24
Mar 13

TAKE THAT – “Sure”

Popular72 comments • 4,470 views

#711, 15th October 1994

Take-That-Sure-36711 A third album in as many years – for all that they were an honest phenomenon now, for all the still-spiralling popularity, Take That kept their workrate brutally high. Invisiblity is death in pop, and in the pre-net era visibility meant product. Commercially, said product would be as close to a cert as one could want, so even amidst the Stakhanovite grinning and flexing there might be room for experiment. Namely, a seven-minute video to show off the boys’ comedic talents (which proved feeble) and a chance for Gary to do an R&B number.

Alas! R&B and Barlow were uneasy bedfellows. For a few seconds “Sure” keeps its footing, sounds excitingly on-trend even – a confident whomp of a beat with producers Brothers In Rhythm doing a decent Teddy Riley impression. But then comes Gary, whose voice is all wrong for this – too bluff and needy, hectoring where it should plead, plodding where it should cajole. The backing vocalists (“Sure! So Sure!”) carry all the hook – Gary roams aimlessly in between, a street dancer in wellington boots, issuing his list of tedious requirements to a returning honey. “It’s gotta be social, compatible, sexual, irresistible” – is there a less sexual word than “social”, a more resistible one than “compatible”?

Perhaps they felt the need to act grown up – something their next singles would try more convincingly. By this time Take That no longer had the field to themselves – their rivalry, or rather brand differentiation, with East 17 added a necessary twist to the story. But maybe it irked that East 17 were the bad boys, the streetwise boys, the dirty ones. (Their “Deep” is preposterous, but still sexier than this.) Maybe Take That wanted to show they could still play that game, too. But they couldn’t. They made duller singles, but not worse ones.

4

Comments

  1. 1
    Lazarus on 25 Mar 2013 #

    This was the lead single from the album? Sounds more like a third or fourth. It is a bit laboured isn’t it. I quite liked the “holding squeezing touching teasing” part but that was about all. I agree that Gary’s voice was far from ideal for the song, but I’m not sure that Mark or Robbie would have been any better.

    In boy band terms East 17 were the only serious competition at this stage weren’t they? Second division act Bad Boys Inc had scored their only top 10 hit earlier in the year, while the likes of 911 and Backstreet Boys were still a little way off. There was however, a new entry at number 7 in the second week of Sure’s reign – ‘Cigarettes and Alcohol’ the biggest hit to date for Oasis.

  2. 2
    Tom on 25 Mar 2013 #

    “This was the lead single from the album? Sounds more like a third or fourth”

    Exactly right, and I was surprised too – this is according to Wiki.

  3. 3
    Cumbrian on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Compare and contrast the sleeve for this single with the sleeve for their last #1. Change is coming. Robbie’s got a skinhead with a slash in it, versus his longer, more overtly “boyband” haircut. Howard has finally been allowed to grow some dreadlocks and a beard. Jason and Mark look less styled than before too. Only Gary is clinging to the old certainties.

    Sure is, I reckon, boring. And if invisibility is death in pop, being boring is going to take you down a similar road in the long run (even the Pet Shop Boys wore gigantic conical hats). If it’s a grab for R&B credibility, it’s a bad one. This is the last of their #1s to try for an overtly American feel, at least to my ear (doubtless I will be disabused of this notion when the spoiler bunnies break out of their respective hutches). At this point, as an age 13 boy, TT were still boring with Sure not helping matters. Soon though, their personalities will start to poke out beyond the photos and they became more interesting as a result. Change is coming and, for Howard, Jason, Mark, Robbie and, even to an extent, Gary, it is to be embraced.

  4. 4
    Chelovek na lune on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Absolutely dreadful: dull, overly laboured, *sweaty* (and in an abjectly unsexy way: in an excess of warm clothing at a bus stop in Romford on a winter evening) and with no hint of what was to come soon from them.

    Was this ever used to advertise the deodorant of the same name? If not…well it still sounds like a 30-second advertising jingle stretched out to make a dire single.

