Were The Beatles a boy band?

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Just had this discussion come up in a Facebook group, thought I'd ask it here too.

To me, there's just no doubt that they were, the only argument I've really seen is some variation on them being too good, which is pretty snobby.

They played their own instruments? Other boy bands have.

They wrote their own songs? Others have.

They knew each other before? Others have.

Pretty much every boy band has been an attempt to replicate them, from The Monkees to One Direction with various levels of corporate interference.

While they evolved, they started out as 4 cute guys singing silly love songs getting girls screaming and passing out.

What say you FAN?

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

Boy-bands are a very specific thing. The NKOTB are the template. The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, evolved their sound drastically over the years and while they were handsome lads it wasn't the central feature of their appeal. It was always the songs. They also didn't dance around on stage, and their music sounds nothing like the EDM-influenced bubblegum pop that boy-bands play. Calling the Beatles a boy-band is reductive as hell. And I say this as a guy whose not even a huge Beatles fan.

[Hit Girl]

No

[Ultimo Gallos]

The were a boy band. Then morphed into something else. Seems like the first boy band most people mention is the Bay City Rollers.

[Perpetual Nirvana]

To begin with maybe but the evolved past it.

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

Apr 23, 2020 12:09:15 GMT -5 Ultimo Gallos said:

The were a boy band. Then morphed into something else. Seems like the first boy band most people mention is the Bay City Rollers.

I think there were some embryonic quasi-boy bands like the Rollers or The Monkees (who, if we're going to create a patient zero, are probably the safest bet) but even then these guys weren't quite it. The earliest true boy bands are probably something akin to a Japanese idol group but to me it wasn't really born out as something you can point out and say "that's a boy band"until New Edition showed up.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 23, 2020 12:13:17 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

Apr 23, 2020 12:09:15 GMT -5 Ultimo Gallos said:

The were a boy band. Then morphed into something else. Seems like the first boy band most people mention is the Bay City Rollers.

I think there were some embryonic quasi-boy bands like the Rollers or The Monkees (who, if we're going to create a patient zero, are probably the safest bet) but even then these guys weren't quite it. The earliest true boy bands are probably something akin to a Japanese idol group but to me it wasn't really born out as something you can point out and say "that's a boy band"until New Edition showed up.

That's why my point of view is it's an evolution.

You had The Monkees, specifically made to be like the Beatles, just with management picking the songs, not letting them play, made it more about the image.

That went through the 70s as to appeal to that same market, the music, the instruments became less important, till they did away with them entirely. Since the guys have to do something and look good, they dance.

It's the same teeny bopper market, same formula just evolving over decades with changing tastes.

And obviously I'm talking about early Beatles here, I'm shocked their early songs haven't been updated and covered, because you can see pretty much every boyband singing songs like "Love Me Do"

Apr 23, 2020 12:01:22 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

while they were handsome lads it wasn't the central feature of their appeal. It was always the songs. They also didn't dance around on stage, and their music sounds nothing like the EDM-influenced bubblegum pop that boy-bands play.

I'd also say this is a very modern view. The boys were VERY much the focus, it was like Spice Girls for guys in the 90s, who's your favourite, John, the funny one, Paul, the cute one etc. Hell, they famously stopped playing live because the music was inaudible, so the music was never the main focus.

As for the style of music, well of course a band in the 60s didn't play anything with an EDM influence. Neither did ones in the 70s, 80s or 90s. You got guys who girls liked, and they sing love sings to girls in the style of the era.

[Mr PONYMANIA Mr Jenzie]

boy bands are basically singers
the beatles played stuff

therefore computer says NO

but tell the screaming girlies THAT at the time .....

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 23, 2020 12:25:12 GMT -5 Mr PONYMANIA Mr Jenzie said:

boy bands are basically singers
the beatles played stuff

therefore computer says NO

but tell the screaming girlies THAT at the time .....

What about 5 Seconds of Summer? Busted? McFly?

They most often don't, but boy bands can play instruments sometimes.

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

Apr 23, 2020 12:19:46 GMT -5 Futureraven: Beelzebruv said:

Apr 23, 2020 12:13:17 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

I think there were some embryonic quasi-boy bands like the Rollers or The Monkees (who, if we're going to create a patient zero, are probably the safest bet) but even then these guys weren't quite it. The earliest true boy bands are probably something akin to a Japanese idol group but to me it wasn't really born out as something you can point out and say "that's a boy band"until New Edition showed up.

