Take That Circus tour

Take 2 singer/dancer, and 2 dancers, add some catchy songs and market them correctly and away you go. I'm not saying they're not talented performers

I'm saying if you take all that away and just examine their music they are about as deep as a puddle, and the muscial equivalent of candyfloss.

I couldn't care a jot about their dance numbers all I care about is the music (man) and musically they're quite weak, in terms that their songs dont have staying power, feck sake even the stuff they released 10 years ago sounds dated and cringe worthy whereas other pop from much longer ago stands the test of time.

Like what you want, it doesn't bother me but to claim Take That have any musical credibility is pushing it.
 
Eyepopper said:
Jesus fecking Christ, otherwise rational people arguing about the musical credibility of That fecking That, I never thought I'd see it.

Like the songs all you want but dont be fooling yourself that they're anything other than a huge product from start to finish.

They're the musical equivalent of candy floss, if you like that fine, but dont make the mistake of claiming they have an ounce of musical credibility to make you feel better about it.
Click to expand...

snob1.jpg


They write their own songs...to me that = Musical credibility...even if it's just an ounce

How else do you define it without getting into artsey snobbish territory?

So far all I'm hearing from you lot is

"It's not what I like...I know more about Music...Therefore they're not credible"

I'm not claiming they're amazing...I'm claiming they should be given their dues
 
Eyepopper said:
Take 2 singer/dancer, and 2 dancers, add some catchy songs and market them correctly and away you go. I'm not saying they're not talented performers

I'm saying if you take all that away and just examine their music they are about as deep as a puddle, and the muscial equivalent of candyfloss.

I couldn't care a jot about their dance numbers all I care about is the music (man) and musically they're quite weak, in terms that their songs dont have staying power, feck sake even the stuff they released 10 years ago sounds dated and cringe worthy whereas other pop from much longer ago stands the test of time.

Like what you want, it doesn't bother me but to claim Take That have any musical credibility is pushing it.
Click to expand...

What's credibility though? Who decides? The thousands who have made TT's tour the biggest selling ever would say they are credible.

Back for Good and Never Forget have staying power. As does Patience imo - and for all its blandness, Shine has that feel good thing that will last.

And can music be taken too seriously? It's about enjoyment isn't it? Some people claim that Pete Docherty is a musical genius. Don't see it myself.

It's easy enough to distinguish who are great musicians or have good voices, but the music itself is just a matter of taste, surely?
 
It's the classic artistic debate. Musos will say that Take That songs don't have any artistic depth. Fans will say that it doesn't matter, as their songs are still entertaining. The debate can be had across virtually every artistic medium around. It can be a bit annoying when people try to promote something that has no massive artistic pretensions as something more important than it is, though - in a way, it's a disservice to the thing itself.

Not saying that's what Livvie did though - she just said they are 'bloody good'. They probably are - at what they do.
 
moses said:
which gives me the chance to see music without production is all I meant by that ...

you both know a thing or two about football and can identify a shit tv show, but you are the great unwashed in matters musical ... have you heard coldplay ... like Take That except they can make music without a 27 piece orchestra ... and have sold loads of records, so they must be great ... see also Westlife and Girls Aloud ... some of them write their own songs too. Genius.
Click to expand...

I am using the mention of Girls Aloud as an excuse to add some hetrosexuality to this thread.
Girls_Aloud-June2K6-GQ6.jpg

cheryl-tweedy-000.jpg

Girls_Aloud_386717a.jpg
 
sincher said:
It's the classic artistic debate. Musos will say that Take That songs don't have any artistic depth. Fans will say that it doesn't matter, as their songs are still entertaining. The debate can be had across virtually every artistic medium around. It can be a bit annoying when people try to promote something that has no massive artistic pretensions as something more important than it is, though - in a way, it's a disservice to the thing itself.
Click to expand...

