The Album Review Club - Week #216 (page 1412) - Together Alone - Crowded House

mrbelfry said:
Sometimes there is a difference between something being good and you actually liking it. Together Alone by Crowded House is a good example for me. If you disagree with my general comment just think back to the great united teams under Ferguson (great at cheating). The treble team of united were a good team but it was a team in no way I could come close to liking. Where the analogy falls down is that I had plenty of reason to hate united. I have less reasons to hate Crowded House. Hate is certainly too strong a word for simply not liking something though but this is also part of my problem. I think i I like things in the extreme. I'd rather love or hate something than simply like it.

To be clear this is a really "good" album with lots to enjoy. I certainly wouldn't think any less of you for thinking this is great. I just don't like it as much as you or even as much as i think i should. Partly because I like things in the extreme - this is very centrist. Whilst there are lots of good arrangements and excellent tune smithery it rarely does the two things i like the most - quiet bits and loud bits.

Together Alone is the song through which I'm going to try and express why I can't like it. It has the appearance of saying something but says very little except a respectful centrism. The Maori choir hint at a certain spiritual perspective but the melody of "as is once will always be" I'm certain is a old Christian hymn. This idea is further evidenced by the album cover featuring Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad all in the same car. It feels like it's making a very "centrist" and centrist approach to religion and spirituality because they are all going the same way. This is the modern and mature approach but it's also deeply patronising.

When Jesus himself said that HE was the only way to the Father Neil Finn wants to pat him on the head and tell him why he's wrong. Even Jesus referring to God as Father is deeply alien and offensive in Islam and as far as I know Buddhists don't even believe in God. There is nothing smart in taking the none committal route - it's the equivalent of driving your Mk2 Golf at 50mph in the middle lane of the motorway.

This is my over riding impression of this album and why it's good but i don't like it. It's so safe and inoffensive. You might describe that as being a good thing in this divisive and tribal culture but then we'd all have to stop laughing at Arsenal and you might even have to agree that Wayne Rooney's shinned effort is the best goal ever scored in a derby. Crowded House want to make everything the same and inoffensive where as I want to explore the awkward differences.

I realise I'm now about to junk most of my argument by highlighting Locked Out and Together Alone as my two favourite tracks as they sound pretty different but they are both advocating a vaguely pagan worldview which is really nice but ultimately middle. Together Alone - Locked Out and Locked In. Earth and sky. Moon and sea. Crowded House posit a place in the middle so in honour of them i have to award this a 5. It's better than that but let's not get carried away by leaving the centre and having actual opinions or something.
Click to expand...

You have the habit of raising imo very interesting points that are entirely tangential to the threads core (I accept not tangential to your view of the music). I don't know anything about what goes on in Neil Finn or Nick Seymour's heads but I could easily argue that rather then showing a patronising modern centrist approach to Jesus, he/they are simply showing a degree of epistemic humility which you find in even ostensibly exclusionist religions and since Lumen Gentium even the Catholic church manages to display to some degree. I could be wrong but without cornering them after a gig it's hard to know. However no one else on this thread other than me probably gives a toss about that potential discussion so I'll limit my comments to the one egregious statement you have made. The kind of person who was sound enough to have driven a Mk2 Golf would never, I repeat never, have been caught doing 50 in the middle lane. More tangentially still, the problem you allude to has got worse since the introduction of 4 lane 'smart' motorways.

Back to the record, imo it's only 'safe' if they actively wanted to say something else but essentially self censored themselves. For what it's worth and from the little I know about Finn, he does seem a fairly even tempered individual and so I think it's probably an authentic expression of self which is why I don't have a problem with it. Imo from a spiritual/lyrical perspective The Beatles, or at least some of them, spouted more tosh than Crowded House have ever done but lots of their music more than compensated for that. Whilst CH aren't quite in the same league, for me personally their overall qualities make up for whatever inanities may or may not exist in the lyrics.
 
threespires said:
You have the habit of raising imo very interesting points that are entirely tangential to the threads core (I accept not tangential to your view of the music). I don't know anything about what goes on in Neil Finn or Nick Seymour's heads but I could easily argue that rather then showing a patronising modern centrist approach to Jesus, he/they are simply showing a degree of epistemic humility which you find in even ostensibly exclusionist religions and since Lumen Gentium even the Catholic church manages to display to some degree. I could be wrong but without cornering them after a gig it's hard to know. However no one else on this thread other than me probably gives a toss about that potential discussion so I'll limit my comments to the one egregious statement you have made. The kind of person who was sound enough to have driven a Mk2 Golf would never, I repeat never, have been caught doing 50 in the middle lane. More tangentially still, the problem you allude to has got worse since the introduction of 4 lane 'smart' motorways.

