"What an odd perception. Pulp and Suede wrote those songs and will always have an absolute and unassailable right to play them in whatever setting or context they choose, as does Morrissey with Smiths songs. And so long as fans still want to hear the music, why shouldn't they? The implication that bands should only ever play new material is ridiculous. What about Morrissey playing Girlfriend In A Coma or There Is A Light That Never Goes Out...?
Again, illogical nonsense. You are the only person who is saying that their *only* motive is financial - and you have no inside knowledge of the band at all, so you cannot speak with any authority: you are simply making crass, tabloid-style presumptions. Haven't you been reading the interviews where Brett talks about needing to "play together again to see whether we have any new material in us"...? The Royal Albert Hall was packed to the rafters to see Suede begin to address their unfinished business. Why shouldn't any band play its own back catalogue? Ah, because Murder and Desire understands higher truths about Music and Art... If an over-the-hill Suede were on a cruise ship playing dreadful travesties of not-very-good songs to a clicktrack backing, then your Dollar analogy might just be relevant. But they are not. And it isn't.
As I said before, blame record companies for the naffness. Greatest Hits collections customarily augur well for the release of new material and/or the kind of thorough reissues that you (and I) are clamouring for. But no record company will issue this material without having made some quick cash from a Greatest Hits compilation first. Hasn't this procedure been discussed endlessly on So-Low in relation to Morrissey's equally naff Greatest Hits collection(s)?
That's a definite possibility
Well the only hint of an attack (concerning you) was the term "grasp", beyond that I wasn't attacking you dear.
Yet you couldn't seem to string a sentence together with out an attack on me- never mind.
I wasn't saying I knew better than the band, as I said (but you chose to ignore), Suede were always quite obvious and honest about the fact they wanted to be huge and didn't want to be on the indie tread mill.
My point was they wanted to achieve it in a certain way, the way they have now chosen is tacky and as I say reeks of the smash and grab- the fact they are playing a venue they can't even sell out is even more embarrassing for them (how long have the tickets been on sale now?)
Yes Morrissey and others play big venues but they have a huge audience so they have to play them from time to time- it's either that or a residency or a big tour.
One gets the impression Brett is playing it for the cash and the fact they can play a big venue (ego), considering he has spent the last few years selling hardly any records and playing tiny venues it's no wonder he needs an ego boost.
When I said Suede and Pulp were trying to be the next Smiths, I should have said "They were held up as the next Smiths". Truth be told Suede did want to be the Smiths for their generation (nothing wrong with that), Brett and Bernard were mentioning as much quite a lot in early interviews- Brett being the bright boy he was did try and distance himself from the Morrissey/Smiths tag, this is as it should be.
As for Pulp they may not sound like the Smiths, but after years of being a sub Fall band making catty remarks about Morrissey- Jarvis most certainly did start the bitchy comments, he was doing this throughout the 80s and into the mid 90s (he has admitted he suffered from "Morrissey Jealousy")- he saw that there was a gap in the market, the gap being Morrissey wouldn't speak to the music press and the Smiths were no more, so then suddenly Pulp started making music that was like a disco Smiths- surly you can see he stole quite a lot from Morrissey?
Anyway in art as in life nothing comes from nothing, there is nothing wrong with being influenced by someone (just be honest).
My general point was that Brett and Jarvis bitched about Morrissey (especially jarvis) yet they have failed to come close to what he has achieved, Jarvis has faired better than Brett but it's no great shakes- Jarvis has made some quite, quite embarrassing solo stuff and has had to turn to radio among other things for money.
To say I have my miss givings about Jarvis and the present day Brett is because they have bitched about Morrissey is pathetic- it really is.
Though, I expect nothing less as you have highlighted some quotes then rather than address or try and understand the general point being made you have taken the b road to elsewhere.
