Take That covering Smells Like Teen Spirit

[TheoGB]

As it says on the tin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzBjatkVtzY

It's scared me, frankly. This is not a joke.

[Mr Majestik]

Wow.


I don't know what to say....

[HBK757]

My god.

[Lorne.t]

Talk about old news!
They played it all through a tour.
One of the shows was even on Channel 4 at the time.

[TheoGB]

Well it does say 1995 on it. I'd not seen footage before, though.

Mark used to do Creep (the 'very special' version) when he was touring solo, didn't he?

[tipicus]

Nothing beats this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONt47Z0KZg

in the "so wrong" factor.

Yes, that is Celine Dion covering an AC/DC track.

[Herbal]

This beats it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtuGMHWAf0&feature=related

The country version :lol:

[jpig]

Hem

I quite like that Celine Dion / Anastacia thing. Sorry n'all.

[Steve Jackson]

However nasty the above covers are, Dave Lee Roth out did them all with the bluegrass version of Jump.

I'm still having nightmares about that one.

[DM]

As it says on the tin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzBjatkVtzY

It's scared me, frankly. This is not a joke.

It's awesome thats' what it is.

"crablin
Reply | Spam
I'm absolutely lost as to why the most imporant and influential band of our generation would stoop to covering this pumped-up cock-rock 'grunge' bullcrap. "

Amen

[Fat Bloke]

As it says on the tin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzBjatkVtzY

It's scared me, frankly. This is not a joke.

At least we finally know why Kurt killed himself!

[kohoutec]

Top solo

[AndyWilson]

Not bad, but needed more harmonies...

[Saber]

I didn't even know they could play instruments.

[Fat Bloke]

I didn't even know they could play instruments.

They can't. Did you not watch the clip?

[DeadYankee]

Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana, the most over rated band in the history of the universe.

[kohoutec]

Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana, the most over rated band in the history of the universe.

Care to elaborate? I won't deny that Take That had some cracking pop tunes but I'm not sure what their importance was. OK, out of the crop of boy bands around at that time they were probably the most talented but that's about it.

Nirvana were a breath of fresh air and certainly swept the carpet from under the feet of whole lot of crappy glammy metal bands and cheesy soft rockers. Most over rated band in the universe? Are you trying to be controversial for the sake of it, or ironic, I can't work it out?

[DeadYankee]

Certainly not. Nirvana, a band who's greatest contribution to music is spawning the new Phil Collins, had a few ok pop tunes and that's about it. The first album was ****, the second vastly overrated and the third had a couple of ok songs on it. They really changed **** all apart from making turgid **** like Pearl Jam and their ilk seem acceptable.

Take that enthused a whole generation of pop fans and had a plethora of great songs. Not bending over and fawning over a dead **** with a **** haircut isn't ironic. More ironic is the idol worship of a dead guitarist who failed at life and never wanted any adulation.

It just makes me laugh that people are horror struck that a pop band dared cover a song by another pop band. Ooh how daaaaare they

[DM]

That's well harsh comparing Nirvana to Pearl Jam. :lol:
Agreed the first album was rubbish mind..

[kohoutec]

Certainly not. Nirvana, a band who's greatest contribution to music is spawning the new Phil Collins, had a few ok pop tunes and that's about it. The first album was ****, the second vastly overrated and the third had a couple of ok songs on it. They really changed **** all apart from making turgid **** like Pearl Jam and their ilk seem acceptable.

Take that enthused a whole generation of pop fans and had a plethora of great songs. Not bending over and fawning over a dead **** with a **** haircut isn't ironic. More ironic is the idol worship of a dead guitarist who failed at life and never wanted any adulation.

It just makes me laugh that people are horror struck that a pop band dared cover a song by another pop band. Ooh how daaaaare they

Agree with you about the foo fighters (they're a good live band but the albums leave me cold). Bleach had a couple of good songs, but yeah, generally it wasnt great. Nevermind however is a ******* great pop album, there's not a duff song on it IMO, and I really don't think In Utero is too shabby either (saying all this I'm not a massive Nirvana fan, I just can't agree with what you're saying - apart from Pearl Jam, always found them dull :))

All that I can see Take That did was be better than Boyzone and moisten the gussets of a few million young girls, hardly ground breaking :shrug:

[DeadYankee]

They are both just pop bands is my general point. The way this thread is going you'd think that the cover version is along the lines of hitler doing a rap version of the anne frank diaries

[TheoGB]

It's awesome thats' what it is.

"crablin
Reply | Spam
I'm absolutely lost as to why the most imporant and influential band of our generation would stoop to covering this pumped-up cock-rock 'grunge' bullcrap. "

Amen

Heh. I never really know of Colin is being serious or not with comments like that. :D

Certainly not. Nirvana, a band who's greatest contribution to music is spawning the new Phil Collins, had a few ok pop tunes and that's about it. The first album was ****, the second vastly overrated and the third had a couple of ok songs on it. They really changed **** all apart from making turgid **** like Pearl Jam and their ilk seem acceptable.

Take that enthused a whole generation of pop fans and had a plethora of great songs. Not bending over and fawning over a dead **** with a **** haircut isn't ironic. More ironic is the idol worship of a dead guitarist who failed at life and never wanted any adulation.

It just makes me laugh that people are horror struck that a pop band dared cover a song by another pop band. Ooh how daaaaare they

I think it's more that it's just a rubbish cover, surely? If Take That had done a good job of it that would have been cool but they play it as badly as one of those poor school covers band videos we see on line. :D

As to your opinion of Nirvana, you seem to be the one having the horror issues compared to the rest of us. In Utero is hands down one of the top 10 albums ever recorded. That's a stone cold fact. Take That never did anything for me but they clearly were good at what they did, but their cover of Nirvana is pretty much as awful as when Travis covered Baby One More Time. :lol:

[Stevie G]

Take that enthused a whole generation of pop fans and had a plethora of great songs.

