Spot on. What younger members don't realise is that Bananarama managed themselves, they choose who produced their records; and frequently threatened to go on strike with their record company over single release choices. A far cry from most manufactured pop acts today. Another reason why Pete Waterman & Simon Cowell are hated by mine & Grimly's generation because they reversed the power of control from the artists back to the Svengalis not seen since the Pre-Beatles era.

 

Well put Rich.... The first pop acts I remember seeing (well, the ones that left a lasting impression...) were the likes of Frankie, the Nanas, Madness, Altered Images, Human League, Culture Club, Duran Duran, Blondie, Madonna, Michael Jackson (yes, he WAS good once, up until all that surgery cr@p and, OH MY FUKKIN' GOD, "Earth Song".....ROFLMAO......Anything by Jacko after "Bad", is just.....bad....), so, er, you can understand why I kind of feel sorry for today's generation being force-fed The Saturdays, Cowell, Walsh, X-Factor, etc..... SAW was pure POISON for music IMO, but even SAW seems like medicine in comparison to "(e)X(crement) Factor.....

 

i believe that the s[pice girls were more succefull than them on a worldwide point of view and bigger impact too on pop culture......

Well put Rich.... The first pop acts I remember seeing (well, the ones that left a lasting impression...) were the likes of Frankie

 

Sorry to cut you off there, but Frankie, while fantastic, were groomed to hell by Paul Morley and the ZTT crew. If you've ever seen their debut Tube performance from before they were signed you'll see what I mean:

 

 

Blimey, that's one hell of a static image :o Anyway, it's interesting, but pretty embryonic, and with this look and sound, do you think they would have been one of the biggest and best remembered bands of the 80s?

Blimey, that's one hell of a static image :o Anyway, it's interesting, but pretty embryonic, and with this look and sound, do you think they would have been one of the biggest and best remembered bands of the 80s?

 

Frankie were remembered for the fact that they caused one hell of an uproar with the "Relax" thing, the video for which was based around fetish/bonadage anyway, so, not sure I see your argument.... And, there's a difference between being a bit groomed (eg, Sex Pistols and the whole Vivienne Westwood/McClaren thing) and totally sanitised, sterilized and stripped of any and all individuality and identity the way that SAW acts were..... You cannot say that Frankie were 'sanitised' in any way considering the absolute sh!t they stirred (controversy, shock and awe that the juvenile, sanitised likes of Katy Perry could only dream of..), and Holly Johnson and Co were almost certainly their own men the same as Johnny Rotten and Steve Jones were.....

 

Frankie were remembered for the fact that they caused one hell of an uproar with the "Relax" thing, the video for which was based around fetish/bonadage anyway, so, not sure I see your argument.... And, there's a difference between being a bit groomed (eg, Sex Pistols and the whole Vivienne Westwood/McClaren thing) and totally sanitised, sterilized and stripped of any and all individuality and identity the way that SAW acts were..... You cannot say that Frankie were 'sanitised' in any way considering the absolute sh!t they stirred (controversy, shock and awe that the juvenile, sanitised likes of Katy Perry could only dream of..), and Holly Johnson and Co were almost certainly their own men the same as Johnny Rotten and Steve Jones were.....

 

Frankie owe their success to Mike Read, his reaction to the cover of Relax where if I remember rightly he stopped the song halfway through and slagged it off was what kicked off the whole FGTH phenomenon, sure they were controversial but would Relax have had the success it did if it wasn't for Mike Read ? the BBC then banning it entirely even from TOTP made everyone go out and buy it, that got the whole FGTH ball rolling, but I did love the "Frankie Says" t shirts

Edited January 18, 200916 yr by B.A Baracus

As for Bananarama playng live...it took them 7 years to do it.... but in 1989, they did a massive world tour...I saw them a few times as I had free tickets from the record shop I worked at the time.... and they were excellent..... fun, shambolic....but pretty alright vocally.

Agreed, The Saturdays are basically the same 5 maniquins you see outside The TopShop window. Nice, polished, jaunty pop songs to be putting it generously.

