Could The Spice Girls Have Continued After Forever? |
Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
Feb 9 2018, 09:51 PM
Post
#41
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 September 2017
Posts: 1,014 User: 39,551 |
In my opinion, 'Right Back At Ya' is too cheesy and obvious. It's like a weaker version of 'Everybody (Backstreet's Back)'.
It wasn't 'cool' to like the Spice Girls anymore. So a single would've needed more of a hook than "the Spice Girls are back". Non-fans wouldn't have been interested in that. No one is saying the album is stellar. Personally, I don't think they could've continued their high chart positions. But they could've carried on, if they wanted to. And I would've loved it. |
|
|
Feb 9 2018, 09:56 PM
Post
#42
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639 |
Well, all of the album except from the three singles, and maybe If You Wanna, is cheesy tbh :/
|
|
|
Feb 12 2018, 11:55 PM
Post
#43
|
|
BuzzJack Idol
Joined: 29 June 2006
Posts: 128,408 User: 845 |
Yes, but only if they had returned to their pop sound. I always felt they split far too quickly but it has resulted in them been remembered as a huge band who conquered the world. Maybe if they had continued and the success was fading they wouldn't be remembered as legendary 20 years on.
|
|
|
Feb 13 2018, 12:10 PM
Post
#44
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 September 2017
Posts: 1,014 User: 39,551 |
Maybe if they had continued and the success was fading they wouldn't be remembered as legendary 20 years on. You're so right. That said, if they'd ended up slogging on the way Melanie C has solo-wise, I'd still be buying their music. Nice as it is to have them regarded as legends. |
|
|
Feb 13 2018, 02:30 PM
Post
#45
|
|
New Entry
Joined: 7 September 2017
Posts: 15 User: 39,646 |
My position on the Forever era is that I wish we had gotten the pop version in 1999. We could have had WOMAN, Pain Proof, or Give You What You Want follow Goodbye as singles, with Right Back At Ya on a possible double-A side. The Christmas in Spiceworld tour could have been expanded slightly to add dates/locations... and then if it all ended until 2007, that wouldn't have been so bad. The only downside here is we might not have gotten Holler, which is awesome! I think through that route they could have gotten a third No 1 album and maybe one or two more No 1 singles though... They simply waited too long to release Forever, and the purer RnB style just wasn't them.
This post has been edited by cripesdude: Feb 15 2018, 07:54 AM |
|
|
Feb 13 2018, 04:20 PM
Post
#46
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639 |
This is obviously a HUGE bop. It would have sounded excellent in 1999, and been used for the massive new millennium, making them sound more relevant in 2000. The problem wa,s leaving it as long as they did, they came back uncool, like relics of the 90s. Their change in style wasn't authentic and came across badly. The music didn't suit them either, and it was very plodding/ samey. It was hard for them to continue due to just how unpopular/ uncool they were seen as. We would have needed Holler though! If they had released the pop album, but with Holler and Let Love Lead The Way on, they would have got another no.1 album. Release the album in 99, avoid Westlife, with Woman starting the era, then in 2000 release Holler// Let Love Lead The Way. Then they could have finished on more of a high, like you said with a slightly extended tour, and then gone on to their solo careers. It was always gonna be hard continuing when they were seen as an uncool 90s act. If they HAD released a 4th album ... it would probably have had between a Saturdays - Girls Aloud style success, not Little Mix big. A 3rd pop album in 99 would have probably been Little Mix big, which would have been absolutely fine. |
|
|
Feb 13 2018, 09:37 PM
Post
#47
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 6 September 2017
Posts: 11,804 User: 39,568 |
I truly do not get the fan hype over WOMAN. It sounds ok but very repetitive and the lyrics are cringey as hell...
|
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 04:10 PM
Post
#48
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 September 2017
Posts: 1,014 User: 39,551 |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 06:50 PM
Post
#49
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639 |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 08:00 PM
Post
#50
|
|
Break the tension
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 88,874 User: 51 |
I feel like all carrying on after Forever would have equated to was a #6 single and a #24 album.
|
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 08:15 PM
Post
#51
|
|
there's nothing straight about plump Elvis
Pronouns: they/any
Joined: 21 January 2016 Posts: 13,130 User: 22,895 |
Agree they left it too long. They were torn on what they could do as well. If they'd lasted til then they could've gone Kylie CGYOMH era pop, that would've been solid, and in between they could have had Mel B do some rap perhaps if they were going for an urban sound, like Little Mix did circa Salute. Trying to do urban as four singers with one singer that didn't even want to sing so much was always going to be a tough sell.
It didn't even need to be so successful though, with their back catalogue and wealth. They could have had one not-so-good era and then switched back to pure pop in the next one, perhaps ready to get a new generation of fans. |
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 09:40 PM
Post
#52
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639 |
Their crisis of identity/ sound when Geri left, which made them delay, was what did it - and the damage was irreparable. They still can't get hits today.