Back to the record, imo it's only 'safe' if they actively wanted to say something else but essentially self censored themselves. For what it's worth and from the little I know about Finn, he does seem a fairly even tempered individual and so I think it's probably an authentic expression of self which is why I don't have a problem with it. Imo from a spiritual/lyrical perspective The Beatles, or at least some of them, spouted more tosh than Crowded House have ever done but lots of their music more than compensated for that. Whilst CH aren't quite in the same league, for me personally their overall qualities make up for whatever inanities may or may not exist in the lyrics.
Click to expand...
Your response implies that I have a reasoned and thought out position. I'm often surprised when I start writing where I eventually end up. For example this was going to be a 7 right up until I found myself giving it a 5. When I started writing the only thought i had had was about how you don't always like something when it's good. I had the united analogy and that was it. This means i'm often wrong about the artist and album :) I did go back and edit in the Mk 2 Golf to provoke you but i rarely do that normally. So you give me way too much credit.

I will attempt a reasoned response though. "Epistemic humility" is often presented as a neutral perspective but in reality isn't. By not taking a position the implication is no position is worth taking and anyone who therefore takes one isn't as considered as you. It's like the idea of raising your kids value neutral. It's impossible as even attempting it implies there are no values worth having. I tried to raise my kids with the values I believe are important - they are free to reject those values but they should know where we disagree and why.

I am possibly only poorly qualified to speak about Jesus but he was not epistemically neutral. He made claims that he was the truth. Of course you can reject that but don't then collapse his claims into a generic spirituality and say that what he really meant was that we all have our own paths. It's not humility to tell the son of God what he really meant :)

When I began writing my review I thought i might have included references to the beatles influences but i was also reminded of the kids book "a squash and a squeeze" for fairly obvious reasons. It would probably have been a better review :) The same generic spirituality is evident in this and the beatles stuff. I don't doubt that Neil Finn etc is a lovely guy who wants the best for everyone and I don't doubt that his authentically expressed his views - i just think those views are very safe. You offend no one (except possibly me but i'm easily annoyed and not even really offended) but it's a position that only has the appearance of humility in a way I hope I've outlined. The Lewis Trilemma is appropriate here. If you don't believe in specifics just say that rather than collapse everything into generalities that ultimately mean nothing. You're taking a position either way so just be honest about it.

anyway i tried to think of something interesting to say about the album other than i thought it was ok. The tunes were good and everyone is lovely would have been as accurate but barely worth saying even if it would have been preferable to everyone who had to read it :)

I could say more but all I can hear is my wife sighing about how terrifically boring I am and we are here to discuss the music :)

as a slight aside when I worked for a solicitors it was my experience that only drug dealers drove MK 2's.
 
Last edited:
mrbelfry said:
Your response implies that I have a reasoned and thought out position. I'm often surprised when I start writing where I eventually end up. For example this was going to be a 7 right up until I found myself giving it a 5. When I started writing the only thought i had had was about how you don't always like something when it's good. I had the united analogy and that was it. This means i'm often wrong about the artist and album :) I did go back and edit in the Mk 2 Golf to provoke you but i rarely do that normally. So you give me way too much credit.

I will attempt a reasoned response though. "Epistemic humility" is often presented as a neutral perspective but in reality isn't. By not taking a position the implication is no position is worth taking and anyone who therefore takes one isn't as considered as you. It's like the idea of raising your kids value neutral. It's impossible as even attempting it implies there are no values worth having. I tried to raise my kids with the values I believe are important - they are free to reject those values but they should know where we disagree and why.

I am possibly only poorly qualified to speak about Jesus but he was not epistemically neutral. He made claims that he was the truth. Of course you can reject that but don't then collapse his claims into a generic spirituality and say that what he really meant was that we all have our own paths. It's not humility to tell the son of God what he really meant :)

When I began writing my review I thought i might have included references to the beatles influences but i was also reminded of the kids book "a squash and a squeeze" for fairly obvious reasons. It would probably have been a better review :) The same generic spirituality is evident in this and the beatles stuff. I don't doubt that Neil Finn etc is a lovely guy who wants the best for everyone and I don't doubt that his authentically expressed his views - i just think those views are very safe. You offend no one (except possibly me but i'm easily annoyed and not even really offended) but it's a position that only has the appearance of humility in a way I hope I've outlined. The Lewis Trilemma is appropriate here. If you don't believe in specifics just say that rather than collapse everything into generalities that ultimately mean nothing. You're taking a position either way so just be honest about it.

anyway i tried to think of something interesting to say about the album other than i thought it was ok. The tunes were good and everyone is lovely would have been as accurate but barely worth saying even if it would have been preferable to everyone who had to read it :)

I could say more but all I can hear is my wife sighing about how terrifically boring I am and we are here to discuss the music :)

as a slight aside when I worked for a solicitors it was my experience that only drug dealers drove MK 2's.
Click to expand...