A generation of screaming girls, you mean! All they did was contribute to the ever crowing hoards of dreamful manufacturered boy/girl bands that appeared in the 90's, but none of them have had any positive influence on music IMO! They just turned out bland pop music aimed at lovesick teenage girls. How anyone can call Take That 'the most influencial band of a generation' is either insane or has a really good sense of humour....!

Funnily enough I was sitting in a restaurant in town the other day and a song came on. A guitar based song, completely bland, the singer's voice a complete none entity. I didn't have a clue who it was but within a minute was moaning to my girlfriend, saying what a crap and pointless song it was, how the singer's voice had absolutely nothing about it, so plain and uninteresting (jees, even Chris Martin's voice has a bit of character). She advised me that it was Take That, their new album. Never heard it before and certainly don't want to hear it again, or the painfully boring songs that followed.

Never a Nirvana fan, but at least they had a handful of good songs!

[DeadYankee]

Are girls opinions invalid then?

[tipicus]

Are girls opinions invalid then?

When their allegiance to a band is based on how buff they look rather than how good their songs are then yes, frankly.

[Stevie G]

No, but teenage girls are not particularly influencial when it comes to music contribution, other than financially to the record co's who want to churn out more because that's what they want! It's a market of it's own, but doesn't contribute to music as a whole.

[LouBarlow]

Take That > Nirvana > Pixies > Husker Du > The Wurzels

[HenryKrinkle]

I seem to remember a LOT of teenage girls liked the Beatles.

...I agree that Nirvana were totally overrated ****!!!

[Stevie G]

Hey Lou! Don't start on Pixies! They were quality! And influencial! :thumbs:

[LouBarlow]

:lol: How am I starting on the Pixies? They are 3rd best EVER behind the mighty Du and The Wurzels!

[DeadYankee]

No, but teenage girls are not particularly influencial when it comes to music contribution, other than financially to the record co's who want to churn out more because that's what they want! It's a market of it's own, but doesn't contribute to music as a whole.

That is just a load of patriarchal cobblers. You seriously think that some scabby kid with a stripy t-shirt is somehow contributing more to music by buying a Nirvana product than a teenage girl buying a Take That album?

Why? Both wrote songs, nothing more than that. Just because one was a whiny junkie doesn't make it more intrinsically valuable. Where is this mythical Nirvana legacy? Nickelback are really pushing the boundaries aren't they? Give me All Saints over that **** any day

[Stevie G]

Eek! So you're saying Take That are the best ever.....! Scary!

[LouBarlow]

No I got the arrows wrong :lol:

[Stevie G]

I'm not saying that Nirvana were anything special, but I'm saying that Take That were/are certainly also not! And the music they've produced has always been incredibly safe, bland pop music, with the sole intention of making loads of money from a safe market. They've never even been near boundaries, let alone pushed them!

And I certainly wouldn't put the Beatles in with either of them. From a totally different era, but they had a variety of musical styles, from easy listening pop to a lot more experimental (albiet and drug inspired!) and contributed to music in a massive way.

[DeadYankee]

You could say the same about Take That

[Stevie G]

Not if you want to be taken seriously....! The Beatles were also successful with the different styles of music they made, Take That's success has only been in one blantantly directed area! You're not seriously putting Take That up there with The Beatles are you....?!

(And I'm not a Beatles fan, btw, but I can appreciate their contribution to music, even if they were responsible for inspiring Oasis!)

[Roy]

They are both just pop bands is my general point.

I was about to post exactly the same thing, Nirvana are simply a pop band with guitars. Take That make well crafted pop songs, Nirvana make catchy guitar tunes, there really isn't that much between them really.

[DeadYankee]

Not if you want to be taken seriously....! The Beatles were also successful with the different styles of music they made, Take That's success has only been in one blantantly directed area! You're not seriously putting Take That up there with The Beatles are you....?!

(And I'm not a Beatles fan, btw, but I can appreciate their contribution to music, even if they were responsible for inspiring Oasis!)

No, you added the stuff about the Beatles after I posted. I'm not putting anyone up anywhere - it is just nonsensical to try and claim musical superiority for any pop band

[Mr Majestik]

Not arsed about arguing the point but i'm old enough to remember what Rock music was like before Nirvana broke and i'd take the ropey Grunge bands that came after Nirvana over the ropey cock rock bands that clogged up the charts any day.


(Plus Bleach is a flipping great angry record.)

[Stevie G]

Yeah, someone else mentioned the Beatles but I must have misread your reply (post 35) to be in reference to them.

The thing for me is that whether or not you liked Nirvana, that have been influencial in that they have influenced bands and affected music, whereas who would ever say they were influenced by Take That, other than a host of XFactor, etc wannabees?

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but I personally don't think Take That are better or at all more important that Nirvana (which was your original post).

[TheoGB]

No I got the arrows wrong :lol:

Thank ****. I was about to report your identity theft to the authorities. :D

[LouBarlow]

Not arsed about arguing the point but i'm old enough to remember what Rock music was like before Nirvana broke and i'd take the ropey Grunge bands that came after Nirvana over the ropey cock rock bands that clogged up the charts any day.


(Plus Bleach is a flipping great angry record.)

Totally 100% agree, but can't be arsed arguing - we all like different things. Bleach is a corking record I think, and anyone who says 'Nirvana were just a pop band with guitars' is either deaf or has never heard In Utero (One of the great pop albums? lol) :nuts:

[Johnny Vodka]

Take That are ****.
The Beatles are ****.
Nirvana are okay.

Argument settled. :p

[DM]

were

[Johnny Vodka]

were

Wooooosh. Well, Take That still qualify as "are" at least. ;)

[Roy]

Totally 100% agree, but can't be arsed arguing - we all like different things. Bleach is a corking record I think, and anyone who says 'Nirvana were just a pop band with guitars' is either deaf or has never heard In Utero (One of the great pop albums? lol) :nuts:

That was me and I own it :thumbs:

[LouBarlow]

...and you think In Utero appeals to the general population? Fine :thumbs:

/tries to spell out 'M-A-D' in sign language ;)

[DM]

Wooooosh. Well, Take That still qualify as "are" at least. ;)

Woosh what? :nuts:

This thread is mental

[DeadYankee]

So the definition of "quality" is now something which is not appealing to the general public? :nuts:

Nirvana are no "better" than Take That nor the Velvet underground better than Showaddywaddy. It is all just pop music, it isn't high art. People like different things, being a geek fanboy isn't any more valid than a screaming schoolgirl. This is why it makes me laugh when JV claims that he "demands more from his bands - like he's Kenneth Clarke wandering around the Parthenon. It is all **** and wind at the end of the day - being tuneless and ignored by most people isnt a sign of quality.

