Girls Aloud

[Cack Hen]

Are they though? I like The Pipettes a lot, really liked their album and early demo versions of the songs from it, and they're great fun live. But they haven't released anything that's a patch on any of the five Girls Aloud singles I mentioned in the first post.

I've never really liked Girls Aloud, to be honest - the production, for one thing, pisses me off, everything I've heard from them sounds soulless and cheap. Pop music like that should be throwaway in some respects, but I can't get past the fact that it sounds utterly flat.

The Pipettes just have better songs, I think. Maybe I find that Spector/motown sound to be easier on the ears, but I definitely think Judy/Your Kisses Are Wasted/I Love You are all better than anything Girls Aloud have put out.

[Ciarán]

I've never really liked Girls Aloud, to be honest - the production, for one thing, pisses me off, everything I've heard from them sounds soulless and cheap. Pop music like that should be throwaway in some respects, but I can't get past the fact that it sounds utterly flat.

The Pipettes just have better songs, I think. Maybe I find that Spector/motown sound to be easier on the ears, but I definitely think Judy/Your Kisses Are Wasted/I Love You are all better than anything Girls Aloud have put out.

My criticism of The Pipettes would be that they sound soulless and cheap. Much was made of their "manifesto", there's an archness about their "philosophy" which goes beyond even the archness of Girls aloud's output. They still cling onto this indie mentality, still re-inforce this notion of "proper music", and they're album did sound cheapo in the end. It grated after a few plays, in my view. they do have some great songs, and I would look forward to something new from them, but I really want them to change the record. Thing is, I expect Girls Aloud records to surprise me these days...

[Cack Hen]

The indie mentality of The Pipettes is a shame, but if anything I like to think that'll give them more room to try a different direction. Obviously, I'm not talking industrial hardcore or anything, but if they had become a big mainstream success, they'd almost certainly be putting out We Are The Pipettes pt. 2 within a year. Of course, that might still happen, but if the songs are good enough, I wouldn't object to that. The claims that their album pales in comparison to the demos isn't one that sticks with me; I think that despite all of their gripping to indie-cred for dear life, the album did a pretty good job of sounding melodically robust, and ultimately - fun. 

[Ciarán]

The indie mentality of The Pipettes is a shame, but if anything I like to think that'll give them more room to try a different direction. Obviously, I'm not talking industrial hardcore or anything, but if they had become a big mainstream success, they'd almost certainly be putting out We Are The Pipettes pt. 2 within a year. Of course, that might still happen, but if the songs are good enough, I wouldn't object to that. The claims that their album pales in comparison to the demos isn't one that sticks with me; I think that despite all of their gripping to indie-cred for dear life, the album did a pretty good job of sounding melodically robust, and ultimately - fun. 

I think Girls Aloud's output is witty and clever and arch and all of that too, but in a more subtle way. The Pipettes gig I went to attracted lots of "in the know" types, and their album was pitched at that kind of audience too. They did their promotion via the NME and The Album Chart Show. when 'Pull Shapes' got into the charts I was delighted, but it smacked of "novelty hit" a bit. I thought their album was doomed at that point. They sort of neutered themselves.

It's like the difference between Scritti Politti in 1981 and in 1985. The Pipettes are Rough Trade Shop favourites, they're clever and knowing and have great tunes and an air of indie trench mentality. They'd need to change completely to become what Girls Aloud are - shiny, commercial, tabloid fodder, Saturday night ITV, deoderant advertisers. But for The Pipettes, one suspects, that would be a sell out. They'd need to get rid of whatsisface from The Go! Team, and get Xenomania, or Timbaland or Richard X or Pharell Williams in if they want to be the biggest girl group in the country. But that's not going to happen because it's not what The Pipettes are about.

[TC Raymond]

Don't you reckon this sounds a hell of a lot like 'My Sharona'?

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo8Hg-MMwE[/youtube]

I can see the tag now - '[banned troll] posts Girls Aloud video'.

[Ciarán]

Don't you reckon this sounds a hell of a lot like 'My Sharona'?

A little, in the jolty guitar bit. But I wouldn't be getting on the phone to my lawyer if I were a Knack-er.

[Hank_Kingsley]

The Pipettes are just a bad pastiche of the classic 60s pop sound though. I think rather than 'arch' or 'fun' they come across as shallow and smug to my ears (and eyes). Girls Aloud seem aware of the disposability of their music and image and it's a lot less tiresome and hip.