If they had continued with pop, Goodbye/ Woman sounding, then they could have had one last bigish era. If they had Holler, they could have released that as a stand-alone song as 'a celebration of the Millennium/ girl power in it', THEN split and gone for their solo careers around the same time anyway. I bet what happened is they recorded Holler, it sounded LIT, and so they decided to do ALL rnb, and created a plodding mess. |
|
|
Feb 14 2018, 11:24 PM
Post
#53
|
|
"Jayrusaleminians" - Umi.
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 4 April 2007 Posts: 41,412 User: 3,217 |
Woman and Holler were recorded within weeks of each other, in August 1999. Along with Right Back at Ya, they were performed at the Christmas in Spiceworld tour in December 1999. This suggests that they weren't thinking of making their third album so R&B focused at that point in time, and wanted it to be a mix of pure pop and R&B styles (Right Back at Ya had pop flavoured production in 1999, so they actually previewed two new pop songs and one R&B song).
These were the initial recording sessions: 2nd August 1999 - Abbey Road Studios - Stannard/Rowe 1 "Woman" 2 "Treasure" 3 "Go, Go, Go" 4 "Overnight" 5 "Too Hot" 16th August 1999 - Steelworks Studios - Kennedy/Lever 5 "Right Back At Ya" 6 "A Day In Your Life" 7 "Give You What You Want" (Also known as "If It's Lovin' On Your Mind") 8 "Pain Proof" 25th August 1999 - Whitfield Street Studios - Rodney/Fred Jerkins 9 "Holler" 10 "Let Love Lead The Way" 11 "Weekend Love" 21st September 1999 - Whitfield Street Studios - Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis 12 "Oxygen" 13 "If You Wanna Have Some Fun" They didn't start working on the album again until April 2000, recording more tracks with Rodney/Fred Jerkins. It would have been around this time that a decision was made regarding the album's direction (i.e. scrapping the pop sessions & going fully R&B). 10th April 2000 - Miami - Rodney/Fred Jerkins 14 "Tell Me Why" 15 "Get Down With Me" 16 "Time Goes By" 17th July 2000 - Whitfield Street Studios - Fred Jerkins 17 "Wasting My Time" ("Right Back At Ya" re-worked with new vocals and production. Eliot wasn't happy with his song being reproduced, referring to the new version as being a "plodding, boring, bottom drawer R&B song") With the benefit of hindsight, they probably should have focused on getting a single and album out in Quarter 4 of 1999. Imagine if they'd got a move on and released Holler in late 1999 instead? Evidently the group wasn't the girls' number one priority, and seemingly not Virgin's either, which seems surprising. You'd think they'd have focused on a group album over all solo projects, yet they decided to dedicate late 1999 & most of 2000 to Melanie C's Northern Star. That wasn't a good call for the future of the group, given that it was clear in 2000 that Melanie C didn't want to be there any more and was taking part purely out of obligation - but perhaps she still had some enthusiasm remaining in 1999. I wonder how things would have gone if the third group album had come out in 1999, and Northern Star had been held back a year? |
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 07:50 AM
Post
#54
|
|
New Entry
Joined: 7 September 2017
Posts: 15 User: 39,646 |
I wonder how things would have gone if the third group album had come out in 1999, and Northern Star had been held back a year? I think they'd have gotten a third No 1 album and maybe a few more No 1 singles. Thanks for that post Jay - always with the facts! Imagine a Forever with those 1999 tracks instead! Also, let's not forget this INSANE fact: everything they released as a group was a UK No 1 or No 2 (to be fair Headlines just wasn't a 'proper' single). |
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 10:08 AM
Post
#55
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 29 September 2007
Posts: 2,632 User: 4,429 |
I agree with that Jay. I think its generally accepted that late 1999 should have been Forever, the Brits in 2000 could have even been the final hurrah for the group then too.
I would have potentially gone with this structure.... September 1999 - Right Back At Ya or Woman as a single November 1999 - Forever album release December 1999 - Holler/Oxygen double a-side Christmas single February 2000 - BRITs performance/award and final single (although i'm not sure what would be appropriate!!) that would have been a relatively short era, but it would have definitely generated more success and would have accompanied the tour, then they could have all gone their seperate ways and focussed on solo material. |
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 10:29 AM
Post
#56
|
|
"Jayrusaleminians" - Umi.
Pronouns: he/him
Joined: 4 April 2007 Posts: 41,412 User: 3,217 |
You're welcome, cripesdude! I like the idea of that schedule, missingyou. Would have at least felt like more of "an era" than Forever ultimately did.
---- By the way, this was Biffco's response on Twitter yesterday, regarding Woman and the other tracks from the August 1999 sessions: QUOTE David Swanson @daveyswanson Does this mean that we may FINALLY get a listen to WOMAN now that they're back together @biffco? 😜 #LouderBabyLouderBaby (Maybe throw in Feed Your Love, Go Go Go, Overnight & Too Hot for good measure) 😜😜 Biffco @biffco I very much doubt it. There’s a reason they never saw light of day 😂 David Swanson @daveyswanson Are you serious? Spice fans have been obsessing over WOMAN since we heard it at the ‘Christmas In Spiceworld’ tour! It is pop perfection! 🙌 Biffco @biffco That’s very kind. Thanks. But it Was only ever a Demo really. https://twitter.com/daveyswanson/status/960507102966919168 |
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 05:29 PM
Post
#57
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 6 September 2017
Posts: 1,014 User: 39,551 |
Those dates are really enlightening. Such a shame the girls didn't get the 'Forever' era underway in 1999.
