I can understand why people say the Church should or shouldn't do poppy songs (BTW thank-you for the explanation regards Easy, Chrome 3D), but I suppose a song is just created, and then we can all make our judgements later, on whatever catorgory it should fill.
I guess that's why the boys had so much hassle early on, with their perspective record company execs always chasing that 3 min catchy pop hit, but the 4-5min standard is what originally drew me to the Church originally, beside of course, the fact that they delivered some magnificent, and brilliant angelic sounds to my ears.

It reminds me when Seance came out around '83, 'No reason' was the first single, and to be fair to the mainstream radio of that time (Triple M), they gave it good air time, though I laugh when I hear how that particular song was so anti-mainstream in it's whole make-up, yet people did like it.
It is funny to think, that though some songs styles today would have been unplayable thirty years ago and visa-versa of course, but it is in the exposure of these styles that change attitudes. I feel the Church is one band that given the exposure, attitudes would have been changed.

So sorry to get off track of the thread, and I realise that I'm preaching to the choir here, but it is just that I went with the flow of the conversation I guess, apologies.

I just can't understand why there seems to be no mainstream outlet for some thing like U23, oh well, their loss.


BTW Dugster, I was also uhming and ahhing about those two albums where 'Easy' could have come, I just went with OSAH in the end, as that was my first thought.