  5. 5
    Mark G on 25 Mar 2013 #

    It has that insistent ‘noise’ that “Jump Around” House of Pain has, only more politer. A bit like Pat Boone’s version of “Tutti Frutti”…

  6. 6
    tm on 25 Mar 2013 #

    I can’t even remember this. Like I said on the Everything Changes thread, I had a notion I liked these boys, now I’m not so Sure. (Sorry)

  7. 7
    punctum on 25 Mar 2013 #

    OK, I thought of something to say about this one:

    One of the remarkable trends of the pre-rock singles chart was the manner in which polite British crooners were fashioned to sound as American as possible, manfully (or womanfully) trying to emulate the effortless sophistication of their counterparts on a ration coupon budget with the intent of sounding “international,” even though the States were never likely to embrace a Dickie Valentine or a Michael Holliday when Frank and Bing were still active and hale.

    Some commentators have taken as an indication of coming full circle the equivalent tendency over the last decade or so – effectively kickstarted by Simon Cowell – of current British groups and performers to endeavour to appeal to an assumed international market, and in doing so jettison every facet of them which made them British, and appealing, and therefore different. We need not spend much time turning our eyes away from such calamities as the second Mis-teeq album, or that Mutya Buena solo album where the sparkiest Sugababe was apparently harpooned at bayonet point to do caterwauling Whitney/Marah-style pseudo-soul Mogadon in order to make it in the eyes of a market which in all practical terms no longer exists.

    Although “Sure” seems to have been an earnest attempt by Take That to appeal to the post-New Jack Swing demographic – Gary Barlow co-produced with the Brothers In Rhythm team, and the song bears a rare Barlow/Owen/Williams co-writing credit – it simply doesn’t work. The group’s natural charm and modest determination to be themselves are eroded against bland hotel lobbies of Al Jarreau chord changes, and Barlow’s voice simply isn’t built to curve with the indentures and turnarounds of 1994 R&B patterns; references in the lyric to “positive reactions” and “compatible” sound awkward in both construction and delivery. In contrast, something like East 17’s “Deep,” though in most ways patently absurd, actually does work in terms of Walthamstow roughage roughing it up with a track which very wisely kicks back to preserve both pop and would-be hip hop tendencies; it succeeds precisely because it isn’t in your face. But “Sure” sounded like a shoehorned Take That and unsurprisingly became not only their lowest-selling chart-topper but also the lowest-selling number one of 1994; it’s another one about which I had to remind myself, and I don’t think I missed very much in the forgetting.

  8. 8
    Tom on 25 Mar 2013 #

    #7 – The “positive reactions” bit is *so* stupendously awkward it’s almost interesting.

  9. 9
    Auntie Beryl on 25 Mar 2013 #

    #1 – a quintet of Irish boys were very close to making their debut and joining the boyband fray in October 1994, and would go on to top the chart six times.

    This is certainly one of the That’s less memorable number ones. It’s unconvincing musically.

  10. 10
    thefatgit on 25 Mar 2013 #

    On the whole, it’s not difficult for me to remember how a particular #1 single goes (until we get to very recently, and then I’ll be in “here be dragons” territory, with a few notable exceptions). On a few occasions, I’ll need a bit of prompting but I can’t recall this as easily as other TT singles (although the “…social, compatible, sexual, irresistible” line does ring a bell). Did Robbie contribute that line? I seem to recall Robbie wanting to shoehorn something of his own into “Sure”, and that particular line does scan like a poorly composed Dateline entry. Barlow’s songwriting isn’t always terrible, but “Sure” is easily forgettable.

  11. 11
    wichita lineman on 25 Mar 2013 #

    I remember this coming out, and must have heard it, but it rings no bells, none at all.

    At least the Brothers In Rhythm production means it genuinely swings (unlike many of Gaz Baz’s previous wellington-booted efforts), and the bv’s are a sweet enough hook. But that’s it. 4 is as much as it could hope for.