[TC Raymond]

The Pipettes are just a bad pastiche of the classic 60s pop sound though. I think rather than 'arch' or 'fun' they come across as shallow and smug to my ears (and eyes).

Yeah, one can have too much of the pastiche...interestingly enough, 'pastiche' is very nearly an anagram of 'cheap shit'!

A bit like that record 'A Nanny In Manhattan' a few years back. Yes, they nailed the 1960s power-pop-psych sound, but there was no substance there...

[thugler]

Don't you reckon this sounds a hell of a lot like 'My Sharona'?

Yes the guitar bit sounds exactly like it. Did people ever claim that they weren't derivative? They're still catchy and good.

[Cack Hen]

I think Girls Aloud's output is witty and clever and arch and all of that too, but in a more subtle way. The Pipettes gig I went to attracted lots of "in the know" types, and their album was pitched at that kind of audience too. They did their promotion via the NME and The Album Chart Show. when 'Pull Shapes' got into the charts I was delighted, but it smacked of "novelty hit" a bit. I thought their album was doomed at that point. They sort of neutered themselves.

It's like the difference between Scritti Politti in 1981 and in 1985. The Pipettes are Rough Trade Shop favourites, they're clever and knowing and have great tunes and an air of indie trench mentality. They'd need to change completely to become what Girls Aloud are - shiny, commercial, tabloid fodder, Saturday night ITV, deoderant advertisers. But for The Pipettes, one suspects, that would be a sell out. They'd need to get rid of whatsisface from The Go! Team, and get Xenomania, or Timbaland or Richard X or Pharell Williams in if they want to be the biggest girl group in the country. But that's not going to happen because it's not what The Pipettes are about.

I think paying too much attention to the hype machine around any kind of pop music is dangerous, though - Pipettes may come from a self-righteous place in terms of promotion, but then Girls Aloud's roots in Popstars is hardly a pleasant thing, is it? Popstars/Pop Idol is built upon this idea that these people have real talent, over and over again they'll try and pass off the girls and boys as soulful wonderkids before promptly packaging them up in neat little units for production. I don't have a problem with the outcome of Popstars/Pop Idol necessarily, but the show and the singers aren't treated as above-average karaoke singers, which is all they are during the embryo stage.

Although you are right when you say The Pipettes will never reach large-scale success with their current image and mentality, I think it's great that they exist as a pop alternative to the extreme plastic-bubblegum stylings of Girls Aloud. I'm not knocking Girls Aloud's image or ethics (Shangri-Las did adverts, of course) but I see no reason why there shouldn't be room for a pop band that holds an indie mentality in some respects, without changing their sound accordingly. On the one hand it's great that The Pipettes don't appear in adverts* selling shampoo or nail polish, but on the other hand they're not doing themselves any favours by chasing the indie-crowd pound. I'm not even convinced that's a financial decision from the girls and Monster Bobby, I think that they found a natural home in the indie community and they haven't tried to make a shift out of that yet, which is a shame because as their name implies, The Pipettes are a pop experiment, supposedly. Maybe it's not a case of not trying or being afraid of losing an established fanbase, maybe they simply can't break a mainstream market without selling out in a big way - I'm just not sure they've tried.

The accusations of them being a cheap and nasty imitation of a style that was pretty much nailed in the 60s is an odd one. I can appreciate that most of their appeal lies in a retro revival gimmick, but they have the tunes to carry it off. I never see anybody saying that any other pop band has a derivative style because it's taken for granted that pop music is built on plagiarism/homages, so why is it okay for Timbaland or that ginger hippie bloke to rip off styles with shit tunes, but it's not okay for The Pipettes to rip off a style and back it up with some really great tunes?. I suspect it's got something to do with their promotion and attitude, ie if they appeal to an indie crowd then they should expect to be judged by indie standards. I've said indie too much.

*Incidentally, I did hear ABC on a car advert not too long ago.

[Ciarán]

I think paying too much attention to the hype machine around any kind of pop music is dangerous, though - Pipettes may come from a self-righteous place in terms of promotion, but then Girls Aloud's roots in Popstars is hardly a pleasant thing, is it? Popstars/Pop Idol is built upon this idea that these people have real talent, over and over again they'll try and pass off the girls and boys as soulful wonderkids before promptly packaging them up in neat little units for production. I don't have a problem with the outcome of Popstars/Pop Idol necessarily, but the show and the singers aren't treated as above-average karaoke singers, which is all they are during the embryo stage.