That's why my point of view is it's an evolution.

You had The Monkees, specifically made to be like the Beatles, just with management picking the songs, not letting them play, made it more about the image.

That went through the 70s as to appeal to that same market, the music, the instruments became less important, till they did away with them entirely. Since the guys have to do something and look good, they dance.

It's the same teeny bopper market, same formula just evolving over decades with changing tastes.

And obviously I'm talking about early Beatles here, I'm shocked their early songs haven't been updated and covered, because you can see pretty much every boyband singing songs like "Love Me Do"

Apr 23, 2020 12:01:22 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

while they were handsome lads it wasn't the central feature of their appeal. It was always the songs. They also didn't dance around on stage, and their music sounds nothing like the EDM-influenced bubblegum pop that boy-bands play.

I'd also say this is a very modern view. The boys were VERY much the focus, it was like Spice Girls for guys in the 90s, who's your favourite, John, the funny one, Paul, the cute one etc. Hell, they famously stopped playing live because the music was inaudible, so the music was never the main focus.

As for the style of music, well of course a band in the 60s didn't play anything with an EDM influence. Neither did ones in the 70s, 80s or 90s. You got guys who girls liked, and they sing love sings to girls in the style of the era.

I can see what you're saying butt I still disagree so I guess we're at an impasse lol. I have a very specific definition of what a boy band is. To me a boy band is a band that was created first and foremost by executives strictly as a marketing tool, who don't play their own instruments, incorporate dancing into their act to the point where it's just as important as the music and play poppy electronic based bubblegum music to be listened to and disposed of (please don't take this to be disrespect of boy bands, I actually think quite highly of some boy band music, it just is what it is). There were proto-boy bands that existed before the 80s and the Beatles had a few superficial qualities that put them in that group, but they just don't belong there, no more than the Rolling Stones or the Beach Boys did. I mean... it's like calling Slayer a black metal band just because they influenced it and had a few superficial similarities to the first wave black metal bands.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

If your definition is that then cool, yeah we're never going to agree on this.

Still like a good debate

[Milkman Norm]

Apr 23, 2020 12:01:22 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

Boy-bands are a very specific thing. The NKOTB are the template. The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, evolved their sound drastically over the years and while they were handsome lads it wasn't the central feature of their appeal. It was always the songs. They also didn't dance around on stage, and their music sounds nothing like the EDM-influenced bubblegum pop that boy-bands play. Calling the Beatles a boy-band is reductive as hell. And I say this as a guy whose not even a huge Beatles fan.

The mostly did covers from 1960-early 64 when they were the most boy bandy. The "Beatlemania" craze that hit the UK & later the US was largely driven by covers and the simple pop songs Paul & John wrote. Now by '65 the label no longer applies imo. But before that? Absolutely.

[Perd]

Only in a very literal sense where they a boy band. As they were young man, in a band, that young girls liked. Making music that young girls liked. But the term “boy band” has come to mean pre-manufactured. They’re put together specifically to appe to teenage girls. And the Beatle weren’t that.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 23, 2020 12:51:20 GMT -5 Perd said:

Only in a very literal sense where they a boy band. As they were young man, in a band, that young girls liked. Making music that young girls liked. But the term “boy band” has come to mean pre-manufactured. They’re put together specifically to appe to teenage girls. And the Beatle weren’t that.

To me, that's because of shifts in culture, partly due to trying to recreate The Beatles.

For the time, they were manufactured. The band was a band, but the image, the hair, the suits, all looking the same, that was designed by Epstein to appeal to the mainstream.

Then other managers manufactured a bit more, a bit more to turn it into what we have now.

The Beatles were early enough and successful enough to be able to break away from that, but they weren't 100% authentic either.

[Fade is a CodyCryBaby]

Apr 23, 2020 12:01:22 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

Boy-bands are a very specific thing. The NKOTB are the template. The Beatles wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, evolved their sound drastically over the years and while they were handsome lads it wasn't the central feature of their appeal. It was always the songs.They also didn't dance around on stage, and their music sounds nothing like the EDM-influenced bubblegum pop that boy-bands play. Calling the Beatles a boy-band is reductive as hell. And I say this as a guy whose not even a huge Beatles fan.

Was that really the case? I only ask because I wasn’t around but on every clip I’ve seen that’s covered the explosion of the band, the obsession girls had with them is always hammered in.