    Over the weekend we were listening to Now Dance 92, and a Twenty 4 Seven track came on whose hook was similarly slight – we were waiting for a chorus that never came, and realised how strongly Max Martin and Xenomania changed the structure of songwriting a few years later. “Sure so sure” would barely count as a bridge on one of their songs let alone a chorus.

  12. 12
    swanstep on 25 Mar 2013 #

    This one’s new to me (Take That never did a damn thing either in the US or down under). A boring, unmemorable track on first listen, but I never did acquire much of a taste for ‘new jack swing’.

  13. 13
    punctum on 25 Mar 2013 #

    #11: Or altered it back to how Bjorn and Benny and Chinnichap had dunnit. Not sure whether anything Stargate or XMania did was an advance as such – other than technologically, in terms of production, etc. – but that’s a question for another Popular time.

  14. 14
    weej on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Not even a fifth single, more like a cut from the tail end of the album sessions that’s finally made it out as a b-side. Propelled to the top by sheer force of fanbase and a lack of competition for the top spot. It was, however, my flatmate’s favourite TT track in 2000, and he played it whenever he came back from the pub. Loudly.

  15. 15
    anto on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Rather advert-jingly this one (you can sure-so-sure with Shell maybe?) and not too impressive. Actually the more often Take That appear on Popular the more convinced I am not only that Gary Barlows reputations rests largely on one particular song (which we’ll be coming to in a short while), but also that their present status as the nations best-loved band has been retconned to some degree.
    As I recall it, for all the adualation they were receiving in 1994 plenty of people just found them a bore.

  16. 16
    Steve Mannion on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Having fun trying to imagine Take That or East 17 having recorded ‘I’ve Got A Little Something For You’ instead of M8. Both almost work (but Tony beats Robbie on the rap and Brian beats Gary and Mark on the verses ha).

  17. 17
    punctum on 25 Mar 2013 #

    What does “retconned” mean?

  18. 18
    Tom on 25 Mar 2013 #

    It stands for “retrospective continuity” – when a TV series, comic, film series etc rewrites its own history. eg George Lucas going back to Star Wars 20 years later and changing bits. In a sense the streamlining of the whole early history of the charts – the construction of an “official” number one – is a retcon.

    Anto can explain his use of it :) But that’s what it means.

  19. 19
    wichita lineman on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Re 13: Yes, true enough (Xeno definitely looked back to the RAK set-up, with Brian Higgins as Mickie Most). I was thinking specifically of ‘dance pop’, or post-house pop.

    It’ll be a while before we get there though, so I’ll button up.

  20. 20
    MikeMCSG on 25 Mar 2013 #

    As someone who was never interested in them – and still isn’t – this one didn’t sound any better or worse than their other efforts.
    I share some of anto’s bemusement at their current status. As we will be discussing soon enough Barlow was a derisory figure at the turn of the millennium appearing on Heartbeat to earn a crust – how did the restoration of a trio of muppets to stand beside him lead to such a rehabilitation ? Obviously there was a genuine thirtysomething fanbase to welcome them back but it’s rare for the critics , most of whom would have spurned them back in the day to fall into line with fan nostalgia.

  21. 21
    Lazarus on 25 Mar 2013 #

    #9 Yes, of course! I tend to think of them as ‘late nineties’

    #12 They did score a US Top 10 hit in 1995, the timing of their split not to the liking of their US record company, as it was something of a breakthrough there.

  22. 22
    lonepilgrim on 25 Mar 2013 #

    i’ve just listened to this again to try to remind myself what this sounds like and I’ve already forgotten it

  23. 23
    James BC on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Clearly the worst of Take That’s number ones, and a particularly grating instance of their trademark weirdly shrill backing vocals. Amazed it got 4. Not even Lulu bursting in 2/3 of the way through could have saved this one.

  24. 24
    glue_factory on 25 Mar 2013 #

    I suspect that “The That” were beneficiaries of an increasingly sympathetic critical treatment of pop, during the 90s and 00s, which was then retrospectively applied. I don’t remember media-treatment of them at this time, being anything other than as a teen-band phenomenon.

