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 10:46:54 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. Other boybands write their own songs. Others play instruments. They innovated after a couple of years of singing silly love songs. Their image was initially dictated by management. Other boybands have been made of friends, and all tour initially to polish their act. They became infinitely more, but they started off in much the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Jaws the Shark on Apr 24, 2020 14:08:19 GMT -5
Sort of, but not entirely. The boy band didn't quite exist yet, and they don't fit all the criteria, but in a lot of ways they were an embryonic boy band with the carefully cultivated clean-cut image and the huge hype machine, I think they were one of the first times a musical group was more than just a musical group and became a whole brand to be marketed. Even after Epstein died and they became "artists" the hype machine and marketing of the Beatles brand continued, and is as strong as ever today. I'm both fascinated and extremely irritated by it.
A few of their contemporaries were the same, the Beach Boys' all-American surfer boy thing was another example of the carefully cultivated image so you could have the same discussion about whether or not they were also a boy band, but I'm not sure the hype machine was ever quite on the same scale as the Beatles. But I wasn't there so I might be wrong.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,294
|
Post by Fade on Apr 24, 2020 14:45:48 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! The most deadlocked poll in the history of this great sport!
|
|
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 17:57:49 GMT -5
Sort of, but not entirely. The boy band didn't quite exist yet, and they don't fit all the criteria, but in a lot of ways they were an embryonic boy band with the carefully cultivated clean-cut image and the huge hype machine, I think they were one of the first times a musical group was more than just a musical group and became a whole brand to be marketed. Even after Epstein died and they became "artists" the hype machine and marketing of the Beatles brand continued, and is as strong as ever today. I'm both fascinated and extremely irritated by it. A few of their contemporaries were the same, the Beach Boys' all-American surfer boy thing was another example of the carefully cultivated image so you could have the same discussion about whether or not they were also a boy band, but I'm not sure the hype machine was ever quite on the same scale as the Beatles. But I wasn't there so I might be wrong. Honestly, that's what I was getting at, were they One Direction? Hell no, but the elements were there and evolved over time, just like how you can trace the line from Diana Ross to Lizzo, are they the same? No, is one the originator of that style, that's a different argument.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,952
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 24, 2020 18:06:20 GMT -5
It boggles my mind that this thread is so close. Well, it’s because we’re arguing over minutiae. The Beatles were manufactured product. Just because that product happened to have insanely talented people in it doesn’t change the fact they were product as a group.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 25, 2020 1:09:36 GMT -5
In the literal sense, no. But they sure as hell were teen idols.
After watching the Boy Band Con documentary, you can’t say any of these groups didn’t earn their money. Much like the Beatles writing in the studio they busted their asses off getting their steps right.
|
|
SmashTV
Dennis Stamp
Big Money, Big Prizes, I Love It!
The Excellence of Allocation
Posts: 4,490
|
Post by SmashTV on Apr 25, 2020 3:50:38 GMT -5
No. Rightly or wrongly, I see boy bands as being specifically manufactured and having dance routines. While the Beatles had the mop top and suits image, they naturally evolved visually and musically in line with 60s culture. Boy bands are fairly generic, forgettable and disposable.
Granted, I’m a 44 year old childless Englishman, so I’m not the target demographic and have no boy bands in my life. Who am I to judge a boy band?
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Apr 25, 2020 7:49:15 GMT -5
No
I see boybands as Westlife, Five Boyzone etc. All singers snd dancers, not playing instruments. Sticking mostly to a specific style.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Apr 25, 2020 11:22:30 GMT -5
Sort of, but not entirely. The boy band didn't quite exist yet, and they don't fit all the criteria, but in a lot of ways they were an embryonic boy band with the carefully cultivated clean-cut image and the huge hype machine, I think they were one of the first times a musical group was more than just a musical group and became a whole brand to be marketed. Even after Epstein died and they became "artists" the hype machine and marketing of the Beatles brand continued, and is as strong as ever today. I'm both fascinated and extremely irritated by it. A few of their contemporaries were the same, the Beach Boys' all-American surfer boy thing was another example of the carefully cultivated image so you could have the same discussion about whether or not they were also a boy band, but I'm not sure the hype machine was ever quite on the same scale as the Beatles. But I wasn't there so I might be wrong. There were teen idols at the time, which were solo singers who were built much in the same fashion of boy bands, but boy bands as we think of them today weren't really a thing. I'm not sure if I would quite classify the Beach Boys in the same category, although they were most popular US band of the era, their popularity in the states preceded the Beatles. They definitely weren't merchandised as heavily as the Beatles, the Beatles had everything in 1964 that New Kids on the Block had in the late 80s, lunch boxes, t-shirts, dolls, you name it. Also, I would say the Beach Boys fanbase was slightly older, there were very popular with teenagers of both sexes, while the Beatles had a strong younger following. Not to say the Beatles weren't popular with teenage males and adults, but the crazed fans they heavily marketed to for merchandise and ticket sales were younger females. My father's favorite band was the Beatles and he was in high school, but he never went to their concerts because of the screaming female fans, so instead he saw the Beach Boys and Rolling Stones where you could actually hear and enjoy the concert. If anything, while I still consider them a boy band in the early years, at the very least they set the template up for boy bands in later years in terms of marketing and presentation.
