Do Take That deserve to be slagged off?

ZakAttak

In the early nineties a pop-group came along that changed music (on this side of the Atlantic anyway) forever. It wasn't Nirvana, Metallica or Guns N' Roses. It was Take That.
It wasn't their music so much as it was their album sales and number of sold out shows that I think changed everything. Many a rock band realised that they could engage in experimental and progressive music all they wanted, but, if they wanted to make money and hit the big time they'd have to become a bit more commercial.
Nobody thought, at the time anyway, that T.T. would end up being one of the biggest groups of the 90s- and look at the boyband mini-industry that they kick-started.
Listen to indie music these days; its as commercial pop as rock music can get- why? The bands themselves will cite Brian Wilson and lots of other 60s Phil Spector bands- so they sound cool; but secretly it was Take That which inspired them to write this type of music. Catchy choruses and an obsession with fashion- the lyrics are simple and easily understood and heard.

Is this a dirty secret nobody wants to admit?

Everyone likes having a go at Robbie Williams, but if an indie band (say, the Kooks) wrote and released 'Let me Entertain you' Hot Press and NME would be saying it was an indie classic.

Call Me Jimmy

It's interesting. I don't like any of their songs but with their new stuff I respect them a bit more than before they reformed.

But I think you make a good point about the whole coolness thing. Recently, I've started judging a song by pretending my favourite artist wrote it, and would I like it if they wrote it. It has lead me to realise that I like a lot of stuff I might not normally have given a chance. However that doesn't extend to Take That coz I just really don't like the songs.

Bubs101

First of all, I think Robbie only co-wrote "Let me Entertain you" as in the same way he co wrote Angels. Gary Barlow on the other hand wrote alot of the best Take That songs and was a pretty handy songwriter, Want You Back for Good is an essential ninties song and Pray showed untold vision for a pop band.

ZakAttak

Bubs101 wrote: »

First of all, I think Robbie only co-wrote "Let me Entertain you" as in the same way he co wrote Angels.

==>I never said this wasn't the case.

Gary Barlow on the other hand wrote alot of the best Take That songs and was a pretty handy songwriter, Want You Back for Good is an essential ninties song and Pray showed untold vision for a pop band.

==>Anyone could have written their songs; but thats part of my point, music started to become over-simplified.

happydayz182

Robbie William is a ledge

Ruskie4Rent

I think you'll find that there was many commercial rock/indie bands before Take That.
Also, it's not as if they were the first big boy band either.

Doctor J

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Anyone could have written their songs; but thats part of my point, music started to become over-simplified.

Anyone didn't. You didn't either. Barlow did. He's a good songwriter, by any standard, and they've got some great pop songs to their credit. In fairness, they stood by the quality of their own tunes, something none of the other boy bands of that era or this era could do. Their early stuff was typical boy band fare but they evolved into a quality musical outfit, which is impressive for what is tradionally a genre void of substance. Back For Good and Patience are good songs, no bones about it. Get over it.

Simple pop songs have been around since the 50's, since the very beginning of pop music, it's nothing to do with Take That.

Edit -> Oh yes, the NME is a worthless piece of **** of a publication, a pusher of scenes and fads on a far greater level than any boy-band magazines. If you use NME as your guide to what's good or artisically valid then you're in no position to say what should be slagged or not.

Stompbox

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Anyone could have written their songs; but thats part of my point, music started to become over-simplified.

How could anyone write them songs?! Do you play an instrument? If not, how could you write their songs? Given I ain't a Take That fan, I can fully respect and tolerate their back catalogue and work ethic, as I would for any musician.

NAGGIE03

Take That Rule!!! Always have and always will! And there back in the studio! Yay!!

Predhead

ZakAttak wrote: »

In the early nineties a pop-group came along that changed music (on this side of the Atlantic anyway) forever. It wasn't Nirvana, Metallica or Guns N' Roses. It was Take That.
It wasn't their music so much .

So they didn't change music. At all. They became popular, formulaic, cheesey etc. That's all, tons of people/boybands/girl bands have. They've just been better than the rest of the garbage.

I don't hate them though. Fair play to them. But they don't deserve to be even mentioned in the same sentence and Nirvana.

ZakAttak

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

I think you'll find that there was many commercial rock/indie bands before Take That.

==>Thats true, but it had been quite a few years before T.T. started up that a boyband had been popular.

Also, it's not as if they were the first big boy band either.

==>They were much bigger than anyone else.

