British boy bands

Umm...probably cause the biggest ones I can think of (Take That, East 17, Boyzone) were all largely broken up by the time boy bands broke big over here. The one who was supposed to be a solo star - Gary I think from Take That - went nowhere, Robbie Williams did all right, and the rest of them, well who knows where the hell the rest of them are.

I'm now going to go drive my car into New Haven Harbor for knowing the answer to this question. Ta.

 

Wouldn't say none of them ever made it. In their time, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were boy bands, only they had substance. Then you have the Monkeeys, with no substance but you could still argue they made it here, as did Herman's Hermits with Peter Noone.

As for anything more recent to compete with the backstreet boys and Nsuck, I can't really say other than to suggest that if our market was saturated with the "original" boy crap music, why settle for the British copy if it had no redeming musical quality? We didn't have the Beatles or the Clash, so they took off (varying degrees, obviously). We did have enough Nsync to last us, no need for the British Nsync (though I do remember SClub7, but they were Aussies, no?). I think BBMac were around at the right time, but they never had a shot competing against the media blitz that backstreet and nsync put on, so they never got the chance to assault our ears with their "soundz". Every once in a while I get to wondering if a band without a signature mug at Burger King available for a limited time in conjunction with a BK value meal yours for only $ 1.99 with valid purchase has a shot at fame.

 

Re: Re: British boy bands

I personally don't consider the Beatles or Rolling Stones to be boy bands because they wrote their own music. Oh yeah, those also played these things necessary to make music called instruments. I've never seen a boy band play an instrument. All they do is sing and dance.

 

Re: Re: British boy bands

The Stones and the Beatles were not boybands at all. They were proper bands that girls loved and screamed hysterically at. Some boybands can play instruments though, for example a1 (who did a dreadful cover of 'Take on me') at least posed with them convicingly.

A true test for a boyband is as follows:

1. Do they all have 'characters', e.g. The 'clean' one, the 'rough and rugged' one etc. ?
2. Do they tend to wear similar or matching clothes ?
3. Are a high percentage of their songs slow ballads ?
4. Is one or more of them of questionable sexuality ?
5. Do they often perform songs sitting on bar stools ?.
6. Do they have links with Pete Waterman, Simon Cowell and/or Simon Fuller ?.

If the answer to 3 or more of these are 'yes', they're definately boybands. Mind you, Slipknot come close with a 'yes' to 1 and 2 .

 

Re: Re: Re: British boy bands

1. Do they all have 'characters', e.g. The 'clean' one, the 'rough and rugged' one etc. ?
The Beatles did.

2. Do they tend to wear similar or matching clothes ?
The Beatles did.

3. Are a high percentage of their songs slow ballads ? This is true for what band? Beatles had more ballads than Nsync.

4. Is one or more of them of questionable sexuality ? I submit the cover of Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band for your approval.

5. Do they often perform songs sitting on bar stools ? Um...a lack of music videos hampers full data on this one. They did a lot of strange stuff, though, including all riding bicycles at the same time, filming a movie about themselves, etc.

6. Do they have links with Pete Waterman, Simon Cowell and/or Simon Fuller ? And they are?

So by 4.5 out of 6, even you call them a boy band.

I didn't mean a boy band in the sense of NSync, but a boy band in their time. In the 60s, until the Monkeeys, they didn't have purely manufactured pop music. What the Beatles were was a band, hugely popular, dominant on the pop charts, adored by women and marketed to a youth audience. Their "branding" wasn't as cooly manufactured as the current bands are, no one sought them out to be in the band, but don't think they were any less conscious that marketing was as important as their music (their long hair was an enormous statement, if anyone remembers). Turned out their music was about the best anyone has ever made, but if you look at the first 3 years of the band, the above parallels are there. There are also many differences, namely that the Beatles kept changing styles and experimenting, which is not a feature I expect from the Backstreet boys of the world.

I was never trying to suggest that Nsync was as good as the Beatles or anything, nor was I suggesting that the Beatles were a glorified Backstreet boys. My point was that they both, in very different ways, took the pop youth road to stardom, through the bedroom of more than a few women.

