Sinister: Flynn reply: Campbell II

[dougal shaw]

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 someone’s 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 band’s 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, doesn’t mean you renounce the right to criticise them. You don’t 
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 Isobel’s 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 IC’s 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 Isobel’s 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 don’t 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 
individual’s 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 
don’t think he’s the best drummer in the Beatles’. He wasn’t a particularly 
good drummer, and if you’ve heard his dismal musical offerings in the last 
few years, you’ll know he’s 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 La’s (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 it’s only cosmetic. And after the years 
go past, and the screams of the obsessed fans die down, the cosmetic doesn’t 
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 won’t 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 band’s 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 don’t be too nasty 
(and I expect we have more common ground than we realise). It’s 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 at missprint.org. To unsubscribe
    send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
    majordomo at 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           +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+