 

But Bananarama would raid Oxfam and look unbelievable!

I liked early Bananarama, not so keen on them later. Cruel Summer and Robert De Niro's waiting were my 2 favourites.

Frankie owe their success to Mike Read, his reaction to the cover of Relax where if I remember rightly he stopped the song halfway through and slagged it off was what kicked off the whole FGTH phenomenon, sure they were controversial but would Relax have had the success it did if it wasn't for Mike Read ? the BBC then banning it entirely even from TOTP made everyone go out and buy it, that got the whole FGTH ball rolling, but I did love the "Frankie Says" t shirts

 

Wont deny the banning played a part, "forbidden fruit" and all that... But, if the tune had been sh"te, I wouldn't have listened, end of.... It was as big sh!t-stirrer as "God Save the Queen" and "Anarchy in the UK", absolutely no doubt.... Holly Johnson and Co were deliberately baiting hypocritical middle-class, Conservative values, they deserve respect for getting up peoples' noses, especially that pompous arsehole Mike Read....

From what I know, Bananarama could never really cut it as a live act. But the demands and pressures of even manufactured acts are much more intense then back then. Bananarama could blissfully mime and jaunt around a bit on TOTP and get w*n**red every other night. The Saturdays and Girls Aloud are required to put in 110% all the time and be able to sing live... Yet there's something delicious and organis about Bananarama, which you don't get with the girly groups of today (although I will admit, Girls Aloud front some corkers!)

 

erm, how could the manufactured acts back then be under more pressure but those today have to put 110% in?.... i dont agree, 'back then' they turned up, did what they were told, then left. i think the pressures today on such acts are much more intense.

 

 

They put 110% into the PR, Hype and marketing stuff... The actual tunes themselves, the music, considerably less effort seems to go into that..... If 110% effort was made by them into the actual songwriting, then, I wouldn't really have any probs with the likes of GA or Saturdays....

 

And, it took a HELL of a long time for the Sats to start singing live.... I believe that even their GAY appearance was mimed..... :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, the Nanas were a bit shambolic and amateurish, but that was part of the fun, they were INDIVIDUALS, not slick or polished, or pre-packaged, really, I mean, is there anything more boring than an act having no real individuality and being this "well-oiled machine", it's music you're making, not cars or widgets..... "Play it from the fukkin' heart" as Bill Hicks once said....

 

They all came out of the Post-Punk scene as well, so they were never really gonna be all that polished anyway....

 

not true.... the sats are a recent group who were manufactured with the ability to sing live as a requisit. credit where credits due.... 'issues' live is pretty respectable, im a sucker though for female harmonies. my main problem with the shyteadays is the hype, which in truth might well blind us to what they really are capable of. todays acts will never have the oportunities to be individual, that era has lamentably passed.

 

But Bananarama would raid Oxfam and look unbelievable!

 

not nowdays as that ragged 'look' simply isnt in fashion... true they looked great, especially early on, but that post punk/punk ethic 'do what you want to' has long since died in popular culture, and its all now determined by old men, not the youth...hence my hatred of watertwat et al. thatcherisms love of greed/self/consumerism killed off punks individuality as the fashion shifted to the 'label' culture of designer clothes. "if you look good you are good" attitude to fashion totally was false. hippy and punk ethics promoted individuality and a more spiritual personal development .... the designer culture just dressed turds up in posh tawdry clothes... trouble was...its still $h!t underneath.

 

as for the nanas... ok they did rebel against the svengali they chose to use to further their flagging career... fair play, a good business decision, it earned them a pile of money, they may well have had a say in their material.... but id argue the material wasnt that marvelous.

 

so if you give credit to the nanas for their input into their music, you must also give credit the likes of ga/sats when they sing in harmony , live.

 

so if you give credit to the nanas for their input into their music, you must also give credit the likes of ga/sats when they sing in harmony , live.