It's much of a muchness to me. I'm quite cynical about reality TV and was cynical about Popstars. But somehow I'm able to lay that aside when it comes to pop music becuase there you have art clashing up with cold capitalist commerce. It's all capitalism of course. Even the obscurest indie band or the most maverick music artist we could imagine eventually keeps the wheels of capitalism ticking over. but I don't demand that pop music be militantly socialist. I'm interested in it if it's great. The Pipettes certainly have their moments of greatness, but in my view they're dwarfed by Girls Aloud's best records. In The Pipettes I see a local sort of indie battle being fought, in Girls Aloud I see the entire mainstream being whipped up in Xenomania's sonic arsenal! The Pipettes are preaching to an already converted minority, Girls Aloud have tghe attention of a majority and use that opportunity to release brilliant ground-breaking singles.

Although you are right when you say The Pipettes will never reach large-scale success with their current image and mentality, I think it's great that they exist as a pop alternative to the extreme plastic-bubblegum stylings of Girls Aloud. I'm not knocking Girls Aloud's image or ethics (Shangri-Las did adverts, of course) but I see no reason why there shouldn't be room for a pop band that holds an indie mentality in some respects, without changing their sound accordingly. On the one hand it's great that The Pipettes don't appear in adverts* selling shampoo or nail polish, but on the other hand they're not doing themselves any favours by chasing the indie-crowd pound. I'm not even convinced that's a financial decision from the girls and Monster Bobby, I think that they found a natural home in the indie community and they haven't tried to make a shift out of that yet, which is a shame because as their name implies, The Pipettes are a pop experiment, supposedly. Maybe it's not a case of not trying or being afraid of losing an established fanbase, maybe they simply can't break a mainstream market without selling out in a big way - I'm just not sure they've tried.

Much as I love The Pipettes, I think they'll wither away quite quickly. They already seem to be last year's t-shirt. I admit this is a pity. Remember when we used to say that about pop groups?? "Oh they'll last a year..." I suppose it's great that there is an underground and all that, and I love lots of bands on the margins. But nothing excites me more than Top 40 radio. I look for innovation there - and it absolutely does exist. This decade has been characterised by sanitised nu-metal but also the return of singer-songwriters (interesting development, I think) and a flurry of great production teams; the Neptunes, Dr Dre (doing his pop thing with Eminem), Richard X, Xenomania, Timbaland. It's like having Chic back, almost.

The accusations of them being a cheap and nasty imitation of a style that was pretty much nailed in the 60s is an odd one. I can appreciate that most of their appeal lies in a retro revival gimmick, but they have the tunes to carry it off. I never see anybody saying that any other pop band has a derivative style because it's taken for granted that pop music is built on plagiarism/homages, so why is it okay for Timbaland or that ginger hippie bloke to rip off styles with shit tunes, but it's not okay for The Pipettes to rip off a style and back it up with some really great tunes?.

I agree with you there, as it goes. Do The Pipettes like Girls Aloud? Maybe they do.

[Cack Hen]

You're probably right about them withering away quite soon-ish, I think their highest charting single was Pull Shapes at 26. That's not such a great result when you consider how blurred the commercial line is between mainstream pop and indie music these days; one week it's Girls Aloud at the top spot, the next it's The Arctic Monkeys - you'd think The Pipettes, a band who could potentially appeal to either side of the market, could muster up a few top ten hits, but sadly not. In all honesty, I really don't understand why they haven't been more successful, it's probably a mixture of things. Do you think if they came along during 1996 they would have found it easier to top the charts? They'd be up against the British, feisty attitude of the Spice Girls, but it's not as tall an order as the one they face today.

Still, I'm really excited to see what happens to them next. They've been out in America for some time now, I'm not sure how well that's going for them.

[Angst in my Pants]

Blimey, the way I remembered it was that Girls Aloud came second to One True Voice, and that Girls prevailed as OTV's second single flopped.  I have no idea where my muddled misremembering has come from, especially given I was following it all at the time!

Poor One True Voice.  If only they had (Shakespeare's) Way With Words... or the ability to use parentheses correctly.

[Ciarán]

Blimey, the way I remembered it was that Girls Aloud came second to One True Voice, and that Girls prevailed as OTV's second single flopped.  I have no idea where my muddled misremembering has come from, especially given I was following it all at the time!