If you wanted to separate bands like the Beatles from ones like Nsync, this would be my test:

1. Were they assembled by a producer/agent/record company to be in the group?

2. Do they play any instruments?

3. Do they write their own songs?

4. Do they practice choreography?

5. Have they been in other bands previous to this one?

A Yes-No-No-Yes-No is an Nsync-quality boy band.

 

Well all semantics aside, I think sportboy was referring to the current crop of British boybands such as Blue, Five, Westlife (Irish), Boyzone (also Irish but now borken up) etc. And he has a point. I would think they're every bit as marketable as American boybands. So how come none of them have made it across the ocean?

 

Boy bands are basically brands, and in any product category, when there's very little differantion between the actual products, the brand with the most marketing dollars end up surviving.

Well, there were no competing boy bands that had anything different to offer, and as another poster has already mentioned, 'NSync and BSB had the bigger, and thus better, marketing push behind them. The labels additionally supported them by giving them the Swedish songwriting/production teams and the top video directors.

Remember that there were other American boy bands as well, but 98 Degrees did okay for a few singles then disappeared, the New Kids alums never really broke through and O-Town got to the party a little too late.

I will now get on a train and go join Michael K at the bottom of New Haven Harbor.

 

Pete Waterman=Part of the former trio of Stock, Aitken and Waterman who were the force behind early Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Steps and the girl band that'll come out of the latest Popstars programme (Hear'say came out of the last series). He has been involved in well over 50 number 1 hits in Britain.

Simon Cowell=Manager of Westlife, and judge of both Pop Idol and American Idol.

Simon Fuller=Creator of the Spice Girls, and the Pop Idol and Pop Stars programmes.

My test may have been open to manipulation, but Jamison is incredibly wrong to say that the Beatles were a boyband. They played and wrote their own songs, had an independent hand in their music and development, and were created under their own steam. I don't remember reading about John Lennon being 'Sporty Beatle', or George Harrison being 'Hippy Beatle' or whatever. There probably have been uses of marketing techniques that have been perfected by Pete Waterman or whoever, but that doesn't necesarily mean that they were in the same mould as BSB, NSync or whoever.

 

Once again, I think it's just a matter of timing; the really big UK boybands were at their peak around what, 94-96? America was still listening to Alannis, Hootie, and Deep Blue Something at that time, for God's sake. For that matter, Backstreet was pretty big in Europe around 97 or 98 and no one had yet heard of them in US yet (at least that's the impression I had). Around that time they were releasing 'Backstreet's back' or whatever that song was, as a second or third single over in Europe, but it didn't make any sense for them to release it in the US, cause they hadn't even been there yet.

Since me and skipshady are already well-drowned here, I might as well admit that I think the Take That version of 'How Deep Is Your Love' is miles better than that caterwauling Bee Gees version. There, I said it.

 

Michael, while I am truly impressed by your knowledge of boybands, I still don't buy your timing argument. Take That may be gone, but there are currently a number of boybands that are very successful in England - and to varying degrees on mainland Europe - that for whatever reason have not had success in the U.S.

I think it's more of a reflection on the industry as a whole. With a few notable exceptions, America doesn't seem to be importing music the way it used to. It's not just boybands from Britain that aren't making it in America, it's artists from other genres too.

 

The Boyzone version of Working My Way Back to you is no where near in comparison to the original.

SClub7 are English. They just hang around the beach all the time. Doesn't mean they're Aussies.

 

<swimming my way back to surface>
The reference to Take That reminded me, but it's worth noting that, in a way, mid-90's British pop paved the way for the American pop boom of the late-90's.

Take That's "Back For Good" was a huge hit when the American audience was still listening to alt/roots rock and grunge, and it showed label heads that there just may be room for bubble gum pop in the US market. And then the Spice Girls came and obliterated all doubt.

 

Probably none of you have heard the McAlmot and Butler cover of Take That's Back for good. If you thought Take That were camp.................

It's a great cover version, unlike All Saint's massacre of Under the Bridge. But that's another story.

 

BBMak is doing pretty well for itself, they're british, they're boys and they're a band. So I believe they are a british boyband.