Very true...But how do you define artistic depth without bias?..How do you distinguish between Gary Barlow & Michael Jackson?..Jackson is clearly better, but why?..His songs have no real aretistic depth. They're not about anything personal, they're pure pop, and Jacksons' shtick is pure entertainment...there's no artistic depth there..but that doesn't mean there's no artistic merit.

Just as annoying as pushing something banal as something profound is constantly disparaging anything that isn't profound as worthless...It's pompous and arrogant

I don't like take that. I've never bought a song or an album of theirs and never attended a concert, and never will...

But I realise that, unlike the vast majority of packaged pop acts, one of their memebers actually sits down and writes the songs they perform. Effort and creativity go into the process from his end and, as such, he should be given credit for that...

Whether you like the songs, or think their artistically worthy or not is irrelevant...That is simply opinion

But as always with muso snobs their opinion is presented as cold hard indisputable fact

And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
 
i absolutely hate music debates, music snobs get right on my tits.

music is about enjoyment, it doesn´t matter if you´re 5 or 50 if you enjoy the music of any artist then thats fine by me, i´m never gonna have a go at someone for their musical tastes....why would anyone be that conceited??

if any kind of music makes someone happy why would anyone piss all over that??

imagine if you had a child who liked listening to the wombles greatest hits, would you sit them down and tell them its cack and then force them to listen to johnny cash instead.......would ya feck!!

music snobs......cnuts the lot of ya!!!
 
MockneyRevil said:
They write their own songs...to me that = Musical credibility...even if it's just an ounce

How else do you define it without getting into artsey snobbish territory?

So far all I'm hearing from you lot is

"It's not what I like...I know more about Music...Therefore they're not credible"

I'm not claiming they're amazing...I'm claiming they should be given their dues
Click to expand...

I've already said they maybe good performers but I dont think they have any musical credibility, regardless of who writes their songs, I'd be interested to have a look at their credits btw, I'd imagine there's a rather large team of producers and co writers involved making sure they fit the machine, but regardless of all that to me their songs hold no weight, say nothing of relevance to anything, and dont stand any sort of test of time which is how I'd personally judge credibility... you can call that musical snobbery if you like, being labelled an artistic snob doesn't bother me in the slightest, or some might call it taste..

They may be the best at what they do, and if you enjoy it, fair enough but for me music is about much more than just entertainment and Take That as an artistic force (seeing as most seem to be basing their right to recognition on the fact that they 'write their own songs') are about as important, memorable or relevent as Big Brother.

Its all subjective anyway and dependent on personal definitions, so I'll bow out.
 
jdmufc said:
i absolutely hate music debates, music snobs get right on my tits.

music is about enjoyment, it doesn´t matter if you´re 5 or 50 if you enjoy the music of any artist then thats fine by me, i´m never gonna have a go at someone for their musical tastes....why would anyone be that conceited??

if any kind of music makes someone happy why would anyone piss all over that??

imagine if you had a child who liked listening to the wombles greatest hits, would you sit them down and tell them its cack and then force them to listen to johnny cash instead.......would ya feck!!

music snobs......cnuts the lot of ya!!!
Click to expand...

So basically music snobs are cnuts if they try tell people who they should and shouldn't like, I'd go along with that.

But surely by the same measure you shouldn't be telling people what music is all about?

Just saying its all subjective and pretty much impossible to debate as everyones interest and what they're looking to take from it is different.
 
MockneyRevil said:
Very true...But how do you define artistic depth without bias?..How do you distinguish between Gary Barlow & Michael Jackson?..Jackson is clearly better, but why?..His songs have no real aretistic depth. They're not about anything personal, they're pure pop, and Jacksons' shtick is pure entertainment...there's no artistic depth there..but that doesn't mean there's no artistic merit.

Just as annoying as pushing something banal as something profound is constantly disparaging anything that isn't profound as worthless...It's pompous and arrogant

I don't like take that. I've never bought a song or an album of theirs and never attended a concert, and never will...

