weargle

For some reason, my girlfriend and I bicker about whether the Beatles are a boy band. (I think that they are)

With songs like "Help" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", especially in the pre-drug days, I can't help but compare them to N-Suck and the Backdoor Boys; her major argument back is that they wrote their own songs and played their instruments. I claim that it's the content that matters, not what they do with the music.

The fact that they had young women screaming at them and following them around doesn't hurt my assertion either.

What do you think?

MJKTool

I definetly think they started out that way, but changed for the better.

Canis Firebrand

Not a Boy Band.
They can sing, write their own songs, play their own instruments. And they were not "manufactured" by the recording industry.

Just because they had some catchy songs early on and lots of female fans does not a boy band make.

Tommy_Harn

An interesting question. I guess they were in their earlier days. But like MJK said, none of their later material sounds like that of a boy band.

benedict

<small></small>I think you need to say exactly what you mean by the term "boy band".

B.A.

I don't even listen to the Beatles and I will answer that question w/ a resounding HELL NO.

Fielding Mellish

You really shouldn't be smoking that stuff so early in the daytime...

DAC

The first ever boy band. They invented the boy band.

Josh H

Exactly.

DAC

So is Hanson a not a boy band then? They play their own instruments, write their own songs and were not manufactured by the industry.

Canis Firebrand

Using my own definition for my personal view, no I wouldn't consider Hanson a boy band.

DAC

Well, by my definition I feel that Hanson is a boy band. I guess it's all in how each defines the phrase "Boy Band".

Canis Firebrand

Exactly. People have different definitions.

Which is why I think Benedict called for clarification from the OP.

The Antipodean

Yes, unless you consider the words "boy band" a bad thing intrinsically. But even in their jukebox singing early days, the Beatles were miles ahead of corporate pop like the Backstreet Boys. What's amazing is how they changed and how quickly.

weargle

I believe a boy band to be a group of "pretty" boys that put out pop music, mostly about love and crap, and target younger female audiences with their music. Ergo, DAC hit the nail on the head. Their early music in no way was rock and roll IMHO but boy band music.

"She loves you yeah yeah yeah" is rock and roll? My white butt rocks harder than that.

Aphex Twin

Why you whippersnappers. Yes, their early music is rock and roll. It might not fit your definition of what is rock and roll today, but it is no doubt rock and roll. I suppose you also do not think Chuck Berry, Roy Orbison, or the Beach Boys are rock and roll either?

Annoyumous

I can't believe this question was even asked. The answer is - no.

foofighters7

peoples understanding of a 'boy band' is largely wrong.

If someone is actually comparing them to a boy band as we now know them, that is just idiocy, and shows me they have no knowledge of The Beatles, History, or music in general.

Were there early songs catchy? Yes, isnt that the point of all musicians, to write and perform a song which gets peoples attention?

Were there early songs soft and without merit? No , perhaps now the sexual undertones go unnoticed. But remember, these songs were written in the early 60s not today, not even the late 60s. The early Beatles songs were far ahead of there time.

And to say they didnt really say anything is insane. There are countless songs that echoed the true feelings of someone. Just because they were the best at what they did, and were easily understood, doesnt mean they had nothing to say in the songs.

Today we look at many of these 'boy bands' and see a prepackaged sugar and water mixture.
The Beatles were not prepackaged, they were a rough around the edges group that toured like underground bands of today, going and playing in the rough parts of town. People are quick to dismiss something that becomes so large, but they forget the history. The Beatles earned every penny they got, through great work, great writing, and being true musicians.
Their songs are timeless, and the relevancy of their songs will remain. Perhaps there earlier songs even more so than some of there later ones. There has always been love songs, love is something that age does not destroy.

weargle

Chuck Berry, Roy Orbison, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, et al are certainly rock and rollers.

Early Beatles were more like a doo-wop group with guitars and drums than the above artists.

harpo787

Chalk me up as another person who says no, they're not a boy band. See foofighter's post for reasons why (say, aren't the Foo Fighters a boy band? >)

So, if The Beatles are not the "original" boy band, who is? Again, I guess that depends how it's defined. I definitely see it as Foo does though...a manufactured or "prepackaged" group of boys brought together by an "expert". Most of their songs are written for them (at least, at the starting point) and rarely do they play their own instruments (and even LESS likely to do so in concert if they managed to in the studio).

Is Menudo the start? Or did NKOTB come before them? Or was it someone before them? I was about to suggest Jackson 5, but they played their own instruments and music (but surely dad contributed in some creative way...or did he just whip their asses to keep them in line?).

That makes me want to ask another question not related to this thread....time to start a new thread.

cactusoly

The term "Boy Band" is a paradox. A group of prettyboys who dance around, lip sync live, don't write music and don't play any instruments. A band PLAYS INSTRUMENTS.


as a side note: I think the Monkees were technically the firsy "boy band" (note the quotation marks)

nodeerforamonth

As much as I can't stand the Beatles, I have to say "no".

Unlike the manufactured boy bands of today, the Beatles wrote their own songs and played their own instruments.

slop101

You seem to have no idea what so ever as to how the Beatles got started and became popular.

Boy bands, by definition, are started by record companies and are then marketed to the appropriate demographics, like the products that they are - they are thrown together in a manner that will get the broadest appeal possible - there is absolutely nothing organic about their development and they don't even know each other before they record their first album. Because of the considerable investment in these "Bands" they usually have to hit right away, or they're done.

The Beatles (John/George/Paul) were school-mates and knew each other long before they were a band. When they were a band they toured and played their asses off for years before they got any recognition. They played in all kinds of holes across England and Europe usually to small crowds, before word spread that they were a good band - they got popular enough on their own that they earned their record contract. Sure, their early songs were kinda silly, but it was the early '60s. And what other boy band ever changed the face of popular music? Also, Beatles songs are the most covered in all of history - has anyone ever covered an N'Sync song?

MJKTool

Can you provide a link for this official "definition"?

TomOpus

Dictionary.com