Take That Circus tour
- Thread starter Livvie
- Start date
tis alright, i forgot the smilie 
What a thread, well in Liv, you created a full blown Caf gay fest here, kudos.
So did Black Lace*
Aga do do do push pineabble rape a bee**
* possibly not true
** possibly misheard
Not if they were 3 years old. If they were 10+ I would and why.
Despite disliking RW quite a bit I think the original emotion in the song shines thorugh a little bit (if you close your eyes and pretend that it isn't RW, although it is now, as you say, essentially a cheesy love song. The trouble is that it can't now be remade in the original mould without it being seen as RW karaoke.
I don't disagree with you in general about pop being enjoyable on its own term without needing to be high art, early Michael jackson would be a prime example of this, but specifically I find Back For Good to be nothing more than a boyband song by the numbers. And Shine is just a piss poor imitation of ELO.
The first single by Britney Spears and the first by The Spice Girls were excellent manufactured pop music even if, like me, you didn't really like either song. The rest of their output if utter garbage of course. Want you back for good would also be the only song that I have heard by Take That that would be in this category. Irritating though it is.
Music is intended to entertain though, and without going into all the politics of music, Take That can entertain, which is the b all and end all for most people.
Back for Good won an Ivor Novello award didn't it? But personally I think their best all round song is Never Forget. I like their version of CIBM better than Barry Manilow's, I really like Patience even though I didn't to begin with, and I like Rule the World too. Was that the one that was up for an Oscar?
Back for Good won an Ivor Novello award didn't it? But personally I think their best all round song is Never Forget. I like their version of CIBM better than Barry Manilow's, I really like Patience even though I didn't to begin with, and I like Rule the World too. Was that the one that was up for an Oscar?
everyone of those records were fantastic i think.
and i agree about CIBM ( but have you heard donna summer's version - it's great )
There's the thing, I'm not actually a big fan, however, I can still say its excellent even if I'm not a fan.
Good music is good and there are reasons for that other than personal taste.
Personal taste is stil the major factor about wether anybody likes something but there are things that lead them towards a verdict.
As for the arrangements check the credits all you want and of course production staff are involved in any album but you'll find that Barlow actually is heavily involved too - moreso than most singer writers performers
Well for me Back for Good is a a very very good song in the Beatles tradition very 'Lennonesque' chord work again well sung and harmonised. Only thing that lets it down are the piss poor drum and piano sound which sound very synthed, but still a well constructed song
You're on the money - Shine is LEO'esque' / Queen but there's nowt wrong with imitation when its done well which I've explained before it is.
ELO would be very happy to have done that tune for sure. Wouldnt sound out of place in an ELO gig
For me fantastic song
Really
He asked why it was such a good tune and I've explained it from a listener and musical point of view
You might notice he has'nt explained why its so bad
If we're knocking imitation, well Oasis are definitely (pale) imitations of The Beatles.
Don't think you can knock em. They've always had the songs, they've always had the performance, and they come across as pretty down to earth. Plus as Mockney says, they're not just mouthpieces for someone elses work behind the scenes
They even stood the test of splitting up, and making it back to the top having reformed
Kudos, Take That
For once Brad, I'm with you on this. Kevin Costner can feck off, but Take That are ok. And as you said, they are not some fabricated band, Barlow is a very talented man. Anyone that can write this at the age of 15 deserves some respect:
Would you not feel like a bit of a prick if you were either of the 2 lads on the edges though? Don't play any instruments, pretend to do backing vocals and dont even really dance anymore, purely there to be pieces of meat and make up the numbers.... they look like extras from Eastenders
Really
He asked why it was such a good tune and I've explained it from a listener and musical point of view
You might notice he has'nt explained why its so bad
Gay as Bendtner's pink boots.
I wouldn't have thought they do much more than the bassist from Oasis....In fact they probably do more
Well, yes, because it's all (or was) the Gary Barlow show. This for example, the other 4 just ohhhhh and ahhhhhhhh.
Well yeah but he, erm, well he plays bass....
What's bizarre about it is that Barlow flopped as a solo artist, yet apart from ooohing and aaaaaahhing, the others never did much in the first place. So on that level, maybe it's not the music itself that people find attractive about Take That. Either that, or he went through a bad patch in song writing terms when he went solo and ended up in Emmerdale. On the musical level, I don't see much difference.
Maybe they should rerelease it with the two lads dancing in the wings and looking all soulful, I reckon that the vital ingredient its missing....
Sorry but you cant be taken seriously now mate
"pretend to do backing vocals"
If you sing backing vocals and they sound great then you're clearly not pretending are you? ( btw singing accurate and sometimes complex backing vocals is far more difficult than whacking out a lead vocal)
Just be honest mate if you don't like them then that's fine you don't have to - but you've come up with no justified 'musical' reasons that would say they cant sing.
They do it live too which is really the cutting argument about whether a musician can really do anything.
They also do live what many singer / dancers fk up completely - namely singing accurately whilst on the move which I can tell you is fking difficult
If you think they're shite fine but you're not really arguing they're shite with any other validity
Again they 're not my favourite band but that should'nt be the basis for prejudice
But again Livvie all music eventually becomes imitation back from pre Bach to now.