But I realise that, unlike the vast majority of packaged pop acts, one of their memebers actually sits down and writes the songs they perform. Effort and creativity go into the process from his end and, as such, he should be given credit for that...

Whether you like the songs, or think their artistically worthy or not is irrelevant...That is simply opinion

But as always with muso snobs their opinion is presented as cold hard indisputable fact

And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
Click to expand...

Good post, and I think you're right that Barlow should be acknowledged as a good songwriter, and that how 'artistically deep' the songs are probably doesn't come into that acknowledgement.

The comparison with Michael Jackson is a good one. I'd argue that Jackson is a fair way ahead on sheer volume of good songs, on talent (better singer, better dancer), on the basis that he emerged based purely on his talent before producers went looking for bands, and on the nutometer, where he streaks ahead. I don't know if he's ahead on 'artistic merit' but you could argue that the latter is a function of some of the previous points.
 
Eyepopper said:
So basically music snobs are cnuts if they try tell people who they should and shouldn't like, I'd go along with that.

But surely by the same measure you shouldn't be telling people what music is all about?

Just saying its all subjective and pretty much impossible to debate as everyones interest and what they're looking to take from it is different.
Click to expand...

thats a fair point.......think i´ll bow out myself now
 
MockneyRevil said:
Very true...But how do you define artistic depth without bias?..How do you distinguish between Gary Barlow & Michael Jackson?..Jackson is clearly better, but why?..His songs have no real aretistic depth. They're not about anything personal, they're pure pop, and Jacksons' shtick is pure entertainment...there's no artistic depth there..but that doesn't mean there's no artistic merit.

Just as annoying as pushing something banal as something profound is constantly disparaging anything that isn't profound as worthless...It's pompous and arrogant

I don't like take that. I've never bought a song or an album of theirs and never attended a concert, and never will...

But I realise that, unlike the vast majority of packaged pop acts, one of their memebers actually sits down and writes the songs they perform. Effort and creativity go into the process from his end and, as such, he should be given credit for that...

Whether you like the songs, or think their artistically worthy or not is irrelevant...That is simply opinion

But as always with muso snobs their opinion is presented as cold hard indisputable fact

And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
Click to expand...

Mockney I think you're seriously over estimating how much of the writing Gary Barlow actually does and how much of a hand their producers and co writers have in what each track turns into.

One of the reasons U2 have gone so wanky in recent years is that they now use a massive team of co-writers to help them achieve a certain sound.. while U2 do it in an effort to stay young hip and relevant, Take That and their ilk, do it to guarantee their inoffensiveness, blandness and chart success.

As for Michael Jackson, you could also mention the likes of Stevie Wonder who also wrote lots of very successful pop, the main difference being that whether or not you like the type of music its hard not to admit that they are gifted songwriters and did something original. Whoever has the biggest hand in Take That songs, while they may be catchy, I dont think anyone can argue about their originality or that they are brilliantly gifted. They chrun out songs based on a predefined set of criteria, and they do it well enough.
 
Hmm... seems a bit disingenuous to discredit Gary Barlow but hand out that credit to Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder, both of whom had plenty of help in songwriting.

Even when Take That were unformed, Barlow was respected within the industry as a songwriter of note.
 
Livvie said:
OK, apologies if I over-reacted - I assumed your attitude was like that of Eyepopper who I will now direct my ire at. ;)

The music industry is no different to any other unfortunately. Take books - loads of would be novelists who can't get published, whilst crap like Katie Price is. And that's not being hypocritical - if there's a market for that dross, then fine, but she doesn't even write it herself.

Imho, Take That are good performers, can hold a tune together, and have a huge entertainment value for a lot of people. That makes them more than acceptable and a lot more than candy floss. Their successful comeback is partly down to an incredibly loyal fan base who stuck with them for ten years when they weren't even around, and now to a new generation of fans who they have won over.