[kohoutec]

never mind, its pointless

[DeadYankee]

Well, no one has managed to articulate any reason at all why Nirvana are supposedly more worthy so, yes, it is fairly pointless.

[Johnny Vodka]

It is all just pop music, it isn't high art.

Music has as much right to be called "art" as books, cinema or paintings. :shrug:

[DeadYankee]

Yes, and when you plumb the depths of music to packaged, pop music product I challenge you to present any coherent argument how Nirvana and their ilk are higher, more worthy art than a chart band. It is all just ephemeral. People have preferences etc but just becuase you prefer noisy, tuneless stuff doesn't make it intrinsically better. The lines about "girls" music being less valid are the most telling here. Very sad

[Roy]

...and you think In Utero appeals to the general population? Fine :thumbs:

/tries to spell out 'M-A-D' in sign language ;)

Welll... I know a lot more pople that like In Utero than I do Take That so in my world Take that are the kerazee off-the-wall choice.

Every man and his dog likes Nirvana, which in and of itself is proof of their catchiness.

I have to agree with DY though (much as it pains me :D ) Nirvana are no more valid or worthy than any other band, being accepted by a chunk of people who consider themselves cool isn't a measure of anything other than social selection.

[kohoutec]

Well, no one has managed to articulate any reason at all why Nirvana are supposedly more worthy so, yes, it is fairly pointless.

Well by your reckoning one minute Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana and the next minute it's just all pop music.

It's also been pointed out at least twice that Nirvana did change the musical landscape of the times (admittedly they spawned some bloody awful bandwagon jumpers as well). There's no denying that a lot of the soft rock rubbish that was so popular at the time tied a death rapidly.

[DeadYankee]

All that supposedly killed off music now sells far more than anything Nirvana spawned.

Although, of course, they spawned nothing and were just magpies stealing from others like Pixies.

I have nothing against them, they are what they are. Same as Take That

[kohoutec]

All that supposedly killed off music now sells far more than anything Nirvana spawned.

Although, of course, they spawned nothing and were just magpies stealing from others like Pixies.

I have nothing against them, they are what they are. Same as Take That

So by that reckoning, going back to my first post, when you said "Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana" you were being deliberately controversial after all as it turns out you think they're both the same?

And of course they borrowed from the Pixies, just as every other band has been influenced by bands before them, that's just the way it works.

[LouBarlow]

So the definition of "quality" is now something which is not appealing to the general public? :nuts:


Not at all - my own definition of popular music, is music that would be appreciated by the casual listener - someone who happened to tune in and liked what they heard on the radio/wireless/Ipod. Thus that definition wouldn't apply to In Utero - an album possibly more appreciated by the Nirvana fan than those likely to tune into Radio 2.

It wasn't a snob post, nor would I pretend to portray Nirvana as high-art...Husker Du on the other hand etc etc blergh.

[NicolaUK]

When their allegiance to a band is based on how buff they look rather than how good their songs are then yes, frankly.

That's a really retarded post :nuts:

[douglasb]

'Course, I'm old enough to remember when DY was doing something new and exciting on the boards. For a time, a lot of the old-time forum posters seemed redundant and couldn't get a regular gig any more.

Now a lot of these guys are coming back round again - and making a lot of money from it too. And DY just keeps peddling the same old formula, a bit like the Ramones. And look what happened to them!

[DeadYankee]

So by that reckoning, going back to my first post, when you said "Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana" you were being deliberately controversial after all as it turns out you think they're both the same?

And of course they borrowed from the Pixies, just as every other band has been influenced by bands before them, that's just the way it works.

Borrowed from the Pixies? You just claimed that Nirvana changed the whole musical landscape twice! hardly revolutionary if they stole the ideas and just handily managed to capture the world's attention with the might of corporate america behind the album.

Take That were no better or worse musically but, given that they were not suicidal junkies I'd say they were a better prospect all in all. Certainly more important and with more long term impact. It isn't controversial at all IMO, millions of people would agree. Just because it pricks a few elitis bubbles doesn't mean it is a controversial opinion in the larger scheme of things.

[Johnny Vodka]

Yes, and when you plumb the depths of music to packaged, pop music product I challenge you to present any coherent argument how Nirvana and their ilk are higher, more worthy art than a chart band. It is all just ephemeral. People have preferences etc but just becuase you prefer noisy, tuneless stuff doesn't make it intrinsically better. The lines about "girls" music being less valid are the most telling here. Very sad

So what kind of music does earn the right to be called "art" then? I rate Nirvana far less highly than some people on here do, but their music is hardly throwaway. "In Utero", I think, is an impressive achievement, even if it's ages since I've listened to it. (I don't care to listen to music *that* depressing these days.)

As a "pop" band, Take That aren't particularly good. The quality of most "pop" music is down to the producer(s) anyway and Take That never shone in that respect.

[Jimmyboy]

Not arsed about arguing the point but i'm old enough to remember what Rock music was like before Nirvana broke and i'd take the ropey Grunge bands that came after Nirvana over the ropey cock rock bands that clogged up the charts any day.

Well I think that's something that's been forgotten over time. They were an anti-ponce band who did manage to drastically change rock music during the era in which they were active. They were a band that had more passion than talent which put them in direct contrast with the rock bands at the time who were usually technically gifted but passionless. Rock music had become a sorry state in which Meat Loafy over produced ballads were demanded for marketing and business reasons. Nirvana were an antidote to that and a reminder as to why kids got into rock bands in the first place. A lot of 'cool' bands suddenly became 'uncool' pretty much over night, even the then decades long untouchable Iron Maiden and Metallica took a huge dent in popularity during Nirvana's era.

