comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
during the first half of their careers their fanbase was predominantly a younger teenage fanbase
———-
In the early 90s I went to see Guns and Roses during their Use Your Illusion tour. The crowd was full of younger teenage girls.
Guns and Roses, famed boy band.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if thats what you think then go for it, if that was your experience.... Iv seen GnR at least 8 times and I can assure you the majority of their fanbase was older guys.
See I dont really care if you think they were a boyband that doesnt make me like them any less.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
during the first half of their careers their fanbase was predominantly a younger teenage fanbase
———-
In the early 90s I went to see Guns and Roses during their Use Your Illusion tour. The crowd was full of younger teenage girls.
Guns and Roses, famed boy band.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if thats what you think then go for it, if that was your experience.... Iv seen GnR at least 8 times and I can assure you the majority of their fanbase was older guys.
See I dont really care if you think they were a boyband that doesnt make me like them any less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I don’t think they’re a boy band 🙄
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
———-
Tbf I don’t think Sir Paul or Sir Harry would swap their lives for a Toilet Cleaner with horrific takes on music.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed.
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
———-
Tbf I don’t think Sir Paul or Sir Harry would swap their lives for a Toilet Cleaner with horrific takes on music.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
really ... is that what you think ? aww man thats me scuppered. that was a real knife in the back there.
awww ma feelings
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
the definition of boy band is : "a pop group composed of young men whose music and image are designed to appeal primarily to a young teenage audience."
You can make up your own mind as to what bands fall into that category.
The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers.
Boy Bands ; Very little of the above.
I'm not a huge Beatles fan but there are some fantastic songs, beautifully written imo.
Sure, there's some rubbish in there too but that's true of most great bands. How many people have listened to Queen albums as opposed to the greatest hits? Their highs were amazing but the lows, jeez it's pretty poor imo.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers.
Boy Bands ; Very little of the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers."
one direction: singers, song writers, musicians, musical Infleuncers
regardless if you think they are talented or not the above also apply to 1D.
so you agree with my original statement.
lol the frothing at the mouth if you give an opinion on peoples favourite bands !!
acting like a bunch of teenage girls .......... ahhhhh I see
Take That not considered a boyband
From personal experience, The Libertines.
I really like them (well, the first two albums anyway) but even amongst friends who like that style of music, they're divisive. Some people, to use their own song, just can't stand them.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sets them out as the original? Certainly not the word, which was coined in the 80s.
And using the definition doesn't really stack up, as bands like Bill Haley & His Comets were all male and marketed to teens.
john denver...country roads
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroobtastic
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Carlisle circa 1988 was FAR more than just a band
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 31 minutes ago
Doubt it'll be divisive, especially on here, but if we're talking bands/artists you never got the hype with then for me it's the 1975. They get talked about on the radio like they're one of the best bands going.
Doesn't help the lead singer is ridiculously far up his own @rse and seems to think he's a lyrical genius when most of their songs are what you'd write at 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brief Inquiry Into Online Relationships is a cool album, but generally agree. Overhyped.
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sets them out as the original? Certainly not the word, which was coined in the 80s.
And using the definition doesn't really stack up, as bands like Bill Haley & His Comets were all male and marketed to teens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
like I said you can apply whatever definition you want in anyway you wanna ... so long as you can justify it then so be it ... if people have a problem with it then thats on them.
If a band are a pop band, they are all boys and market their image and music to a teenage audience then yes they can be classified as a boyband.
In your example I would say they were a rock and roll band. If you consider that as a pop band, whos image and music was targeting younger audiences then go for it , if you can justify why you consider them that then so be it.
What is Prince? Also The Smiths/Morrissey etc and any 80s nonsense like that is just an out of tune dreary drone. Heavy metal bands aside, the 80s should be wiped from the record.
comment by Brian Easton (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
What is Prince?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wormfood mate.
but as a musician ... one of pops greatest
Also that annoying mid 2000s indie phase where constantly strumming the same chord and smashing symbols was classed as music.
Hi our name is The Everyones and this song is called Same as Everything Else.
Prince can't even sing. Just indistinct background noise. Same as the rest of 80s pop SHIITE.
Sign in if you want to comment
Divisive bands
Page 5 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
during the first half of their careers their fanbase was predominantly a younger teenage fanbase
———-
In the early 90s I went to see Guns and Roses during their Use Your Illusion tour. The crowd was full of younger teenage girls.
Guns and Roses, famed boy band.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if thats what you think then go for it, if that was your experience.... Iv seen GnR at least 8 times and I can assure you the majority of their fanbase was older guys.
See I dont really care if you think they were a boyband that doesnt make me like them any less.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
during the first half of their careers their fanbase was predominantly a younger teenage fanbase
———-
In the early 90s I went to see Guns and Roses during their Use Your Illusion tour. The crowd was full of younger teenage girls.
Guns and Roses, famed boy band.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if thats what you think then go for it, if that was your experience.... Iv seen GnR at least 8 times and I can assure you the majority of their fanbase was older guys.