 

No, I dont think you necessarily have to.... The nanas were clearly more individual than GA/Saturdays, they certainly had more balls than Cheryl/Frankie, etc.. Just because you can have a good techical ability to sing in harmony or have this "fantastic range" or whatever is only half the battle as far as I'm concerned (by that token, this means you'd have to give the likes of Mariah and Whitney credit as well, and I know you dont... :rolleyes: ), the other half is to actually have a half decent tune to sing.. "Issues" is just utterly bland elevator music, non-distinguished, sounds like about a thousand other equally bland things... Girls Aloud have done a few decent tunes, "Sexy No No" is pretty fantastic and hits you right in the bollocks, musically, almost sounds like RAMMSTEIN in a certain light.... :lol:

 

No, I dont think you necessarily have to.... The nanas were clearly more individual than GA/Saturdays, they certainly had more balls than Cheryl/Frankie, etc.. Just because you can have a good techical ability to sing in harmony or have this "fantastic range" or whatever is only half the battle as far as I'm concerned (by that token, this means you'd have to give the likes of Mariah and Whitney credit as well, and I know you dont... :rolleyes: ), the other half is to actually have a half decent tune to sing.. "Issues" is just utterly bland elevator music, non-distinguished, sounds like about a thousand other equally bland things... Girls Aloud have done a few decent tunes, "Sexy No No" is pretty fantastic and hits you right in the bollocks, musically, almost sounds like RAMMSTEIN in a certain light.... :lol:

 

dunno m8.... the point is that many manufactured pop acts couldnt bring anything to the table, take rachel stevens for eg, all she brought to the product was her name! i like girls aloud, they are clearly a good pop act for what they are, and can perform live. behind the hype and glitter the saturdays can sing live, and at least both these acts havnt yet resorted to performing half naked in their underwear!

 

the nanas were born in a different era, a sadly long passed era, if they attempted to start today they WOULD be following exactly the same path cut by the spice girls, s club, sugababes etc.

 

i cant give whitney or mariah credit, which makes me a hypocrit, because i cant abide their material! id be very very reluctant to praise them , but tbh ive yet to be impressed by eithers performance .... unlike girls aloud.

 

you wouldnt never like a track like 'issues' , its just too light, i dont particually like it.... but its not the worse track ive ever heard.

Girls Aloud great live?????!!!! Somebody is having a bloody laugh surely or is just tone deaf?

 

Girls Aloud - The Promise (Live on X-Factor)

 

On that evidence only Nadine & Nicola can remotely hold a tune.

 

Jesus Christ even The Spice Girls were better vocally then GA:

 

Spice Girls - 2 Become 1 (Live on Strictly Come Dancing)

I've always had an issue with Mel C in that she can NOT sing at all. I think Girls Aloud sound better than Spice Girls here, they've got a much easier song to sing aswell.

 

 

I've always had an issue with Mel C in that she can NOT sing at all. I think Girls Aloud sound better than Spice Girls here, they've got a much easier song to sing aswell.

 

I've always liked Mel C's voice because for me she will go down as being the last mainstream pop vocalist in a manufactured act to sing in an unorthodox manner pre Idol/X-Factor shows where if a male singer can't over emote like Westlife, Backstreet Boys, etc or a female can't over sing like Mariah, Whitney, Beyonce, Celine, etc there is something wrong with them.

 

If Mel C can't sing then neither can the likes of John Lennon; John Lydon; Bob Dylan; Jeff Buckley; Lou Reed; Leonard Cohen; Iggy Pop; Liam Gallagher; Ian Curtis; Neil Young; Kate Bush; Siouxsie Sioux; Liz Fraser; Bjork; PJ Harvey; Shirley Manson; Simon Le Bon; Boy George; Sting; Paul Weller; Peter Gabriel; etc.

 

I like vocalists to be distinctive whether it is the ethereal Kate Bush; the primal John Lennon; the lasceral John Lydon; the whiney Neil Young; the nasally Bob Dylan; the droning Ian Curtis; the wonderfully arrogant constantly on the brink of singing sharp straining his voice Simon Le Bon; etc so to a host of dull bland technically superior singers any minute of the week. So long as the vocalist has conviction; is instantly distinctive; with real emotion in their voice over a technical singer singing a love song whom could quite frankly be reciting a phone book..

