103 replies to this topic

[Paul ™]

I voted yes just to piss off the hates, not because I want to see them there ;-)

[Paul ™]

I voted yes just to piss off the hates, not because I want to see them there ;-)

[rumpola]

ampersand, on 15 November 2010 - 04:42 PM, said:

so gary barlow never wrote music for the sake of it?
why's him passing what must have been a tough audition to make money for a record company any different to an unsigned band who are then signed to a major label. the label don't just sign them to expose them to a bigger audience, it's all for money!

Maybe he did, but how do you explain the other 4 in the band? Seriously, what has Jason Orange ever done artistically speaking?

As for passing an audition, what do you think the music industry is, a larger version of X Factor?  

Most performers release material in the hope that some people like it and the A&R men of record companies pick up on this, go to watch them a few times and then decide whether to sign them up. Its not like they write into EMI asking for an audition before having a number of local gigs and getting a following beforehand.

Besides, its the record companies that see the £ signs, not the majority of musicians.

[cejx]

BlackHole2006, on 14 November 2010 - 09:28 PM, said:

Coldplay would be more entertaining. At least they actually wrote the lyrics and formed the band themselves.

Besides the point they are actually prettey decent.

coldplay?  entertaining??!!!!  Now there is an oxymoron!

ha ha!  Makes me laugh when people bang on about Take That being a manufactured 'boy band'. Granted they we're put together as kids - but over 20 years on, and being considerably more successful when they were in their 'manufactured' stage, I think they've done pretty well, and have finally earned the accolade of 'band'!

There is and always will be much musical snobbery surrounding 'pop' music... but I'd rather have a laugh and a singalong to the general fun and frippery that is Take That, than listen to the ernest tedious w*nk that Chris Martin and 'Paul David Hewson' spout.

[fatyeti24]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

im replying to another of your posts, not having a dig, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Quote

Maybe he did, but how do you explain the other 4 in the band? Seriously, what has Jason Orange ever done artistically speaking?

about as much as your average performing monkey, be it a bassist or whatever, who doesn't write the music.

Quote

As for passing an audition, what do you think the music industry is, a larger version of X Factor?  

Most performers release material in the hope that some people like it and the A&R men of record companies pick up on this, go to watch them a few times and then decide whether to sign them up. Its not like they write into EMI asking for an audition before having a number of local gigs and getting a following beforehand.

the music industry isn't too far off the X-Factor.  people send in demo's or Myspace links to labels to get themselves heard in the same way people queue up to audition infront of Simon Cowell.  bands do play gigs of course, but that isn't the sole route to a deal.  similarly some kid on X-Factor might sing down their local boozer.  and the audience gets a say, whichever method you use.

and there's no shortage of gigs put on for A&R guys: if that isn't auditioning, etc and so on.

Quote

Besides, its the record companies that see the £ signs, not the majority of musicians.

agreed, but everyone from your kid on the telly to the biggest band on earth knows that from the off.  again, not too much difference in my eyes what method you choose to take, it's all dancing with the devil and if it's not your bag, don't sign up.

[rumpola]

fatyeti24, on 15 November 2010 - 05:33 PM, said:

about as much as your average performing monkey, be it a bassist or whatever, who doesn't write the music.

You make some valid points about the industry, but I cant agree with your point that a bassist, drummer or whoever doesnt write the songs are just performing monkeys. I mean, would you call someone like Keith Moon a performing monkey just because he didnt write The Who's songs? Or maybe someone like Matt Helders from Arctic Monkeys, even though he is one of the best drummers around at the moment?

If you are highly skilled at your instrument you will always get more respect from me than someone who wouldn't be out of place doing a talent show at Butlins.

[rumpola]

fatyeti24, on 15 November 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

i take your point, but do you think it could be extended to other bands, some of whom have played the festival in recent years?

the one that springs to mind is Klaxons.  they had their 'art' (their 2nd album) rejected by their label and had to write another one, presumably one that would be a tad more palatable to their fanbase and thus sell more for the label.  i haven't heard it, not many did, but that was the imppression i got.  they were special guests in the Park in '09 if my memory serves.

the 'landfill' scene seemed to have a few bands that were assembled at the behest of labels, or members recruited from other acts, yet the boys-with-guitars schtick seems to escape the scrutiny applied to Take That, by users on this forum at least.

where do you draw the line?  there's an argument that Take That circa 2005-present are doing things for themselves more so than some others who get to hide behind 'indie cool' rather than the 'boy band' label given to TT.

Sorry, didnt see this before replying last time.

Again, some good points made.

I agree about Klaxons (although im not a huge fan), but I think that their record company was right if the album they scrapped was a pile of shit in the first place. After all, their label (dont know who) have spent a lot of money on them and it's their prerogative if they dont think the album is good enough to release to make Klaxons re-do it. Klaxons would have known the record company had every right to do this when they signed the contract in the first place. That is a normal business practice. Its only the established bands (Radiohead, Foo Fighters etc) that have the fan-base and the clout to be able to tell the record companies to do one in that situation.

