Classic Rock Forums

Classic Rock Forums (https://www.crf2.com/forum.php)
-   60's (https://www.crf2.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning? (https://www.crf2.com/showthread.php?t=35694)

Zombeels 08-31-2010 07:35 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by troggy (Post 1051285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...

Nonsense.

I agree.

Serena 08-31-2010 09:19 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by troggy (Post 1051285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...

Nonsense.

In a sense that they were a band who formulated themselves, played instruments, wrote original material and majority of their listeners were girls between the ages of seven and twenty-five. Rock was in its immature days then so it still is commonly seen bubblegum pop/rock now, although it was very 'heavy' for the times. But I guess it depends on how you define "boy band." They were certainly not N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys, just simply a band of boys. So what if they were a boy band, they were great! This goes for the early Rolling Stones as well.

troggy 08-31-2010 10:02 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051300)
Rock was in its immature days then so it still is commonly seen bubblegum pop/rock now

This, I'll agree with but it's one of the biggest problems with "now". First of all, thank god we have a couple of years of the immature Beatles. Secondly, the immature Fab Four rocked harder than after they grew up. I'd argue that the Beatles were a bigger pop band later than they were early.

annie 08-31-2010 10:47 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
just to remind everyone that 20-25 years old is not "pubescent girls".

Foxhound 09-01-2010 11:05 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
What?! And all this time I thought you were just a young-un.

:D

annie 09-01-2010 12:32 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxhound (Post 1051443)
What?! And all this time I thought you were just a young-un.

:D

ha ha ha young at heart :lol:

heyyou 10-30-2010 10:05 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
"The boy band" term did not exist in the spirits of people at that time, thus the question is initially not on its place.

butch 10-31-2010 01:16 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I have a hard time viewing a "boy band" as anything but a group of singers.

The Beatles had a manic response from teen girls. Lots of artists have had that and IMO it just means they were really successful pop stars.

FM Refugee 11-01-2010 03:45 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
...I'm saying no. The Beatles were an insanely successful band from day one at a time when rock/pop music wasn't specifically designed to appeal to ages under 14. The primary rock-n-roll audience up to that time had been older teenagers and young adults, and I doubt that anyone at the time was expecting anything different. The Beatles' status as a 'boy band', real or perceived, thus sounds more like a classic example of the 'law of unintended consequences'...

Quote:

Originally Posted by butch (Post 1060257)
...The Beatles had a manic response from teen girls. Lots of artists have had that and IMO it just means they were really successful pop stars.

...that 'manic response', especially from a younger-than-expected age group, was unprecedented. I doubt that the Beatles' managers, or the Beatles themselves, quite saw that coming. The Beatles were not all that much different from other bands at the time, with matching outfits and hair styles. But they were probably the first band to have such a large audience segment that was attracted to their 'look' and having so many younger girls falling all over themselves over them ('ooooh...he's so CUTE!!)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by butch (Post 1060257)
...I have a hard time viewing a "boy band" as anything but a group of singers.

...a 'boy band' is indeed just a group of singers, but the term has certain implications. The term is recent, but the concept that has given rise to it goes way back to the Beatles' time. And that takes us back to the 'unintended consequences'. As previously noted, the Beatles themselves were somewhat taken aback by all the mania and quickly grew tired of it. But they had given rise to the concept of the 'teenybopper', the very young fan to whom the artist's 'cuteness' was all-important, in many cases more important than whether or not the music was very good. The 'suits' of the music industry were quick to recognize this and scrambled to find ways to capitalize on it by manipulating bands and artists to fit into a 'package' that they hoped those young fans would fall in love with in a similar manner. There have been, and continue to be, many famous (or infamous) examples where they have succeeded. The 'package' has historically been based on a 'boyish' image and sound specifically designed and manufactured to appeal to young girls (especially the aforementioned 'cuteness' mentality), thus the term 'boy band'...
...The Beatles pioneered a look that an unprecedentedly young audience fell in love with, but they had created it themselves. And in so doing they had inadvertently become the prototype that 'boy bands' were built on...

...end of ramble :redface: ...

Snookeroo 11-01-2010 05:25 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
No

Foxhound 11-02-2010 12:39 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by heyyou (Post 1060178)
"The boy band" term did not exist in the spirits of people at that time, thus the question is initially not on its place.