At least Cobain wasn't quite so up himself as to assume his rock god status gave him an obligation to 'save/patronise the world', unlike some other miserable musicians that came before and after Nirvana.

[lentini]

That's a really retarded post :nuts:

then how do you explain Westlife being so popular? :nuts:

[kohoutec]

Borrowed from the Pixies? You just claimed that Nirvana changed the whole musical landscape twice! hardly revolutionary if they stole the ideas and just handily managed to capture the world's attention with the might of corporate america behind the album.

Take That were no better or worse musically but, given that they were not suicidal junkies I'd say they were a better prospect all in all. Certainly more important and with more long term impact. It isn't controversial at all IMO, millions of people would agree. Just because it pricks a few elitis bubbles doesn't mean it is a controversial opinion in the larger scheme of things.

I didnt claim anything, I'm just pointing out what actually happened, and looking up the thread the majority would seem to agree. Applying the "it's all just pop music" theory means by your reckoning bands like The Who or The Stones are no more credible than Boyzone or Blazing Squad, which frankly is a bit :nuts:

You know as well as I do that bands continually borrow from the ones before them, it's a massive part of the way popular music works, and there's nowt wrong with it either. People will always have their favourite bands, because of the emotions these bands can evoke in them, thats one of the joys of music, and thank **** we don't all like the same.

[DeadYankee]

Why is it nuts? All I've seen by way of justifying why these bands are "better" is people saying the equivalent of "because they are", oh, that and music that mere "girls" like is worthless.

As you say, people will have their personal favourite bands, exactly what I've been saying. It doesn't make them better though.

Finally, it is a myth that Nirvana killed off the rock establishment - they are all still there and are raking in the cash like there is no tomorrow.

[Johnny Vodka]

As someone mentioned earlier, girls who like Boyzone, etc are often responding to the "hunk factor" of the band as much as the music.

I don't have a problem with "girly" pop music, if it's well done. Some of Girls Aloud's or the Sugababes' stuff is fantastic, although, as I said, a lot of that is to do with the production/ writing teams.

[DeadYankee]

That is facile supposition and no different to saying that males like the image of a band. A very lame attempt at justification and has no bearing on why band x is supposedly better than band y

[DM]

Kobain was hardly a moose was he. .alt chicks were right into him

If you want a real hunk factor band you should check out Les Savy Fav

[Johnny Vodka]

Kobain was hardly a moose was he. .alt chicks were right into him


Never gave me a hard-on, mate. ;) Plus he always looked like he'd smell a la Pete Doherty. :p

So what DY is saying, basically, is that all "art" is equal? So in the world of literature, could one not justify Tolstoy as better than, say, Dan Brown?

[DM]

Oh look, he's gay, he finds a man attractive/good looking!

[kohoutec]

Why is it nuts? All I've seen by way of justifying why these bands are "better" is people saying the equivalent of "because they are", oh, that and music that mere "girls" like is worthless.

As you say, people will have their personal favourite bands, exactly what I've been saying. It doesn't make them better though.

Finally, it is a myth that Nirvana killed off the rock establishment - they are all still there and are raking in the cash like there is no tomorrow.

I love a good pop song, I'm not precious about what I listen to. I'm not naive, I know I'm buying into a "product", however some bands are obviously considerably more product than talent. It's really not hard to filter out the product bands. Sometimes a band will just click with you for whatever reason, and more often or not they're the talented ones...at the end of the day it's all down to opinions. My opinion is that Nirvana are a better band than Take That, and nothing anyone says is going to change my mind.

The rock establishment was well and truly kicked in the balls, but believe what you like. Yes rock is back now, that's the revivalist nature of popular music, rock was in decline anyway back then, Nirvana just finished it off for a few years, people were well and truly sick of crap like Warrant and Poison.

[DeadYankee]

Never gave me a hard-on, mate. ;) Plus he always looked like he'd smell a la Pete Doherty. :p

So what DY is saying, basically, is that all "art" is equal? So in the world of literature, could one not justify Tolstoy as better than, say, Dan Brown?

If it was all equal then it is unlikely that you would class dan brown as "better". However I am sure that many people would consider dan brown to be better than Tolstoy. How much Tolstoy have you read? Probably as much as most people - that being none - but he is marvellous isn't he

Anyway what I am saying is give me some tangible justification why Nirvana are the better band.

As for the "rock establishment" being kicked in the balls - Nirvana became a part of the rock establishment. They changed nothing at all. They did nothing new that Dinosaur Jnr and Pixies were not already doing and they struck lucky with a pop song that made them poster boys for the establishment. They wrote pop songs and performed then, as did take that and elton john and Slade

Any one off to the Kiss tour? Or are we waiting for Led Zep? or the next Metallica and AC/DC tours? I see Frank Black might be playing some "intimate" venues in the near future though

[Jimmyboy]

To be fair none of those bands you've listed were ever considered dinosaur bands by rock fans anyway.

Nirvana became part of the establishment - Yeah but that's why a knee-jerk reactionary album like In Utero was written.

[Johnny Vodka]

Frankly, I'm surprised DY didn't name himself after a Bay City Rollers track.

[LouBarlow]

Borrowed from the Pixies? You just claimed that Nirvana changed the whole musical landscape twice! hardly revolutionary if they stole the ideas and just handily managed to capture the world's attention with the might of corporate america behind the album.

Take That were no better or worse musically but, given that they were not suicidal junkies I'd say they were a better prospect all in all. Certainly more important and with more long term impact. It isn't controversial at all IMO, millions of people would agree. Just because it pricks a few elitis bubbles doesn't mean it is a controversial opinion in the larger scheme of things.

You are trying too hard to be 'controversial' now - much in the style of a particular Drugs 'N' Bass fan-forum-member.

Take that were worse musically, based on the fact (if we have to compare two wildly different extremes) that only one of said members was actually a musician, while the rest were dancers.

