Your unpopular music opinions

Malice · 28-11-2011 10:10pm

karaokeman wrote: »

A group of pretty boys with scarce musical abilities, barr the odd good singing voice (as goes for Shane of Westlife) and who make 'music' for the sole purpose of pleasing a group of 15-year old teenage girls who will have no interest in them 5 years on.

Take That are simply none of that with the exception that they are all good singers.

Except for the fact that they are non musical pretty boys who are used as a tool to sell music to teenage girls I'd nearly agree with you

.

karaokeman wrote: »

Its actually a poll, voted by the British population.

Much like the way Jeremy Kyle manages to get the dregs of British society to appear on his tv show, I wouldn't trust that poll as far as I could throw one of Rupert Murdoch's bodyguards.

rcaz · 28-11-2011 10:11pm

karaokeman wrote: »

Dude you have not heard their last album, barr the lead single (The Flood) nothing else on the record is like anything Take That have done since their reunion or in the olden days.

So tell me how they're experimenting? They write pop songs, with pop instrumentation and tonal harmony.

karaokeman wrote: »

But their fanbase has grown enormously. Its a huge change going from arena-sized venues, which they did in the 90s to Wembley Stadium now.

Wembley isn't an arena?

karaokeman wrote: »

Its actually a poll, voted by the British population.

Just so we're clear, you seriously agree that Gary Barlow is a better songwriter than John Lennon and Paul McCartney? Barlow, with all the back catalogue of Take That, writing good pop songs for 20 years, over Lennon and McCartney, who, with the Beatles, made pop music what it is today, standardised the idea of rock bands writing albums themselves, standardised the approach of bands using studio techniques in their recordings and separating recorded music from perfomed music?

You've given out about McFly a few times on here - what do Take That do that's so different from McFly?

karaokeman · 28-11-2011 10:38pm

Malice wrote: »

Except for the fact that they are non musical pretty boys who are used as a tool to sell music to teenage girls I'd nearly agree with you .

If your talking about Westlife yes but Take That currently are none of that.

El Pr0n wrote: »

So tell me how they're experimenting? They write pop songs, with pop instrumentation and tonal harmony.

"Progress" and its subsequent repackaged edition "Progressed" are electro-pop albums. They have been praised by critics for the use of synthesizers, which was a change from the Coldplay/U2-ish approach they took to the previous Circus album. The harmony's are not quite the same. "Kidz", "Wait" and "Underground Machine" all lack the type of big belting chorus people are used to with a Take That song.

El Pr0n wrote: »

Wembley isn't an arena?

There is Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium. Take That on their last two tours have played record-breaking runs of concerts at Wembley Stadium. In 2009 they played 4 nights, which was the record number of dates for a single band at that time. They have now gone on to play 8 nights and you will see that record documented in most articles you see talking about their success since reforming with Robbie Williams.

El Pr0n wrote: »

Just so we're clear, you seriously agree that Gary Barlow is a better songwriter than John Lennon and Paul McCartney? Barlow, with all the back catalogue of Take That, writing good pop songs for 20 years, over Lennon and McCartney, who, with the Beatles, made pop music what it is today, standardised the idea of rock bands writing albums themselves, standardised the approach of bands using studio techniques in their recordings and separating recorded music from perfomed music?

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney. The Beatles music has been there for 50 years, it is obvious their influence is a lot greater than what Take That's is now. But many bands have came out and admitted to have been inspired by Take That. Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Snow Patrol in particular are huge fans but I guarantee more will come around in years to come.

El Pr0n wrote: »

You've given out about McFly a few times on here - what do Take That do that's so different from McFly?

Take That are good singers and Gary writes much better songs.

Also lets not forget its the five-piece Take That were talking about. Robbie Williams is a massive showman in his own right and has sold out stadiums everywhere except for North America.

Imaginary Boy wrote: »

I like ABBA

No one doesn't

Imaginary Boy · 28-11-2011 10:41pm

I like ABBA

Sinfonia · 28-11-2011 10:44pm

karaokeman wrote: »

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.
Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

rcaz · 28-11-2011 10:53pm

karaokeman wrote: »

"Progress" and its subsequent repackaged edition "Progressed" are electro-pop albums. They have been praised by critics for the use of synthesizers, which was a change from the Coldplay/U2-ish approach they took to the previous Circus album. The harmony's are not quite the same. "Kidz", "Wait" and "Underground Machine" all lack the type of big belting chorus people are used to with a Take That song.

Using a synthesiser is experimental now? I didn't realise it was 1960 already.

