im so excited im gonna wet my knickers, my mum has agreed to get me a couple of tickets when they are released for my 30th :yahoo: :yahoo: Rich said he would would rather put his todger in a plug socket than go though :( i might do a ballot on here to see which lucky poster gets to see the legends with me :bow: :bow: :bow:

SPICE GIRLS!!!!!! :bow: :bow: :bow: :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh dear my earlier youth is coming out now... used to love them, other than ugly, can't sing can't dance Posh (put a paper bag over her head! roflmao )

Anyone remember the movie roflmao

I'm with Rich - it would be like pushing your bellend through the bar of a ferret's cage AND being asked to contribute to scary spice's pension fund for the privilege of so doing.

No thanks - but good luck in finding a companion.

I'm with Rich on that one Liam! In fact I'd go so far as to saw finger in a plug socket and head in the oven! Sorry! roflmao

If you like em go though and I'm sure you'll have a great time. I could not go as I woudl never live down the shame with my mates:D I'll ask George if he is free, he just loves the Spice Girls ;)

roflmao roflmao roflmao

I was thinking of something similar in the male genitalia department as to what might be stuck in the plug socket but felt I had best not say it! roflmao

i presume they will not be jaunting to north america on this cash-grab reunion tour :(

i stand corrected. i see they will launch in la and play vegas and new york. surprise surprise, no canadian dates. my boyfriend will be pissed :angry: :angry:

the tour should be bad, but i'd still go...

come on CC, spice up your lives :P :yahoo: :yahoo:

:blink:

Although i remember being gutted when Geri announced she was leaving.
And thinking about it, I reckon it would be quite a good cheesy tour. Is it definately on?

i think they are making an official announcement later today. I remember last halloween, me and some of the lads at work dressed up as the spice girls and did a few numbers on stage for breast cancer charity, it was hilarious. i have it on the pc but its too long for me to put it on youtube. does anyone know how to shorten the file?

If you and your mates go on stage as the Spice Girls I'll DEFINITLEY come along! I bet you are better dancers and singers than the Spice Girls too! roflmao

we were quite hilarious!!! poor Scott who is 21 stone, we dressed him up in a mini dress and blonde wig for baby spice. i was posh but looked more like morticia adams roflmao

Use Windows Movie Maker

You should have it in Start > All Programs > and I think Accessories

Open up the file in there and you can shorten it.
Are you sure it is too long? Youtube accepts upto 10 mins? Can you fit that many Zig a Zig aaa's in 10 mins? :D

no its about 12 minutes. one of the customers filmed it for us and i tried emailing to someone, the computer crashed :unsure:

roflmao

I think I saw the pictures, they were realyl good :D

Unfortunately I'm too old for the Spice Girls,but can't help wondering how big their repertoire can be?Saw them on the news this evening and looking at old footage conclude that Victoria has definitely had implants and Geri has had her frown lines ironed out in some way(Botox?)
Amazing they're still around considering how little talent they have.Saw Genesis a couple of weeks ago in Bern.Talented musicains who wrote their own material.Can any of the Spice Girls actually sing?Know Mel C. can,but it's incredible what you can get away with and earn a fortune from with relatively good looks and a lot of (self) promotion.

I'd rather stick pins in my eyes....... :P

STOP right now, thank you very much!

whooooooo do you think you are?? roflmao roflmao roflmao

#If you wanna be my arsder# roflmao roflmao

when 2 become 1...

talent is found in the most unusual of places. They havent got opera style voices, but thet have stage presence. they cant play guitar like Jimi Hendrix, but they can dance. I seen them live the first time around and they create an electicity that most bands cant. It pisses me off when people say they are talentless, after all, if they can command £10m each for one tour and an album, someone must think they are talented. And they do actually write their own lyrics

Please!!! You can not seriously be happy about this news? :yikes:

You can't call them talentless - for two years they had a big hold on music in this country and were a massive success, that is undeniable.

Sporty and Baby were the best singers for me...

Hey this was a very important phase and stage of my life roflmao

You'd take an inch, i'd run a mile...

Sorry but I still think they're overrated and overpaid(like a lot of so-called celebs).I'm sure most of us could manage to write the odd lyric and are they actually singing in their concerts or is it all play-back?However have to admit that Emma impressed me with her dancing on 'Strictly' and ought to have won really. :D

roflmao roflmao roflmao

They had loads of hits but I struggle to name more than 4 most if the time.

