Classic Rock Forums  

Register Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Gameroom [0] NFL Pick 'em Arcade
Go Back   Classic Rock Forums > 60's
Home Calendar Gallery FAQDonate

60's Discuss your favorite classic rock & pop from the 60's.

View Poll Results: Were the Beatles simply a boy band in 1964?
Yes, absolutely. Check out the screaming. 12 22.64%
No. The Beatles were targeting a market much broader than pubescent girls right from the start. 41 77.36%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Submit Tools Thread Tools
Old 08-31-2010, 07:35 PM   #19
Zombeels
Classic Rocker
 
Zombeels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Thetis Island, BC
Posts: 2,269

Gameroom cash: $3788
Give Thanks: 1
Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by troggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
Technically yes, they are comparable to what Hanson was thirteen years ago...
Nonsense.
I agree.
__________________
I have better taste in music than all of you. This is not up for discussion. Carry on.
Zombeels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 09:19 PM   #20
Serena
It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya
 
Serena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Soaring high with the thunderbirds
Posts: 1,148
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by troggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
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.
__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."-Carl Sagan


Serena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 10:02 PM   #21
troggy
spinning at 45 rpm
 
troggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Squaresville
Posts: 926
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
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.
troggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 10:47 PM   #22
annie
Classic Rocker
 
annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,512
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

just to remind everyone that 20-25 years old is not "pubescent girls".
__________________
annie

Still crazy after all these years...


annie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 11:05 AM   #23
Foxhound
Classic Rocker
 
Foxhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: French Quarter, New Orléans
Posts: 6,656

Gameroom cash: $26432
Give Thanks: 257
Thanked 147 Times in 130 Posts
Exclamation Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

What?! And all this time I thought you were just a young-un.

__________________
The top rock 'n roll animal on this side of the tracks!

Foxhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 12:32 PM   #24
annie
Classic Rocker
 
annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,512
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxhound View Post
What?! And all this time I thought you were just a young-un.

ha ha ha young at heart
__________________
annie

Still crazy after all these years...


annie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2010, 10:05 AM   #25
heyyou
God save Rock 'n' Roll
 
heyyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: France
Posts: 63
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
__________________
The Beatles,Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd changed Rock'n'Roll History and my life !
heyyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2010, 01:16 AM   #26
butch
Classic Rocker
 
butch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 1,596
Give Thanks: 31
Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts
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.
__________________
"Now is the time for the poor spellers of the world to untie!"
butch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 03:45 PM   #27
FM Refugee
Speaking of classics...
 
FM Refugee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ...right past the fuming incense stencher...
Posts: 662
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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 View Post
...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 View Post
...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 ...
__________________
...without classic radios, we might not have Classic Rock...and classic radios everywhere agree CRF2 Rocks!
FM Refugee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2010, 05:25 PM   #28
Snookeroo
uh no, I'm a mocker
 
Snookeroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 1,923
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

No
__________________
“Drumming is my madness”


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Snookeroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2010, 12:39 PM   #29
Foxhound
Classic Rocker
 
Foxhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: French Quarter, New Orléans
Posts: 6,656

Gameroom cash: $26432
Give Thanks: 257
Thanked 147 Times in 130 Posts
Exclamation Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyou View Post
"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?

__________________
The top rock 'n roll animal on this side of the tracks!

Foxhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 11:27 AM   #30
MsHiFi
Classic Rocker
 
MsHiFi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fla, USA
Posts: 482
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
MsHiFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 03:56 PM   #31
kw21925
He's very clean, isn't he?
 
kw21925's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In a laundromat, a million miles away as the crow flies
Posts: 2,818

Gameroom cash: $3635
Give Thanks: 138
Thanked 119 Times in 91 Posts
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.
__________________
Some people say tube sound is a smoky nightclub with a hot chick in a red dress, it’s a warm swimming pool in summer, glowing green against the purple twilight, it’s a . . . well, hell, you can’t really explain tube sound.
kw21925 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2010, 01:10 AM   #32
kath
astronomy domino's™
 
kath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: bama via new orleans
Posts: 2,197
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
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?
kath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 03:46 AM   #33
sheelywheely
Classic Rocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Portsmouth UK
Posts: 5
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxhound View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyyou View Post
"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?

Actually, at the time we called them a "beat group".
sheelywheely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:35 AM   #34
Foxhound
Classic Rocker
 
Foxhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: French Quarter, New Orléans
Posts: 6,656

Gameroom cash: $26432
Give Thanks: 257
Thanked 147 Times in 130 Posts
Exclamation Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FM Refugee View Post
...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 View Post
...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 ...
I agree. Ramble on.

__________________
The top rock 'n roll animal on this side of the tracks!

Foxhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 10:38 AM   #35
Foxhound
Classic Rocker
 
Foxhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: French Quarter, New Orléans
Posts: 6,656

Gameroom cash: $26432
Give Thanks: 257
Thanked 147 Times in 130 Posts
Exclamation Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kath View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
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.

__________________
The top rock 'n roll animal on this side of the tracks!

Foxhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 09:51 AM   #36
DSOM
lunatic in the hall
 
DSOM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 323
Give Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Were the Beatles just a boy band in the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by troggy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serena View Post
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 you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be."
DSOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Hosted by: F5 / MVH Internet Services
Copyright ©2005-2018, CRF2.com