I'd have liked to see: September 1999: 'Holler' / 'Let Love Lead The Way' single December 1999: 'Oxygen' or 'Weekend Love' (cutting Mel B's rap) as a Christmas single December 1999: 'Forever' album February 2000: 'Pain Proof' single And my preferred 'Forever' track list (for 1999) would be: 1. Holler 2. Right Back At Ya 3. Let Love Lead The Way 4. Pain Proof 5. Give You What You Want 6. Weekend Love 7. A Day In Your Life 8. If You Wanna Have Some Fun 9. Oxygen 10. Goodbye Sorry, I don't love 'WOMAN' This post has been edited by Michael Andrew: Feb 15 2018, 05:44 PM |
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 06:04 PM
Post
#58
|
|
BuzzJack Platinum Member
Joined: 7 January 2009
Posts: 7,064 User: 8,073 |
WOMAN is pish xoxo
|
|
|
Feb 15 2018, 07:54 PM
Post
#59
|
|
Break the tension
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 88,874 User: 51 |
|
|
|
Feb 21 2018, 10:35 PM
Post
#60
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639 |
Woman and Holler were recorded within weeks of each other, in August 1999. Along with Right Back at Ya, they were performed at the Christmas in Spiceworld tour in December 1999. This suggests that they weren't thinking of making their third album so R&B focused at that point in time, and wanted it to be a mix of pure pop and R&B styles (Right Back at Ya had pop flavoured production in 1999, so they actually previewed two new pop songs and one R&B song). These were the initial recording sessions: 2nd August 1999 - Abbey Road Studios - Stannard/Rowe 1 "Woman" 2 "Treasure" 3 "Go, Go, Go" 4 "Overnight" 5 "Too Hot" 16th August 1999 - Steelworks Studios - Kennedy/Lever 5 "Right Back At Ya" 6 "A Day In Your Life" 7 "Give You What You Want" (Also known as "If It's Lovin' On Your Mind") 8 "Pain Proof" 25th August 1999 - Whitfield Street Studios - Rodney/Fred Jerkins 9 "Holler" 10 "Let Love Lead The Way" 11 "Weekend Love" 21st September 1999 - Whitfield Street Studios - Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis 12 "Oxygen" 13 "If You Wanna Have Some Fun" They didn't start working on the album again until April 2000, recording more tracks with Rodney/Fred Jerkins. It would have been around this time that a decision was made regarding the album's direction (i.e. scrapping the pop sessions & going fully R&B). 10th April 2000 - Miami - Rodney/Fred Jerkins 14 "Tell Me Why" 15 "Get Down With Me" 16 "Time Goes By" 17th July 2000 - Whitfield Street Studios - Fred Jerkins 17 "Wasting My Time" ("Right Back At Ya" re-worked with new vocals and production. Eliot wasn't happy with his song being reproduced, referring to the new version as being a "plodding, boring, bottom drawer R&B song") With the benefit of hindsight, they probably should have focused on getting a single and album out in Quarter 4 of 1999. Imagine if they'd got a move on and released Holler in late 1999 instead? Evidently the group wasn't the girls' number one priority, and seemingly not Virgin's either, which seems surprising. You'd think they'd have focused on a group album over all solo projects, yet they decided to dedicate late 1999 & most of 2000 to Melanie C's Northern Star. That wasn't a good call for the future of the group, given that it was clear in 2000 that Melanie C didn't want to be there any more and was taking part purely out of obligation - but perhaps she still had some enthusiasm remaining in 1999. I wonder how things would have gone if the third group album had come out in 1999, and Northern Star had been held back a year? Thanks for the receipts. Amazing that the biggest band in the world at the time wasn't the priority of the record label! It was obvious. The record label was unfazed by their split . It allowed them to release an AWFUL album and then do no promo. It gave them an expensive video, the best they have, but that's it. They made them release it as a double A-side even so. Eliot wasn't happy with his song being reproduced, referring to the new version as being a "plodding, boring, bottom drawer R&B song" To be fair, this sums up the album They really should have pushed the pop version in 1999, then let them split. Given how great their solo sounds were, and how well they were doing, though, you can see why the record label thought creating a new Robbie Williams was far more appealing than a band singing turgid boring songs like, your love is like oxygen Look at this. They were writing and recording full songs in DAYS. They didn't care. That makes for awful music. Their early solo careers went OFF - full of different visuals, sounds, very energetic. They were obviously far more interested in their own things, but it's strange they all let the band just fizzle out. It's like Simon Cowell prioritising Zayne when he still had One Direction! |
|
|
Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 02:21 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service