|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 23, 2020 14:41:33 GMT -5
They played instruments. So nope.
|
|
|
Post by I'm Team Bayley and Indi on Apr 23, 2020 14:44:05 GMT -5
I guess they fit a lot of the criteria, but when I think of the first boy bands I think of a group like The Osmonds
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,084
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 23, 2020 15:02:53 GMT -5
They played instruments. So nope. As did Busted, McFly and 5 Seconds of Summer. Boy bands can play, they just normally don't. All VERY much boy bands.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Apr 23, 2020 15:14:47 GMT -5
I mean, the label forced John to hide the fact that he was married early on in order to allow them to market him as available to the girls. I mean, he never let the fact that he was married ever stop him anyways, but the point remains.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Apr 23, 2020 15:19:13 GMT -5
FWIW, my mom, who was right smack in the right age group when The Beatles came out and has always loved them, once told me she could relate to my love of BSB because of Beatlemania back in the day.
The paths and musical styles diverge, but there are clearly common links there; enough that I can see a person's argument for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 15:24:17 GMT -5
I'd say they absolutely do count as one.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,717
|
Post by Glitch on Apr 23, 2020 15:57:30 GMT -5
Didn't they start as a rowdy band who nailed condoms to walls of clubs they played? The clean cut image I think was after they got signed to a label. Plus handsome teen idols existed back in the 50s. Boy bands technically mimic acts that predate the Beatles. So I say they are not a boy band.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Apr 23, 2020 16:01:58 GMT -5
Rock band who went from bubblegum to evolve later on.
|
|
|
Post by Hurbster on Apr 23, 2020 16:11:02 GMT -5
Hell no.
|
|
Kyn
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by Kyn on Apr 23, 2020 16:17:17 GMT -5
They were boys (men) who were in a band, so yes, in the literal sense.
But "boy band" as current pop culture defines the term? No.
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Apr 23, 2020 17:04:22 GMT -5
So were the Beastie Boys a "boy band?"
|
|
thirteen3
Dennis Stamp
posted with a broken freakin neck keyboard
Posts: 3,803
|
Post by thirteen3 on Apr 23, 2020 17:17:57 GMT -5
When managed by Brian Epstein they certainly were.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,084
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 24, 2020 2:36:33 GMT -5
So were the Beastie Boys a "boy band?" Considering my points are about The Beatles' lyrical content, presentation, marketing, audience, reactions and tracing those elements through the decades to the modern version. And none of those apply to the Beastie Boys, nope. If someone could try to make an argument, I'd be amazed and interested.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 3:51:11 GMT -5
Boy bands are marketed towards young women (and gay men but that wouldn't really be evident til the 90s for reasons) and that was certainly the Beatles for their first 4 or 5 albums or so, from talking to people of my parents generation their fanbase of that time was overwhelmingly female with young men preferring The Rolling Stones and later The Who and The Small Faces. I think Rubber Soul was the point when they ceased being just sex symbols and began to attract a male following.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 7:51:04 GMT -5
If we are using the same standards, then Kiss is a boy band too.
And no way in hell am I agreeing to that.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Apr 24, 2020 8:26:11 GMT -5
Didn't they start as a rowdy band who nailed condoms to walls of clubs they played? The clean cut image I think was after they got signed to a label. Plus handsome teen idols existed back in the 50s. Boy bands technically mimic acts that predate the Beatles. So I say they are not a boy band. They did start out as a gritty rock band that dressed like greasers. But once they signed they got matching haircuts and suits to "clean up" their image. John had mixed feelings because he didn't want to change their image, but then he just thought about the money and agreed. I would still classify the Beatles as a boy band in their early years once they signed, purely because of how they were marketed, they wrote mostly love songs to accommodate that image and market themselves to prepubescent girls. Of course they evolved out of this, especially once they started experimenting with drugs, but 62'-64' I would definitely call them a boy band, despite writing their own songs and forming on their own, their image was created by someone else purely as a marketing tool with no ties to who they really were. It is why John envied the Rolling Stones so much, because they were allowed to keep their image and become the "anti-Beatles". I also think it is why after they broke up, John said he got sick of singing "She Loves You", and being a "Beatle" not John Lennon.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Apr 24, 2020 9:16:06 GMT -5
They wrote their own songs, played their own instruments, they INNOVATED rather than treading a well worn path dictated by their management or producer, they knew oneanother and toured extensively to become the polished act that got mainstream attention.
If your definition of a boyband is so broad as to include the Beatles then every band with a sizable female fanbase is a boyband.
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Apr 24, 2020 9:32:58 GMT -5
There are similarities between the British Invasion style bands and the boy bands/bubblegum pop of the early 2000s. Both genres saw groups that were in some cases created entirely by marketing teams--The Monkees for instance were literally a band created by a record label to have an American Beatles. Both movements, as well as every other movement you can think of from 50s rock to 80s hair metal had groups that were nothing but fluff and whose careers died out as soon as the next trend took hold, and groups that proved that they were more than just riders of a fad. The Beatles I think can safely fall into the latter category.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Apr 24, 2020 9:40:50 GMT -5
It boggles my mind that this thread is so close.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,084
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 24, 2020 10:41:33 GMT -5
It boggles my mind that this thread is so close. You're telling me, obviously, got my stance, but it's rare to see anything run this close on here!
|
|