This feels like it's been quite a long song but it's only three minutes long.

That was a bit patchy, but overall pretty good.

The entire album was only 33 minutes long or so.

Seemed longer somehow.

My version's gone onto the bonus disc!

And it is over.

I felt that was a pleasing album, occasionally hampered by his not overly enthusiastic vocal style and his blatant tendency to take other people's songs and then alter them just enough to not get sued.

Basically, if Pilot are what you get if you take Paul McCartney and remove the gravitas, Nick Lowe is what you get if you take Paul McCartney and remove the cheeriness.

However, I did still like it and see it as an album I would be happy to play again.

I kinda think that that that was the best kind of NHotW running commentary album to do.

Short, punchy, defined.

Like Tom Cruise playing Mike Tyson in a play by the ancient Greek Dennios Potteropopis.

Nightjar wrote:

The Call of the Wendigo wrote:

Track 2 - Dave Bovvie's Fame.

You're only saying that cos you're ig'nint about funk music in a wider sense.

I meant Dave Bovvie's Sound and Vision.

The Call of the Wendigo wrote:

I meant Dave Bovvie's Sound and Vision.

Yeah, but the comparison with Fame is more apt - especially when you consider that it was created when D-BoV entered the studio in New York (Power Plant?) when Carlos Alomar and Lennon were jamming the riff from Shame Shame Shame...

Which, despite being ostensibly upbeat, has an aching, yearning and deeply sad descending octave progression typical of many of the greatest songs of all time.

WhatDoesThisButtonDo? wrote:

evolutionary transgression wrote:

Paul Simon "Mother and Child Reunion"

I can't actually remember what that one sounds like. But I'll take his/her/it's word on it.

Not really, no.

But all of those artists (BOWIEEXCUSEME!) were borrowing from each other and from new, interesting music genres and at that time - not because of laziness or cynicism - but because the '70s was fluid and exciting time for music.

Also, many of the artists - whether they were in London or NYC or LA - were recording songs written by then-prolific writers and subsequently recording them in the same studios with the same producers and engineers meaning that there was a kind of homogeny to the sound.

Culturally as well those many artists were influenced and informed - inadvertently or archly - by the music and culture of their youth - the '40s - '60s and so a strong vein of pastiche - not parody - was very lovingly incorporated.


God I'm tired.



Anyway, you're extremely good at connecting musical, melodic, structures to other cross-genre and cross-generational musical, melodic, structures, but it surely has be a case of where do you stop?

e.g. Nick Lowe, for example, is, despite his obvious - and plainly arch (albeit lovingly rendered) pastiche rock 'n roll styling  isn;'t worthy of the title rip-off.

All of those examples you cite above are various variations of rip-offs of rip offs.

We're not talking bl**dy Oasis.

Also, if you listen to a lot of funk and soul music from the '70s you'll realise how the whole notion of the singer-songwriter and his or her repationship with the producer or MORE FAMOUS ARTISR is warped (usually in a pretty cool way - for the listener that is.

You lot.

I play kow-tow much.

I need some affection a nd balm for the soukl, but I can only pretend that I know less that you for so long.

Don't belittle my comments with stock smileys like I'm a kind of mental case excuse me..

My criticism re: YOU trying to compare every song ever written since 1962 with another song - and subsequently and therefore accusing it of of being an rip-off in some way of said Scousers - since because it sounds a slightly like Teh Beatles is not ood enough.

Raise the game, Wendo.

Yeh, you herd me.