They deserve a lot of respect because all that can't be just manufactured.
Click to expand...



The music snobbery card is lame, and over used, in football terms it's called being a purist and noboby will argue that Corrie is better than the Godfather just because 10million + watch it twice a week.

The Brad and Mockneys like to think they know a bit more than most about football and look down on BB and assume some higher ground but can't except being part of the undiscerning masses when it comes to music.

Arguing that Barlow has talent meriting their success is nonsense. Read his damn lyrics and tell me they are good songs that would stand up without the marketing machine behind them.

I have been working for 10 years making CD's and it's heartbreaking and nigh impossible for artists to make it on talent alone. The only record I ever worked on that sold over 100,000 copies was funded to feck by a yank management company and had a high profile band. Not fecking rocket science.

You need this money and the ones who are brave enough to go into debt to get even a fraction of budget are mostly still in debt with an expensive record that sold not enough to recoup.

You don't think Popper or Kinky could write a number one song with that budget behind him, use of the BBC orchestra and guaranteed 10 plays a day on Radio 1 ... I know he could come close, but not with any of his songs as I know them, a little too challenging for most, and that's not snobbery it's a fact, it's just paying attention to what's been happening the last 20 years in the charts.
 
sincher said:
Hmm... seems a bit disingenuous to discredit Gary Barlow but hand out that credit to Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder, both of whom had plenty of help in songwriting.

Even when Take That were unformed, Barlow was respected within the industry as a songwriter of note.
Click to expand...

Really, why? What had he done previous to the Take That auditions?
 
MockneyRevil said:
Very true...But how do you define artistic depth without bias?..How do you distinguish between Gary Barlow & Michael Jackson?..Jackson is clearly better, but why?..His songs have no real aretistic depth. They're not about anything personal, they're pure pop, and Jacksons' shtick is pure entertainment...there's no artistic depth there..but that doesn't mean there's no artistic merit.

Just as annoying as pushing something banal as something profound is constantly disparaging anything that isn't profound as worthless...It's pompous and arrogant

I don't like take that. I've never bought a song or an album of theirs and never attended a concert, and never will...

But I realise that, unlike the vast majority of packaged pop acts, one of their memebers actually sits down and writes the songs they perform. Effort and creativity go into the process from his end and, as such, he should be given credit for that...

Whether you like the songs, or think their artistically worthy or not is irrelevant...That is simply opinion

But as always with muso snobs their opinion is presented as cold hard indisputable fact

And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
Click to expand...

Ok, im dragged in.

In terms of musical theory Jacksons music is much more complex than Barlows. There is a difference between trying to write a good record and a hit record. Jackson was special in that he was able to do both, Off the Wall was a seminal album, and thriller wasnt bad (wahey!) either both in terms of musical progression AND simple catchy image based music. (he wrote dont stop til you get enough in the kitchen with janet and some pans and utensils, seriously, hes that good, he also has an amazing voice)

Musicians here will know that TT's songs are fairly basic in structure, just guessing but they probably follow an A-minor F-Major C-Major G-Major progression of sorts and they are generally simple ballads. It doesnt require that much skill to write a song like that! There are thousands of artists out there with much more intelligent writing methods that simply are ignored because they dont fit into the current haute couture.

But its nothing more than 4 well turned out lads, with average voices and slightly above average songwriting ability - marketed well with an image of "look we're all grown up now, this is serious music here" which the previous 15 year old girl fans (now 28 see where im going here) can digest to fit in with their lifestyle. Its nothing more, and there is nothing wrong with liking that! You are supposed to like it!
 
sincher said:
Hmm... seems a bit disingenuous to discredit Gary Barlow but hand out that credit to Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder, both of whom had plenty of help in songwriting.
Click to expand...

Not if you compare the out put. Unless you're saying that Take That are as good as Stevie Wonder or Michael Jackson?

sincher said:
Even when Take That were unformed, Barlow was respected within the industry as a songwriter of note.
Click to expand...