Their harmonies are tonal, tonal harmony has been going since the mid 1700s or so. Nothing experimental there.

karaokeman wrote: »

There is Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium. Take That on their last two tours have played record-breaking runs of concerts at Wembley Stadium. In 2009 they played 4 nights, which was the record number of dates for a single band at that time. They have now gone on to play 8 nights and you will see that record documented in most articles you see talking about their success since reforming with Robbie Williams.

You're putting way too much emphasis on commercial success. If selling lots of tickets at big shows is a measure of a good band, Barbara Streisand is unreal.

bigdaddyliamo · 28-11-2011 10:54pm

Marillion are the gods of music.
Also, anything Frank Black touches is gold:)
Bob Mould...I feel I'm getting old now!

karaokeman · 28-11-2011 11:08pm

El Pr0n wrote: »

Using a synthesiser is experimental now? I didn't realise it was 1960 already.

For Take That it is because they've never really done anything electronic before 2010.

El Pr0n wrote: »

Their harmonies are tonal, tonal harmony has been going since the mid 1700s or so. Nothing experimental there.

By your own admission, you haven't followed Take That's material since 2005 so go listen to the last two albums I named and tell me the tracklisting in general has the same melodies Take That have used for all their hits.

El Pr0n wrote: »

You're putting way too much emphasis on commercial success. If selling lots of tickets at big shows is a measure of a good band, Barbara Streisand is unreal.

Incorrect, unless I'm mistaken your original point was that there are not many new Take That fans but just crossovers from first time listeners?
The number of tickets Take That have sold for their recent stadium tours doesn't measure them as a good band, it simply shows that more people are interested in them now than the number who were in the 90s.

3hn2givr7mx1sc · 28-11-2011 11:12pm

karaokeman wrote: »

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

viadah · 29-11-2011 12:34am

Take%2BThat_are_not_gay_at_all_robbie_Williams.jpg

That ****ing spells credibility.

Malice · 29-11-2011 9:08am

karaokeman wrote: »

There is Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium.

Interesting, I never knew they were separate venues

.

Oasis_Dublin · 29-11-2011 2:17pm

Technocentral wrote: »

You have the boorish manners of a UCD man, Sir.

What a bizarre rebuttal to make.

Your Airbag · 29-11-2011 6:05pm

karaokeman wrote: »

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney.

Release the hounds.

lordgoat · 29-11-2011 6:16pm

I love this thread.

Nolanger · 29-11-2011 6:35pm

Imaginary Boy wrote: »

I like ABBA

Some of their lesser known tunes are great e.g. Eagle.

karaokeman · 29-11-2011 8:29pm

I wonder if there are any well known bands who have still yet to be mentioned here?

What about The Strokes or Chuck Berry?

Surely someone is ready to share an opinion.

Birneybau · 30-11-2011 4:56pm

karaokeman wrote: »

I wonder if there are any well known bands who have still yet to be mentioned here?

What about The Strokes or Chuck Berry?

Surely someone is ready to share an opinion.

They aint as good or as influential as Take That who are the bestest band of all time!!!

Oasis_Dublin · 30-11-2011 5:30pm

El Pr0n wrote: »

Wembley isn't an arena?

Wembley Arena and Wembley Stadium are definitely two different venues!

Oasis_Dublin · 30-11-2011 5:33pm

karaokeman wrote: »

The whole reason they have done so well as a comeback unit is actually because people admired them for losing the boyband image and creating a more indie-pop sort of sound, which has helped them to sell out stadiums

The Stone Roses, whose previous biggest headlining gig had been 30,000 in Liverpool in 1990, recently reformed and sold the best part of a quarter of a million tickets in about 50 minutes.

You can't honestly believe that people who attend modern day Take That gigs believe them to have changed too much since their 90s heyday, can you?!

Oasis_Dublin · 30-11-2011 5:35pm

karaokeman wrote: »

Yes I do agree that Gary is better than Lennon and McCartney. The Beatles music has been there for 50 years, it is obvious their influence is a lot greater than what Take That's is now. But many bands have came out and admitted to have been inspired by Take That. Coldplay, Arctic Monkeys and Snow Patrol in particular are huge fans but I guarantee more will come around in years to come.

The Arctic Monkeys took more influence from Take That than The Beatles?! This is the best line yet!

Duke Leonal Felmet · 30-11-2011 5:43pm

I look down on musicians who never venture beyond the Blues Pentatonic.

The Pixies are rubbish.

The Rolling Stones barely have an album worth of good songs. Same with The Who.

The Clash bore me.

The Sex Pistols did not play punk music.

karaokeman · 30-11-2011 7:21pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The Stone Roses, whose previous biggest headlining gig had been 30,000 in Liverpool in 1990, recently reformed and sold the best part of a quarter of a million tickets in about 50 minutes.