You're probably confusing them with the "flopstars" (ho ho!) Liberty, who were formed from the last people to be rejected in Popstars series 1, the series which gave the world Hear'say (thanks for that...). Liberty then changed their name to Liberty X and released some great singles; 'Thinking It Over', 'Just A Little' and 'Being Nobody' among them. They seem to be down the dumper at the moment, but they had a decent innings as they say. 'Being Nobody' was a mash-up of Human Leagues' 'Being Boiled' and Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody', put together by Richard X. If you can find it, the album 'Richard X Presents His X Factor' is a stonker - one of the best pop albums of 2003. Lots of interesting collaborations on it including The Flying Lizards, Annie and Jarvis Cocker. It'll one day be seen as one of those lost classic albums...

[CaledonianGonzo]

Of course! But the idea that The Rolling Stones are worthy of a discussion in the way Girls Aloud just are not, is an idea that's interested me since I was a child.

For what its worth, Ciaran, I'd say both Girl's Aloud and the Stones are equally worthy of discussion.  In fact, judging by the love in this thread, more folk here prefer the former to the latter.  I'm no great advocate of Girl's Aloud (though at least they can sing, cf Susannah Hoffs), but I do empathise with the frustration of trying to communicate the joy of something you love and getting trolled to fuck by [banned troll].  

[kidsick5000]

if I were a Knack-er.

...I'd knacker in the morning, knacker in the evening...all over this laaaand.




Sorry

[Angst in my Pants]

You're probably confusing them with the "flopstars" (ho ho!) Liberty...

Heyyyyy... you're absolutely right!  I'm still shocked that my memory was so screwed there though.

I loved Liberty, especially the early Liberty X stuff and their Almighty/Shanghai Surprize remixes.  "Being Nobody" was incredible, and their version of "Got to have your love" was rather good too.  What was that ballad they did, I adored that... [searches for album] "Holding on to you".  Just lovely.

If you can find it, the album 'Richard X Presents His X Factor' is a stonker...

Ah yes - an 'X' of mine (ahem) had the album and played it to me, I remember enjoying the Annie track.  Thanks for reminding me - I'm off to track that down.

[phantom_power]

Girls Aloud seem aware of the disposability of their music and image and it's a lot less tiresome and hip.

do you really think that? i think girls aloud have the biggest gap between the style and intention of the music and the artist of any band i can remember. i really like some of their songs but i can't say i like the band because the people themselves seem such dicks and completely clueless as to what makes them good. i can't imagine cheryl cole has any idea what makes 'biology' a good song other than that she was told it was good and it was a hit.

[Ray Le Otter]

Don't you reckon this sounds a hell of a lot like 'My Sharona'?

I can see the tag now - '[banned troll] posts Girls Aloud video'.

You're a bit behind aren't you? Everybody realised this years ago.

[niat]

do you really think that? i think girls aloud have the biggest gap between the style and intention of the music and the artist of any band i can remember. i really like some of their songs but i can't say i like the band because the people themselves seem such dicks and completely clueless as to what makes them good. i can't imagine cheryl cole has any idea what makes 'biology' a good song other than that she was told it was good and it was a hit.

I think you've hit upon something there. I like some of their songs, but to see Girls Aloud as some sort of groundbreaking musical act with a knowing awareness of their place in the music industry gives them FAR too much credit. Their management/producers/songwriters certainly have a good handle on the whole postmodern pop game, but surely the actual band just turn up and sing what they're told to.

[The Plunger]

I'm pretty sure that Liberty X have split up. Maybe it was that godawful song with the guy from Run DMC that did for them. Other than that they were pretty good.

[Backstage With Slowdive]

Do you think if they came along during 1996 they would have found it easier to top the charts?

No, Kenickie didn't.

[TC Raymond]

Did people ever claim that they weren't derivative?

Amazingly, yes. Somebody on D*gb*mb claimed that 'The Sound of the Underground' had "invented a new genre of pop music because it doesn't sound like anything else".

[Cack Hen]

Julie Burchill said Sound of the Underground was "Pantie-Liner Punk" and it was great because it incorporated lots of different styles.

Like you needed a reason to hate her.

[Backstage With Slowdive]

Julie Burchill said....

Good old Julie. In 1999 she told the readers of The Modern Review about the exciting new band Massive Attack. Always had her finger on the pulse.

[Steve Thompson Dance Mix]

...and Ladytron are a great pop group.

that seems to be the thing about great pop, you can have a favourite member. And my favourite member of Ladytron is Helen. Around the time of 'Light & Magic' she was the one who spent time in interviews emphasising her love of pop music. Daniel who tends to be Ladytron's spokesman is rather intellectual, a great pop theorist like Bob Stanley, but while he harps on aboiut why The Beatles went wrong by ditching their uniforms, Helen talked up her love of Tweet's brilliant 'Oops! (Oh My)' single. Out of all of Ladytron it woukld be Helen who'd be most likely to like Girls Aloud, I'd say. Her favourite Ladytron track is 'Evil' - a fine piece of pop if ever there was one.