I guess what it boils down to is your own definition of 'pop music' - my own doesn't equate to a track like 'Territorial ****ings' but your own might...but I reserve the right to call you weird if so.

[Jimmyboy]

To be fair to DY I feel the same way whenever I hear someone try to grant The White Stripes 'essential' status. ;)

[LouBarlow]

Nothing is essential - if you want to get something positive out of life then listen to The White Stripes. It won't *change* your life, but hey, nor does posting on an internet forum.

[statto]

When threads go wrong #1759386

The OP is clearly a Nirvana fan and a Take That hater who is distraught that some pile of pap engineered group has the gall to cover what he feels is one of the greatest songs of all time.

Given the makeup of the posters in this forum he probably didn't count on the Take That fan club piling into the thread to criticize. :lol:

Quite interesting really, as if there was a thread in the movie forum announcing that McG was going to direct a remake of Jaws I can't imagine many forumites defending the Charlie's Angels helmer.*

*I pick McG because he's been successful, yet not accepted by the Hitchcock/Spielberg set, and Jaws because it's claim to be a classic film is debatable.

[Jimmyboy]

Nothing is essential - if you want to get something positive out of life then listen to The White Stripes. It won't *change* your life, but hey, nor does posting on an internet forum.

That wasn't a dig at you or your tastes btw. I honestly can't remember if you like the white stripes or not. I'm just saying they are a band that I personally don't get the admiration for.

Nirvana on the other hand have earn't their stripes (and they never were a pop band).

[LouBarlow]

I have no problem with Take That - they are a great pop band, but comparing them to Nirvana seems a bit weird.

I don't think covering another artists track automatically leads to direct comparison, as some seem to think here.

[Jimmyboy]

I like the song they did for the stardust soundtrack, I don't think anything else they've done has caused me to take notice. They are a much better group by default for ditching the belly dancer though.

[DeadYankee]

You are trying too hard to be 'controversial' now - much in the style of a particular Drugs 'N' Bass fan-forum-member..


Quite amusing that because something doesn't fit into your view of things you deem it to be deliberate controversy. Take That were a hugely successful band of the 90s that wrote great songs. So were Nirvana. Neither is intrinsically more worthy IMO and, so far, no one has come up with any tangible reason for either being better. You may prefer one or the other. You may also prefer cats over dogs but it doesn't make either better.

If one is so much better and I am being so obviously "controversial" then why do you find it so hard to come up with any reason for one being better other then it just "seems" obvious to you.

[DM]

I've never seen a Take That LP in a 'best of list'.. In general things like Rolling Stones top 500 are pretty respectable. Where would you place Take That in your list DY?

[AndyWilson]

In retrospect I like Nirvana, but at the time they irritated me by claiming to be influenced by 70s British Punk, when they seemed to me to be just another band for long haired middle class americans to shake their heads and wave their lighters at...

[DM]

I begrudgingly liked them as well. I remember vividly hearing Nevermind at a party and pretended not to like it..

[DeadYankee]

I've never seen a Take That LP in a 'best of list'.. In general things like Rolling Stones top 500 are pretty respectable. Where would you place Take That in your list DY?
I don't think that is relevant as (a) most people don't vote or care about these lists and (b) they measure only personal taste and current fashion trends and not intrinsic quality. Personally I think Take That wrote some amazing pop songs. So did Nirvana. As much as people might like to believe it - pop songs a la Take That don't write themselves.

[DM]

I feel it's pretty relevant when talking about quality.. Personal taste? Isn't that the whole crux of your argument?

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8206/39189125xh5.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8618/oustprwj2.jpg

[DeadYankee]

Personal taste had nothing to do with quality - that is the whole crux of my argument

[kohoutec]

Quite amusing that because something doesn't fit into your view of things you deem it to be deliberate controversy. Take That were a hugely successful band of the 90s that wrote great songs. So were Nirvana. Neither is intrinsically more worthy IMO and, so far, no one has come up with any tangible reason for either being better. You may prefer one or the other. You may also prefer cats over dogs but it doesn't make either better.

If one is so much better and I am being so obviously "controversial" then why do you find it so hard to come up with any reason for one being better other then it just "seems" obvious to you.

One of the reasons people think you're trying to be controversial is because in one breath you state "Take That were infinitely better and more important than Nirvana" and in the next you say neither is more worthy than the other. You can't have it both ways. Simple as that.

[DeadYankee]

I note that you still have come up with not a single reason why Nirvana should be considered more worthy. Amazing given that it seems so self evident that they are better.

I am not saying that people should have no personal preference, I just find the sneery attitude that Take That should have no right to play a Nirvana song very amusing given that the song is nothing more than a pop song with loud guitars. Particularly when no one can articulate quite why the Nirvana song is somehow on a higher artistic plane.

[kohoutec]

I note that you still have come up with not a single reason why Nirvana should be considered more worthy. Amazing given that it seems so self evident that they are better.

Probably the same reason you havent come up with a convincing reason why Take That were better than Nirvana. Oh, sorry you did say Cobain was a junkie, that's a winner :)

The reason neither of us can give a good reason is because music is a personal thing. In your eyes it would appear to all be much of a muchness. If that's how you see it then fine, personally I'm happy to get a bit more out of it.

[DeadYankee]

What "more" do you think you get out of it?

[kohoutec]

What "more" do you think you get out of it?

Are you seriously telling me there's not even one song that gives you goosepimples, reminds you of a brilliant moment in your life, or just makes you feel happy to be alive?

[DeadYankee]

Yeah, but one could be by madonna and the other by The Stooges, I don't class either genre as better or worse. That doesn't explain what more you get from music. Neither does it explain what JV means when he claims to "demand more from music" than he gets from the Killers. These demands are expressed not as preference for one band over another but in a way which implies that some bands are inherently on a higher artistic plane. But I can't seem to find anyone who can explain what qualifies a band for such exalted status. other than 99% of the time they are tuneless and ignored by 99% of the population. Which suggests it is just a geeky elitist notion. A theory backed up by the total dismisal of the taste of girls

[kohoutec]

Of course. I'm fairly eclectic in my music taste and as stated earlier am not precious about music. Isn't the point that you can't really explain in words what you get from music, which is what makes it what it is? I think I'm right in saying that like me, your a musician? (OK I may not be a very good one but that's not the point ;)). If this is the case then I think it's a good bet that you're passionate about music, just as I am, which is why I think your trying to be controversial.