I said (again you ignored) "My point is one of a fan who just thinks "come on boys, you WERE better than that"
If you think I am the only soul in the land who sees this as a money making lark for Suede then you are surly mistaken and you should free yourself from the blinkers of fandom, I don't think I am the lone voice by any means.
I have read a few interviews with Brett and he comes across like he is "gilding the lilly" somewhat,
He is not convincing at all, he seems like someone has fallen out of love with the pop song but is happy to milk it ( I maybe being a little harsh here).
"play together again to see whether we have any new material in us",
Funny Brett said this as he has also said he has no plans to make another Suede record as yet. In fact he is working on a solo LP or was.
If they wanted to play together then they could have played the RAH decided "oh I like this" made an LP or gone off to do a real tour.
Rather than moping up a bit of cash in a few cities.
" you have no inside knowledge of the band at all, so you cannot speak with any authority: you are simply making crass, tabloid-style presumptions"
Why are you getting so angry?
Yet you have said "I know this for a fact, having heard it directly from a band member".
Does speaking to one band member once give you insider knowledge, does it really? Of course it doesn't, get a grip.
All it means is you once had a conversation with a band member it hardly means you can speak with "authority" or that you have any real communication with the band.
But using your (lack) of wisdom people may as well not bother with forums at all,
as most people have never meet the pop star/band they talk about.
I say one doesn't always have to know a person to work out their motivation or to have an understanding of events.
The funny thing is you don't know anything about me dear and you have miss read me all the way through, you seem to be the one making "crass presumptions".
As it goes I do know someone who is in Suedes inner circle, This means nothing to me though. People lie, ,miss read things and say that which will make their actions seem more worthy- especially in the pop racket.
"Bowie, Bolan, Brel, et al"
Yes Suede have many influences who said they didn't?
But Brett was mainly influenced by Bowie, Morrissey and Prince- alas Brett as good as he was wasn't fit to clean the shoes of any of these.
"The Royal Albert Hall was packed to the rafters to see Suede begin to address their unfinished business"
Bravo, how dramatic.
As I said I would have liked to have been there it seemed like a good gig, alas I couldn't go- though there were a number tickets on ebay going for £20- quite amusing as the RRP was £70.
I am happy you enjoyed the gig and I am happy the gig meant a lot to you.
But just because you went and I didn't it doesn't mean a thing.
I could be quite childish here and indeed I am going to be-
I saw them before they had a a single out, did you?
I saw them at the famous (in the fan world) early 100 club gig when they were delivering poetry and fire did you? I saw Richard's first ever performance with the band did you?
I saw Neil's first ever performance with the band, did you?
I was at the gig filmed for the Love and Poison video, were you?
I went to at least one gig on every tour until their awful last LP- when I decided they had lost it.
I also got chatted up by their manager and invited to the after show once, being shy and not in that gang I declined.
I hope with all my heart Suede do make another LP as they were something special for a while.
And I would like to see them play a mixture of new songs that go hand in hand with the classics.
This would really be a true victory and would really be dealing with unfinished business as it would show they were and still are a band with power and something to say.
Regarding the Greatest Hits, Brett and Butler have had been involved with this project from the start so they could have added an extra track or what ever if they wanted to.
"The implication that bands should only ever play new material is ridiculous. What about Morrissey playing Girlfriend In A Coma or There Is A Light That Never Goes Out...?"
You may have inferred this but I didn't mean to imply it and I don't think I did.
There is nothing wrong with playing old hits but coming back after being a being away for a while and only playing hits is a bit sad and it says " we were good"
not that "we are still good".
Any fool can see there is a whirling ocean of difference between Morrissey playing the old songs and what Suede are doing.
Remember Morrissey didn't play any Smiths songs at all for around a decade and when he did he had (I think) new songs that were as good, side by side with them.
But then Morrissey and Weller, who did the same sort of thing as Moz, are more nobel creatures, who really did make an impact on music unlike Suede and Pulp (who have been going for 30 something years and only managed 3 good Lps)
Have fun at the o2