|
|
|
Post by Jaws the Shark on Apr 25, 2020 11:51:55 GMT -5
Sort of, but not entirely. The boy band didn't quite exist yet, and they don't fit all the criteria, but in a lot of ways they were an embryonic boy band with the carefully cultivated clean-cut image and the huge hype machine, I think they were one of the first times a musical group was more than just a musical group and became a whole brand to be marketed. Even after Epstein died and they became "artists" the hype machine and marketing of the Beatles brand continued, and is as strong as ever today. I'm both fascinated and extremely irritated by it. A few of their contemporaries were the same, the Beach Boys' all-American surfer boy thing was another example of the carefully cultivated image so you could have the same discussion about whether or not they were also a boy band, but I'm not sure the hype machine was ever quite on the same scale as the Beatles. But I wasn't there so I might be wrong. There were teen idols at the time, which were solo singers who were built much in the same fashion of boy bands, but boy bands as we think of them today weren't really a thing. I'm not sure if I would quite classify the Beach Boys in the same category, although they were most popular US band of the era, their popularity in the states preceded the Beatles. They definitely weren't merchandised as heavily as the Beatles, the Beatles had everything in 1964 that New Kids on the Block had in the late 80s, lunch boxes, t-shirts, dolls, you name it. Also, I would say the Beach Boys fanbase was slightly older, there were very popular with teenagers of both sexes, while the Beatles had a strong younger following. Not to say the Beatles weren't popular with teenage males and adults, but the crazed fans they heavily marketed to for merchandise and ticket sales were younger females. My father's favorite band was the Beatles and he was in high school, but he never went to their concerts because of the screaming female fans, so instead he saw the Beach Boys and Rolling Stones where you could actually hear and enjoy the concert. If anything, while I still consider them a boy band in the early years, at the very least they set the template up for boy bands in later years in terms of marketing and presentation. Yeah, I think there was a certain degree of similarity with the Beach Boys but like you said, the Beach Boys never had the huge hype machine and were never a brand like the Beatles were, as evidenced by their waning commercial fortunes towards the end of the sixties whereas the Beatles remained the biggest band in the world.
This conversation has opened up a whole thing about the definition of a boyband, and at what point a band becomes a boy/girl band. I mean, it's a discussion that's been had many times before by various people, but could we consider the Sex Pistols a boyband in that to a large extent they were manufactured by Malcolm McLaren and where the main focus was on marketability and brand?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Apr 25, 2020 14:50:03 GMT -5
You can't consider them a boy band by TODAY'S standards, but early Beatles are ABSOLUTELY a boy band based on standards of that time.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Apr 25, 2020 14:56:45 GMT -5
You can't consider them a boy band by TODAY'S standards, but early Beatles are ABSOLUTELY a boy band based on standards of that time. Yeah, pretty much this. The intentions might have been “purer” back in the day but there was no way they weren’t catered to a young teenage girl audience in the ‘60s.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Apr 25, 2020 15:09:26 GMT -5
There were teen idols at the time, which were solo singers who were built much in the same fashion of boy bands, but boy bands as we think of them today weren't really a thing. I'm not sure if I would quite classify the Beach Boys in the same category, although they were most popular US band of the era, their popularity in the states preceded the Beatles. They definitely weren't merchandised as heavily as the Beatles, the Beatles had everything in 1964 that New Kids on the Block had in the late 80s, lunch boxes, t-shirts, dolls, you name it. Also, I would say the Beach Boys fanbase was slightly older, there were very popular with teenagers of both sexes, while the Beatles had a strong younger following. Not to say the Beatles weren't popular with teenage males and adults, but the crazed fans they heavily marketed to for merchandise and ticket sales were younger females. My father's favorite band was the Beatles and he was in high school, but he never went to their concerts because of the screaming female fans, so instead he saw the Beach Boys and Rolling Stones where you could actually hear and enjoy the concert. If anything, while I still consider them a boy band in the early years, at the very least they set the template up for boy bands in later years in terms of marketing and presentation. Yeah, I think there was a certain degree of similarity with the Beach Boys but like you said, the Beach Boys never had the huge hype machine and were never a brand like the Beatles were, as evidenced by their waning commercial fortunes towards the end of the sixties whereas the Beatles remained the biggest band in the world. This conversation has opened up a whole thing about the definition of a boyband, and at what point a band becomes a boy/girl band. I mean, it's a discussion that's been had many times before by various people, but could we consider the Sex Pistols a boyband in that to a large extent they were manufactured by Malcolm McLaren and where the main focus was on marketability and brand?