I could write better lyrics. I'd challenge them on that too. B)

:lmaao:
:lmaao:

Oh boy.. criticising the Spice Girls is aiming for a rather soft target isn't it?

I mean.. they're a teeny pop band..!!

I think that Mel C and Mel B can both sing.. and I don't know about Emma Bunton, but if she gave a good account of herself on some reality show then fair enough.

The hit singles were actually pretty good pop, and they were fun to have around while they lasted. They weren't bland, that's for sure!

There should be some space for this sort of stuff. It's just that when there are :

a. pale imitations of this sort of group around;
b. too many of such pale imitations.

That's when I get annoyed.

Also I would prefer to aim my ire at those in the music business who declare themselves 'worthy artists' but are up there own a**e' as it were..

I know what you mean but I personally though they were dire. They were OK for girls aged 8-12 I guess. I'd hate it if I had kids and they listened to that though. :rolleyes: They were soooo manufactured and you could tell they coudl nto sing. I think their singing improved as they progressed, but an artist worth their salt should be able to sing in the first place. The only one I conisder mildly talented is the sporty one, although I would not buy her stuff. The others all just have really ba dor really weak voices. The worst thing to come out of tsi is their solo records. How bad was Victorias? Scary was crap too, Geri was embarrassing and trying to eb Madonna, Baby's voice is just so weak, she sucked that Edie Brickell song of all it's energy.

they were entertainers though SB, not singers. Madonna hasnt the greatest voice, but she blows away all the competition with her shows. I couldnt think of anything worse than sitting through a Maria Scarey warble fest. There is more to being a popstar than having a good voice

The version of the Edie Brickell song is another one to add to the list of pointless cover versions.. ;)

i'm just saying that teeny pop has always been manufactured. it's as old as the hills.. well since the 1950s anyway. It can be viewed as a necessary evil by some, and in moderationis absoltuely fine.

Imagine the charts without some pop music? It would be like reading Q magazine, boring, worthy and dull..

And tbh in general manufactured pop has actually been worse since the demise of those Spice Girls.

Musically I won't go there.Are the Spice Girls planning any new material?
I ask this because if you compare them to say Take That who did mostly light and breezy pop,but then came back and had written new stuff.They showed their greater maturity and that Gary had changed his writing style,and also his was willing to share this with the others.
This for me was why it worth them coming back,because it was a contrast to their old days,kind of a journey.

I just wonder what is the point if the girls come back and pedal out the old hits just for Ten million pound each,which is the money being estimated from a world tour.
Apparently they earned this each from their whole career,last time out.

Obviously the monetary rewards are great to a pop star,but it smacks of take the money,not of love of the music.

I couldn't sit throgh Mariah either, I don't enjoy her voice. :) I know what you mean about being entertaining WITHOUT the need for a great voice. Yes it happens, but the Spice Girls just don't do it for me. Sorry to drag on about the voices, but the fact that there were five crap singers made it worse - the could have at least had 2 strong singers and a couple of Andrew Ridgely types and then it wouldn't have been so bad. :D I like music by people who can't technically sing e.g. punk but that stood for something different and was original and daring. I don't find the Spices fit that for me, of course there is "Girl Power" but I thnk we'd already had a wealth of female artists putting women on the map before they were born so that is all old hat to me. And 'girl bands" have been going since at least 1950.

I'm surprised you named your idol Madonna :o She isn't the greatest singer on the planet but she can sing quite well IMO and she manages to sing well live and solo too. :D I did see Madonna live once and was shocked at how good she was as an all round entertainer, I really enjoyed it. She is not to everyone's taste, I don't like all her stuff, but I feel her presence as an artist is justified so much more than the Spice Girls. If they entertain people and they enjoy then, then that's fair enough :ok: But they are bound to cause a negative reaction from people who really love thie rmusic and have been into a huge variety of music of a long number of years, myself included. :)

I agree, there has been so much manufactured music aimed at teenagers (and adults nowadays dare I say!) and that si fair enough. But some si better than others, and after all those years I'd have expected them to come up with better than the Spice Girls.

