Take That Circus tour

[sincher]

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.

Yes, though the songs are often the key piece as far as success goes, so some respect has to be attached to that part - it's not necessarily easy to write songs that are really popular in an enduring way.

I agree with you though that they aren't the most talented bunch. They look a bit embarrassing on stage if you take away all the production, for starters.

 

[RedSky]

Ain't he the fella from Blur? Some good songs here and there but nothing great about him. Ordinary i'd class him as. Richard Ashcroft shits on what Damian brought to the table with Blur.

Gotta love debating music

Take That are brilliant at what they do, and deserve to get the aclaim they've had. Espically after reviving the band and still cracking out some great songs. Good on em I say and fair play Gary Barlow for turning his life around.

 

[B Cantona]

so barlow has more talent than damon albarn ... my work here is done , I'm no doctor.

My left buttock has more talent than Albarn, but that's by the by

It's not about who Barlow has more talent than; he has talent

I understand what you're saying about the manufactured nature of music, and how maybe talented artists don't get a deal. That's why I'm not sad to see the industry struggling with the economic climate, and the changing way we buy and listen to our music. And believe me, everyone knows how it works, you're not hiding some great secret here

But the mistake you're making, is to write off everything that comes out of it. Take That endure because they're a great live act (I'm told ), and they have the songs, which Barlow writes. Maybe you're not so keen on these songs, because you're a music snob who doesn't like this genre of music. But millions are, and they haven't bought Take That CD's for nearly 2 decades because the industry tells them too. They buy them because they like their stuff. We're not all as stupid and subjugated to the music industry as you think

 

[moses]

Ain't he the fella from Blur? Some good songs here and there but nothing great about him. Ordinary i'd class him as. Richard Ashcroft shits on what Damian brought to the table with Blur.

Gotta love debating music

Take That are brilliant at what they do, and deserve to get the aclaim they've had. Espically after reviving the band and still cracking out some great songs. Good on em I say and fair play Gary Barlow for turning his life around.

you see that's a conversation I could have without feeling I'm talking to people who get thier musical nous from ITV on a saturday night

 

[moses]

My left buttock has more talent than Albarn, but that's by the by

It's not about who Barlow has more talent than; he has talent

I understand what you're saying about the manufactured nature of music, and how maybe talented artists don't get a deal. That's why I'm not sad to see the industry struggling with the economic climate, and the changing way we buy and listen to our music. And believe me, everyone knows how it works, you're not hiding some great secret here

But the mistake you're making, is to write off everything that comes out of it. Take That endure because they're a great live act (I'm told ), and they have the songs, which Barlow writes. Maybe you're not so keen on these songs, because you're a music snob who doesn't like this genre of music. But millions are, and they haven't bought Take That CD's for nearly 2 decades because the industry tells them too. They buy them because they like their stuff. We're not all as stupid and subjugated to the music industry as you think

I believe you believe that you have more talent than Albarn.

I agree that the death of the industry brings new promise.

I am not writing off everyting, I'm just saying their fame is disproprtionate.

And people buy what is popular Brad, why it is popular you have said yourself in the bold bit above.

 

[Eyepopper]

Some of their quality songwriting that reinforces Take Thats musical credibility





Only the most hardnosed music snobs would refuse to see the talent in these classics and give credit where its due.

Brad, Mockers, do you have any favourites

 

[B Cantona]

I believe you belive that you have more talent than Albarn.

I agree that the death of the industry brings new promise.

I am not writing off everyting, I'm just saying their fame is disproprtionate.

And people buy what is popular Brad, why it is popular you have said yourself in the bold bit above.

No no, they're popular because of this bit, in bold

Take That endure because they're a great live act... and they have the songs

 

[Eyepopper]

Originally Posted by Brad
Take That endure because they're a great live act... and they have the songs

See above...

 

[B Cantona]

Brad, Mockers, do you have any favourites

I do have 'favourite' songs I prefer of Take That as it goes, ay!