Anyway, I'm off to watch the rest of This Is Spinal Tap - now they were a great band ;)

[DeadYankee]

I am passionate about music and, being able to play an instrument, I take the view that it makes no difference whether you are playing Abba or Slayer - it is all just music. I am not being controversial, I am genuinely interested in seeing why people think that some music is more worthy and by listening to it they are "in the know" and getting "more" than joe public. i think some of the responses have been very illuminating so far.

[Jimmyboy]

I think intentions has a lot to do with it. Are you making music because you love it and consider commercial success a bonus or are you making music as a mechanism to becoming a celebrity...

Remove the audience from Take That and they'd have stopped and become actors/models/TV presenters etc, anything to be famous for the sake of being famous. Remove the audience from Nirvana and they'd still be making music in the garage.

That is what makes Nirvana a more relevant band imo.

[DM]

A theory backed up by the total dismisal of the taste of girls

I like crab paste. I like music a lot but I semi agree with your argument, music snobbery does my head in, especially where fashions/trends kick in. I can't like Take That though, they're a bunch of *****.

[Johnny Vodka]

Neither does it explain what JV means when he claims to "demand more from music" than he gets from the Killers.

Because I generally like some complexity in my music - not just generic radio fodder, or something thrown together to cash in on the latest trend. To my ears, there is infinitely more to, say, Radiohead or LCD Soundsystem (lyrcially, musically, the way songs are structured) than there is The Killers. I'd say the same in comparing Nirvana and Take That. Of course, you have the right to disagree. ;)

Like I said, there's tonnes of "pop" music that I think is "artfully" constructed (some by Girls Aloud, Sugababes, Annie, Rihanna (though not Umbrella)) and I would say is as good as, possibly better than, Nirvana. So I'm not coming at it from a beardy bloke music vs girly pop POV. I just don't think Take That are any good.

[LouBarlow]

Quite amusing that because something doesn't fit into your view of things you deem it to be deliberate controversy. Take That were a hugely successful band of the 90s that wrote great songs. So were Nirvana. Neither is intrinsically more worthy IMO and, so far, no one has come up with any tangible reason for either being better. You may prefer one or the other. You may also prefer cats over dogs but it doesn't make either better.

If one is so much better and I am being so obviously "controversial" then why do you find it so hard to come up with any reason for one being better other then it just "seems" obvious to you.

I think you are confusing my posts with someone elses to be honest. Nowhere have I claimed one to be 'better' than the other. I just took exception to your 'both were equally talented musicians' post and responded, as I don't believe the comparison between the two is valid.

That was my whole problem - the comparison of the two can't be made, in terms of who is 'better' - they are two wildly different beasts.

Now apologise! :p

[NicolaUK]

Yeah, but one could be by madonna and the other by The Stooges, I don't class either genre as better or worse. That doesn't explain what more you get from music. Neither does it explain what JV means when he claims to "demand more from music" than he gets from the Killers. These demands are expressed not as preference for one band over another but in a way which implies that some bands are inherently on a higher artistic plane. But I can't seem to find anyone who can explain what qualifies a band for such exalted status. other than 99% of the time they are tuneless and ignored by 99% of the population. Which suggests it is just a geeky elitist notion. A theory backed up by the total dismisal of the taste of girls

That I agree with.

There's no doubt Nirvana were/are still hugely influential, they never did it for me I was already into The Pixies ;)

The notion that girls are just interested in what bands look like is rather insulting.

[LouBarlow]

The notion that girls are just interested in what bands look like is rather insulting.

I agree. Everyone knows they should all be doing the ironing whilst watching Blu Ray movies :p

[Roy]

The notion that girls are just interested in what bands look like is rather insulting.

And considering in general women are more creative than men, is kind of retarded as well.

Both bands make well crafted songs, whether one likes or dislikes them is entirely irrelevant to the actual quality and completely subjective.

DY isn't being controversial at all, it's basic logic.

Most musical taste is driven by that desire to seem cool or mysterious hence the reason most blokes think Take That are rubbish, because it helps them rationalise their dislike for blokes women think are fit.

[LouBarlow]

DY isn't being controversial at all, it's basic logic.


It's not basic logic to suggest that Take That are as technically proficient a group as Nirvana though, which is what he said and what I took umbrage at.

Being able to craft a great pop track and being musically talented are not mutually exclusive. You can write pop tunes without being able to play an instrument and/or sing.

[Fever Dawg]

The notion that girls are just interested in what bands look like is rather insulting.


To be fair, I think you mis-interpreted tipicus regarding that.

I don't think he was implying that all girls only like groups they want to throw their knickers at and therefore their opinions should be invalid. Which is what you seem to be assuming he meant?

You can't deny that a high proportion of girls that went to see Take That were only doing so because they found Mark/Robbie (etc) attractive and I think it was those fans he was singling out .... rather than every female music fan.

[Sick Boy]

This beats it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtuGMHWAf0&feature=related

The country version :lol:


Man this thread has got all serious. Love that cover when that steel guitar solo kicks in. "He asked me to Run but I was already there"???:cuckoo:

[MaxNutter]

Nirvana wrote their own songs, and played their own instruments, so i thunk that makes them better ...

plus, i think Nirvana still sell more worldwide than Take That, iirc, Kobain is the highest earning dead artists of all time, sells more than Elvis, Lennon, Tupac et al ...

[douglasb]

No, he briefly made the #1 slot when the music rights were sold a couple of years ago.