You can't honestly believe that people who attend modern day Take That gigs believe them to have changed too much since their 90s heyday, can you?!

The fact is they weren't able to sell out venues that big in the 90s, which shows that there are a hell of a lot more people interested now. Take That also sold a million tickets for their UK dates, a crash was caused on the morning the initial tickets went on sale because of enormous demand.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The Arctic Monkeys took more influence from Take That than The Beatles?! This is the best line yet!

I never said the Arctic Monkeys were more influenced by Take That than the Beatles but Alex Turner has admitted himself to be a huge fan of Take That now and I can tell you he was not one bit of a fan when they were a "boyband".

http://www.metro.co.uk/music/860427-arctic-monkeys-issue-take-that-apology

lordgoat · 30-11-2011 7:44pm

karaokeman wrote: »

I never said the Arctic Monkeys were more influenced by Take That than the Beatles but Alex Turner has admitted himself to be a huge fan of Take That now and I can tell you he was not one bit of a fan when they were a "boyband".

http://www.metro.co.uk/music/860427-arctic-monkeys-issue-take-that-apology

dude you get more and more clueless each post.

Did you even read the article you linked too?

Here's what Turner says in it:
I think I really offended him a few years ago though, which I'm sorry about. I didn't understand it then. didn't know what was going on, trying to ruffle some feathers,' Turner told the music magazine. (NME)

Here's a clue, take that were a boyband, they are a boyband, they will always be a boyband. Learn to live with that fact and stop going on with your sh'ite.

rcaz · 30-11-2011 8:29pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The Sex Pistols did not play punk music.

If the Sex Pistols didn't, who did?

VenomousFish · 30-11-2011 8:52pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

The Pixies are rubbish.

Care to elaborate?

Technocentral · 30-11-2011 9:15pm

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I look down on musicians who never venture beyond the Blues Pentatonic.

The Pixies are rubbish.

The Rolling Stones barely have an album worth of good songs. Same with The Who.

The Clash bore me.

The Sex Pistols did not play punk music.

Apart from The Rolling Stones your WAY off.

Oasis_Dublin · 30-11-2011 9:15pm

karaokeman wrote: »

The fact is they weren't able to sell out venues that big in the 90s, which shows that there are a hell of a lot more people interested now. Take That also sold a million tickets for their UK dates, a crash was caused on the morning the initial tickets went on sale because of enormous demand.

I think you're missing my point here. The Stone Roses, who have not released any new material in seventeen years, give or take, were able to sell 225,000 tickets in 50 minutes. Hence, it has little to do with their inspiring new music and more to do with the fact that people who didn't have a chance to see them before now have the chance to see them live, and sing "Never Forget" and "Back for Good."

Technocentral · 30-11-2011 9:19pm

karaokeman wrote: »

I wonder if there are any well known bands who have still yet to be mentioned here?

What about The Strokes or Chuck Berry?

Surely someone is ready to share an opinion.

In your case maybe you should hold back on a few?

30-11-2011 9:39pm

This may not be too unpopular but I would rate Dean Martin as one of the all time greatest singers and far superior to his cohorts in the Rat Pack. Not only was he a great singer, but he was a truly fantastic comedian, a damn fine actor and as close to cool incarnate as you can get. The really don't make them like him anymore.

This is one of my all time favorite moments of Television

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m74urGhPVM

karaokeman · 30-11-2011 10:11pm

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I think you're missing my point here. The Stone Roses, who have not released any new material in seventeen years, give or take, were able to sell 225,000 tickets in 50 minutes. Hence, it has little to do with their inspiring new music and more to do with the fact that people who didn't have a chance to see them before now have the chance to see them live, and sing "Never Forget" and "Back for Good."

But how can you prove that Take That's new found success is entirely unrelated to an increasing new fan base?

If they had as many fans now as they had in the 90s they would have been able to sell out venues that big in the 90s, but they didn't and so they played smaller venues then.

If people only bought tickets for Take That to hear their old hits, they wouldn't have lasted longer than the reunion tour. Why do you think so many boybands who reformed just played a single tour and then disbanded again?

Finally I will concede that I respect the opinions of anyone who believes Take That are a boyband. I can't change your opinion so I will drop it at that. It is my opinion however they are not, and that after all is the point of this thread "Your Unpopular Music Opinions". Its about "unpopular opinions" and not mainstream opinions, some of us do have controversial opinions but thats just life. I will never understand why some people think the moon landings were fake, no more than some of you will understand my opinion that Take That aren't a boyband.

The reality of it is Take That are a genuine band. They can all sing, they play instruments and they write their own songs. For the vast, vast majority of boybands it is the complete opposite. That is all I am trying to say.

Your unpopular music opinions

Comments