  25. 25
    Mark G on 25 Mar 2013 #

    It was mainly because they came over well in non_performance TV appearances (mostly thanks to Rob),

  26. 26
    Patrick Mexico on 25 Mar 2013 #

    Welcome back, Tom! Just when I thought you were out, they drag you back in.. ;-)

    3/10 for this – and that’s a generous 3.

    Cookie-cutter New Jack Swing from the cast of “Man Oh Man*.”

    * Simba, you must never go there.

  27. 27
    will on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Well, at the time I quite liked this. To these ears it felt like a progression and undoubtedly was intended as such, TT showing their rivals that they could ‘do’ sexy too. Does rather pale in comparison to Deep or East 17’s contemporaneous Steam now though doesn’t it?

    Is there a less sexual word than “social”? Yeah, loads! As a socialist who likes being social I happen to think there’s an inherent sexiness to it meself..

  28. 28
    Chelovek na lune on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #27 I’d say “nah” and cite pop music’s Socialist-in-Chief in my defence: “You can be active with the activists, or sleeping with the sleepers, when you’re waiting for the Great Leap Forwards” (and not thinking too hard, if at all, about all the implications and connotations of that last phrase, although this observation didn’t go down well at a Labour Students disco at Warwick Uni Union, not very long after the Berlin Wall came down)

    #20 I really (and quite simply) think it was mostly that at least some of their post-reformation material really was really rather good (and sufficiently different in sound and general tenor from their frankly mostly annoying or insipid earlier material not to recall it overtly if at all). Sure, Williams’s sometimes interesting (and stylistically diverse) solo career may have opened minds towards what talents might have been hiding in those old dire TT records (Barlow’s and Owen’s very much less so). But given that Robbie wasn’t in the band upon their initial return, I really do think it principally came down to the songs and the performance, as well as support from more mature ex-fans. But this is a topic for much later discussions…

  29. 29
    punctum on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Pop music’s Socialist-in-Chief who promotes dodgy characters like Michelle-Shocked and Frank Turner. Wish Bill would choose his musical pals more carefully.

  30. 30
    wichita lineman on 26 Mar 2013 #

    TT were likeable, they had distinct personalities, and as such were the first ‘boy band’ since the Monkees you could say that about. Osmonds, Rollers, Bros, NKOTB were all of a piece, with the occasional ‘bad boy’ (Wahlberg) or ‘extra cute one’ (Donny) or ‘not cute one’ (“Ken”, Derek, Merrill).

    For this reason I think people were willing TT to make better records. And some – suspending belief further – were willing Gary B to be the next Elton John, or at least George Michael, when they split. But that’s a little way off.

  31. 31
    sükråt tanned rested unlogged and awesome on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Sex Pistols were a boy band [/whiskered old challops]

    Mark Owen’s appearance (and win) on an early Celebrity Big Brother also key here, I think. He came across as chilled and likeable.

  32. 32
    punctum on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Howard Donald’s distinct personality…um, he was the one who…or was that Jason, or…um…

  33. 33
    Izzy on 26 Mar 2013 #

    I think there was always an overtone of them being more-than-a-teen-phenomenon. The way I recall it, Lulu got them cachet with an older demographic, Pray was the start of Barlow-as-serious-artist, a theme which I revile; and Robbie turning into a different kind of teenager gave the others an unearned aura of maturity.

    I also recall their having Mercury nominations and Ivor Novello awards pressed onto them, which I can’t really begrudge – such things are just puff anyway. I do recall Tony Parsons sneering at their nomination during some feature, specifically Jason saying that people had told him that being around them was like being around the Beatles – I mean it’s obvious why that’s silly, but it’s also obvious why it’s not, so the sneer left me with goodwill towards them, and ill-will towards Parsons.

    Anyway, Sure’s better than I’d feared from reading the comments – at least the backing track is. As for Gary’s vocal, ‘dancer in wellington boots’ is about right. Like sewing wearing boxing gloves, or settling down into a concrete pillow. Alan Partridge singing it wouldn’t be massively dissimilar.