And my favourite member of Girls Aloud is Nicola (and that wasn't me tagging to that effect by the way).

I'll go with you to some extent with Ladytron and the Pet Shop Boys, and I'd even add BWO to a lesser extent, (although Alexander Bard is purposely knowing) but Girls Aloud are at best an inoffensive pop act with no redeeming features. I just can't escape the notion that without the producers they really wouldn't know how to craft or write a decent pop song if it knifed them in their hearts. Which would then lead me on to say that I know classic pop singles throughout time have relied on the talents of songwriters and producers so why should Girls Aloud be any different, but I have still yet to hear that classic pop single. It really isn't rocket science. It also helps that to be a big iconic pop act that the girls themselves have a lot of charisma. Apart from guilt wank fodder they have no star quality, and I know this means a lot in the simple popjustice prism of things. They may well appeal to 14 year old girls and queens in their early 40s but anything meaningful beyond a wedding disco is pushing it somewhat. I'll go with the idea that they're a kind of curious kitsch act much in the same way Kylie (whom I like) is and The Pipettes (who I'm not so fond of) but be under no illusions that their pop music is throwaway, and there are many acts whose pop music has stood the test of time. But let's not get all Paul Morley and Burchill about this. Whatever next, Candie Payne, the Dusty Springfield of the new millenuim?

Speaking about Abba, Stephen Fry made an interesting comment about them the other night when he said that they exceed what is necessary to make a pop song. Unfortunately Girls Aloud don't.

[t_kingpin]

Honestly. Girls aloud are fucking rubbish. My sister is good friends and went to school with "nicola" as per another thread I wouldn't fuck her. She rely isn't that attractive close up, or @ a distance as it happens. The Sugababes are much better!!

[Ciarán]

I'll go with you to some extent with Ladytron and the Pet Shop Boys, and I'd even add BWO to a lesser extent, (although Alexander Bard is purposely knowing) but Girls Aloud are at best an inoffensive pop act with no redeeming features. I just can't escape the notion that without the producers they really wouldn't know how to craft or write a decent pop song if it knifed them in their hearts.

To me that last point is just irrelevant. Girls Aloud is not just the five people who make up the group, it's all of the records put out under that name, all of the factors which contribute to those records, it's an "oeuvre", a body of work. If you see what I mean. Or are we going to say that The Ronettes are crap because really Phil Spector, Jeff Barry and Ellie Greenwich did all the work?

Which would then lead me on to say that I know classic pop singles throughout time have relied on the talents of songwriters and producers so why should Girls Aloud be any different...

Ah, ok...

...but I have still yet to hear that classic pop single.

I'd nominate 'Biology' for that one.

It really isn't rocket science. It also helps that to be a big iconic pop act that the girls themselves have a lot of charisma. Apart from guilt wank fodder they have no star quality, and I know this means a lot in the simple popjustice prism of things. They may well appeal to 14 year old girls and queens in their early 40s but anything meaningful beyond a wedding disco is pushing it somewhat.

Around the time of 'Chemistry' the image of them as wild and currazy 3am Girls fodder seemed to really take off, and complaints were made about the fruitiness of their lyrics on that album. That sort of distinguishes them from the much more "sophisticated" air around Sugababes.

Speaking about Abba, Stephen Fry made an interesting comment about them the other night when he said that they exceed what is necessary to make a pop song. Unfortunately Girls Aloud don't.

I'm not sure I understand Fry's comment, it seems to assume that pop song writing usually is a straightforward business, that there's no extra "magic" involved. But anyway, while I mentally wrestle with Fry's remark about ABBA, I'll say that there's bucketloads more imagination in most of Girls aloud's original songs than you'll find in indie Top 20 these days. Though that's probably not saying much...

[wherearethespoons]

Ciarán and Girls Aloud in a tree...

S-E-X-I-N-G


shagging.

[Cack Hen]

I decided to take a look at the indie chart to pick a handful of bands who are clearly injecting more imagination into their music than Girls a-bloody Loud, but it seems the indie chart is actually full of shit. Kula Shaker are at five...?! When did that bloody happen? Elvis at 16. Yes, Elvis, that huge indie star.

But generally I would strongly object to comparing something like Girls Aloud or Sugababes to the vast majority of 'alternative' music. It's not fair on either of them.