STEWART COPELAND

"Q: What's been the toughest song to reinterpret?

A: "Don't Stand So Close to Me." We haven't been able to crack that, so we may have to kick it out. We're just not happy with it, and no one else is. We're still messing around with it."

(source: STLtoday)

This quite curious - Stew sounds like he's saying the band might prefer to drop a song because it’s new arrangement isn’t working, rather than go back to basics and play it straight (eg – ‘Message’ was locked, maybe ‘Don’t Stand’ is as well? ) .. Personal opinion - If I was getting back together with my old band, the first thing I would do is listen to our old live recordings and see worked and what didn’t. The boys don’t like how they -used- to play this song, either? They’d rather drop it altogether? This seems strange.

The boys are magnificently talented musicians.
A good Police cover band can play 'Don't Stand So Close To Me' and it will sound quite decent.

To wit:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MsQgJwb4Zck

yet Copeland is suggesting that THE POLICE "haven't been able to crack it" ?!

er... i have said some ridiculous things at this site, but Stewart, you're really sounding nuts right now. The Police can't crack one of their own songs?

I will posit a theory, based on my own personal bias which is in turn based on the maxim "if it isn't broken, you'd better have a darned good reason for trying to fix it":

The band, whether it be at Sting's behest or not, are evidently determined to play certain songs differently, or not at all. If this is wrong, then why don't they try it 'the old way' rather than ditching it altogether?

'Message' is the best example of this. They couldn't 'crack' a redone version of this either, and the old way is the best way according to the band here. How does this not apply to 'Don't Stand', when the present arrangement, as admitted by the band's own drummer, just isn't working? .... and why does "Don't Stand" *HAVE* to be reinvented at all? I'm disappointed that it has to be 'the new way' or 'not at all' with this song. According to what Stew appears to be saying. Thank god they didn't take that attitude with 'Message', hey?

"We're still messing around with it."

Majestic, divine, glorious Mr Copeland, if the new arrangement isn't working, why still 'mess around' with it? The wheel doesn't need reinventing all the time. Perhaps "DSSCTM" is trying to tell you something.... "I am not broken!"

I know there are a few folks out there who like the new arrangement, but I'm working with *the band's* opinion here....

PS STEWART! Your inspired derangement of this song really transcended the original. THAT could be where you guys try to head....


PSS I'm still perplexed. Copeland's saying the Police can't crack one of their own songs....

I personally didn't think the original played live was up to much. It works on record but live it always seemed too fast and clunky. Replace it with Tea in the Sahara please

Well, let's stick to the facts then: the 'original' live arrangement worked for the band for a good 3-4 years. Just like the original arrangement (with a few small changes here and there) of 'Message'.

If Copeland self-admittedly says that the band tried to do something else with 'Message', and it didn't work, therefore they stuck to the classic arrangement, how does this not apply to 'Don't Stand'? It doesn't make any sense and I think they're selling themselves a bit short. Not everything has to be changed to sound fresh, they have proved that.

Maybe it's a case of "we have to play this for the fans, being the hit that it is" but they don't like the way it sounds live, or are bored with it, at least playing it as recorded. So they want to change it up. Maybe it's a challenge to see what they can do to make it enjoyable for them to play, has a new spark, yet still retains the elements of the old for the fans that expect it. Rather than drop it totally, they'll keep messing with it till they find what they want. Can't blame them for that- I would totally do the same.

With Message- we all know that's Stewart's fav, and agreed it's musical formula is something that shouldn't be messed with. Besides from my perspective- playing message is a whole lot more fun than playing Don't Stand.

One day when this whole Police adventure is at an end and we get some fireside reading from STEWART, we'll get some answers to the questions that keep coming up.

What Anthony said, pretty much. Although I thought about this too and I think what's missing from the live version is the outright menace of the recorded original.

The intro builds for what, like 15 seconds? Before Stewart's snares start building up a really delicious tension, and then the vocal teases us with this sort of slow enunciation....

I think you've got to be willing to take time with that one to do it right. As it's being played now, it's all sweetness and light, and that just ain't what that song is about. It's about misery, not puffy pop confection.

Completely agree, Dive -

The way they did this back in the day was great - really nice buildup and very dark. They have really kept the buildup in the intro short, super short, almost cursory, this time, and it's too sweet sounding.

The original juxtaposes a jolly, upbeat catchy chorus between dark, menacing verses - a dynamic that has been lost in the 2007 arrangement.

Ditto to the above comments as well. And even that upbeat catchy chorus is masking the misery because the lyric, after all, is "DON'T stand so close to me." (It's an anti-love song in a way.) That's one of the (many) reasons the song is so brilliant -- because you're dancing around the room to the poppy chorus of this guy's absolute misery. The whole song is about juxtapositions, ambiguity, confusion, tension, dilemma. Not to mention the quiet creepiness of the whole situation -- and the creepiness when you realize that you're rooting for the two to get it on.

