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)

Sister Ray 04-01-2011 11:01 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Clicking on the "view poll results" for this thread made me laugh. I'm not sure why.

They were all boys...
they were a band...

so yes!

/posting in a Foxhound thread :lol:

Denim 04-02-2011 09:25 AM

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

Originally Posted by Serena (Post 1051260)
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago but made a much bigger impact. They sort of intended to start off as commercial pop to get the ball rolling then gradually became more progressive once the mania died down. But majority of their followers before 1966 were people under thirty. I guess not very many adults took them seriously until their innovation really peaked within their later albums.

Serena, you have always had incredible posts and very well thought out.
I respect your opinions, but this post has to be the worst you have ever shared.
Especially the part about under 30. I believe that is the case with almost every band back then, From Bill Haley to Led Zeppelin. I still listen to some of the stuff I did when I was a Teen but my parents were not into that at the time. Based on your statement, Black Sabbath would qualify as a boy band....:beer: (Ok, now I'm just going crazy.
Still enjoy your posts Serena.:thumbsup:

moonshadowgirl60 04-02-2011 03:57 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I voted for the boy band thing but wished that I could voted for both. The Beatles were probably put out in the beginning like a boy band. The music business had no idea what they had. I bet they were happy when everyone loved The Beatles instead of them being a 'Nsync, here and gone.' They are played by almost all guitarists and even our young folks like them. Mila has a friend who is totally ape over them. He is 15 or 16.

jackory 04-04-2011 08:49 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Of course they weren't a boy band. There was nothing "artificial" about them. They wrote their own songs and did not rely on a mammoth promotional machine to keep them in the public eye. Their "target audience" was not teenage girls. It was the entire country of America. I doubt the boy bands of today have roots in seedy, rowdy German bars playing 6 sets a night for sailors and prostitutes. The whole Beatlemania outburst was just as much about collective, cathartic healing in the wake of the JFK's assassination as it was the music and the band. The kids wanted something new and different, with the long haired electric guitar weilding "fab four" that's exactly what they got.

Even so, what's wrong with boy bands? They appeal to a certain demographic...mainly pre-teen girls who are only now discovering the pangs of sexuality. Better the Backstreet Boys than Marilyn Manson, if you know what I'm saying. If the Beatles has cross-over potential into this market, well good for them. But they shouldn't be tagged with it after such a monumental career as they had.

moonshadowgirl60 04-04-2011 09:16 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I could not believe this when I heard it. My daughter wanted me to hear Justin Beiber's cover of Edwin McCain's "I'll Be." He really did a great job of it and I had no idea that he could sing anything beyond 'baby, baby, baby, baby...' But Mila, who really isn't a fan, told me that the kid can play instruments and write music. I wonder how he would have gone over in 1964. Would he have had more musical freedom and expression. The Beatles had that. But now, these teen idols are so marketed. Once they play a song by an artist on Disney the kid's future is finished. Disney is doom and most young musicians can't rid themselves of that teen idol image. I am sure that if The Beatles showed up during the 00's they would get grabbed up by the Lou Pearlmans of the world and destroyed. Justin B. really has no future because when he hits eighteen or his testicles drop his career is over and he will be another sad case like Britney Spears.

There was one British teen idol who did pull himself up and do his own thing. Sadly, he almost died doing so. He fought the record companies (along with booze and drugs) so much that his health failed and he ended up with tuberculosis, locked in a sanitorium. He was Cat Stevens. Somehow he did it. I think leaving Decca Records and coming to the USA helped.

jackory 04-04-2011 09:25 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I saw Justin Bieber play the drums on Letterman during one of the break songs. I was quite surprised. Not bad at all. He seems like a really nice guy, down to earth, and it doesn't appear that he's let fame get to him, so hey, more power to him. Even if he doesn't remain in the public eye when he's a few years older that's okay. He'll be rich enough to set up a monster studio in his mansion and can make music to his heart's content. Which seems to me to be just about what I would want to do after such a hectic adolescence. At that point it seems like the only ones who would be pushing him to remain in the spotlight are the leeches and parasites who'll get rich milking the image of the person he USED to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonshadowgirl60 (Post 1078774)
Justin B. really has no future because when he hits eighteen or his testicles drop his career is over and he will be another sad case like Britney Spears.

