question speaks 4 itself I guess.

I'd have to say in their 'love me do' period...i guess the could be.

perhaps...but only if you don't consider voice-modification as part of the definition of "boy band"...The Beatles were all-natural and had talent...unlike NKOTB, N'Sync, 98 Degrees, etc. whose only talent is looking pretty and "dancing"...

Well, they were boys and they were a band. So I guess you could say that they were a boy band.

funny...for some obscure reason i've been listening to nkotb quite a lot last few days. Must have bumped my head or something.

btw: i think (shoot me if you must) NSYNC has some talent in their ranks. JC had a great solo album. Justin seems able to write some songs of his own. Remember MJ started of in a boy-band, he did ok.

No. Because they could play. They were simply a "band".

kev1n said:

savoirfaire said:

i could actually feel that one

It's a common misnomer that just caught on with the general public to call N'Sync/Backstreet Boys, et al "Boy 'Bands.' " They're not bands at all, they're basically vocal groups. The Beatles were a band that started out playing a lot of cover songs, but quickly started to write all their own material.

Whether or not a group is a boyband has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they play instruments or write their own music. Hanson and The Moffatts did both, but no one would hesitate to call them a boyband. I think it all depends on the packaging. How they're marketed to the public, and how much they're expected to behave according to a certain image -whether it be the innocent, all-american boys-next-door of Backstreet Boys and *N SYNC, (And what a joke that turned out to be -certain boybanders who shall go unnamed bounced around in rehab for a while, got arrested, dated Paris Hilton *ew!*and various other less than wholesome activities.) or the *snicker* bad-ass, loud make-up wearing of KISS.



So were The Beatles a boyband? Post-Dylan? NO. Pre-Dylan? Probably.






Who'd like a Ringo pin-up?

The term "boy band" always annoys me, because when I think "band" I think people that actually play instruments as they perform. If that were the case, half the losers that are referred to as a boy band wouldn't actually fit the definition.

At any rate, the Beatles were young, probably boys, and they were a band. So technically? I guess so. But they grew to become a rock band. I know some people get sick of them, but I've never found them to be overrated.

RipHer2Shreds said:

What would you prefer? "Vocal Harmony Group" might work, but for some reason, that label is only ever affixed to a group whose members are black. They could be the boyband-iest group out there, but if the guys are black they more likely than not won't be referred to as such. But if the "boys" are white (or occasionally latino or italian) they're called a boyband.

Anyone have any input on why this is? 'Cause I sure as hell don't know why.

meow85 said:

These so-called boy bands today are in no way BANDS no matter how you look at it.

Supernova said:

Who said I was just talking about the recent boys? Besides, I never said they were BANDS, I said that the definition of a boyband has nothing to do with playing thier own instruments or writing their own music. Like I said, Hanson did both but they most definitely ARE a boyband.
To me, it's all about the marketing. A "real" band could be the most talented musicians and songwriters in the world, but if they have merchandise coming out their asses, are expected to, publicly at least, conform to a certain image set out by their management and PR teams, and all the members are male, then they are indeed a boyband.

I can think of quite a few groups off the top of my head that fit this definition at some point in their careers, and regardless of genre or varying degrees of talent, I think it's valid.

D-12
KISS
Insane Clown Posse
Good Charlotte (no shit...)
Blink-182
any of Marilyn Manson's various band-ly incarnations
Oasis (yeah, the Gallagher Bro's. probably actually *are* fuckheads, but there's no question it's played up for their image.)
Limp Bizkit
Rolling Stones
Korn
Metallica
and yes, The Beatles.

Hell, if Elvis was a duet, he'd have qualified too. Do a little research and you'll find Col. Parker was a helluva lot like one Mr. Lou Pearlman....


The Osbourne's would qualify, if not for Sharon and Kelly (though the vote's still up as to whether they're actually women or not )
[This message was edited Sat Jul 10 23:52:46 2004 by meow85]
[This message was edited Sun Jul 11 1:31:45 2004 by meow85]

meow85 said:

You when your post contained both N'Sync and Backstreet....

Supernova said:

Those were just examples. Substitue any boyband's name and you get the same meaning (including the eventual dissolve of their squeaky-clean image.)


How 'bout you go back and read what I had to say instead of nit-picking about which boyband you thought I meant?


Christ....boyband fans can hardly be accused of being the most intelligent people on the earth, but a good majority of people who rag on boybands don't seem all that intelligent either.

there is now way u can compare recent boybands with the Beatles!

The big difference between tham is that The Beatles we're friends who started a band, a band like NKOTB or Take that has been brought together by auditions.. No wonder they spilt up that soon, coz there is no natural magic in them as a clooective like the Beatles did have!

Also people calling Duran Duran a boy band, man I can shoot them! Also Duran Duran is a group a friends playing music together (and they still do) .. So boybands are just created bands.... with nothing in them but earning money as quick as they can...