 

That is why (like Snooker today) the majority of mainstream pop music vocalists today do not interest me because they are PR "Fame school" groomed devoid of personality types or media grabbing "pick me Simon" attention seekers.

[quote name='thisispop' date='Jan 19 2009, 08:59 PM' post='2400363'

the majority of mainstream pop music vocalists today do not interest me because they are PR "Fame school" groomed devoid of personality types or media grabbing "pick me Simon" attention seekers.

 

Oh god yeah I completely agree with you on this statement. While one cannot deny her drive and ambition, for me Mel C thought she was something dynamic and cutting. I remember watching her on TOTP with Bryan Adams (I absolutely deteste that song, but anyway...) and she was shambolic. Someone told her she could sing and it just seemed to go straight to her head!

Girls Aloud great live?????!!!! Somebody is having a bloody laugh surely or is just tone deaf?

 

Girls Aloud - The Promise (Live on X-Factor)

 

On that evidence only Nadine & Nicola can remotely hold a tune.

 

Jesus Christ even The Spice Girls were better vocally then GA:

 

Spice Girls - 2 Become 1 (Live on Strictly Come Dancing)

 

one clip proves nothing

 

ive seen them on tv performing live and it was good :P

 

spice girls were crap...lol.. i cant abide mel c's whiney voice and your comparison to the others is a nonsense. mel c is pop and should be able to sing in a melodic way.... lydons voice suited his style of music, as did lennon, dylan and everyone else you cite .... mel c's voice doesnt.

 

however i agreee that 'going down' was good and on that track and the one she did with bryan adams, it fitted. all her other material though was goddamn awful and the lyrics were written by a kid..

spice girls were crap...lol.. i cant abide mel c's whiney voice and your comparison to the others is a nonsense. mel c is pop and should be able to sing in a melodic way....

 

As was Le Bon, Lennon and the Mighty Bush mate, let's not forget.... :rolleyes: I can see both yours and Rich's point of view though, and, I would agree that most (but not all) of Rich's list pretty much belongs to the rock/alternative/indie axis.....

 

It's perhaps correct to say that Mel C would have been best suited to a more 'rock' direction, but that does not mean to say that Pop should be all sanitised, sterile and "perfect".... The Sats and GA (for the most part anyway) are bland, whereas The Spice Girls, All Saints and the Nanas were anything but.... Just where did we get this notion that Pop had to equate to blandness and sterility....? Why, it came from the likes of Watertw@t, Cowell and Walsh of course..... :rolleyes:

 

As was Le Bon, Lennon and the Mighty Bush mate, let's not forget.... :rolleyes: I can see both yours and Rich's point of view though, and, I would agree that most (but not all) of Rich's list pretty much belongs to the rock/alternative/indie axis.....

 

It's perhaps correct to say that Mel C would have been best suited to a more 'rock' direction, but that does not mean to say that Pop should be all sanitised, sterile and "perfect".... The Sats and GA (for the most part anyway) are bland, whereas The Spice Girls, All Saints and the Nanas were anything but.... Just where did we get this notion that Pop had to equate to blandness and sterility....? Why, it came from the likes of Watertw@t, Cowell and Walsh of course..... :rolleyes:

 

i guess i just dont like mel c's voice, and many didnt like kate bush's, lydons, lennons, etc etc etc... however mel c's lyrics were amongst the worst ever committed to the music sheet.. unlike bush, lydon, lennon et al.

however mel c's lyrics were amongst the worst ever committed to the music sheet..

 

oh yes, her lyrics..... :lol: :lol: yeah, pretty bad it has to be said.... But then, Pop acts aren't exactly known for being particularly great poets mate, they cant all be Kate Bush, Jarvis Cocker, Morrissey or Thom Yorke..... Some of Martin Gore's lyrics could be pretty bad as well, particularly in DM's early years.....