Going back to when I was a kid, I'm trying to think of who were the big bands aimed at kids. From when I was about 7-8 I remember The Osmaonds and The Jackson 5 being the big ones. They were nto so manufactured as they were family acts who'd sung together for years. They were also talented, could sing and play/dance, had new songs (although there were some covers) and had long careers, some memebers of which are still doing well now. I's say these 2 acts in particular justified their place in music much better than the Spices. The other rivals to them were David Cassidy, who loads of girls fancied, but he wasn't too bad - I believe he could sing - and the Bay City Rollers, who were not in the same league and were manufactured. I don't think they were that great at singing and playing, but at least that stuck some instruments in front of them. :D They did have their own sound, although it was derivative of glamrock and rock and roll that was around at the time. I do hear their songs now and then and enjoy it, but I think that's the nostalgia - they were one of the big pop acts that were played durign the logn hto Summer of '76 when we all hung out at the pool all day and had lots of picnics and outdorr events, so it takes me back to that. I guess they are as close to the Spices as I can think of from my youth. Anyway I was listening to load sof stuff from the 60s that my parents liked so was being retro even at the age of 5.

Another act I remember appealing to kids back then was Gary Glitter - my parents used to buy his stuff for us - but let's not go there on him :yikes: I think it was pretty much glamrock - T-Rex, Suzi Quatro, Slade, Bowie, Wizzard, Glitter, Alice Cooper, and stuff I would day was the order of the day for school kids back then. Most of that stuff though is nto considered tenny bop music. T-Rex and Bowie for e.g. have a serious adult following and are highly respected for their contribution to music.

Gosh typing this has taken me back a few years! :D B)

I think that it's a fair assessment that the quality of those manufactured bands has declined, and it's certainly feasible that the Spice Girls were poor compared to those before them. I guess that I'm also thinking that they don't seem that poor compared to what came after them!

Just thinking back to manufactured bands in decades gone by, yes, there were definitely a few.. just not as many as there has been in the last decade or so!

I think that I would differentiate between teen pop and manufactured teen pop. A good example of the difference is Duran Duran and Bucks Fizz. The first was actually a proper band that bought into the teen market, the second conjured out of nothing via auditions.

It is interesting thinking back also to Motown which were one of the ultimate creators of manufactured pop. I actually think that whilst the output of Motown was fantastic, considering what they were doing (it was ostensibly a music factory, creating products), sadly they provided a blueprint for many vastly inferior versions in later years.

An example of this is Stock Aitken and Waterman, who effectively tried to recreate Motown, but without quite the talent at their disposal (understatement of the year, I know). The likes of Simon Napier-Bell and Simon Cowell also emerged with this approach.

I'd say that the rise of manufactured pop to what it has beccome now started in the late 80s, in part thanks to Stock Aitken and Waterman. Apart from their roster, there was also Bros, Milli Vanilli, New Kids on the Block

Perhaps inspired by that, the Spice Girls, Boyzone, Take That, Backstreet Boys emerged in the 90s. Definitely a far cry from manufactured bands right up to the early to mid 80s, where I'm struggling to think of any that were so brazenly artificial and more than a little faceless.

Then in the last 10 years, Hearsay, S Club 7, Five, Blue, Steps, NSync, etc etc. Many many more! Just as with the Stock Aitken and Waterman music, a generic sound, and perhaps even less memorable songs.

At least in the 50s to early 80s, manufactured pop didn't seem to have dominated the pop landcape. It was also in sufficiently small numbers to be readily identifiable. In the 60s, the Monkees, the 70s, the Bay City Rollers, 80s Bow Wow Wow(!) Also, it was actually enjoyed and taken as the fun that it was meant to be. A bit like eating some candy floss now and again. Too much of it and you might feel a little queasy.

So tracking it back, it seems to me that manufactured pop has grown so much since the mid 80s that it resulted in pop actually being more true to its perceived definition of being throwaway, unmemorable, superficial, a product to be consumed, effectively. This was what people had thought that the likes of the Beatles and Elvis were to be (and of course wrongly!).

Pop became the actual thing that its detractors said that it was all along. And unsurprisingly then that people have lost interest, as shown by the demise of TOTP, Smash Hits, etc.

So, in that timeline, Spice Girls might not have a stellar place, but were probably the better of a bad bunch that makes up the last 10 years. I couldn't regonise a single song by the likes of A1 or Blue for example (and I think that they must have had double figures of number one records), and if pop music churned out has no hooks then its days were surely numbered :(

:ok:

Fair dues to the Spice Girls, I wouldn't choose to go see them, but if they want to come back for a tour then they should as they were integral to 90s pop.