This is why I rarely argue about music, because you always come across this type of snobbery. A true music aficionado would appreciate the best of what ever genre had to offer. There's some dreadful manufactured pap out there, and it doesn't sell as a result. Maybe by virtue of a 'Pop Idols' competition, you can get a pretty average artist to number one at Christmas. But getting them back there when the hype and bollocks dies down? Suddenly not so easy, and they usually lose their record deals and go back into obscurity

We're talking about a band that was formed in 1989, who continue to reach the top of the charts to this day. If that was so easy to manufacture and 'fool' the public with, why isn't every music mogul creating another Take That? They're not talented supposedly, so it shouldn't be tough. And the public are thick, they'd buy anything if they're told too... or maybe not eh?

 

[moses]

In Ireland if you can sell 10,000 records you will sell 20,000 with a bit of a TV campaign. The second 10 is a relative piece of piss, the next 10 is hard here because of the market size. Selling new music is almost impossible, people like something if they see it on TV or is recommended by Terry Wogan, It's that simple most of the time. I bust my balls trying to do this week in week out, my house is literally half full with unsold cd's. I'm not just talking bollocks or being a snob, I really care about music and musicians and really really hate the record industry as it stands interwoven with other media and marketing and choices made for us by others. It is not an even playing field where talent is rewarded, and I think Take That and the rest of the manufactured cnuts (Barlow's odd good tune doesn't set them as far apart for me as for you and few others) Boyzone, Westtlife, Girls Aloud etc all very popular and enteraining but mere cabaret in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RedSky]

To be fair Eyepopper, you've chosen songs right at the start of their carear. When the gimic of a boyband was about jumping around and looking gay, they've developed alot since those early days and grown up. Some of their recent stuff and the music before they split up isn't too bad.

It's a damn sight better than the equiviliant rubbish of McFly, WestLife, Boyzone, East 17 and all that bollocks.

 

[Eyepopper]

We're talking about a band that was formed in 1989, who continue to reach the top of the charts to this day. If that was so easy to manufacture and 'fool' the public with, why isn't every music mogul creating another Take That?

Because they dont need to anymore. Nowadays the mogules are a lot more clued into making money out of these types of bands. The bands are a consumable and theres a template for their careers, move them along the production line, make the money thats there to be had easily and cheaply by repeating what went before, then replace them with another band & start the process again. Have you ever heard to the story of when the Backstreet Boys suddenly wanted more control and influence over their careers, the producers replaced them with NSync. The industry developed

Take That were the first modern 'boyband' to achieve that level of success and they were developed from there. Its not a coincidence that none of them made a mark as a solo artist without the hype behind them. Its also not a coincidence that no other boyband got quite as big after them but lots came along had limted success and were then swiftly dropped and replaced.

This new trend of resurrecting the bands is just the next stage of development in the industry.

 

[moses]

I do have 'favourite' songs I prefer of Take That as it goes, ay!

This is why I rarely argue about music, because you always come across this type of snobbery. A true music aficionado would appreciate the best of what ever genre had to offer. There's some dreadful manufactured pap out there, and it doesn't sell as a result. Maybe by virtue of a 'Pop Idols' competition, you can get a pretty average artist to number one at Christmas. But getting them back there when the hype and bollocks dies down? Suddenly not so easy, and they usually lose their record deals and go back into obscurity

We're talking about a band that was formed in 1989, who continue to reach the top of the charts to this day. If that was so easy to manufacture and 'fool' the public with, why isn't every music mogul creating another Take That? They're not talented supposedly, so it shouldn't be tough. And the public are thick, they'd buy anything if they're told too... or maybe not eh?

Enough of this nonsense brad , you are one of the all round smuggest cnuts on this forum, throwing your opinion around as unchallengeable fact day in day out.

It's a bit like Jack Charlton's Ireland team .

But they beat England? They are in world cup? The Ground is full every week? The FAI are making a mint? Kids are all wearing Ireland shirts?

Everyone here became a fecking football pundit in the late 80's and called me a footballing snob because despite their success it just wasn't quite right in my world.

This thread has massive echoes of that.

 

[RedSky]

Robbie Williams would be classed as a successful solo artist tbh Pops.

 

[moses]

To be fair Eyepopper, you've chosen songs right at the start of their carear. When the gimic of a boyband was about jumping around and looking gay, they've developed alot since those early days and grown up. Some of their recent stuff and the music before they split up isn't too bad.

It's a damn sight better than the equiviliant rubbish of McFly, WestLife, Boyzone, East 17 and all that bollocks.