[DM]

Nirvana wrote their own songs, and played their own instruments, so i thunk that makes them better ...

plus, i think Nirvana still sell more worldwide than Take That, iirc, Kobain is the highest earning dead artists of all time, sells more than Elvis, Lennon, Tupac et al ...

Take That wrote their own songs as well ;)

[MaxNutter]

No, he briefly made the #1 slot when the music rights were sold a couple of years ago.

ok, just the top selling dead guy of all time then ...

Take That wrote their own songs as well ;)

i don't think they did originally, although they do now ..

[tipicus]

To be fair, I think you mis-interpreted tipicus regarding that.

I don't think he was implying that all girls only like groups they want to throw their knickers at and therefore their opinions should be invalid. Which is what you seem to be assuming he meant?

You can't deny that a high proportion of girls that went to see Take That were only doing so because they found Mark/Robbie (etc) attractive and I think it was those fans he was singling out .... rather than every female music fan.

Spot on :thumbs:

[Lorne.t]

ok, just the top selling dead guy of all time then ...



i don't think they did originally, although they do now ..

They did.
They only released a couple of covers as singles the rest were written generally by Gary Barlow.

[tipicus]

ok, just the top selling dead guy of all time then ..



Presumably this is Forbes list of top earning dead celebs? He's not even on the 2007 list so therefore below Elvis, Lennon, George Harrison, Shakur, James Brown and Bob Marley, who all did make it :)

[MaxNutter]

They did.
They only released a couple of covers as singles the rest were written generally by Gary Barlow.

i stand corrected, save "A Million Love Songs", their first album consisted of covers and songs "co-written" by svengalis, but you're right, most of their stuff was at least partially written by Barlow ...

[DM]

Says he wrote 10 off that LP http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0vfqxq8gldfe and how many covers?

[NicolaUK]

To be fair, I think you mis-interpreted tipicus regarding that.

I don't think he was implying that all girls only like groups they want to throw their knickers at and therefore their opinions should be invalid. Which is what you seem to be assuming he meant?

You can't deny that a high proportion of girls that went to see Take That were only doing so because they found Mark/Robbie (etc) attractive and I think it was those fans he was singling out .... rather than every female music fan.

Sorry but I think you'll find they liked the music and fancied them. I don't know anyone who has gone to a gig just because they fancy that artist. You can't assume your love of music is more valid than a teeny bopper as others have posted music is very subjective.

Bringing sex into it is quite insulting as far as I'm concerned and screams snobbery, although to be fair this particular forum is often full of it so hardly surprising.

[Johnny Vodka]

You won't see many blokes at a Westlife gig, though. That you can't deny. ;)

I know a few girls who've been to see Westlife and they all fancied the pants off them. I think a certain percentage of women are more likely to get into a band when they fancy some of the members. :suspect: My sister's an indie fan, yet there's few bands she goes to see where she doesn't fancy one of the blokes. :D And before certain posters get their knickers in a knot, I'm not saying all women are like that...

[tipicus]

Sorry but I think you'll find they liked the music and fancied them.

Unless you have telepathic links to all of them you can't possibly qualify that sentence. You're simply projecting your own thoughts/feelings onto somebody else. Something we all do, all the time.

I don't know anyone who has gone to a gig just because they fancy that artist. You can't assume your love of music is more valid than a teeny bopper as others have posted music is very subjective.

Exactly. Subjective enough for it to be more than plausible that some people, sometimes a significant amount (not just girls - perhaps I should have added an addendum to my original comment) are attracted to the looks/persona rather than the music.

Or are you suggesting that a boyband (or girlband) consisting of a bunch of mingers would stand just as much chance of meteoric fame as a load of corporately selected pretty boys (or girls)?

[NicolaUK]

Arctic Monkeys.

[tipicus]

Don't exactly fall within the remit of "boyband". And yes, I'm sure we're all well aware of the difference between a boyband and a band full of boys.

[Roy]

Don't exactly fall within the remit of "boyband". And yes, I'm sure we're all well aware of the difference between a boyband and a band full of boys.

I dunno about that...

Spend a lot of time thinking what to wear? - Check
Carefully craft their public appearances to project an image to gain fans? - Check
Huge marketing machine? - Check
Spend lots of time in the right magazines? - Check


Note I deliberately didn't make a comment on the music as you'd tell me it was subjective :D

[LouBarlow]

The AM's are *****! :D

I'll stand behind that any day.

[DM]

Nah, AM's have some decent songs. Although it's not clear what your swearword is? If it begins with C, I'd agree.

[LouBarlow]

Nah, AM's have some decent songs. Although it's not clear what your swearword is? If it begins with C, I'd agree.

No they have one decent song that they recycle 12 times over and call it an album.

[NicolaUK]

Don't exactly fall within the remit of "boyband". And yes, I'm sure we're all well aware of the difference between a boyband and a band full of boys.

I think they do. You can be indie and boyband, the level of hype that initially surrounded them was completely manufactured.

Did we ever find out if they did actually write the first album?

[DM]

I'd assume they did, I've seen nothing to say otherwise.

[Johnny Vodka]

Did they write the 2nd album? ;) The style seemed pretty similar.

[HBK757]

I think intentions has a lot to do with it. Are you making music because you love it and consider commercial success a bonus or are you making music as a mechanism to becoming a celebrity...

Remove the audience from Take That and they'd have stopped and become actors/models/TV presenters etc, anything to be famous for the sake of being famous. Remove the audience from Nirvana and they'd still be making music in the garage.

That is what makes Nirvana a more relevant band imo.
:thumbs:

[NicolaUK]

I'd assume they did, I've seen nothing to say otherwise.

Just remembering the questions being asked at the time of Mr Turner's sometimes rather extraordinary 70/80's social commentary for such a young chap and the reason why they didn't put any writing credits on it, an odd thing to do for your first release. There was some 80's guy rumoured to be the real writer - am sure it would have been in the original fanboy thread :)

[Johnny Vodka]

I heard a rumour SpankySpanky wrote it. :suspect:

[NicolaUK]

:lol:

He is all of their dads :nuts:

[TheoGB]

When threads go wrong #1759386

The OP is clearly a Nirvana fan and a Take That hater who is distraught that some pile of pap engineered group has the gall to cover what he feels is one of the greatest songs of all time.

