| Author | Message | ||
     jerry |
having read the majority of david's book, the most interesting part for me was the saga revolving around the dress while courting U.S. record labels. it seems that neither RF or GM were willing to go all out for a major label, which is very surprising considering the ambition for international success that was suggested earlier in the book. it is especially surprising that RF wore the dress at GM'S request. I feel that perhaps neither ever wanted the pressure of commercial success at least not on someone else's terms. | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker |
That's an interesting point. My impression from reading David's book was that they always wanted some degree of success that was greater than what they actually achieved. I don't have the book handy at the moment, but I recall a few quotes from Robert where he sounded slightly bitter that they weren't getting at least a little more recognition/acceptance from the record buying public. The dress thing is odd to me, however, because it's not like other people (and people more successful than the Go-Betweens) weren't doing that. I mean, the Cure did a Top of the Pops performance completely in drag around '86 or '87, and no one seemed to mind that. And a few Cure members have frequently worn skirts in concert and in videos (videos that aired here in the US, where the Cure was handled by Elektra), and again, no one seemed to mind. And then look at other androgynous mega-stars, like Dead or Alive or Boy George, to name a few, not to mention a few years after the Go-Betweens demise, you had Nirvanna sporting dresses all the time. I think that it wasn't necessarily the dress, but that it was the context. People (at least the people who record labels perceived as potential Go-Betweens fans) may not have expected a band like the Go-Betweens to do the drag thing, whereas they *would* expect a more image-conscious band like the Cure to camp it up. Therefore, Robert Forster's dress-wearing would conflict with their record label's marketing; it wouldn't jive with their target audience, so it was a juxtaposition that they felt wouldn't work. Sure, there was a record label executive quoted as saying something to the effect that he wasn't going to support what he saw as "homosexuality", but i bet that same bastard would go right along with it if he believed it would rake in the cash. I've mentioned this before, but I think that with hindsight, that was kinda stupid. A big part of what made the Smiths and the Cure so popular here in the US is that those bands seemed to resonate strongly with the throngs of white, suburban, angst-ridden teenagers, and a lot of the appeal had to do with those bands' image. At least in suburban US, embracing androgyny has always been a pretty effective way for teenagers to rebel, and had Robert done more of that, and had more of the focus been on Robert in those crucial '87 - '88 years (when all the commercial focus was on Grant and his songs made up all the singles), I think the Go-Betweens *might* have had a better chance at tapping into the same teen audience that made the Smiths' and The Cure's popularity swell so much out here. I could be totally wrong, just a little theory of mine. I do agree that ultimately, Robert and Grant probably weren't willing to go all out for a major label. They always seemed to retain their integrity (well, except for Cut it Out, maybe), and I certainly think they had their limits as to just how far they would go. They were perhaps still Brisbane art-punks at heart. | ||
| david nichols |
It is an interesting episode and I think now 15 years later it is difficult for us to remember how much of a taboo cross-dressing still was then. As Jeff points out the issue was made redundant only a few years into the 90s with the Nirvana stuff. But of course the Cure and Nirvana were far more showy and theatrical and statement-oriented than the GoBs were expected to be. RF wearing a dress did not fit with Streets of Your Town. That said, the Gobs were often quite ground-breaking and perhaps this was something that fitted with their outlook anyway. It might have worked for them, but commercially speaking it didn't. It wasn't necessarily a fear of success thing - it might have been trying to take it to another level, however RF might typify it later as cocking a snook at the record company... Other ideas? | ||
| Jeff Whiteaker |
David Nichols wrote: "RF wearing a dress did not fit with Streets of Your Town." Exactly! It's all about context. But on the other hand, maybe it did fit in a more subtly subversive way. I mean - "Watch the butcher shine his knives/And this town is full of battered wives." Those lyrics are perhaps the closest the GoBs came to achieving a Microdisney like synthesis or juxtaposition of gorgeous, sunny melodicism and ironic, lyrical vitriol. Surely a band capable and sophisticated enough to conjure that kind of irony and subtle controversy might have a certain degree of cross-dressing potential in them. But then, it was that kind of subtle irony that left many potential Microdisney fans and record company execs more bewildered than anything, resulting in that band's demise. If Robert was using the increase in attention (a major label would bring) to act out his more subversive tendencies, I would see that as less of "fear of success" and more the old punk rock ethic that got him in music in the first place. | ||