So what Dylans first album at 21 with nothing but a guitar is fecking crytal genius. A songwriter needs no more than a quiet room. And we boiled their 'defence' form us snobs down to his abilty as a songwriter.

And maybe it is better tha the list you mentioned , but they are like muisical aids.

 

[Eyepopper]

Robbie Williams would be classed as a successful solo artist tbh Pops.

Because he jumped from one machine into an even bigger one.

Also one of the main reasons he went was to try and be considered with more credibility than he was in a boyband...

 

[Eyepopper]

To be fair Eyepopper, you've chosen songs right at the start of their carear. When the gimic of a boyband was about jumping around and looking gay, they've developed alot since those early days and grown up. Some of their recent stuff and the music before they split up isn't too bad.

It's a damn sight better than the equiviliant rubbish of McFly, WestLife, Boyzone, East 17 and all that bollocks.

Funny that isnt it. Its nearly like someone somewhere realised there was a cow to be milked and threw a couple of decent songwriters and producers together to write the right type of songs for them.

Not that that ever happens in the music industry mind.

 

[B Cantona]

Enough of this nonsense brad , you are one of the all round smuggest cnuts on this forum, throwing your opinion around as unchallengeable fact day in day out.

It's a bit like Jack Charlton's Ireland team .

But they beat England? They are in world cup? The Ground is full every week? The FAI are making a mint? Kids are all wearing Ireland shirts?

Everyone here became a fecking football pundit in the late 80's and called me a footballing snob because despite their success it just wasn't quite right in my world.

This thread has massive echoes of that.

You're the one being the smug snob here mate. I'm just defending a group I don't mind, but am hardly a huge fan of, my music is Oasis and indie bands, because you're not giving them fair dues. You can't acknowledge their talent in this instance because you're blinding by hatred for the machine that initially formed them. But they've gone beyond that now

As for football, I'm not a smug cnut, but when people make bizarre statements and arguments like Zlatan being a better footballer than Rooney, and all they can use to back that up is daft meaningless bollocks like how he's more 'naturally talented'... well I challenge them to back it up better than that

 

[RedSky]

And maybe it is better tha the list you mentioned , but they are like muisical aids.

I classify them as a great pop band. I don't really like pop music, as I hated the majority of the shit that was thrown at us during the 90's. I also prefer the stuff they've done since returning from the Abyss. But who am I to judge whether they're shit or not. I don't want to sound like Alan fecking Green and the important thing is that their music like the really top quality bands has touched millions of people. Thats the important thing in my book.

Will their music be played in 20/30 years time? I think it probably will. So therefore mr.Barlow has full right to lift his middle finger in your direction Moses

 

[B Cantona]

Robbie Williams would be classed as a successful solo artist tbh Pops.

Good example. Initially, his music sales were dying on their arse. So much for 'the machine'. He was an unsuccessful music artist

Then you know what happened? Angels

And he followed that up with more songs. He had the songs, and that's why he did well. I'm pretty sure he was co-writing some of those with a music partner not so sure

But that was the basis of his solo career. Suddenly he's run out of songs, and his career is dying on it's arse somewhat as a result

It's all about the songs

 

[Eyepopper]

Will their music be played in 20/30 years time?

I seriously doubt it. Before their 'comeback' the stuff they released ten years ago was never played.

 

[moses]

You're the one being the smug snob here mate. I'm just defending a group I don't mind, but am hardly a huge fan of, my music is Oasis and indie bands, because you're not giving them fair dues. You can't acknowledge their talent in this instance because you're blinding by hatred for the machine that initially formed them. But they've gone beyond that now

BUt I'm not being a snob is my point, I can be as I have said, I can be a bit of an anorak.

All I said from the very start is that thier success is down to more than their talent, which is minimal in my opinion, you thinking the same about BB is exactly the same.

In tv indusrtry terms it's genius, the way TT are in music industry terms.

That you see some talent where I don't is all this boils down to. You think the BB audience are mugs, I think TT fans are equally mugs.

Why do I get to be the snob?

Because you and Mockney are right and I'm wrong?

 

[RedSky]

Funny that isnt it. Its nearly like someone somewhere realised there was a cow to be milked and threw a couple of decent songwriters and producers together to write the right type of songs for them.

