion is I wished they had done more post Hugh but they can't really win with such a huge backlog to squeeze into their sets.
I see no HC influence with new favourite Stalllion nothing in there at all that's all their own composition a million miles away from Hugh.
Their set choice has been brilliant so far is how I feel we all differ on that one.

[kenl]

I'd say Hugh is going the other way. His recent tour comprised of more solo stuff than Stranglers songs and they were sprinkled in the set. I think he'd like to do less but he knows there's some classic Stranglers stuff that the crowd want to hear.

Didn't see him doing a "50th Anniversary tour" either.


Jim

Let's be honest, if Hugh didn't play Stranglers songs there would be even less people in the crowd.

Wasn't that long ago he was on the nostalgia trip playing all of Heroes with keyboards.
That was a cringefest as the keyboard playing was rubbish.

[theraven1979]

There's nothing to stop him celebrating 50 years of a music career (The Stranglers being a part of that).

Jim

Lots of things really...Hugh the solo artist isn't gonna push the fact of 50 years of the Stranglers when he is not in the Stranglers and hasn't been for the past 34 years of it..

[theraven1979]

Yeah I'd agree with that but this is no different to JJ and friends

Jim

I'd say Hugh is going the other way. His recent tour comprised of more solo stuff than Stranglers songs and they were sprinkled in the set. I think he'd like to do less but he knows there's some classic Stranglers stuff that the crowd want to hear.

Didn't see him doing a "50th Anniversary tour" either.


Jim

Let's be honest, if Hugh didn't play Stranglers songs there would be even less people in the crowd.