So conclusion... No the Beatles (even in their Love me do period) are no boyband!

kev1n said:

yeah but J5 played the guitar and a child prodigy lead vocalist. and they were able to write songs too in late 70s

nobody in nsync has the voice. and about timberlake's song writing skills; i'm sure he added couple of words in those songs.

Justified is a Neptunes album featuring Justin

and to your question, as all beatles members were male, so yep u can call it a boy band.

mate, pls dont use Nsync in the same sentence with mj and beatles.
[This message was edited Sun Jul 11 6:55:04 2004 by LightOfArt]

LightOfArt said:

I'm not putting them in the same cathegory as the beatles or MJ. I was just trying to pint out that you can't tell if some-one has potential by the early stages in their career. Would you have guessed George Michael would be the artist he is today after you first heard 'wake me up b4 you go go' ?

greetz
Kev1n

meow85 said:

And those were the examples I used from your post.
It's not important enough to get one's panties in a bunch.
`
[This message was edited Sun Jul 11 11:30:54 2004 by Supernova]

Some people are so sensitive when it comes to these labels.

But, whether a musical group or vocal group....many groups did start off with the label of being a boyband. Go back into history and see how many legendary groups were dismissed by critics and called a boyband. The Rolling Stones were one.

The Beatles, when they came out were quickly dismissed by critics, then they became THE BEATLES, and changed musical history.

The Jackson 5 were a boyband. I remember as a kid when they competed against The Osmonds.

There's nothing wrong with being a boyband, hell, you've got to start someplace.

"Boy Bands" oo me are a group pf kids or teens singing and dancing. The Jackson 5 are the greatest Boy Band of All-Time. They could do it all, sing, dance, play music, write, (although as the Jacksons, but Randy and Michael were not yet grown) produce their own music. The Osmonds and New Edition come in 2nd and third. Also B2K and Hanson are 4th and 5th. I don't consider *N'Sync and Backstreet Boys as "Boy Bands" because they were put together as a group by producers, managers. They did not know each other as kids like the rest of these groups, they were an act.

kev1n said:

oh i got ur point

LittleBLUECorvette said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Auditon or lifelong long friends, (or brothers) does it matter? The end result is the same. Some "lifelong friends" type boybands are crap, and some "audition" boybands are not that bad. Obviously, neither can be compared to a band that plays instruments, writes their own music, etc., but there are some boybands, both old and new, who are not that bad at what they do. It has to be kept in context. Regardless of what you think of newer boybands, you can't say they don't work fucking hard at what they do. Singing and dancing every night a week is hard work, even if you're really only just okay at it.

BTW, before you get into saying all the newer boybands don't do anything but sing assigned songs, check the credits on a few albums. They certainly don't do everything, but many times you'll find the individual members of any given group have written songs, arranged music, played instruments in the studio.




I'm amazed that the "our music is great and the new music is shit" attitude extends even to boybands. Some people....

well, you could on their first 2 albums.. I mean, yes they played the instruments, wrote a majority of their early work.. But i'd most importantly just call them a band who did what they were told at first, and grew into what they wanted to be...

Sdldawn said:

That's what I've been trying to say. Earlier on in their career, The Beatles were a boyband. As time went on, they grew to be better artists and a "real" band.

If you're using the "boy band" label in a derogatory way, no.

If you mean that they were boys in a band, then that's a truism.

VoicesCarry said:

I think boybands in general get a lot shit they don't deserve. They may not (for the most part, anyway) play instruments or write music, but I imagine it's a lot of fucking hard work, regardless. If you don't think it is, you get up and sing and dance two hours a night, every day of the week, for even a month. Not an easy task, whether you're really good at it,or just okay.

So I'd never use the term "boyband" as an insult. Not exactly a compliment either, but not an insult. Just a statement.

What I don't understand is people who get upset when you refer to a "real" band as a boyband. Were the Beatles boys? Check. In a musical group of some form? Check. Did they, at least in the earlier part of their career, conform to an image set up by their management and play relatively simple, formula music? Check. So they were a boyband for a while. Big fucking deal. People shouldn't get their panties in a twist because I dared compare them to any other group of boys in a band who did what they were told to do.
[This message was edited Mon Jul 12 16:14:54 2004 by meow85]

meow85 said:

This says it all and this is the difference between a "boy band" and musicians who wrote and played music. If you don't belive me trying playing a guitar and singing, you can't. It's more than hard work and it takes more than being a mouseketeer to do. It takes talent, which time has told us boy bands haven't stood the test of.

"Panties in a wad" is just some funny words together, people are trying to educate you because one can't buy a clue.

Slave2daGroove said:

[This message was edited Tue Jul 13 22:41:39 2004 by meow85]
[This message was edited Tue Jul 13 22:42:05 2004 by meow85]
[This message was edited Tue Jul 13 22:43:30 2004 by meow85]