Given the makeup of the posters in this forum he probably didn't count on the Take That fan club piling into the thread to criticize. :lol:

Quite interesting really, as if there was a thread in the movie forum announcing that McG was going to direct a remake of Jaws I can't imagine many forumites defending the Charlie's Angels helmer.*

*I pick McG because he's been successful, yet not accepted by the Hitchcock/Spielberg set, and Jaws because it's claim to be a classic film is debatable.

When people can't read threads before posting #122929393:
http://thedvdforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7892836&postcount=22 ;)

Like I say, the cover's bloody dreadful.

I think intentions has a lot to do with it. Are you making music because you love it and consider commercial success a bonus or are you making music as a mechanism to becoming a celebrity...

Remove the audience from Take That and they'd have stopped and become actors/models/TV presenters etc, anything to be famous for the sake of being famous. Remove the audience from Nirvana and they'd still be making music in the garage.

That is what makes Nirvana a more relevant band imo.

Possibly the first time I've fully agreed with a post by Jimmyboy. :D

I think they do. You can be indie and boyband, the level of hype that initially surrounded them was completely manufactured.

Did we ever find out if they did actually write the first album?

Dunno, most bands from Sheffield (?) are sounding very similar according to people up there. The Monkeys just got lucky with their publicity machine and so forth. But most of that hype was on the internet courtesy of people playing the MP3s from what I remember. I don't think they're a particularly important band, however: they have one good song so that puts them in a massive category with a lot of a different acts.

The only Indie boyband I remember was Menswear. Didn't they get an NME or MM cover before they'd ever been heard or something ludicrous? (And yes, they were rubbish.)

[douglasb]

I seem to recall Suede getting a front cover before they put anything out. Could be wrong.

'Course the whole 'everything is as valid as everything else' argument is a particularly modern phenomenon, that leads to vacous statements like "Dollar are as relevant/good as Led Zeppelin". It allows mediocrity to flourish, because it's not hip to criticise.

Given than Take That became - and currently are - a vehicle for Gary Barlow's song, it's difficult to understand how he wasn't a success as a solo artist. That suggests the public are less interested in his songs than the TT concept.

Nirvana's musical legacy is a strange one - and it's not obviously apparent musically. Has there been a new generation of 2nd generation grunge bands? Not really, but people like Julian Casablancas got into music through Nirvana/Pearl Jam, so there are people making music now (and over recent years) who were inspired by Nirvana without wanting to ape their riffs.

And yeah it's strange that Motley Crue are still around, despite grunge supposedly killing poodle rock off, but when did ANY band ever have the power to change anything over the long term? How could one band change an entire industry?

[DM]

The only Indie boyband I remember was Menswear. Didn't they get an NME or MM cover before they'd ever been heard or something ludicrous? (And yes, they were rubbish.)

Lead singer manages a couple of really crap bands now ;)

[TheoGB]

Given than Take That became - and currently are - a vehicle for Gary Barlow's song, it's difficult to understand how he wasn't a success as a solo artist. That suggests the public are less interested in his songs than the TT concept.

I think this is probably more about timing than anything else. Barlow attempted to go solo after too long a wait from the end of Take That and the group had already begun to lose headway at that point. Take That are popular again now but that's largely for the same reason I seriously consider buying one of those all-singing, all-dancing lightsabres: all their fans are now old enough to pay for big concert tickets, go on their own and get drunk, etc. It's more the nostalgia effect than anything.

I'm not stating this as a reflection on whether their songs are good or bad, really. It's true for any group. If Radiohead didn't do anything for 10 years and then came back there'd be a lot more interest in them than I imagine there'll be in 2018 if they just keep plugging away as they're doing now.

[TonyG]

...All that I can see Take That did was be better than Boyzone and moisten the gussets of a few million young girls, hardly ground breaking :shrug:
:lol: .... A poignant (or should that be pungent?) statement in a thread about a cover of "Smells like Teen Spirit". :)

Scampi Fry anyone? ;)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/tonyg36/scampi1.jpg

[NicolaUK]

It's a deodorant ;)

[mr starface]

Fully agree with DY's comments on this one, in the end its all down to taste and opinion and I hate people getting all snobby and claiming one group/artist is so much more valid/better than another.

[Johnny Vodka]

Tis a good point, but people will always claim certain works of art as having higher value/more depth than others. It's implicit in our education system with books, but it's the same principle.

[Mr Majestik]

Can we just settle on the fact that Take That do a rubbish Nirvana cover.

Sadly we'll never find out how Nirvana would have handled it only take a minute girl.

[TheoGB]

Just as bad if Grohl did it, that's for sure! :eek:

[yaffle]

Terrible cover, but I don't see how it reflects on TT as a 'credible' group. Plenty of great groups do terrible covers from time to time, and TT have never really had any credibility anyway despite being an excellent pop group. The comparisons are mad IMO - Nirvana and TT are worlds apart in what they set out to do, and how they do it, but both are/were great groups who produced some fantastic songs.

My favourite cover remains http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LGwQ-tGeKQ though.

[DM]

Sorry, that's an awful cover.

[TheoGB]

Terrible cover, but I don't see how it reflects on TT as a 'credible' group.

It doesn't. If you read the first page you'll see what set this off: DeadYankee's anti-Nirvana obsession leading him to make some comment about how much more important Take That had been to music than Nirvana (or something like that), before quietly deciding they were both pop bands and none of it mattered. :D

[Bish]

DeadYankee's anti-Nirvana obsession leading him to make some comment about how much more important Take That had been to music than Nirvana (or something like that), before quietly deciding they were both pop bands and none of it mattered. :D
I agree, he has a lot to answer for, 8 ******* pages of Nirvana Vs Take That :nuts:

[DeadYankee]

I thought it was a fairly interesting discussion personally so :razz:

[DM]

What, a thread about take that and Nirvana? How'd that happen?