Was he? By who? What songs is he responsible for pre Take That?
 
moses said:
The music snobbery card is lame, and over used, in football terms it's called being a purist and noboby will argue that Corrie is better than the Godfather just because 10million + watch it twice a week.

The Brad and Mockneys like to think they know a bit more than most about football and look down on BB and assume some higher ground but can't except being part of the undiscerning masses when it comes to music.

Arguing that Barlow has talent meriting their success is nonsense. Read his damn lyrics and tell me they are good songs that would stand up without the marketing machine behind them.

I have been working for 10 years making CD's and it's heartbreaking and nigh impossible for artists to make it on talent alone. The only record I ever worked on that sold over 100,000 copies was funded to feck by a yank management company and had a high profile band. Not fecking rocket science.

You need this money and the ones who are brave enough to go into debt to get even a fraction of budget are mostly still in debt with an expensive record that sold not enough to recoup.

You don't think Popper or Kinky could write a number one song with that budget behind him, use of the BBC orchestra and guaranteed 10 plays a day on Radio 1 ... I know he could come close, but not with any of his songs as I know them, a little too challenging for most, and that's not snobbery it's a fact, it's just paying attention to what's been happening the last 20 years in the charts.
Click to expand...

Most popular music lyrics are shit. Reading the lyrics isn't much of a guide to whether or not someone can write a song, unfortunately.

At some point, all art has to have an appeal - something that people want. I'm sure breaking through is a lot down to luck, but staying there isn't.
 
MockneyRevil said:
And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
Click to expand...

they are heavily backed by their record company and I think they are harmless, bland and as art quite unchallenging , but they have a bit more musical nous than Take That in all fairness. They are MOR but not just 4 singers and a guy who can, agruably, write a song. The mere fact they formed independently of an orcestrated audition held by a management company and play insstruments is a rather obvious difference and key to the argument; that their musical talent is way less than their success might suggest.
 
sincher said:
Most popular music lyrics are shit. Reading the lyrics isn't much of a guide to whether or not someone can write a song, unfortunately.

At some point, all art has to have an appeal - something that people want. I'm sure breaking through is a lot down to luck, but staying there isn't.
Click to expand...

right so his lyrics are shit and the band don't play any instruments , are you really still on the side of 'their talent is what got them their sucsess'?
 
jdmufc said:
i absolutely hate music debates, music snobs get right on my tits.

music is about enjoyment, it doesn´t matter if you´re 5 or 50 if you enjoy the music of any artist then thats fine by me, i´m never gonna have a go at someone for their musical tastes....why would anyone be that conceited??

if any kind of music makes someone happy why would anyone piss all over that??

imagine if you had a child who liked listening to the wombles greatest hits, would you sit them down and tell them its cack and then force them to listen to johnny cash instead.......would ya feck!!

music snobs......cnuts the lot of ya!!!
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that music snobs are often musicians?

Can you see the correlation?

can you? And are we to treat you like a child? You arent a child.

i could equally say i hate musical phillistines, but i wont, because i dont and its not very nice to call someone who doesnt listen to alot of music a phillistine.


Hmm, on a re-read this comes out as a little harsh.
 
moses said:
right so his lyrics are shit and the band don't play any instruments , are you really still on the side of 'their talent is what got them their sucsess'?
Click to expand...

I never said that, but there are plenty of respected and talented artists out there whose lyrics are also shit, and who don't play any musical instruments.
 
jdmufc said:
i absolutely hate music debates, music snobs get right on my tits.

music is about enjoyment, it doesn´t matter if you´re 5 or 50 if you enjoy the music of any artist then thats fine by me, i´m never gonna have a go at someone for their musical tastes....why would anyone be that conceited??

if any kind of music makes someone happy why would anyone piss all over that??

imagine if you had a child who liked listening to the wombles greatest hits, would you sit them down and tell them its cack and then force them to listen to johnny cash instead.......would ya feck!!

music snobs......cnuts the lot of ya!!!
Click to expand...