Not that that ever happens in the music industry mind.

This happens in every industry. Its nothing new, its all about money at the end of the day. If your music isn't selling then you either get dropped or you change your style. Just like football, money talks and if that means you get outside advise to help the band/artist progress then so be it.

Nothing negative in that, it's business and everyone does it. I'd point a finger at the Beatles personally, they were the band that started this off, they were the first 'machine'.

 

[Wonder Pigeon]

wrong forum.

 

[Eyepopper]

Good example. Initially, his music sales were dying on their arse. So much for 'the machine'. He was an unsuccessful music artist

Then you know what happened? Angels

And he followed that up with more songs. He had the songs, and that's why he did well. I'm pretty sure he was co-writing some of those with a music partner not so sure

But that was the basis of his solo career. Suddenly he's run out of songs, and his career is dying on it's arse somewhat as a result

It's all about the songs

Funny that you mention Angels, I know the guy that wrote it. Robbie Williams producers paid him ten grand for it, then took it away and gave it to a team of producers and a co writer whose job it was to turn it into a hit.

Also I thought you're arguement was that TT deserve credit for writing their own material, Robbie Williams wrote feck all of his songs when he was popular, they were developed for him by the producers (namely Guy Chambers) who was chosen to work with him. It was when he let him go and wanted to do his own writing that it all went tits up.

 

[moses]

wrong forum.

no it's not, this is between current affairs, entertainment, media studies and anthropology , so we are here.

 

[Eyepopper]

This happens in every industry. Its nothing new, its all about money at the end of the day. If your music isn't selling then you either get dropped or you change your style. Just like football, money talks and if that means you get outside advise to help the band/artist progress then so be it.

Nothing negative in that, it's business and everyone does it. I'd point a finger at the Beatles personally, they were the band that started this off, they were the first 'machine'.

Well the Beatles hardly followed a trend and cashed in did they? Why totally change your sound and stop gigging if thats the case.

The argument is about TT musical credibility...

 

[RedSky]

I seriously doubt it. Before their 'comeback' the stuff they released ten years ago was never played.

Thats arsefur. I listen to music my parents loved when they were in their 20's, the same will happen in a few decades when the fans of Take That have teenagers. When you're as popular as Take That, Beatles, Oasis etc their music will never die as it'll keep being pushed through the generations.

 

[B Cantona]

Funny that you mention Angels, I know the guy that wrote it. Robbie Williams producers paid him ten grand for it, then took it away and gave it to a team of producers and a co writer whose job it was to turn it into a hit.

Also I thought you're arguement was that TT deserve credit for writing their own material, Robbie Williams wrote feck all of his songs when he was popular, they were developed for him by the producers (namely Guy Chambers) who was chosen to work with him. It was when he let him go and wanted to do his own writing that it all went tits up.

Well credit to all involved because it's an enduring tune

I'm not putting an argument up for Robbie Williams, I'd say Barlow was more talented, although Williams has the showmanship side of it down better. But the common denominator, when both were at their peak, is that however they got them, they both had the songs. Songs that people will continue to listen too because they endure. And just because you and Moses won't, nor me probably, doesn't mean others will do the same

 

[Livvie]

To be fair Eyepopper, you've chosen songs right at the start of their carear. When the gimic of a boyband was about jumping around and looking gay, they've developed alot since those early days and grown up.

I was about to make the same point - they were just kids then.

I do like Westlife. For no other reason than I like sappy love songs and Nicky Byrne is gorgeous. Shallow, but there we are. I don't bother about getting into musical debates over Westlife because there's no point - I know they aren't especially gifted in that department - decent voices and that's it. But I don't care. Take That are different and I really feel they deserve a bit of respect.

 

[RedSky]

Well credit to all involved because it's an enduring tune

I'm not putting an argument up for Robbie Williams, I'd say Barlow was more talented, although Williams has the showmanship side of it down better. But the common denominator, when both were at their peak, is that however they got them, they both had the songs. Songs that people will continue to listen too because they endure. And just because you and Moses won't, nor me probably, doesn't mean others will do the same

Infact when Pops and Moses are on their deathbeds, i'm sure the hospital radio will be playing "Relight my Fire".