Quote

the 'landfill' scene seemed to have a few bands that were assembled at the behest of labels, or members recruited from other acts, yet the boys-with-guitars schtick seems to escape the scrutiny applied to Take That, by users on this forum at least.

where do you draw the line? there's an argument that Take That circa 2005-present are doing things for themselves more so than some others who get to hide behind 'indie cool' rather than the 'boy band' label given to TT.

I would draw the line at manufactured pop acts such as Take That, Westlife and plenty of others. As I mentioned in my original post, I thought Glastonbury was for performing arts and I dont consider acts like that an artistic thing.


Lets face it, Robbie Williams thought he would be better off going solo, and when his career nose-dived he realised that the best way for him to make money would be to go back to TT as they had just sold out a huge 'reunion' tour

Also, a lot of my dislike comes from the reason that a lot of these acts just want to be famous, rather than respected for their talent.

Edited by rumpola, 15 November 2010 - 06:20 PM.

[ampersand]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

Maybe he did, but how do you explain the other 4 in the band? Seriously, what has Jason Orange ever done artistically speaking?

As for passing an audition, what do you think the music industry is, a larger version of X Factor?  

Most performers release material in the hope that some people like it and the A&R men of record companies pick up on this, go to watch them a few times and then decide whether to sign them up. Its not like they write into EMI asking for an audition before having a number of local gigs and getting a following beforehand.

Besides, its the record companies that see the £ signs, not the majority of musicians.

jason orange provides backing instantly recognisable backing vocals (as well as lead on some songs if you listen to albums). and he can play guitar and i'm sure he can provide some writing talents (though i don't know the process)

why does it matter how they came about? judge them on the music and only the music. they're far better than a lot of shite that starts organically.

i think you're wrong on the last parts. again, who cares what the motives are? i just think too many people care about the background too much before deciding if they like what's in the foreground. the new take album is pretty different and it's a grower. but some people won't get past the fact they started off as gary and 4 dancers and just put them down.

anyway, bottom line is what take that do is an art. that's what provoked my response more than anything. just cos someone else pulls the strings, doesn't make it any less of an art. how about dancers in the cabaret part of the site who are performing a routine made by someone in the background. is that not an art in your mind?

[cejx]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

Sorry, didnt see this before replying last time.

Again, some good points made.

I agree about Klaxons (although im not a huge fan), but I think that their record company was right if the album they scrapped was a pile of shit in the first place. After all, their label (dont know who) have spent a lot of money on them and it's their prerogative if they dont think the album is good enough to release to make Klaxons re-do it. Klaxons would have known the record company had every right to do this when they signed the contract in the first place. That is a normal business practice. Its only the established bands (Radiohead, Foo Fighters etc) that have the fan-base and the clout to be able to tell the record companies to do one in that situation.


I would draw the line at manufactured pop acts such as Take That, Westlife and plenty of others. As I mentioned in my original post, I thought Glastonbury was for performing arts and I dont consider acts like that an artistic thing.


Lets face it, Robbie Williams thought he would be better off going solo, and when his career nose-dived he realised that the best way for him to make money would be to go back to TT as they had just sold out a huge 'reunion' tour

Also, a lot of my dislike comes from the reason that a lot of these acts just want to be famous, rather than respected for their talent.

define manufactured pop acts?  Isn't everything manufactured and managed?!

Robbie didn't do too badly in his solo career TBH - I really think people over analyse pop music - can it not be just taken at face value.  He had already rejoined TT prior to the tour being released, and I really don't think that people were buying tickets just because RW was back - rather, its a bloody good show and a fine way to spend a few hours.

Do you honestly think that they just want to be famous?  I think TT have managed their fame pretty well - and TBH its only the British public's insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip that have thrust them into the public eye (RW's wilderness years excluded).  I think you are confusing fame with success here.

Amper is on the money with his comments - and these 5 men aged 36 - 42 are way past that boy band moniker!

They all write, they all sing, they all play a musical instrument on the album and on the stage - OK, Howard will never be a Cosy Powel, but you've an odd definition of 'art'.

Come out of the pop closet and embrace all that is fun!!

[rumpola]

ampersand, on 15 November 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

Quote

jason orange provides backing instantly recognisable backing vocals (as well as lead on some songs if you listen to albums). and he can play guitar and i'm sure he can provide some writing talents (though i don't know the process)

Instantly recognisable backing vocals written by someone else. He brings nothing artistically to the table that hundreds, if not thousands of others could do to the same level. You cant say that about proper artists.

Quote

why does it matter how they came about? judge them on the music and only the music. they're far better than a lot of shite that starts organically.

Of course it matters how they came about. They and their record company were only in it to make money, not to make music and that makes a world of difference to me. Besides, if I judged them purely on the music I would still think they were shite. And I agree that there is also loads of crap out there that started organically, but at least the majority kept their dignity and didnt sell out

Quote

i think you're wrong on the last parts. again, who cares what the motives are? i just think too many people care about the background too much before deciding if they like what's in the foreground. the new take album is pretty different and it's a grower. but some people won't get past the fact they started off as gary and 4 dancers and just put them down.