[4real]

Of their time I would say yes just there were different definitions back then. The Monkees were obviously a more manufactured example from that period but The Beatles were absolutely marketed to the same crowd that NKOTB & Backstreet Boys would be decades later.

I think each decade has had sort of manufactured bands or bands that appeal to a young audience but I’m thinking it only became an embarrassing term in say the 90’s correct me if I’m wrong. Like say for example would new romantic groups of the 80’s like Duran Duran & Spandeu Ballet be classed as boy bands? Sex Pistols were put together would they be classed as one despite the heavier nature of the music?

[Perd]

Apr 23, 2020 12:57:25 GMT -5 Futureraven: Beelzebruv said:

Apr 23, 2020 12:51:20 GMT -5 Perd said:

Only in a very literal sense where they a boy band. As they were young man, in a band, that young girls liked. Making music that young girls liked. But the term “boy band” has come to mean pre-manufactured. They’re put together specifically to appe to teenage girls. And the Beatle weren’t that.

To me, that's because of shifts in culture, partly due to trying to recreate The Beatles.

For the time, they were manufactured. The band was a band, but the image, the hair, the suits, all looking the same, that was designed by Epstein to appeal to the mainstream.

Then other managers manufactured a bit more, a bit more to turn it into what we have now.

The Beatles were early enough and successful enough to be able to break away from that, but they weren't 100% authentic either.

Fair points. But I’m not saying the Beatles were 100% authentic. I’d argue that any act, with the backing of a major record label, can’t be 100% authentic. What I am arguing is the Beatle don’t fit into my interpretation of the term boy band. And that is admittedly a bias on my part. When I hear boy band, I think Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC. Acts that were put together by an outside force for the express purpose of appealing to teenage girls. And, again, that’s not what the Beatles were. Their origi is no different than any other bands. They met, formed a group, and gigged their asses off until they got discovered. All that hair and suit stuff came after that. That’s why to me, in this context, there’s a difference between manufactured and pre-manufactured.

[hassanchop]

They were teen sensations. Just like Elvis was in the 50s. The proto-Beatles had a rebellious greaser look trying to emulate Elvis before they became the Beatles and they drank beer a lot. If they're a boy band, does that make the Platters and The Five Saints boy bands?

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 23, 2020 13:57:39 GMT -5 Perd said:

Apr 23, 2020 12:57:25 GMT -5 Futureraven: Beelzebruv said:

To me, that's because of shifts in culture, partly due to trying to recreate The Beatles.

For the time, they were manufactured. The band was a band, but the image, the hair, the suits, all looking the same, that was designed by Epstein to appeal to the mainstream.

Then other managers manufactured a bit more, a bit more to turn it into what we have now.

The Beatles were early enough and successful enough to be able to break away from that, but they weren't 100% authentic either.

Fair points. But I’m not saying the Beatles were 100% authentic. I’d argue that any act, with the backing of a major record label, can’t be 100% authentic. What I am arguing is the Beatle don’t fit into my interpretation of the term boy band. And that is admittedly a bias on my part. When I hear boy band, I think Backstreet Boys and *NSYNC. Acts that were put together by an outside force for the express purpose of appealing to teenage girls. And, again, that’s not what the Beatles were. Their origi is no different than any other bands. They met, formed a group, and gigged their asses off until they got discovered. All that hair and suit stuff came after that. That’s why to me, in this context, there’s a difference between manufactured and pre-manufactured.

Also fair, but I'd say that's how the format evolved.

There are exceptions to the manufactured rule, 5 Seconds of Summer were friends making youtube videos, McFly were made up of people who met through failing auditions for other boybands, the equivalent of meeting people through other bands gigging around.

The being put specifically put together, that only really became a thing because of attempts to recreate the Beatles, which talks more to the time than the act.

There are differences sure, but the end goal and the presentation is the same, just presented as a reflection of the era.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Apr 23, 2020 14:09:47 GMT -5 hassanchop said:

They were teen sensations. Just like Elvis was in the 50s. The proto-Beatles had a rebellious greaser look trying to emulate Elvis before they became the Beatles and they drank beer a lot. If they're a boy band, does that make the Platters and The Five Saints boy bands?

Well, both of those bands have had female members

But it'd be interesting to see how far back those roots can stretch, at least to my mind, the earlier influences were more seriously aimed at a more adult audience. The 50s teen acts tended to be a singer like Elvis, or a lead singer with a band, so it was 1 star, and the others. Bill Haley AND The Comets, Cliff Richard AND The Shadows.