Maybe we need to find another thread but my understanding of epistemic humility is possibly different from yours and I don't think it's synonymous with neutrality even if it's sometimes presented like that; your have to hold a position in order to be in a position to then accept that there may be bounds to your understanding and knowledge relative to that position.

Anyway, true or not, your Mk2 comment made me laugh and I'm now wondering if the IT company I worked for at the time that had loads of young lads scooting around in them including me was actually a front and that I was just too dense to realise. It has been said on more than one occasion that I'm rather naïve.
 
threespires said:
Maybe we need to find another thread but my understanding of epistemic humility is possibly different from yours and I don't think it's synonymous with neutrality even if it's sometimes presented like that; your have to hold a position in order to be in a position to then accept that there may be bounds to your understanding and knowledge relative to that position.

Anyway, true or not, your Mk2 comment made me laugh and I'm now wondering if the IT company I worked for at the time that had loads of young lads scooting around in them including me was actually a front and that I was just too dense to realise. It has been said on more than one occasion that I'm rather naïve.
Click to expand...
Yes I've assumed what you meant by epistemic humility and we may have different starting points. Jumping to wild conclusions and being told I'm wrong is my preferred learning style although I acknowledge that does aggravate people particularly when I passionately argue for positions I didn't hold until I took the contrary view :)

id never really thought about epistemic humility until an hour ago and when I googled Lumen Gentium i gave up trying to understand it and blindly began a post telling you why you were wrong. Assuming im reading your post correctly now l would affirm what you are saying but argue that is not what Neil Finn is doing. And although I hadn't thought about this until this morning I will die on this hill.

IT guys all want to be cool like drug dealers hence the abundance of Mk2's and your affinity with The Streets. Generally speaking naive people have a higher capacity for happiness in my opinion so count yourself blessed.
 
mrbelfry said:
Sometimes there is a difference between something being good and you actually liking it. Together Alone by Crowded House is a good example for me. If you disagree with my general comment just think back to the great united teams under Ferguson (great at cheating). The treble team of united were a good team but it was a team in no way I could come close to liking. Where the analogy falls down is that I had plenty of reason to hate united. I have less reasons to hate Crowded House. Hate is certainly too strong a word for simply not liking something though but this is also part of my problem. I think i I like things in the extreme. I'd rather love or hate something than simply like it.

To be clear this is a really "good" album with lots to enjoy. I certainly wouldn't think any less of you for thinking this is great. I just don't like it as much as you or even as much as i think i should. Partly because I like things in the extreme - this is very centrist. Whilst there are lots of good arrangements and excellent tune smithery it rarely does the two things i like the most - quiet bits and loud bits.

Together Alone is the song through which I'm going to try and express why I can't like it. It has the appearance of saying something but says very little except a respectful centrism. The Maori choir hint at a certain spiritual perspective but the melody of "as is once will always be" I'm certain is a old Christian hymn. This idea is further evidenced by the album cover featuring Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad all in the same car. It feels like it's making a very "centrist" and centrist approach to religion and spirituality because they are all going the same way. This is the modern and mature approach but it's also deeply patronising.

When Jesus himself said that HE was the only way to the Father Neil Finn wants to pat him on the head and tell him why he's wrong. Even Jesus referring to God as Father is deeply alien and offensive in Islam and as far as I know Buddhists don't even believe in God. There is nothing smart in taking the none committal route - it's the equivalent of driving your Mk2 Golf at 50mph in the middle lane of the motorway.

This is my over riding impression of this album and why it's good but i don't like it. It's so safe and inoffensive. You might describe that as being a good thing in this divisive and tribal culture but then we'd all have to stop laughing at Arsenal and you might even have to agree that Wayne Rooney's shinned effort is the best goal ever scored in a derby. Crowded House want to make everything the same and inoffensive where as I want to explore the awkward differences.

I realise I'm now about to junk most of my argument by highlighting Locked Out and Together Alone as my two favourite tracks as they sound pretty different but they are both advocating a vaguely pagan worldview which is really nice but ultimately middle. Together Alone - Locked Out and Locked In. Earth and sky. Moon and sea. Crowded House posit a place in the middle so in honour of them i have to award this a 5. It's better than that but let's not get carried away by leaving the centre and having actual opinions or something.
Click to expand...
You didn't mention if the Mk2 was a GTI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top