true dat.fogofideas wrote:can we just get it out of the way that a lot of men, young and old/townie or goth, really like girls aloud- even if as time passes and the lustre of the girls' recorded output diminishes and the patina of relevance and 'nowness' seems to discolour and fade, men will gather on internet forums and casually mention girls aloud as if in anticipation of a 'no way! you like them? my god, you've got catholic tastes! you must surely be down with youth in a way that I, a stuffy old trad jazzer, cannot even begin to get my head around' perhaps failing to appreciate that 14 year old's these days probably view girls aloud as a bunch of old aunts, more the preserve of the 30+ hen party than the school playground and you might as well be mentioning mungo jerry or alvin stardust for all the 'shock of the new' their name can conjure these days
i thought the singles from Girls Aloud's first three albums were ace. I can't think of anything they've done in recent years that's been as good as the first 10-12 singles, but to my mind they were great pop records.
For some reason there seems to be some sort of universal acceptance of Girls Aloud, in a way that the likes of Busted, McFly, S Club 7 or Daphne & Celeste could never get. Which is a bit strange as they're all ace too. But they've acquired some degree of tastefulness and (as Andy says) acceptability, as though they're the 'thinking man's manufactured pop group' somehow. Hence discussions about how good Xenomania are as a writing/production team, to the extent that Xenomania may as well just be the actual group.
But either way, the songs are credited to Girls Aloud, and they sing them (if unspectacularly).
I think they're good, basically.
(NB you'll never understand because of your interest in Cole Porter, or something)