New topic
PrintableThe Sex Pistols would definetely qualify as a boy band. They were manufactured, had a fake attitude designed to pander to their mindless fans, and had shit all talent. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: Slave2daGroove said: This says it all and this is the difference between a "boy band" and musicians who wrote and played music. Hanson and The Moffats played and wrote. By your definition, they weren't boybands. If you don't believe 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. Playing instruments *well* is more than just hard work, true. But look at the Sex Pistols -a "real" band, but they couldn't play for shit. So what's your point? But like I said, whether you're good at something or bad at it -whether it's playing guitar or choreographed dancing -if you have to do it every night a week, it *does* take a lot of hard work. You don't think so? You try either one for even a month. It takes talent, which time has told us boy bands haven't stood the test of.Time has told us boybands don't stand the test of talent? "Panties in a wad" is just some funny words together, people are trying to educate you because one can't buy a clue. You do know people usually only resort to insults when they're losing an argument, right? I'm not sure where your problem with my statements lie, as I'm only following things to the logical conclusion. If you think that was an insult or that we were even having an "argument", you're dillusional. Sure, the Beatles were a boy band and so were the Sex Pistols, it's all very "logical". Good Luck | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: VoicesCarry said: 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. 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] 
You're in a boy band aren't you? "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MrSquiggle said: The Sex Pistols would definetely qualify as a boy band. They were manufactured, had a fake attitude designed to pander to their mindless fans, and had shit all talent.
That was my point exactly. But by your criteria, they can't possibly have been a boyband, because they played their own instruments. Same with Hanson and The Moffats. I'm not saying they're good, I'm just following your reasoning to it's logical conclusion. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
minneapolisgenius said: meow85 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]
You're in a boy band aren't you? Nope. Being female and smart enough not to work for Lou Pearlman, I don't qualify. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |