Comments on: Jarvis Cocker – Further Complications (2009)

By: Mike Mineo

Mike Mineo — Wed, 20 May 2009 03:50:01 +0000

judging by richard hawley’s solo material, i assume his contributions were prominent as well

By: Dan Whoarly

Dan Whoarly — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:11:41 +0000

I am not sure of whether it is a question of what Jarvis is capable of but what his colloborators are capable of. There is no getting away form the fact that the Pulp songs were better constructed songs and melodies. Jarvis was 50% of the cake. I want to know who was the driving force behind those great songs that is noticeably absent on his solo releases. Jarvis seems to take all the credit for Pulp because of his brilliant lyrics but someone in Pulp is getting seriously overlooked.

Jarvis is a great lyricist and poet but maybe not a great songwriter. Bit like Morrissey in this respect. Bacahrach/David. Morrissey/Marr. Pairings of Songsmiths and wordsmiths.Jarve needs a songsmith.

By: Mike Mineo

Mike Mineo — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:36:15 +0000

Johnny, that’s the point. I usually expect Jarvis’ vocals to serve as a supreme additive, like on many Pulp tracks and even solo tracks. “Homewrecker!” is just an example of how his vocal melodies seem noticeably lazy, adding little to the overall structure of the songs. They might as well called it an instrumental… the vocals seem completely forced. The content in these tracks aren’t strong enough to stand on their own, and even on Pulp tracks where this was the case Cocker picked up the song with some lyrical wit or melodic additive. This is rarely present on this album, save for the excellent “I Never Said I Was Deep” and a few other good moments. I just think this result sounds rushed… most of us know what Jarvis is capable of

By: Project Blue

Project Blue — Sat, 02 May 2009 13:24:01 +0000

It’s like you can’t please all the people all the time. Jarvis tries a slightly different approach and people still want the old style of doing things.

Me, I love this album. It’s corking. There is not one track on here, that I don’t like.

I can’t help but feel that if John Peel was still with us, he would go bonkers about this album and give it the promotion and credit it truly deserves.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Sat, 02 May 2009 08:16:12 +0000

Did you actually listen to the album? “Homewrecker” is not an instrumental.

By: David from the Garage

David from the Garage — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:16:08 +0000

I’m one of those crazy fans that has followed every nuance of Cocker’s career since I first heard ‘Babies’ back in 1994. I probably know Cocker’s output better than the man himself. My opinion of the new album is that it’s a return to form rather than a disappointment.

I would agree that the lyrics are not always the sharpest Cocker has written, but then, who cares? He’s already written more great bon mots than virtually any songwriter out there. If you dig through all his b-sides and rarities, you’ll find enough wit to compete with Oscar Wilde.

What Jarvis hasn’t done much in recent years is produce the kind of quick, hooky songs that first shot his band to fame. In my opinion, he’s worked so hard to be inventive that he’s forgone the simple joy of a catchy tune. In this album, I think, Jarvis is trying to fill that gap in his catalogue.

I think several songs on the record are excellent: I Never Said I was Deep and Hold Still are my favourites. But I also like Homewrecker, Further Complications and Leftovers. I’m less impressed with Caucasian Blues and Your In My Eyes, the latter of which has potential, but it gets repetitive and Jarv’s vocals seem too far out front. The only song I vehemently dislike is Fuckingsong, because I hate that heavy guitar sound.

I would take any of these songs over the half-hearted wankery of Pulp’s last record, We Love Life. I also think it’s a more consistent record than Jarvis’ first solo record, which had it’s moments, but never really gelled as whole for me.