See I dont really care if you think they were a boyband that doesnt make me like them any less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I don’t think they’re a boy band 🙄
posted on 27/7/22
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
———-
Tbf I don’t think Sir Paul or Sir Harry would swap their lives for a Toilet Cleaner with horrific takes on music.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Robb ☀️ ‘It was hot in 1976!’ ☀️ (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
———-
Tbf I don’t think Sir Paul or Sir Harry would swap their lives for a Toilet Cleaner with horrific takes on music.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
really ... is that what you think ? aww man thats me scuppered. that was a real knife in the back there.
awww ma feelings
posted on 27/7/22
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
the definition of boy band is : "a pop group composed of young men whose music and image are designed to appeal primarily to a young teenage audience."
You can make up your own mind as to what bands fall into that category.
posted on 27/7/22
The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers.
Boy Bands ; Very little of the above.
posted on 27/7/22
I'm not a huge Beatles fan but there are some fantastic songs, beautifully written imo.
Sure, there's some rubbish in there too but that's true of most great bands. How many people have listened to Queen albums as opposed to the greatest hits? Their highs were amazing but the lows, jeez it's pretty poor imo.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 11 seconds ago
The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers.
Boy Bands ; Very little of the above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Beatles: Singers, Song Writers, Musicians. Musical influencers."
one direction: singers, song writers, musicians, musical Infleuncers
regardless if you think they are talented or not the above also apply to 1D.
so you agree with my original statement.
lol the frothing at the mouth if you give an opinion on peoples favourite bands !!
acting like a bunch of teenage girls .......... ahhhhh I see
posted on 27/7/22
Take That not considered a boyband
posted on 27/7/22
From personal experience, The Libertines.
I really like them (well, the first two albums anyway) but even amongst friends who like that style of music, they're divisive. Some people, to use their own song, just can't stand them.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sets them out as the original? Certainly not the word, which was coined in the 80s.
And using the definition doesn't really stack up, as bands like Bill Haley & His Comets were all male and marketed to teens.
posted on 27/7/22
peter & garfunkel
posted on 27/7/22
john denver...country roads
posted on 27/7/22
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroobtastic
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 1 minute ago
Thou shalt not put musicians and
recording artists on ridiculous pedestals
no matter how great they are or were.
The Beatles: Were just a band.
Led Zepplin: Just a band.
The Beach Boys: Just a band.
The Sexx Pistols: Just a band.
The Clash: Just a band.
Crass: Just a band.
Minor Threat: Just a band.
The Cure: Were just a band.
The Smiths: Just a band.
Nirvana: Just a band.
The Pixies: Just a band.
Oasis: Just a band.
Radiohead: Just a band.
Bloc Party: Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys: Just a band.
The Next Big Thing... JUST A BAND.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Carlisle circa 1988 was FAR more than just a band
posted on 27/7/22
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 31 minutes ago
Doubt it'll be divisive, especially on here, but if we're talking bands/artists you never got the hype with then for me it's the 1975. They get talked about on the radio like they're one of the best bands going.
Doesn't help the lead singer is ridiculously far up his own @rse and seems to think he's a lyrical genius when most of their songs are what you'd write at 15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brief Inquiry Into Online Relationships is a cool album, but generally agree. Overhyped.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - Simp (U2958)
posted 2 minutes ago
Even if we are to take whodunnit's post on face value, that the Beatles were marketed as a boy band, pop group... It's a weak analogy.
They were not manufactured, they were not picked on their looks, they didn't have a team of song writers, they weren't purposely aired on national TV every week and given songs by the most powerful pop mogul of the time.
They were given suits and a haircut. That's about where any similarity ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who said boy bands had to be manufactured? that would be a manufactured band.
they were marketed to the younger (predominately female) fan base, and also wrote their songs to cater to such. Nothing wrong with that and makes complete sense given the success they had.... dunno why people think thats me insulting them.
Im jealous of 1D (and the beatles) I would swap my career for their in a heartbeat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as the term didn't exist in the 60s, you are attaching a definition (and all it's connotations) to them in a skewed way. People like McClaren didn't have any rule book, they were just trying to get some gigs and airplay for a band.
The Stones were also marketed to young people... Pretty much every band in the world since the 50s has been, because young people spend money on records.
Are all bands that are made up of men and marketed to a young crowd "boy bands"? Of course not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats would be why they are known as the ORIGINAL boyband ... like I said !!
the hint is in the word ORIGINAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sets them out as the original? Certainly not the word, which was coined in the 80s.
And using the definition doesn't really stack up, as bands like Bill Haley & His Comets were all male and marketed to teens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
like I said you can apply whatever definition you want in anyway you wanna ... so long as you can justify it then so be it ... if people have a problem with it then thats on them.
If a band are a pop band, they are all boys and market their image and music to a teenage audience then yes they can be classified as a boyband.
In your example I would say they were a rock and roll band. If you consider that as a pop band, whos image and music was targeting younger audiences then go for it , if you can justify why you consider them that then so be it.
posted on 27/7/22
What is Prince? Also The Smiths/Morrissey etc and any 80s nonsense like that is just an out of tune dreary drone. Heavy metal bands aside, the 80s should be wiped from the record.
posted on 27/7/22
comment by Brian Easton (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
What is Prince?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wormfood mate.
but as a musician ... one of pops greatest
posted on 27/7/22
Also that annoying mid 2000s indie phase where constantly strumming the same chord and smashing symbols was classed as music.
Hi our name is The Everyones and this song is called Same as Everything Else.
posted on 27/7/22
Prince can't even sing. Just indistinct background noise. Same as the rest of 80s pop SHIITE.
Page 5 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10