Pencilpusher,bloody cheek!

but is that Mark's favourite shirt (see 'Laura Barton' and 'Exile' podcast pics)?

The body language isn't great there. Is Mark straying already? Is it an argument over Marks endless collection of similar blue shirts?

Guitarist/singer, bass player and drummer. I know Mr Hepworth doesn't, but he just looks like a drummer in that shot.

... or is David visibly shrinking with each podcast picture he appears in?

Haven't heard the podcast yet, so don't know if it mentions the Go Between Bridge which opened last week here in Brisbane. This news clip does mention that it was named after The Go Betweens, as suggested by the public. (It doesn't mention that you have to pay a toll to drive over it though. Not seem very rock'n'roll.)

Robert Forster's writing and reviewing is exceptionally good; his reviews are insightful and witty with a terrific way with language that is not self-conscious or pretentious. But the Go-Betweens may be one of the most over-rated bands in rock history and Forster's performances here expose that. He simply cannot play or sing and the lyrics are truly awful. They aren't just cringe inducing, they actually make me groan. Love is a Sign is a song from the album 16 Lovers Lane (probably their best selling album) and nearly every song on it is a similarly navel gazing exercise in considering the romantic complications within the band. In my 20s I bought and listened to their records out of a sense of duty and I listened to them quite a lot so I do actually know their work. I was from Brisbane and they were the great underground Brisbane band. But once I got over the critically induced pressure I was struck not so much by how ordinary they were but how extraordinarily bad they were. But, a really good rock critic. Don't like the book much though - far too much pretense there.

... Bye Bye Pride.

It's a Grant McLennan tune though...

Here's a better clip about the bridge that includes Robert wearing a hard hat and hi-vis jacket.

Forster did an excellent interview on Gideon Coe's 6 Music show too last night that you can listen to here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t1ptm

Dylan in the 60s and 70s was a great singer. Immaculate pitch and control. Listen to Freight Train Blues off the first album or the completely masterful singing on all of Blood on the Tracks, all of Desire and even on Planet Waves his voice has enormous character. Some do not like his tone - the sound of his voice. Forster struggles with pitch and his 'melodies' are often very short.

Lyrically 'Dive for your Memory' is ordinary mainly because he uses tired imagery 'Like a bird, I'd descend.' Worse than that, he falls into confessional mode in the most literal way by writing 'Deep down, I'm lonely and I miss my friend.' I am sure that his defenders and probably Forster and McLennan feel that this is honest and direct and therefore courageous writing in its artlessness. I disagree because there are too many examples of this kind of writing from both of the writers in the band. They rely on very tired images (McLennan kept banging on about rivers and fires ) and there is no sense (for me, obviously) of being invited into the world created by the writer.

I am, in once sense, in the minority. Go-Between fans are appalled by my dismissal of this band (in Australian rock circles its like being dismissive of The Beatles.) But in another sense, because the band were a cult act and they broke up partly because of a failure to 'break through' it's worth asking why and coming up with a different answer to the common one of bad timing, bad luck and bad management. It's not that the songs weren't commercial enough as they had a near hit with the dreadful "Streets of Your Town" ('round and round, up and down through the streets of your town'). It's that the songs were not good enough in terms of melody and rhythm (if there was a whiter band I'm yet to hear them) and were not played well enough. Forster must listen to the truly great Paul Kelly and Neil Finn (not to mention Tim Finn) and think:'right, so that's how you do it.' He really should stick to writing about music because he is great at that.

and agree to differ. I could literally go on all day and night about this but (whisper it quietly) there really are more important things to be arguing about.

Yeah but that's not interesting. And that is true of everything on this site. Why are you whispering?

People I like (your good selves) talking about my hobbies (music and writing) and a festival I'm about to go to (Latitude) in an area I grew up in (Suffolk).

I'd like to rename that one "the Joe podcast" as it seemed to have been specifically designed with me in mind, so thank you very much, it's greatly appreciated. If, in the next podcast, you could update me on what some of my more elusive cousins are getting up to, that's be grand.

And, if I'm honest, the performances on that podcast haven't given me an irrepressible urge to change that. Especially if you compare them to the recent Neil Hannon and Boo Hewerdine ones.

But it was interesting and witty just the same. And it's not easy just to give a performance when your only audience is three blokes and a microphone.

to hear some love for the Ploughman's Lunch as had bought it on DVD a year or so ago. Wasn't quite the work of genius I remembered-but not bad at all.

Wish I could get another of C4's films-the one they did called Reflections (based on John Banville's The Newton Letter).

You knew nothing about this venue when Robert mentioned it and laughed it off as 'Milton Keynes'. Shame on you, it's a fabulous purpose built live music venue catering for all musical tastes, has live music 7 days/week, and from my experience, every musician who plays there for the first time comments on what a fabulous location and theatre it is (including Dr John 2 weeks ago, and the Fabulous Thunderbirds this week). Here's some information, so you know next time a guest mentions it :

'The Stables was founded by Sir John Dankworth and Dame Cleo Laine in 1970 in the old stables block in the grounds of their home. It was an immediate success with 47 concerts given in the first year. It now presents over 350 concerts and around 250 education events in its two auditoria - The 400 seat Jim Marshall Auditorium and smaller studio space - Stage 2. On 6th February 2010 it celebrated its 40th anniversary with a gala concert which was tinged with sadness due to the death earlier in the day of Sir John Dankworth'

My comment about their failure to break through was not "they didn't break through so that says something." Not what I said. It would be a cheap and meaningless shot if I did say that.

sneaking one off at work....

You said that their lack of commercial success was because "the songs were not good enough in terms of melody and rhythm (if there was a whiter band I'm yet to hear them) and were not played well enough."

Well maybe not a cheap shot but in my view your assertion was a big leap. Forget all those factors - here is the real reason. Does that apply to every other band that failed to achieve commercial success despite critical acclaim?

It is just a matter of opinion- you don't like their stuff. Fine. Each to their own. But your comments seem to suggest some sort of objective analysis, as though having stronger melody and rhythm [assuming these things can be objectively determined and that they were deficient] would ensure commerciasl success.

Surely we all know this to be tosh.

Sure - my view is subjective. Absolutely. I teach a literature class (lit theory actually) and one of the key concepts is the non-existence of an objective viewpoint. But, of course, aesthetic criticism is essentially an attempt to justify the subjective experience in objective terms. Justify your argument is the essence. People get narky when a clearly subjective experience is passed off as objective.

Interestingly I showed my class this thread - one of them was impressed at how reasonable an online discussion could be - and I played them Forster's performance and they laughed out loud. But so what? They'd probably laugh at Leonard Cohen too. And I would feel that they were wrong and misguided in their assessment of Cohen. I am a huge Dylan fan yet when I saw him in 1992 his performance was so questionable that I felt for a while as if every doubt about him was right - he did for a short while seem like a complete charlatan. But then he turned around and did a sublime version of Simple Twist of Fate.

So it's subjective and once upon a time I did like the Go-Betweens and I played Tallulah a lot and I still think that 'Right Here' and Bye Bye Pride are good songs. So, I guess my real feeling is that sometimes (not very often) they have been good but that too often even technical competence has eluded them.

Years ago a friend claimed that Sting was not a good singer. I asked her to define her terms when another person intervened and told me that 'Sarah is entitled to her opinion.' Well, of course but it's more interesting when opinions are argued and debated. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this robust discussion.