It seems slightly silly to argue on-line, especially on the list which is a community of like-minded people. Still, it can be fun to argue about the band which we all love. So I will answer your comments, then leave the subject alone. Firstly, about Isobel appearing fishy etc. Those words were written in jest, but of course it is difficult to gauge someones tone in e-mails. I think it would be stupid to bitch about her in a serious manner anyway. Its like trading insults in the playground. And the bands internal politics are there own business of course. Second guessing them is just a sort of parlour game for bored minds. Still, it shows we care about the band. And I believe its wrong to be too deferential to a band you like. Just because you are a fan, doesnt mean you renounce the right to criticise them. You dont bow to the mysterious forces which create the music, which is how I interpreted your comment (How would you know what her contribution is?). In fact, people on the list have discussed Isobels contribution quite frequently, particularly in the light of her offering on the latest album, Beyond the Sunrise. A lot of folk commented on the fact that it seemed to sit uncomfortably (at least initially) on the album, and perhaps Loneliness of the Middle Distance Runner should have been there instead. There was also a good review of the album in the Independent (or it might have been the Guardian) which made this same point, and argued that ICs songs could upset the unity of B and S albums (I used the phrase organic wholeness which you obviously thought was poncey, but it was at least accurate). Indeed, far from me plucking the topic of Isobels contribution to B and S out of the air, as it were, I think the issue plainly suggests itself. Isobel obviously feels that she has an artistic vision which cannot be expressed through the voice of Belle and Sebastian, or she would not be in two (count them) other bands of her own where she takes a more prominent role viz the song-writing. I dont believe it is petty indie empire building on her part, but a genuine desire to explore her own artistic voice. This brings us to your other interesting question about the nature of an individuals contribution to a band. You say that you might as well say Ringo spoiled the Beatles. I don't think he spoiled the Beatles, but I think most people would agree that his contribution to the band's output was overshadowed by the other members. When a journalist asked Paul McCartney if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he quickly replied I dont think hes the best drummer in the Beatles. He wasnt a particularly good drummer, and if youve heard his dismal musical offerings in the last few years, youll know hes not a good song-writer either. The fact is that there is rarely an even distribution of talent in a band. Lennon and McCartney (and to a lesser extent Harrison) gave the Beatles their distinctive sound, and history has judged that Lennon was probably the more inventive and talented songwriter of the band (Case for the prosecution: the entire Wings back catalogue). I think there are quite a few bands in which some members are key and others peripheral characters who have been drafted in, or are along for the ride because they are friends. Lee Mavers was almost certainly the creative force in the Las (prosecution exhibits: the on-going calamity that is the Cast back-catalogue). Some people in the collaborative effort which is a band are simply expendable. Would the Happy Mondays really be any different without Bez, the Jimi Hendrix Experience be significantly different without Noel Redding, Oasis any better or worse without their old drummer. There is no equality of talent in a band. To return to your Beatles point, Ringo brought his personality to the Beatles for sure. That may be important, but its only cosmetic. And after the years go past, and the screams of the obsessed fans die down, the cosmetic doesnt matter anymore: just the music itself. (Which is why the Spice Girls back catalogue will rot in the obscurity it deserves in ten years time, as the impressionable six to twelve year olds will no longer be there to buy their music (fooled by the cosmetics of their media presence and so-called personalities), which on its own is tawdry, formulaic crap. If it conveys any kind of joy to anyone in the future, it will only be as a piece of nostalgia. But the Spice Girls wont care, because they will already have their fortunes built from the piggy banks of the impressionable kids. Sorry, slight diversion there on a rant!) Having said that, I agree that there are some bands where the quality of the songs seems to transcend the talents of the individual members (whole more than the sum of the parts sort of thing) , and it would be stupid to isolate any single member as being the driving force. I think the Stone Roses would fall into this category, or the Pixies (Kim Deal and Joe Santiago made as much of a contribution to the bands sound as Francis Black), or the Who to give three examples. I suppose the idea of the pop band is quite strange in this respect. In most art forms, there is one person who is responsible for the work: the painter, the sculptor, the classical composer, the novelist, the architect, the playwright. But in a pop band, there seems to be a mixture: the single artist expressing his or her vision, and the group of artists collaborating to make the work together. No wonder groups often end up in court arguing about royalty cheques (any Spandau Ballet fans out there, hello?). Anyway, I think that is all I have to say on the matter. My fingers are sore from typing and I want to go and watch Ally McBeal because I enjoy hating it. If you have more to say and want to reply, please dont be too nasty (and I expect we have more common ground than we realise). Its o.k to disagree, and we should not lose sight of the fact that we are both having this discussion because we are devotees of the same band. Respectfully, Dougal _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named +-+ +-+ Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+