I strongly disagree. Just because the term wasn't in use yet does not mean that boy bands did not exist. Did planets not exist until they were named?

:drummer:

MsHiFi 11-17-2010 11:27 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
No.

IMO there was a brief period when they were teen idols but that was not right at the beginning of their career. They already had some history before the whole "Beatlemania" thing. The Beatles were almost always first and foremost a rock band.

kw21925 11-17-2010 03:56 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
When the Beatles were younger than most "Boy Band" members, they were playing in sleazy dives on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg. They had a lot of life experience at an early age.

kath 11-18-2010 01:10 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 1051288)
Quote:

Originally Posted by troggy (Post 1051285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...

Nonsense.

I agree.

just my take on this.

technically, shakespeare was paid by the line.

he was, ya know.

that doesn't make him a hack, now, does it?

sheelywheely 03-30-2011 03:46 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxhound (Post 1060504)
Quote:

Originally Posted by heyyou (Post 1060178)
"The boy band" term did not exist in the spirits of people at that time, thus the question is initially not on its place.

I strongly disagree. Just because the term wasn't in use yet does not mean that boy bands did not exist. Did planets not exist until they were named?

:drummer:

Actually, at the time we called them a "beat group".:smile:

Foxhound 03-30-2011 10:35 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by FM Refugee (Post 1060375)
...I'm saying no. The Beatles were an insanely successful band from day one at a time when rock/pop music wasn't specifically designed to appeal to ages under 14. The primary rock-n-roll audience up to that time had been older teenagers and young adults, and I doubt that anyone at the time was expecting anything different. The Beatles' status as a 'boy band', real or perceived, thus sounds more like a classic example of the 'law of unintended consequences'...

Quote:

Originally Posted by butch (Post 1060257)
...I have a hard time viewing a "boy band" as anything but a group of singers.

...a 'boy band' is indeed just a group of singers, but the term has certain implications. The term is recent, but the concept that has given rise to it goes way back to the Beatles' time. And that takes us back to the 'unintended consequences'. As previously noted, the Beatles themselves were somewhat taken aback by all the mania and quickly grew tired of it. But they had given rise to the concept of the 'teenybopper', the very young fan to whom the artist's 'cuteness' was all-important, in many cases more important than whether or not the music was very good. The 'suits' of the music industry were quick to recognize this and scrambled to find ways to capitalize on it by manipulating bands and artists to fit into a 'package' that they hoped those young fans would fall in love with in a similar manner. There have been, and continue to be, many famous (or infamous) examples where they have succeeded. The 'package' has historically been based on a 'boyish' image and sound specifically designed and manufactured to appeal to young girls (especially the aforementioned 'cuteness' mentality), thus the term 'boy band'...

...The Beatles pioneered a look that an unprecedentedly young audience fell in love with, but they had created it themselves. And in so doing they had inadvertently become the prototype that 'boy bands' were built on...

...end of ramble :redface: ...

I agree. Ramble on.

;)

Foxhound 03-30-2011 10:38 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kath (Post 1062768)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels (Post 1051288)
Quote:

Originally Posted by troggy (Post 1051285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...

Nonsense.

I agree.

just my take on this.

technically, shakespeare was paid by the line.

he was, ya know.

that doesn't make him a hack, now, does it?

Perhaps that was actually a key factor behind his success.

:foxhound:

DSOM 03-31-2011 09:51 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051300)
Quote:

Originally Posted by troggy (Post 1051285)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...

Nonsense.

In a sense that they were a band who formulated themselves, played instruments, wrote original material and majority of their listeners were girls between the ages of seven and twenty-five. Rock was in its immature days then so it still is commonly seen bubblegum pop/rock now, although it was very 'heavy' for the times. But I guess it depends on how you define "boy band." They were certainly not N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys, just simply a band of boys. So what if they were a boy band, they were great! This goes for the early Rolling Stones as well.

I was alive when the Beatles first came to America. Millions and millions of people tuned in to see them on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. This audience had a broad range of ages and gender. Their fans base was a lot more than just girls between the ages of seven and twenty five. A far as the question, boy band? No way.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Hosted by: F5 / MVH Internet Services

Copyright 2005-2018, CRF2.com