Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“Well there we go then. You're basically agreeing with me that GA got a great start to their careers with such a brilliant song handed to them. The fact it was at Christmas and was off the back of a huge TV show was always going to make it massive, regardless of the song quality.”
Firstly, The Saturdays have all their songs 'handed to them' too. That doesn't automatically mean their songs are going to be worse than Girls Aloud's, does it? I'm not debating that Sound Of The Underground was always going to be huge. But like I said, that doesn't mean it's not a brilliant song. My point is that it didn't
have to be brilliant though - they could of gone with a typical dreary ballad which they usually do on those shows, but instead they got an amazing pop song which broke the trend. I don't care how much it sold or any of that crap, and I'm not denying it was given to them. Yes that's just fortune, but the music speaks for itself at the end of the day, wherever it comes from for either group.
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“...who started their careers in completely different ways. GA had auditions shown on TV and got voted into the band. The public could connect with them and know who they were in the space of a few weeks. They had the aforementioned Xmas #1 which got them mass attention. After one single they were pretty much known by everyone. The Sats had to do it the harder way with auditions (not shown to millions of people) and then a debut single simply being sent to radio/TV for airplay. Completely different situations.”
Again, like I said, they are both manufactured so I don't care about who has had the bigger advantage in terms of sales. The Saturdays have connected with the public at this stage just as much as GA. Yes they've had it 'the harder way' at first, but they are now at the stage where they don't have to worry about that because they get so much coverage. That doesn't change what the music has to be like.
I think we are arguing separate things here - I'm talking about the quality of the music, and you seem to be focusing on sales and who has the advantage in that sense. Anyway, on we go...
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“They're in the Daily Mail everyday. Hardly The Sun or any other credible newspaper (if you can even call that credible). And them being snapped eating chocolate is hardly going to make people go and buy their albums if that's what you're implying. The DM just have an obsession with them, take pics of the and publish pointless "stories" about them. And as for the radio comment, EVERY artist has their songs sent to radios everywhere. It's a form of promotion. Same with the TV shows, it's promotion. Every artist does it (unless you're a worldwide superstar). Not sure what you're getting at here.”
They're in most tabloids almost everyday for some reason or another - whether it's about their love life, what they're wearing, when they attend events etc. That's because they are young girls and they are a pop group aimed at the charts. I'm not saying the newspaper stories affect their record sales but it gets them noticed. Like they say - all publicity is good publicity. Yes, GA have had the same too, but my point was that that makes them both even in that sense. I don't know what you think I meant by that but I wasn't suggesting that gives them an advantage.
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“And what song did GA come up with that blew everyone away and was a massive hit? Don't say SOTU as that was always going to be a smash due to the circumstances. I'll Stand By You? Did it sell 200K? Walk This Way? One of the most widely criticised Comic Relief singles? The Promise? Would it have been as big as it was without Cheryl being the Nations Sweetheart and performing on the X-Factor where Cheryl herself was a judge? The rest of their songs had pretty average chart runs with a debut in the top ten followed by a quick fall out of the top 40. 'Up' had regular promotion and still sold over 300K and is played by radios all the time. 'Ego' sold 300K and even 'Issues' and 'Just Can't Get Enough' are on around 250K. Single sales wise, The Sats are doing much better than GA's singles did.”
Yes, SOTU was always going to be a hit, that's undeniable. But again, as I said before - it also happened to be a great pop song which was loved by many pop fans and critics, instead of being the usual soppy ballad about overcoming struggles and all that crap. No Good Advice, Love Machine, Biology, Sexy No No No, Call The Shots, The Promise (to name a few) were all extremely well-received and successful. I don't care if they performed them on tv shows and whatnot - that doesn't take away from how good they are as songs in terms of quality. The reason I mentioned Ego is because you pointed out that it sold 300k, and I said that was partly down to the tv appearances it got. Again - I think I'm arguing about quality and reception, whereas you're talking about sales and chart positions. That's not a criticism but I'm just saying that we aren't entirely debating the same thing.
And as for The Sats singles sales being higher than Girls Aloud's - well this has been mentioned before, but we are in a different time now so that argument is totally invalid. I could mention that GA's album sales are much higher than The Sats, but we both know two things; a) singles sales are MUCH higher now than they were 5 years ago. b) album sales have plummeted over the last few years. That should put that debate to bed.
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“It doesn't need to be memorable. Hardly any #1's are these days. It's about sales and as long as MY sells well then there's no problem.”
Fair enough if that's how you see it, there's no problem with that, but although I follow the charts a lot, quality is what matters more imo. There's been some terrible no.1's this year. I know that's all subjective, but in general, I don't think Missing You has had a great overall reception and even if it gets to no.1 it won't make more people like it. It's frustrating because I truly want The Saturdays to release an amazing 'signature' song, but I'm still waiting.
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“See I disagree here. I think only Biology and Call The Shots are pretty good. I think most of GA's songs are too samey and "cute pop", whereas The Sats are a bit more versatile with their music.”
Now when it comes to music jargon and picking apart songs, I'm not the best. I'm sure many others here could do that. You'd have to ask GA fans who are better with words, or read critic reviews. I know exactly what I
think, but getting it into words is something I don't have the natural ability to do. But anyway, what I will say is that Girls Aloud have been widely seen as one of the best pop groups of the last decade, their albums have been well-received and their songs are exciting, have clever lyrics, interesting production, and some of the catchiest melodies I've ever heard. Fair enough they've never pulled off a proper 'ballad' as such, they've had a few that come close, I mean The Loving Kind is stunning in that sense. I like some of The Saturdays' songs, but mostly it feels like fairly typical pop songs I've heard all before. I know that's not their fault - perhaps they need some Xenomania magic themselves?
Originally Posted by Shadow2009:
“Just like 'The Promise' was performed on X-Factor (a show where a member was a popular judge on) in front of millions of viewers, too.”
Yes, it was - I'm not denying that. Sorry to repeat myself yet again, but I still think it was a great song and got a good reception anyway. The only reason I mentioned Ego before was because you mentioned it sold 300k. I know nearly all of what I'm saying about quality is subjective, but I'm just reflecting the general consensus from fans and critics over Girls Aloud's career.
Sorry this has turned into some big debate, it's not as if I'm some crazed Girls Aloud fan who hates The Saturdays. I'm a huge pop music fan, and I'm just frustrated by The Sats not building on their first album success with any great songs to rival Girls Aloud's. In terms of the girls themselves, it's not down to them what the quality of their songs is, for either group, but the music is what talks in the case of such groups. The talent of the girls is another issue altogether which I won't go into here, and I must stress I'm not generalising any of what I've said here at all. I'm just talking specifically about these 2 girl bands.
But I think the common trend in this little debate is that, as I said a few times, we are debating different things here - I'm talking about the quality of the music, you're talking about sales and who has the advantage, mostly. I'm not criticising but I think that's why we seem to be disagreeing about a lot of things. Anyway, that's my afternoon gone

don't make me write as much next time lol