| david nichols |
A few days after writing "15 years later it is difficult for us to remember how much of a taboo cross-dressing still was then" I was reminded of Kevin Rowland's career-killing solo album of the late 90s which I have never heard, much less seen, but it is reputedly very good. Rowland appeared on the cover in a dress which, like Robert F's dress was apparently specially made for him. The record sold in the hundreds, one of the supposed bombs that demolished Creation. ALTHOUGH, I would also like to add, it is often suggested that the cover to the third Dexy's album, which featured them all wearing business suits, was also a career killer. So maybe it's not "Kevin Rowland wearing a dress" that's the problem, it's just Kevin Rowland wearing anything other than dungarees or whatever the hell he wore during the first stage of Dexys (woollen caps spring to mind). Anyone recall Grant McL in an early NME review diminishing K. Rowland as "Mr. Passion"? I never really knew where he was coming from with that one. | ||
| jerry |
Kevin Rowland surely made enough money from the first 2 Dexy's LP's to make a couple of flops. his bankruptcy added almost a desperate tinge to the solo album, as for the dress, he designed it himself and was obviously very happy with it. the solo album's sales weren't as poor as the press made out.this happen's a lot with big selling artists, if the next album doesn't match it the artist get's slagged off and the knock a few 1000 off the sales total. the same thing happened to Mick Jagger, like he needs the money. | ||
| carl |
Hadn`t the guys always played around with dresses? Grant in headful of steam, Rob & Grant in an early promo photo (Lindy in suit?) in the book? But I`ve always liked the story of Grant suggesting the dress before that important gig! | ||
| david nichols |
I was told a few weeks ago that when RF, GMcL and Lindy M did the cross-dressing shoot in Melbourne in the early 80s, Bruce Milne - who had a close relationship with the band and with Missing Link, and in whose house the photos were taken - advised them against it as it might be a bit of a career-killer. In that case, actually, it wasn't - because it was funny, I suppose (?). | ||
| david nichols |
I'd like to know what Lindy thinks. | ||
| catfigs |
go-betweens didn't seem to have that kind of cure gimic thing that other bands had. though maybe they did in other ways. maybe that's why the dress thing bothered people. maybe because robert's so bloody tall. maybe he just scared the hell out of everyone. didn't kevin rowland play at glastonbury or something wearing the dress and got beer cans and so forth thrown at him? | ||
| catfigs |
but fear of success. i think its a shame they didn't keep going a bit longer after 16 lovers lane. i think robert and grant were writing some of their best songs in that period. but yeah. i always think they were pretty successful in many ways anyway even if they weren't really recognised at the time. they made albums. went around the world. had interesting lives. from where i am right now that looks like heaven to me. | ||
| Alfred |
The Go-Betweens also had some awful luck. How come record company after record company was unwilling to promote them? If Aztec Camera, Crowded House, Prefab Sprout, the Smiths could have SOME impact SOMEWHERE, why couldn't the Go-Betweens? | ||
| Randy Adams |
Shouldn't "Rock n Roll Friend" have been a major international hit? It has the perfect combo of easy to follow structure, singalong chorus, gorgeous late 80s GoB sound, Robert's weighty vocal delivery and insightful lyrics. In a weird way, it's like the long lost peak number from "Ziggy Stardust." Unbelievable that it didn't become such a huge hit that we'd all be sick of it now. | ||
| andrew stafford |
Alfred asks why the Go-Betweens impact wasn't comparable to bands like Crowded House, Smiths et al. This is an interesting point that will, of course, never be answered, but something a few people here may not know is 16LL came out in August 1988, the same month as the Crowdies' Temple Of Low Men was released. Now, that record didn't do as well as the Crowdies' self-titled debut overseas, but here in Australia it enjoyed heavy radio support and strong sales. Of course, the band were coming off a hit album and Neil Finn already enjoyed a high profile. Why did Better Be Home Soon go to number one here while Streets Of Your Town hovered around the margins of the top 40? It sounds inexplicable (not putting down Better Be Home Soon, a great song in its own right). But I think it probably comes down to three major factors: * As absurd as it sounds, the Go-Betweens were almost a 'new' band in radio terms; it was the first time their commercial potential was taken