But even back in the day, I don't remember being especially happy with the live version -- to me it still sounded too happy. The opening of it needs to set that teetering-on-a-knife's-edge mood and then maintain throughout. Those tinkly hihats and that low acidy tone at the beginning that stretches all through the first verse really helped set that mood.

The song should be unsettling. That's part of its beauty.


(Damn it -- this reminds me that I've got a triplet that I owe you from way back, Dive -- I had used the opening three tracks to Zenyatta. I remember writing most of it -- what the hell do I do with it?)

I'm happier with it now than when they rehearsed it to begin with. If you watch one of the earlier Tour Rehearsal videos they tried it a la the "All This Time" version, which SUCKED. I think they even went out on tour with that turd version, so thank God they changed it a little.

I'd say just speed it up a bit. In Dallas it was good, just slow. Oh, and Sting--that teleprompter at your feet is there for a reason. Use it, and don't repeat the second verse. Also, that half verse trailing off thing you love to do....can it.

There. I feel better.

I wonder if it's a vocal-range issue?

I mean, one of the key selling points to me of the original version was Sting's high pitched opening ("Young teacher...") over that dark, brooding undercurrent. If he can't hit those notes any longer, maybe he thinks the whole thing needs to be changed up?

I don't know, just random lunch-hour pondering. And I agree 100% that they should be doing Stewart's Deranged version of the song if they have to revamp it, because that version kicks major ass.

Never cared for the song anyway. They have taken different musical directions for several years, maybe when a song does not "gel" anymore it should be dropped from the setlist in favor of something else.
Personally, I would not miss it. Always hoping that the "new" song comes out somehow!

Well, I haven't heard it since opening night. I'll have to check recent boots. They've apparently dropped Murder and something else (can't remember). If they feel they really MUST drop it at least bring some new stuff in. ie BRING ON THE NIGHT!!!!!!! How about Fallout or Omegaman? Andy could absolutely tear the place up with OM! Maybe that's what Sting's afraid of. They may not be greatest hits material but they may sell a few more albums if people hear them and think, "Oh, those are cool. I'll have to go buy the albums they're on." As if, they don't already own them.

sambrun, you got it.
BRING ON THE NIGHT! That is one of their best songs, and personally my RDB favorite - he also made a live version that is really jaw'dropping after the group's demise, but, like OM, needs serious vocal chops...maybe that's the issue. I personally liked MBN, but many people "doen waen any of dat jazz"....
I just hope that if I catch Toronto they won't play Demolitiion man, man I hate that song with all my guts! It's the least Police song ever and a lot of filler live.

I have songs from 20 years back that there's no way in hell I can do now. Mostly because I have no interest in doing it now, and can't get inspired as a result.

It just... happens. You're a different you now than you were then. Maybe the cover version really should be left to cover bands. Excellent idea.

interesting comments.... although the real kicker is the one about the band not being able to 'crack' it (stewart, you feeling better yet...?) with DSSCTM.

i have wondered aboutb the vocal range issue, and it's not the reason IMO. If it were, they would have ditched 'so lonely'. they didn't have to totally rearrange that one to accommodate sting's slightly huskier range, they simply changed the key a bit.....

i think sting can still hit more notes than he gets credit for, as well.

it bewilders me they don't just go back to the original arrangement of DSSCTM and work from there - the first verse, sung low (it actually bugged me that in the old days sting would screech out the first verse so high), chorus, up, 2nd verse, up....

i mean, THE SECRET POLICE can play it, for the love of..... if Sting Andy and Stewart no longer can 'crack' one of their own songs, then... man... i just.... don't.... know......

[quote="tj7"]>>>man... i just.... don't.... know......<<<[/quote]

Nope. You don't.

Time is a harsh mistress, or something like that. When I was in high school, I could jump up and touch the rim of a 10' basketball hoop. I couldn't slam, of course, not as a 5' 11" white kid. And I haven't shrunk; I'm still the same height. But I went out the other day and I can't even come freakin' close to the rim. Like, not within 6".

It'd be sad, except I find that my jump shot, some 21 years after playing my last high school game, is BETTER. I don't know why. Maybe I'm calmer now. Maybe I figured out some stuff that eluded me back then. I have no idea.

But the point is that I'm NOT the me I was in the early '80s. I'm not a WORSE me, per se, nor a BETTER me. I'm a different me. I still like me, but for different reasons than I did then.

Somewhere in there, there's an analogy. I'll leave it to you to decide if this has any relevance toward DSSCTM.