  34. 34
    Alex on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Just to say I had to read the entire post and think hard before I could remember the song.

  35. 35
    Tom on 26 Mar 2013 #

    From memory (with big not-paying-attention caveats!):

    Robbie – cheeky
    Mark – sweet
    Jason – slacker (the presence of this as a boyband archetype dates the band delightfully!)
    Gary – leader/artistic (it’s very hard indeed to scrape away now-Barlow to get at then-Barlow, he seems always to have been himself)
    Howard – kind of generic normal himbo type?? Marcello’s right, he’s tough to place if you were outside the fandom

  36. 36
    wichita lineman on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Re 31: Not to mention Mark’s “likeable” solo stabs at anaemic indie, much beloved by Pete Paphides.

    Re 32/35: Howard Donald – or ‘Oward – was beefy, hairy and seemingly dim. It was a distinct personality, distinct from the other Thats, at least.

    Put it this way, they could have had Spice Girls/Seven Dwarves-type nicknames.

    Re 33: Mercury nomination?! I’d completely forgotten that. It was 1994, so I suppose M People’s unlikely win overshadowed it.

    Then again, I’ve forgotten a lot about 1994. I watched a few Chart Show Indie Top Tens last night, sort of for research purposes, and was alarmed by how much I had forgotten (all that pointy finger stuff from Senser and Fun-da-Mental) or had no memory of: 8 Storey Window? Seaweed? Compulsion??

  37. 37
    Izzy on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Was it Seaweed doing Go Your Own Way? I can piece together my Fleetwood Mac adoration through half-remembered baby steps throughout the nineties, and that’s one of them.

  38. 38
    James BC on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Jason was The Dancer.

    Howard is harder to pin down but I’ve heard it said he was placed in the band specifically to appeal to older women. Not sure if that means twentysomethings or mums or what.

  39. 39
    sükråt tanned rested unlogged and awesome on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Robbie – Josh That
    Mark – Gosh That
    Gary – Tosh That
    Jason – Bosh That
    Howard – Quosh™ That

  40. 40
    swanstep on 26 Mar 2013 #

    @Izzy. Hole covered Gold Dust Woman in 1995 (another possible baby step?). Courtney was one of the dominant presences of 1994 in the US (she got one of the Barbara Walters ‘Most Fascinating People of the Year’ interview slots for 1994 so she’d blown up well beyond indie rock pseudo-fame); too bad we’re not going to meet her either here or at TPL.

  41. 41
    Cumbrian on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Howard was harder to pin down until a bunny came along and lifted him out of obscurity. More on that later I guess.

  42. 42
    Mark G on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #32 I read that as “Howard Devoto”, but don’t worry I’m going for the eye-test on Thursday…

  43. 43
    Patrick Mexico on 26 Mar 2013 #

    No. 3 watch for 15 October 1994.. don’t worry, I’m not turking any No. 2 watch’s jaaaahb [sic].. Bon Jovi, “Always.”

    Astonishing they’ve never had a UK number 1 – not even stable of ropey ’80s bars Livin’ On A Prayer! – considering, like TT, their (eventual) ubiquity with ladies of a certain age and years of survival despite almost never being a critics’ choice. But, also like TT, every now and then people come along and say, “Yeah, I always actually liked that kinda music, honest..”

  44. 44
    weej on 26 Mar 2013 #

    For “Millenials” Bon Jovi = classic rock.
    I’m hoping a few come along and disabuse me of this notion, but it’s been my unhappy experience so far.

  45. 45
    Steve Mannion on 26 Mar 2013 #

    There may not be a record I despised in 1994 more than ‘Always’ but half of this is due to the video and the two long-haired chumps vying for the girl’s affections. Give me Alicia Silverstone and Aerosmith then and for a bit.

  46. 46
    punctum on 26 Mar 2013 #

    don’t worry, I’m not turking any No. 2 watch’s jaaaahb

    Could you repeat that in English, please.

    Bon Jovi had a lot of number one albums, including 1994’s biggest seller.

