|
||||||||
Pete Waterman |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,921
|
Pete Waterman
Watching the rundown of Pete's career on that **** Morgan show I was again struck by the thought that every single song he had a hand in was absolute crap stating with pass the duchie.
Or was he ever involved in anything good.? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
Watching the rundown of Pete's career on that **** Morgan show I was again struck by the thought that every single song he had a hand in was absolute crap stating with pass the duchie.
Or was he ever involved in anything good.? erm... he also did songs before pass the duchie... |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,230
|
Yeah its a bit extreme to say everything he touched was bad. Some of its pretty wretched and some of it was decent enough pop. I would say everything after the 80's was pretty naff though (I'm looking at you Steps).
I think I once saw he say something like "What's the best selling music the world? Middle of the road." And he was pretty happy to be that. Not everyone wants to change the world and I guess Waterman knows his audience. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Waterman did work on some reggae records including Susan Cadogan's 'Hurt so Good' according to Wikipedia.
And I did like the Nik Kershaw big songs but if you look at the SAW greatest hits stuff....... |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
ill give him one thing.... he is a great businessman. pity about the product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Love Island
Posts: 1,626
|
he gave the public what they wanted, Steps were extremely popular at one time
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
he gave the public what they wanted, Steps were extremely popular at one time
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
|
Quote:
Watching the rundown of Pete's career on that **** Morgan show I was again struck by the thought that every single song he had a hand in was absolute crap stating with pass the duchie.
Or was he ever involved in anything good.? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehVskhiS2x8 Princess - After The Love Has Gone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBTlyD1xHtI Princess - I'll Keep On Loving You http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9-AoPpjlA8 Brilliant - It's a Man's Man's Man's World http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btYwCT97VaU Brilliant - Love Is War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V57lEVzJn8g Stock Aitken Waterman - Roadblock http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF28Z_lr3t4 |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7
|
It's all about taste
It depends what you think of as good and crap. Everyone has their own taste in music. If you don't like it it doesn't make it crap. You don't have to justify not liking it by trying to make out it something to do with the way it's produced. If the Beatles write a song in 10 minutes they are geniuses, if you are Stock Aitken and waterman then you have no talent and have obviously thrown it together. In reality it doesn't matter how long it took. You either get it or you don't. I know someone who thinks the Beatles and the stones were crap by the way. And people look at him stupid because he dares to say it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,325
|
I think crap is a fair summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
It depends what you think of as good and crap. Everyone has their own taste in music. If you don't like it it doesn't make it crap. You don't have to justify not liking it by trying to make out it something to do with the way it's produced. If the Beatles write a song in 10 minutes they are geniuses, if you are Stock Aitken and waterman then you have no talent and have obviously thrown it together. In reality it doesn't matter how long it took. You either get it or you don't. I know someone who thinks the Beatles and the stones were crap by the way. And people look at him stupid because he dares to say it.
no...its not about taste. musicianship can be measured, assessed by experts, a songs impact can be seen through time on its influence on others. so on that count the beatles will always be miles superior to s/a/w. however, personal taste is different, anyone is free to like or dislike wtf they want. you dont have to like the beatles, but to deny their impact on music (ie calling them crap) just makes the person saying it look stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,631
|
Quote:
Watching the rundown of Pete's career on that **** Morgan show I was again struck by the thought that every single song he had a hand in was absolute crap stating with pass the duchie.
Or was he ever involved in anything good.? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,937
|
I'm 50/50 with the 'SAW were crap' argument.
I actually liked quite a lot of their songs, but a lot were rubbish, I agree. However, when they got it right, they got it very right IMO. 'Happenin' All Over Again' was a fantastic pop song & the album they made with Donna Summer, 'Another Place & Time' was brilliant. In fact 25 years on and it's still in my Top 10 albums of all time. The 3rd & 4th albums they recorded with Kylie weren't too shabby either if I'm honest. But it's all subjective based on personal tastes really isn't it? And on an unrelated note, if I was a singer, I'd rather have Pete Waterman in charge of my career than Simon Cowell. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
And on an unrelated note, if I was a singer, I'd rather have Pete Waterman in charge of my career than Simon Cowell. why? both are similar and would make you money... its like saying what would you sooner eat, dogsh1t or catsh1t.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 397
|
Loved the SAW era it made me discover british pop stars and got me interessed in import records charts
Sam fox, bananarama, rick astley, kylie, sonia, so many great songs still loved them to this day |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,937
|
Quote:
why? both are similar and would make you money... its like saying what would you sooner eat, dogsh1t or catsh1t..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7
|
[quote=mushymanrob; musicianship can be measured, assessed by experts.[/QUOTE]
I disagree, the sex pistols couldn't hold a note, but made some amazing music. Sting is a fine musician but tends to bore the pants off me. Once you consider people as experts in music you wander off into the relms of musical snobbery as far as I'm concerned. It's like those people who talk about songs or artists being a "guilty pleasure" which actually means "i like it but it wouldn't be cool to say so, so I have to be ashamed of myself for likening it". On the subject of influence. PWL were producing modern day cheesy pop/dance, long before anyone else. Simon cowell says that Pete Waterman is his biggest influence. And half the "crap" dance tracks in the charts are based on their ideas. So i do hope influence isn't all. Otherwise Simon Cowell might be considered good as well. In the end i still think...if it hits your ears and you like it, it's good. If you don't, it's crap. And I don't care who wrote/sung it, how long it took too record, how clever you are, what instruments you play, how brilliant your last song was or whether you're a new artists or a old one. Ps. You are right, I've never posted before. I'm actually laughing to myself that the subject of Pete waterman has got me writing. LOL. I'm not even a fan. I just have this thing about musical snobbery. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,755
|
Quote:
I disagree, the sex pistols couldn't hold a note, but made some amazing music. Sting is a fine musician but tends to bore the pants off me.
Once you consider people as experts in music you wander off into the relms of musical snobbery as far as I'm concerned. It's like those people who talk about songs or artists being a "guilty pleasure" which actually means "i like it but it wouldn't be cool to say so, so I have to be ashamed of myself for likening it". On the subject of influence. PWL were producing modern day cheesy pop/dance, long before anyone else. Simon cowell says that Pete Waterman is his biggest influence. And half the "crap" dance tracks in the charts are based on their ideas. So i do hope influence isn't all. Otherwise Simon Cowell might be considered good as well. In the end i still think...if it hits your ears and you like it, it's good. If you don't, it's crap. And I don't care who wrote/sung it, how long it took too record, how clever you are, what instruments you play, how brilliant your last song was or whether you're a new artists or a old one. Ps. You are right, I've never posted before. I'm actually laughing to myself that the subject of Pete waterman has got me writing. LOL. I'm not even a fan. I just have this thing about musical snobbery. but its an unfair comparison, because punk was about much more then music, and thats where the sex pistols get their regard from. as for snobbery.... i can see why it exists, you get trite , manufactured, three minute confetti tracks that say nothing...then you get a well crafted , composed, produced, track with a message... isnt one 'better' then the other? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:41.