You are obviously a big fan, so you wouldnt care about the motives, but with a fear of starting to repeat myself, the motives DO make a big difference to many people. Also, I heard the foreground before reading about the background and they only went from very bad to worse in my opinion.

There is no getting away from the fact they were Gary and 4 dancers and very little has changed since to stop me from putting them down as musicians and artists.

Quote

anyway, bottom line is what take that do is an art. that's what provoked my response more than anything. just cos someone else pulls the strings, doesn't make it any less of an art. how about dancers in the cabaret part of the site who are performing a routine made by someone in the background. is that not an art in your mind?

Im sorry, but what Take That do isnt art in my opinion. Its music for the masses contrived to make as much money as possible and that isn't what art should be.

Also, I do honestly think that if someone other than the band members are pulling the strings and deciding the artistic direction it makes it less of an art. If anything it makes it more of a business.

Lets face it, besides Gary the others would probably have normal jobs if it wasnt for Take That as they are not very talented. Even the Americans sussed RW out and never took to him, which is why he came running back to TT as soon as he realised he cant write anything of note himself. Rudebox is all the evidence you need for that.

Having read many of your posts sticking up for them, its obvious that you are a huge fan and no matter what anyone else has to say you wont change your opinion and nor should you.

Music is all about opinions, it just happens that yours is wrong......

[ampersand]

too much to reply to there (plus i wouldn't know how to post it so it wouldn't look a mess)

just a couple points. as someone else said, who cares who writes the songs. did sinatra write his songs? did tom jones write his tunes? why should they have any more credibility? why should they be proper artists?

i'm not asking you to judge them on their music and like them. if you don't like them fair enough, but just judge them on the music. i'm assuming you've given the new album a go?

and it is the band pulling the strings now. obviously i'm not involved behind the scenes, but the difference in creative control from early 90's to where they are now is enormous! but as i say, it's still art regardless. spelbound, they don't come up with their own routines as far as i'm aware it's a coreographer. but it's still art. don't see any difference between that and music.

[rumpola]

ampersand, on 15 November 2010 - 09:11 PM, said:

i'm assuming you've given the new album a go?

Are you serious? After all I have said, you think I would listen to that?  

I havent even listened to any of their other albums (couldnt name you one either) let alone the latest one and have no inclination to do so, when there are much better things for me to listen to instead. In fact, I think I would prefer to listen to my parents having sex than TT and I never want to hear that!!

[ampersand]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 09:23 PM, said:

Are you serious? After all I have said, you think I would listen to that?  

I havent even listened to any of their other albums (couldnt name you one either) let alone the latest one and have no inclination to do so, when there are much better things for me to listen to instead. In fact, I think I would prefer to listen to my parents having sex than TT and I never want to hear that!!

and i'm the closed minded one when it comes to music according to some.

[Paul ™]

ampersand, on 15 November 2010 - 11:12 PM, said:

and i'm the closed minded one when it comes to music according to some.

Naw you just have shit taste in music  

[grumpyhack]

I voted Yes - not because they float my boat but because I think they would make a lot of people happy and bring back all sorts of memories.
To all that have voted No I'd remind you that there are dozen or more other stages where you will be able to happily spend an hour or so while TT are on.  Surely the spirit of Glasto is live and let live.

I've got a friend's daughter, now a happily married mum, who was crazy about TT when she was a kid.  She's going to try to catch their tour, even though she's probably not listened to any TT for years.  It's just going to be a big nostalgia trip for her as I'm sure it will be for many others if they play at Glasto..

Edited by grumpyhack, 15 November 2010 - 11:29 PM.

[cejx]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 09:23 PM, said:

Are you serious? After all I have said, you think I would listen to that?  

I havent even listened to any of their other albums (couldnt name you one either) let alone the latest one and have no inclination to do so, when there are much better things for me to listen to instead.

So you are basing your remarks on a band that you've never listened to?  How clever.

[ivan]

Take That would be good for promoting Glastonbury !

[ivan]

rumpola, on 15 November 2010 - 09:23 PM, said:

Are you serious? After all I have said, you think I would listen to that?  

I havent even listened to any of their other albums (couldnt name you one either) let alone the latest one and have no inclination to do so, when there are much better things for me to listen to instead. In fact, I think I would prefer to listen to my parents having sex than TT and I never want to hear that!!

Their new album is getting good reviews apparently !

[rumpola]

cejx, on 16 November 2010 - 09:59 AM, said:

So you are basing your remarks on a band that you've never listened to?  How clever.

Where have I said I have never listened to them? I said I havent listed to the albums, but that doesnt mean I have never heard a TT song. Unfortunately, I have heard enough to have an opinion on them.

[ampersand]

ivan, on 16 November 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Their new album is getting good reviews apparently !

you say that as if it's a shock. everything changes was up for a mercury. and all the rest are well praised. bar the first one, i dunno.