  47. 47
    Patrick Mexico on 26 Mar 2013 #

    It’s “I’m not taking anyone’s job” in the South Park Colorado hick dialect.

    I’d link to an amusing clip, but it would sound too much like a terrifying bunny coming up very, very soon which makes Sure look like Love Will Tear Us Apart

  48. 48
    Steve Mannion on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #43 I predict only songs from 1994 will top the charts from now on, starting this Sunday, so perhaps T’ Jove will yet get their due.

  49. 49
    Patrick Mexico on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #48 HA! Well, this should mean good news for Corona – Rhythm of the Night.

    If it can cure Tom’s flu, it can cure anything.

  50. 50
    Alan Connor on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Re #28: Ah, but is it “sleeping with the sleepers”? I hear it as “sleep in with the sleepers”…

  51. 51
    anto on 26 Mar 2013 #

    re33: It was around this time (1993/94) that Tony Parsons appeared to be trying to outdo his former wife in terms of being a contrarian pain-in-the-bum. Certainly he was a constant presence on C4s Without Walls programme explaining why he thought the working classes ought to pull their socks up/women ought to get back to the kitchen etc, and of course why pop music was all downhill after The Beatles/Winifred Atwell/Bobby Crush or whoever.
    It was a blessed relief when he started writing novels and was seen on tv a bit less.

  52. 52
    tm on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #44 – ‘For “Millenials” Bon Jovi = classic rock’ – just asked a boy if he’d stand in with a school band doing Wonderwall and Boulevard of Broken Dreams. He replied “I’m not really into old music”. Made me feel like a proper dino it did.

  53. 53
    Cumbrian on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Is classic rock a distinct genre or is it just rock music that was popular x years prior to now (with x being a floating value but likely to be greater than 20)? If the latter, Bon Jovi are surely classic rock – it’s been something like 27 years since Livin’ On A Prayer was released.

  54. 54
    weej on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #53 – I have a feeling it was the former at some point, though it was inevitable that it would become the latter. I just meant that this “classic” label gives it an air of respectability / quality it doesn’t deserve – you might extend this to all “classic rock” though I probably wouldn’t go that far.

    I remember Tony Parsons interviewing Roy Chubby Brown around this time and trying to get him to say it was an ironic persona he adopted on stage – Royston was having none of it of course, but Tony kept trying to persuade himself that it was an act. You’d think he’d have checked before inviting him on.

  55. 55
    Tom on 26 Mar 2013 #

    #52 speaking of “the kids” I have started asking my 6 year old his opinion on new entries, beginning with the next one.

    I also showed him Slade, saying “this was No.1 forty years ago when Daddy was born”. He was, I’m afraid, not very impressed.

  56. 56
    Sarah on 26 Mar 2013 #

    Was it the six-year-old who contributed to the Adams-a-thon? His input was invaluable.

    I wasn’t into the That or E17, though I’m the age to have been. I remember two seconds of this song perfectly (the “sure, so sure” bit) and exactly nothing else. That’s some hook-to-song ratio.

  57. 57
    lonepilgrim on 26 Mar 2013 #

    various mentions of the Spoiler Bunny in this thread: I have found his picture

  58. 58
    Mark G on 27 Mar 2013 #

    So, it’s not “Sexually resistable”, right?

  59. 59
    Dan Quigley on 27 Mar 2013 #

    The backing track sounds like a mash-up of En Vogue’s ‘Don’t Go’ and ‘Lies’ – no bad thing in my books. But those vocals (both Gary’s and they boys’) are almost parodically lacking in suppleness, not helped by their over-prominence in the mix.

    Going by TT’s number ones so far there’s a sloppiness about Barlow’s songwriting that goes beyond the lyrics – I adore unexpected chord changes, but what’s going on behind the ‘I need positive reactions’ in the pre-chorus sounds random and inconsequential rather than sophisticated or daring.

    Prior to a still-bunnyable hit, Take That’s presence in Australia was far eclipsed by that of East 17, whose ‘It’s Alright’ was a number one and almost as unanimously loved among my fellow year-sixers as Dennis Leary’s ‘Asshole’.