Nobody is pissing over anything, this all stems from my comparing them to BB. BB has massive audiences and loads enjoy it, but dissin that isn't snobbery , why?

This is an argument about whether they are as successful as they are on talent alone and not some anomaly due to the structure of the entertainment industry.
 
moses said:
like who? and respected by who?
Click to expand...

Well for example Michael Jackson's lyrics are crap, he can't even read sheet music, and he has been variously described by the musical press in his time as a 'phenomenon'. There are countless other examples.

Just about the only musical artist whose lyrics can be considered as quality art is Dylan.
 
MockneyRevil said:
Very true...But how do you define artistic depth without bias?..How do you distinguish between Gary Barlow & Michael Jackson?..Jackson is clearly better, but why?..His songs have no real aretistic depth. They're not about anything personal, they're pure pop, and Jacksons' shtick is pure entertainment...there's no artistic depth there..but that doesn't mean there's no artistic merit.

Just as annoying as pushing something banal as something profound is constantly disparaging anything that isn't profound as worthless...It's pompous and arrogant

I don't like take that. I've never bought a song or an album of theirs and never attended a concert, and never will...

But I realise that, unlike the vast majority of packaged pop acts, one of their memebers actually sits down and writes the songs they perform. Effort and creativity go into the process from his end and, as such, he should be given credit for that...

Whether you like the songs, or think their artistically worthy or not is irrelevant...That is simply opinion

But as always with muso snobs their opinion is presented as cold hard indisputable fact

And on a side note...disparaging them as packaged is similarly pointless. Every mainstream pop/rock/hip hop etc etc act is packaged to a degree....moses mentioned Coldplay on the previous page who are every bit as packaged...in fact the re-launch of take that was done in a very similar mould to the Coldplay packaging. This is brought up constantly as a way to undermine Me/Bra/Livvie's points but its a smoke screen to ignore having to give them credit for songwriting...
Click to expand...

so you are allowed to decide what is good and bad in terms of tv and football but music is different? anyone with a musical opinion is a snob ... very lame Mockers.

Music has survived many ages and mediums and without the industry they and many others would never have been musicians. They need stylists, TV, Glossy mags producers and managers , a lot do but a lot don't, and they are the real musical talent.

Robbie Williams is hailed as a great entertainer and he is, and so are Take That, great entertainers, as is well argued by all in this thread but I still maintain their musical talent is only a tiny portion of the success they have achieved. They are the court jesters of modernity.
 
sincher said:
Well for example Michael Jackson's lyrics are crap, he can't even read sheet music, and he has been variously described by the musical press in his time as a 'phenomenon'. There are countless other examples.

Just about the only musical artist whose lyrics can be considered as quality art is Dylan.
Click to expand...

On Jacko , I agree, but he is a brilliant singer and a fantastic dancer.

Dylan is my hero but many others have great lyrics ... Morrissey, Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed, John Cale , Damon Albarn wrote some great songs as did Noel Gallagher.

Any of the above compared to Barlow are like philosophers ... If his only talent is as a songwriter and his lyrics are shit and the others don't do fecking anything then you have to say they did rather well considering the actual talnet on display.
 
sincher said:
Well for example Michael Jackson's lyrics are crap, he can't even read sheet music, and he has been variously described by the musical press in his time as a 'phenomenon'. There are countless other examples.

Just about the only musical artist whose lyrics can be considered as quality art is Dylan.
Click to expand...

But technically a lot of his songs are excellent, particularly his earlier stuff, which was diverse in style and in a lot of cases ground breaking. I'm no fan of Michael Jackson or his music by the way. But for the type of music he writes he's excellent at it.

I dont know what your point is about being able to read sheet music.

As for saying Dylan is the only lyricist whose work can be considered art, well sorry but thats just complete and utter bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.