ZakAttak

Doctor J wrote: »

Anyone didn't. You didn't either. Barlow did. He's a good songwriter, by any standard, and they've got some great pop songs to their credit. In fairness, they stood by the quality of their own tunes, something none of the other boy bands of that era or this era could do. Their early stuff was typical boy band fare but they evolved into a quality musical outfit, which is impressive for what is tradionally a genre void of substance. Back For Good and Patience are good songs, no bones about it. Get over it.

Simple pop songs have been around since the 50's, since the very beginning of pop music, it's nothing to do with Take That.


Edit -> Oh yes, the NME is a worthless piece of **** of a publication, a pusher of scenes and fads on a far greater level than any boy-band magazines. If you use NME as your guide to what's good or artisically valid then you're in no position to say what should be slagged or not.

==>Writing the kind of music 'played' by Take That isn't nearly as difficult as trying to write a proper song, I wouldn't try to write a T.T. style song because I wouldn't want to write something I would dislike when I've finished.

==>You've missed my point - its not their music that was influential, it was their concert attendances and P.R. machine that became their biggest legacy.

ZakAttak

Sweet wrote: »

How could anyone write them songs?! Do you play an instrument? If not, how could you write their songs? Given I ain't a Take That fan, I can fully respect and tolerate their back catalogue and work ethic, as I would for any musician.

==>Theres songwriters the world over churning out this sh1te that they then flog off to record companies and/or boyband managers- its not the songs that were the hit for T.T., it was the image, the publicity campaign etc. Now I'm beginning to think a similar thing is happening in the supposedly more ''authentic' indie scene.

Doctor J

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Writing the kind of music 'played' by Take That isn't nearly as difficult as trying to write a proper song, I wouldn't try to write a T.T. style song because I wouldn't want to write something I would dislike when I've finished.

Bull****. You couldn't write a song as good as Back For Good if you tried and you know it too :pac:

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>You've missed my point - its not their music that was influential, it was their concert attendances and P.R. machine that became their biggest legacy.

No, you're missing the point. Popularity and specifically targeted marketing were nothing new in music. Take That came on the heels of New Kids On The Block, for example. Think how much tat was sold with The Beatles logo on it in the mid 60's.

There's nothing wrong with recognising that Take That have good songs, just get over it. It's ok

ZakAttak

Doctor J wrote: »

Bull****. You couldn't write a song as good as Back For Good if you tried and you know it too :pac:

==>I wouldn't bother.

No, you're missing the point. Popularity and specifically targeted marketing were nothing new in music. Take That came on the heels of New Kids On The Block, for example. Think how much tat was sold with The Beatles logo on it in the mid 60's.

==>Yeah of course it had been done before, but it was always done by a 'commercial' group- theres tonnes of bands doing similar things to what T.T. did; but these bands have a different image of so-called 'authenticity'.

There's nothing wrong with recognising that Take That have good songs, just get over it. It's ok

==>I don't give a fvck about their songs, good/bad it didn't matter- what mattered was their management and sales figures.

Ruskie4Rent

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>They were much bigger than anyone else.

Never had they're own cartoon. New Kids on the Block did.

Take That were never that significant to music overall. They're just another product to sell to 12 year old girls and homosexuals(don't get offended if you're gay, but they pretty much were).

I'm not sayin they didn't have some good songs. As far as pop music goes, they had more than a few catchy tunes.....but then they got stale, robbie left and people didn't like them as much. Then boy-zone came, then the spice girls ect.
We can now choose our own pop-stars every year with x-factor. It's great!!!

ZakAttak

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Never had they're own cartoon. New Kids on the Block did.

==>I meant in Europe- T.T. were much bigger in Europe.

Take That were never that significant to music overall. They're just another product to sell to 12 year old girls and homosexuals(don't get offended if you're gay, but they pretty much were).

==>I agree, but I don't think their music was/is important.

The P.R. machine and strategies that they're management used are being used with indie bands today.

zAbbo

Bubs101 wrote: »

First of all, I think Robbie only co-wrote "Let me Entertain you" as in the same way he co wrote Angels.

You mean he stole it too ?

Ruskie4Rent

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>I meant in Europe- T.T. were much bigger in Europe.

The P.R. machine and strategies that they're management used are being used with indie bands today.

You can't say that it started with Take That though, you also shouldn't discount the influence that the American music industry has had over here. They have been promoting music like this long before Take That, and i would imagine kylie as one of the first examples of a U.K based pop-brand, not Take That.

The so called 'indie bands', while some are still very main-stream, are still not quite managed in the same way as Take That were. While the nme is ****e, it mainly supports bands that start playing to smaller audiences, and are contracted to independant record companies.I'm sure the internet also plays a part in promoting them too.