  60. 60
    wichita lineman on 27 Mar 2013 #

    Is 58 referring to 57??

    Re 59: E17 huge in Australia? I never knew that. Was it just It’s Alright or a string of hits?

  61. 61
    Steve Williams on 27 Mar 2013 #

    Wimpy though this record sounds now – and it’s undoubtedly the That’s least memorable number one – it was accompanied by a brief hoo-haa about the band getting a bit too sexy. It’s already been mentioned about the sleeve showcasing a slightly more grown-up look but the antics on their accompanying tour were considered a bit rude for their teenage audience. I’ve got a Radio Times from 1994 when there’s a feature on them to coincide with an O Zone special and it quotes a parent as saying he doesn’t mind a bit of cheekiness but “when it comes to S&M and devil worship it’s going a bit too far”. I dunno where they got the idea about devil worship from.

  62. 62
    glue_factory on 27 Mar 2013 #

    Re: 61, didn’t one of their live shows or videos feature them dressed up in chaps and plastic devil horns? Ahh yes – here – http://markowendaily.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_3367164.jpg

    Obviously that kind of behaviour is synonymous with the actual worshipping of Satan.

  63. 63
    James BC on 27 Mar 2013 #

    As I remember it a lot of the hoo-ha revolved around Howard’s exposed buttocks.

  64. 64
    Tom on 27 Mar 2013 #

    #64 I blame Bono, as with most things.

  65. 65
    thefatgit on 27 Mar 2013 #

    ‘”When it comes to S&M and devil worship it’s going a bit too far”‘

    I was picturing an AU, with T’That on the cover of Metal Hammer in full satanic regalia. Underneath, a quote from Alice Cooper: “It was only after I saw their show, I realised it was time for me to call it a day and concentrate on my golf swing”.

  66. 66
    Dan Quigley on 27 Mar 2013 #

    #60: House of Love and Deep were big hits here too, and floppy beanies, necessary in this climate about two days of the year and never advisable, were briefly a thing, thanks in a large part, I would say, to Levi(?) and the boys.

  67. 67
    Patrick Mexico on 27 Mar 2013 #

    #62 Anyone fancy searching for backwarded messages in the ‘That’s records and coming over all “Cool, groovy, morning, fine – Tipper Gore was a friend of mine?”

  68. 68
    Another Pete on 29 Mar 2013 #

    #67 No need, if you look there’s a message there in plain sight on the single’s cover. Take That > Sure.

    Given the album wouldn’t be out for another 7 months it feels like exactly what it is, a pacifier to appease a demanding fan base that just happens to be on the next album rather than a lead single.

  69. 69
    AMZ1981 on 30 Mar 2013 #

    First time I’ve commented;

    One point to note about this is that Take That themselves seem to have written it out of their story; it was the only one of their number one singles they didn’t do on the comeback tour and – to the best of my knowledge – they’ve never revisited it since.

  70. 70
    Erithian on 4 Jun 2013 #

    I’m struck by the confidence they display with this – the epic-length video, the branching out into acting, the babes coming to party, the cocksure dance routine. Pretty much all of it misplaced. The song is dull as ditchwater and the dance is only marginally less embarrassing than Boyzone’s (can we mention them yet?) notorious appearance on the Gay Byrne Late Late Show.

  71. 71
    Andrew Farrell on 12 Jul 2014 #

    I think the video does well – I’m not sure it’s acting quite as much as Brand Establishment: Mark is sweet, Jason dances, Howard (does he get called Hal at one point?) is into the dance music, Gary suffers as the Artist, and Robbie… will do anything for attention, and is a needy little fellow in that area. Looking back, I’m surprised there was never a Take That cartoon, in the spirit of the Beatles one.

  72. 72
    Musicality on 14 Dec 2014 #

    I like this but the fact is American artists do this type of music better. Take That excelled in their own unique style and this seemed to follow American trends.

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


If this was number 1 when you were born paste [stork-boy] or [stork-girl] into the start of your comment :)

Required

Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page