The thing with the Beatles is who they were heavily marketed to is similar to that of boy bands, completely unlike the Sex Pistols. But I would definitely say that Malcolm McLaren's manufacturing and marketing of the Sex Pistols made their image actually bigger than the band itself. It made the Sex Pistols the image of the British punk scene still to this day despite their short lifespan, where the Clash was the voice. An interesting topic though in it's own right.
|
|
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 25, 2020 15:38:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I think there was a certain degree of similarity with the Beach Boys but like you said, the Beach Boys never had the huge hype machine and were never a brand like the Beatles were, as evidenced by their waning commercial fortunes towards the end of the sixties whereas the Beatles remained the biggest band in the world. This conversation has opened up a whole thing about the definition of a boyband, and at what point a band becomes a boy/girl band. I mean, it's a discussion that's been had many times before by various people, but could we consider the Sex Pistols a boyband in that to a large extent they were manufactured by Malcolm McLaren and where the main focus was on marketability and brand?
The thing with the Beatles is who they were heavily marketed to is similar to that of boy bands, completely unlike the Sex Pistols. But I would definitely say that Malcolm McLaren's manufacturing and marketing of the Sex Pistols made their image actually bigger than the band itself. It made the Sex Pistols the image of the British punk scene still to this day despite their short lifespan, where the Clash was the voice. An interesting topic though in it's own right. The Sex Pistols are a harder template to follow, because they're basically going for the opposite market and a big part of that is authenticity. Especially in the internet age you wouldn't be able to fake that for very long. Plus on the business side there's the cost involved. There are 1000s of rock bands, so if you want to sign someone for that market, head to an open mic night or listen to demos. It's more effort to bring people together when there are loads of pre made bands, it's not like there's a big scene for unsigned pop acts so recruitment has to be a bit different.
|
|
|
Post by Jaws the Shark on Apr 25, 2020 15:45:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I think there was a certain degree of similarity with the Beach Boys but like you said, the Beach Boys never had the huge hype machine and were never a brand like the Beatles were, as evidenced by their waning commercial fortunes towards the end of the sixties whereas the Beatles remained the biggest band in the world. This conversation has opened up a whole thing about the definition of a boyband, and at what point a band becomes a boy/girl band. I mean, it's a discussion that's been had many times before by various people, but could we consider the Sex Pistols a boyband in that to a large extent they were manufactured by Malcolm McLaren and where the main focus was on marketability and brand?
The thing with the Beatles is who they were heavily marketed to is similar to that of boy bands, completely unlike the Sex Pistols. But I would definitely say that Malcolm McLaren's manufacturing and marketing of the Sex Pistols made their image actually bigger than the band itself. It made the Sex Pistols the image of the British punk scene still to this day despite their short lifespan, where the Clash was the voice. An interesting topic though in it's own right. Well, the Pistols were still marketed at teenagers, just a different type of teenager a decade or so later. But you're right, the image and the hype is bigger than them, and they are still (wrongly) viewed as the beginning and end of the first wave of British punk. I'd say the other candidates for the "voice" of punk rock in that period was a band like the Undertones, who I think really encapsulated the back to basics, accessible at every level ideals of punk rock. Kind of like that scene's equivalent to the Ramones, themselves a band who drew heavily influence from boy and girl bands despite their tough guy image.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Grimlock
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 14,477
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Apr 25, 2020 18:46:52 GMT -5
Joey Ramone said many times that when the Ramnones started he thought they were like the Bay City Rollers.
Now I was just 3 when the Pistols hit,but talking to older cousins who were in their late teens back then no one in the area knew that the Pistols were manufactured.
Kinda off topic but for me if we are talking the start of punk rock there is only 3 bands that should be mentioned.
Mc5-More of a protopunk band but still they inspired so many later punk bands. The STooges-The Ramones all started hanging out cause they were the only people in their area to like the STooges. Death-No not the metal band,the early 70s band from Michigan. They are either a very early punk band or just straight up a protopunk band. Glad they have finally gotten the fame they deserved.
|
|