 

[Eyepopper]

Well credit to all involved because it's an enduring tune

You should have heard it before the producers got their hands on it, tore any feeling or emotion out of it and turned it into a bland, cheesy love song.... which it was miles away from originally.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

At the end of the day what is percieved as good music is down to peoples personal taste. Just because you don't like a group it doesn't make them crap.Take That are obviously doing something right to have as many fans as they do and to fill out stadiums like they do and to have Oasis fans declaring their concerts are the best! Music is there to be enjoyed - If Take That meet this criteria for you then Kudos to them!
I love Queen and Yes Sir and couldn't really give a flying fart whether other people like them or loathe them.
To ME they are the best bands ever!

 

[Eyepopper]

Infact when Pops and Moses are on their deathbeds, i'm sure the hospital radio will be playing "Relight my Fire".

I'm sure of it, in the same way as the hits of A-ha, the Backstreet Boys, Milli Vanilli and a million other fad bands are main stays of radio.

The thing is, with manufactured pop, there's only a limited market for it and the next one off the production line is never far away, and when it comes the old ones are dropped and never really picked up again because other than whats fashionable there's no substance to it.

When was the last time you heard a 'Blue' song? How much of them will you hear now that they're reforming?

 

[B Cantona]

You should have heard it before the producers got their hands on it, tore any feeling or emotion out of it and turned it into a bland, cheesy love song.... which it was miles away from originally.

Well you know the guy, why don't you get it and post it up here for us to judge?

Millions consider it to be far more than just a bland cheesy love song. Isn't it the most popular song at funerals? Doubt folk would want to play bland cheesy love songs devoid of any emotion at their loved one's funerals...

 

[moses]

Infact when Pops and Moses are on their deathbeds, i'm sure the hospital radio will be playing "Relight my Fire".

if there is any such thing as karma, that's about the best I could hope for

 

[RedSky]

Your missing the point though, Take That is a very different animal from Blue/Backstreet Boys. They are far more popular, they're here to stay Pops. Infact I'd expect them to do at least another 2 albums and considering their concerts sell out in mere minutes I won't be shocked if they stay around for another 5 years.

Take That may eventually disappear off the Radio, but they'll be staying on Ipods for the future.

 

[B Cantona]

At the end of the day what is percieved as good music is down to peoples personal taste. Just because you don't like a group it doesn't make them crap.Take That are obviously doing something right to have as many fans as they do and to fill out stadiums like they do and to have Oasis fans declaring their concerts are the best! Music is there to be enjoyed - If Take That meet this criteria for you then Kudos to them!
I love Queen and Yes Sir and couldn't really give a flying fart whether other people like them or loathe them.
To ME they are the best bands ever!

Where were you 4 pages ago??!!

Well said MUM

 

[Mockney]

Why do I get to be the snob?

Because you and Mockney are right and I'm wrong?

No, because your refusing to give ANY credit!...Your blithering on about the machine that made them as an excuse to not give Barlow any credit for being a song writer...

I will always give my opponents argument credence in a football debate, and always present my opinion as just that, opinion...but you're presenting yours as fact

I don't like Take That...Of course Dylan, Jackson, Wonder, even Albarn (who actually is a half decent song writer Brad) are better than Take That...I'm not trying to argue that, nor have I ever...I'm trying to argue sanity and fairness in giving them some credit for being partially responsible for their own success...however minimal it may have been

You on the other hand, and Popper to a degree, are completely unwilling to give them any credit what so ever, putting it soley down to marketing,,,essentially saying it could have been any 5 lads and it would of worked... I'm saying, however shit, or basic, you think his music is, It wouldn't have worked without Barlow...and certainly not for as long

 

[Eyepopper]

Well you know the guy, why don't you get it and post it up here for us to judge?

Millions consider it to be far more than just a bland cheesy love song. Isn't it the most popular song at funerals? Doubt folk would want to play bland cheesy love songs devoid of any emotion at their loved one's funerals...

Because the guy that wrote it no longer owns its copyright so isn't allowed have it recorded.

Oh right, its played at funerals which means it must be stuffed full of emotion, people who choose to have Robbie Williams blasted out as they put their loved ones in the ground, are generally discerning like that.