I still don't think that these bands are quite the dominating force in the charts as you seem to think they are either. The big acts these days are mostly hip-hop and r'n'b artists, (edit: actually the fact that everyone is on a big nostalgia bend for the nineties means that Take that are popular again). There is only the odd hit from guitar based bands, and just because the kooks wear trilbies and play their own instruments does not essentially make them an indie band.

Doctor J

ZakAttak wrote: »

The P.R. machine and strategies that they're management used are being used with indie bands today.

Their P.R. stragegies were being used by Elvis in the 50's, the Beatles in the 60's, The Osmonds in the 70's, everything Pete Waterman did in the 80's, TT, East 17, 911, North And South, The Spice Firls, PJ And Duncan, Metallica and so many more in the 90's, Ozzy in the 00's etc etc etc they didn't invent targeted marketing, nor will they be the last to do so. If that upsets you, then stop listening to music because every CD commercially available is specifically marketed in some way or other. Some are marketed at kids, some are marketed at kids who think they're adults, some are marketed at kids who don't think they're being targeted (ahhh indie and metal we love you) some are marketed at bona fide adults. Everything you can buy is a commercial entity of some sort. That is the way of the western world. Bear in mind most of the band you read about in magazines or even the ****ty NME are there because they've a record company behind them and that record company have paid people to ensure that band's profile gets exposed. Take That didn't invent that. It's been there since pop music began. It sounds like you think this is a revelation, it's not. Everyone does it. Everyone always has done it, even the indie poseurs who pretend they don't do it (oh you better believe they don't do it) and the metal bands who pretend they're mad hard and they've got issues that your average teen can really relate to maaaaaaan, oh yeah they do it too.

ZakAttak

Doctor J wrote: »

Their P.R. stragegies were being used by Elvis in the 50's, the Beatles in the 60's, The Osmonds in the 70's, everything Pete Waterman did in the 80's, TT, East 17, 911, North And South, The Spice Firls, PJ And Duncan, Metallica and so many more in the 90's, Ozzy in the 00's etc etc etc they didn't invent targeted marketing, nor will they be the last to do so. If that upsets you, then stop listening to music because every CD commercially available is specifically marketed in some way or other.

==>It doesn't upset me at all- everyone here seems to think I've got a problem with T.T., and I really don't; housewives and teenagers have the right to listen to whatever music they like~ just like the punks, the mods and whoever else has the right to listen to their music.

Some are marketed at kids, some are marketed at kids who think they're adults, some are marketed at kids who don't think they're being targeted (ahhh indie and metal we love you) some are marketed at bona fide adults. Everything you can buy is a commercial entity of some sort. That is the way of the western world. Bear in mind most of the band you read about in magazines or even the ****ty NME are there because they've a record company behind them and that record company have paid people to ensure that band's profile gets exposed. Take That didn't invent that. It's been there since pop music began. It sounds like you think this is a revelation, it's not. Everyone does it. Everyone always has done it, even the indie poseurs who pretend they don't do it (oh you better believe they don't do it) and the metal bands who pretend they're mad hard and they've got issues that your average teen can really relate to maaaaaaan, oh yeah they do it too.

==>Poison were an example of a 'heavy metal' band who obviously were a marketing creation- but you could instantly tell the difference between Poison and Metallica; and, more importantly, you could tell who was a product of 'target marketing' and who wasn't- although this would later change with Metallica.
Think of Garth Brooks, and then think of Johnny Cash; They both play country n' western- but theres an obvoius difference in their approaches to playing the music.
There will always be somewhat genuine artists and then those who are creations of businessmen- before you could tell the difference; but now I think its very difficult, its not as easy as it was before.

Doctor DooM

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Theres songwriters the world over churning out this sh1te that they then flog off to record companies and/or boyband managers- its not the songs that were the hit for T.T., it was the image, the publicity campaign etc. Now I'm beginning to think a similar thing is happening in the supposedly more ''authentic' indie scene.

It's been happening like that for a long time. Oasis didn't exactly get by on the quality of their choons, it was their press.(I don't want to start an Oasis debate, it's irrelivant whether you think they are a good band or not, it's got nothing to do with their success. They fit a genre which was easy to market.)

ZakAttak

SDooM wrote: »

It's been happening like that for a long time. Oasis didn't exactly get by on the quality of their choons, it was their press.(I don't want to start an Oasis debate, it's irrelivant whether you think they are a good band or not, it's got nothing to do with their success. They fit a genre which was easy to market.)

==>I don't really like much of oasis' stuff but I don't think their image was quite so contrived as many of the indie bands'.