I dunno about that...take a look at Justin Timberlake. :)

the roser 04-04-2011 09:38 AM

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

Originally Posted by jackory (Post 1078780)
I saw Justin Bieber play the drums on Letterman during one of the break songs. I was quite surprised. Not bad at all. He seems like a really nice guy, down to earth, and it doesn't appear that he's let fame get to him, so hey, more power to him. Even if he doesn't remain in the public eye when he's a few years older that's okay. He'll be rich enough to set up a monster studio in his mansion and can make music to his heart's content. Which seems to me to be just about what I would want to do after such a hectic adolescence. At that point it seems like the only ones who would be pushing him to remain in the spotlight are the leeches and parasites who'll get rich milking the image of the person he USED to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonshadowgirl60 (Post 1078774)
Justin B. really has no future because when he hits eighteen or his testicles drop his career is over and he will be another sad case like Britney Spears.

I dunno about that...take a look at Justin Timberlake. :)

Or take a look at anybody else in N'Sync. :lol: Beiber could crash and burn or he could milk it for all it's worth and settle into a nice lucrative Christian pop career once the bubble bursts. It all depends on what kind of people he has around him.

Foxhound 04-04-2011 10:10 AM

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

Originally Posted by Sister Ray (Post 1078169)
/posting in a Foxhound thread :lol:

You mean you've been boycotting my threads?

:scratch:

MusicLover7 04-05-2011 05:25 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
No. The Beatles were targeting a market much broader than pubescent girls right from the start.

moonshadowgirl60 04-05-2011 10:10 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Question: Has Justin Timberlake reached puberty yet. He sings like Michael Jackson on estrogen. He should stick with acting.

sheelywheely 04-05-2011 02:05 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
noooooooooo! They were not a boy band.

moonshadowsman 04-05-2011 09:47 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I believe that technically they were the first of the boy bands then they graduated into something more than that probably after they started getting high on drugs.

Keef Riffhard 04-08-2011 08:23 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
The Beatles at the beginning of their careers weren't a "boy band" they were actually considered half "Mod" and half "Rockers" - they were "Mockers." ;)

The Beatles really started out as a cover band, and their image was a little bit tougher then how they appeared as mop-tops on Ed Sullivan Show, they wore leather jackets, cowboy boots, and combed their hair like Gene Vincent etc. it was at the advice of their manager Brian Epstein that they should cleaned up their image and wear suits and look more presentable, creating an image that made them appear a little younger then they actually were, Brian mostly likely had the intention of marketing them (like Elvis was) to a girl fan base. Unlike most boy bands they out grew that image rather quickly.

During the 80's "boy bands" were mostly vocal groups, many of them didn't play instruments and relied on studio musicians. If anything template for "boy bands" didn't start with the Beatles but with R&B vocal groups and probably some hints taken from Beatlemania (although unlike the groups they were modeled after "boy bands" as general rule were only capable of creating horrible music imo). I don't consider The Beatles a boy band even if the term might have widen its meaning to include bands that do play their instruments I wouldn't retrofit the word to describe them as a "boy band," they weren't boys - John was married and Ringo had a beard before joining The Beatles.

Foxhound 05-06-2011 01:30 PM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Here's a follow-up question. If the Beatles weren't a boy band, were the Monkees the first of the boy bands then or was there a better earlier candidate?

:foxhound:

alvinkostig#9 06-11-2011 09:58 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
No. A boy band of the time(or slightly before) would have been something like Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers. Frankie set the blueprint for all the boy bands to come. Started out as a group, then went solo, then fizzled out/died. See: The Jackson 5, N'Sync, New Kids on the Block...

Harold 06-11-2011 11:20 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
I would say that the Doo Wop groups starting in the late forties were the first, everybody sang, nobody played any instruments.

MagicRat 06-11-2011 01:57 PM

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

Originally Posted by Keef Riffhard (Post 1079789)
The Beatles really started out as a cover band, and their image was a little bit tougher then how they appeared as mop-tops on Ed Sullivan Show, they wore leather jackets, cowboy boots, and combed their hair like Gene Vincent etc. it was at the advice of their manager Brian Epstein that they should cleaned up their image and wear suits and look more presentable, creating an image that made them appear a little younger then they actually were, Brian mostly likely had the intention of marketing them (like Elvis was) to a girl fan base. Unlike most boy bands they out grew that image rather quickly.

I was going to post something similar to this. I think in the beginning Brian and the band anticipated that their success would be a brief fleeting thing and the idea was to maximize their appeal in the short term, hence the matching suits and the Broadway-ish covers like "Till There Was You" etc. Fortunately, the boys were just too talented to be held back by Epstien's lack of vision (or, perhaps, their own).

Foxhound 09-12-2020 12:00 AM

Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?
 
Any further thoughts?

:scratch:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:07 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