There's nothing wrong with picking up the best parts of a previous music and refining to your own style. The Beatles admitted 'ripping off' Elvis and Chuck Berry but they never called it ripping off. Lennon was always proud of the fact that they could actually play some of those old great rock and roll tunes really well and had they not done that they would never have honed their own fantastic style
Oasis are a 'Lennon' band but they do it very well and have no problem admitting it I think.
Again I dont love every Oasis tune but some of their stuff is absolutely brilliant particularly the first two albums and most of the third if you took out Noel's attempt to be a conductor and bring in an orchestra which ruined and lengthened two thirds of the tunes
Hmmmm, well, I don't think that it's as simple as that. Also, their recentish successfulish stint also makes it seem that it's not about young sweaty boys jumping about either. As I said, as a musician/songwriter, Barlow is ok, talented, but what artist/group was the last that you could put in the highest echelon of greatness, great playing, great writing, great performance, great voice, that was also very highly successful? Because I can't think of many. Queen?
Will you take the fecking knot out of your knickers, I was joking........
Depends on your definition of greatness Weaste, for me I cant think of any bands I'd consider great that are popular in the singles charts, its far too fashion concious and consumable for my tastes.
Who then do you think are great? - just thought I'd ask
Loads of stuff but of the more modern bands I've seen I'd class Iron & Wine, Bon Iver, as top class in terms of song writing ability they are both excellent... they dont exactly dance though... but I'm more a fan of music than anything that goes with music...
If you're into bigger stadium type production then Paul McCartney puts on an absolutely brilliant live show even though I wouldn't be a big fan of him personally, as a production its amazing and you cant really question his songwriting. Bruce Springsteens live show is brilliant aswell, in terms of tightness of the band and pure energy. I've also yet to see Neil Young put on a show that I didn't think was amazing.
There's tonnes more but they're the first to spring to mind.
If you're into bigger stadium type production then Paul McCartney puts on an absolutely brilliant live show even though I wouldn't be a big fan of him personally, as a production its amazing and you cant really question his songwriting. Bruce Springsteens live show is brilliant aswell, in terms of tightness of the band and pure energy. I've also yet to see Neil Young put on a show that I didn't think was amazing.
There's tonnes more but they're the first to spring to mind.
Well, now that we have to talk about Oasis, there is much of the same thing going on (huge record company budgets financing success) ... most of the real creativity from them was in their first two albums, after that in my opinion it was pretty much a rehashing of what went before. Bands like the Rolling Stones and The Beatles, developed and improved as they went along.
Oasis first album is great, the energy, the cheek, the anger, all channelled from brain and heart to a CD, great music being made organically and honestly, and sounding nothing like the Beatles. The second album sounded posh, like Take That, HUGE production and the lads ego changed them as a band - it was a great album but it was different from the first and the start of an artistic decline IMO.
be interesting to get Kinky's views on this whole malarkey
I see that you are totally in love with the acoustic guitar. Makes me laugh in a way. How you could ever put those two examples in the upper echelon of great modern music however I really do not know, but it's probably the acoustic guitar that draws you to it. They are not even that good at that. You need to listen to some Spanish music for use of the acoustic.
I said they're both top class songwriters Weaste which they are in my book, the songs are excellently constructed in terms of music and melody and both do what they do with their own style.... as for thinking not they're very good, well thats subjective and has a lot to do with generations in a lot of cases, you being a lot older than me, point to Queen who don't appeal to me in the slightest.
I've listened lots of flamenco, obviously its technically good stuff but it does nothing for me most of the time. But I listen to a massive variety of different styles so to say that I'm just drawn to acoustic guitar isn't accurate.
Its all about tastes at the end of the day, I like my music to have a bit of feeling, style and to be interesting... Take That for me are the musical equivalent of porridge, boring, the same each time and pretty tasteless.
I've listened lots of flamenco, obviously its technically good stuff but it does nothing for me most of the time. But I listen to a massive variety of different styles so to say that I'm just drawn to acoustic guitar isn't accurate.
Its all about tastes at the end of the day, I like my music to have a bit of feeling, style and to be interesting... Take That for me are the musical equivalent of porridge, boring, the same each time and pretty tasteless.
What's excellence?
We'd probably call the classical composers excellent, although we might not have at the time. But today? I'd only call something excellent if I like it and that probably goes for the majority of the music buying public, without whom there wouldn't be a music industry anyway.
Edit: I make gorgeous porridge, Popper. There's a definite knack to it.
We'd probably call the classical composers excellent, although we might not have at the time. But today? I'd only call something excellent if I like it and that probably goes for the majority of the music buying public, without whom there wouldn't be a music industry anyway.
Edit: I make gorgeous porridge, Popper.
There's a definite knack to it.So ridiculous and weak in argument it's untrue.
There haven't been 5 members in Take That in 1995. To be more accurate, they've spent more years as a four than as a five.
I can therefore only assume you don't really listen to their stuff and as a result can't form an honest, unbiased opinion.
I don't understand the Britain's Got Talent comparison. Girls Aloud went down that route, it's how they got started.
hold on are we saying that Girls Aloud have musical credibility now? I'm outta here
I'm outta here
They have entertainment value though - that has to count for something? There would be very little industry if our only options were what experts and the like deem to be good.
As aforementioned, I would like to sex Girls Aloud.
I'm not debating that, for them or TT, I'm talking about artistic credibility.
That was a UK number 1 Weaste, as was the album it came from
I think he released a couple more tunes, one got in the top 10, the other top 20
I wouldn't say he was a complete flop as a solo artist