seriously. Not so for Finn and co. * As lush as 16LL's production sounds next to other GoBs records, it still lacks the richness and fullness of a big commercial production. Everything is relative. Put Streets on followed by Better BHS and hear the difference. * The vocals - Neil Finn's voice is the first thing you hear on BBHS, it's mixed right out in front and it's strong and clear. Grant McLennan was singing better than he ever did on 16LL, but Mark Wallis wasn't about to have him sound like he was crooning in your ear. What I'm saying is, all the Go-Betweens records sound thin by the standards of the time, even 16LL. That doesn't make me love it less. It's still a gorgeous album and I love it to pieces. But those are my explanations as to why it wasn't the big hit all of us wish it was. | ||
| Alfred |
Andrew: your comparison of 'Better Be Home Soon' to 'Streets of Your Town' is right on. It's funny how one's tastes change. I used to love Crowded House as a teen; I'd play "Woodface" and the eponymous album obsessively. When I discovered the Go-Be's however most of my interest in CH evaporated. I'm too aware of how well-constructed Neil Finn's songs are; there's no ambiguity in the lyrics, melodies, or production. CH's albums sound like what might have happened had the Go-Be's recorded "16 Lovers Lane"-esque albums their entire career. I can still play CH's albums for pleasure, but I feel none of the discomfort, unease, and deep loyalty that my GB's albums inspire. The GB's were rarely perfect, and that's why I love them. This explains why everyone for whom I play "Something So Strong" or "When You Come" loves them instantly and why these same sensitive, literate music fans suddenly decide to mow the lawn before "Part Company" or "Bye Bye Pride" have even finished playing. | ||
| andrew stafford |
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I have all the CH albums too, and I play them rarely, but the one I tend to go back to is Together Alone, which has a much less airbrushed feel than the earlier records. The first three Crowdies' albums are dark lyrically with sunny melodies; Together Alone is dark all round. Maybe I just like the dark? ;-) | ||
| Randy Adams |
I usually find the immediately accessible is going to turn into the terminally boring. Is anything without flaws ever beautiful? | ||
| jerry |
Any interest I had in crowded house disappeared after only a month or 2. The go-b's stuff is still fascinating after years of listening, the go-b's are growing into something more than a cult now, a lot of their singles are highly collectable at the moment, in the UK at least. The crowded house back catologue has had it's time, those cd's are consigned to a future in the £1 bins in petrol stations and post offices throughout the land. | ||
| andrew stafford |
Possibly, but that is no reflection on the worth of those albums. Many a great record has been salvaged from a bargain bin! | ||
| Gareth |
Very true, Andrew. I first bought '16 Lovers Lane' from a bargain bin in a shop in Luton, England for one pound. Still ranks as probably the best pound i've ever spent. | ||
| Mark Ilsley |
I'm not at all sure but the overwhelming feeling that I have is that they never saw themselves as rock stars and never wanted to be seen as being above their audience. It's the sort of attitude that is more common in musicians outside rock & pop. It's basically what I meant when I described them as an everyman's band. I guess that they hoped that enough people would be smart enough to see this difference and welcome the relief from the pop/rock stereo types. You can't be a pop star and sing about draining someone's pool, or at least you couldn't in 1984. These days you can be a pop/rock star and sing about the personal experiences you gained whilst perpetrating your last violent crime (and the kids will love you for it). My point is that whist the stereotypical goal posts change all the time, (being cool this year won't be the same as being cool next year) the GBs stuff remains timeless because they never tried to be anything other than ordinary people. So how does this all fit in with their cross-dressing episodes? I don't know, ask someone else. | ||
| Randy Adams |
Were (are) the GoBs ordinary people? I don't know. They followed their fantasies to where they took them which is more than I can say for myself. I can relate to them because their fantasies seem to be very familiar to me, but they actually pursued them. Maybe they could never be really big because those fantasies just weren't what a lot of people were into. I concur on the bargain bin comments. That's how I and my friends used to find all of our collectible records, like David Bowie's original 1967 album on Deram (in the bin before anybody here knew who he was) and Scott Walker's first couple of albums (he made no commercial impact in the U.S. at all). I see little or no correlation between commercial success and merit. | ||
| jerry |
The good thing is, the bargain bins are getting cheaper and cheaper. | ||
| andrew stafford |
Wow! Where can I get me one of those bins? ;-) |