Billboard Hot 100: 9/30/2017

[MilesW1998]

Are we STILL on the whole boy band thing? I thought we all agreed to take it somewhere else, take it away from the chart discussion board and take it to YOP.

[jenglisbe]

Sept 20, 2017 15:24:20 GMT -5 MilesW1998 said:

Are we STILL on the whole boy band thing? I thought we all agreed to take it somewhere else, take it away from the chart discussion board and take it to YOP.

Please show me where I agreed. You wanting it doesn't mean everyone agreed, for one. For another I've been out of town for 5 days and am catching up. Take a breath. Or even better, just ignore.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 20, 2017 15:24:20 GMT -5 MilesW1998 said:

Are we STILL on the whole boy band thing? I thought we all agreed to take it somewhere else, take it away from the chart discussion board and take it to YOP.

Nobody agreed to anything. You complained, nobody listened, and you complained again.

Sept 20, 2017 15:22:38 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Sept 16, 2017 8:33:05 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Of course nobody is going to call the Beatles a boy band because "boy band" is a term used for mainly fluffy no-substance pop artists. But we like to conveniently forget that the fandom of the Beatles was pretty well exactly like the heights of the Backstreet Boys and One Direction. Their audiences were mainly teenage girls screaming at the tops of their lungs at concerts. The pandemonium of the Beatles was recreated again with the Backstreet Boys, N Sync and then again with One Direction and (to a slightly lesser degree) with other "boy bands" like Hanson and other teenager-focused all-male group. What the Beatles had that modern-day boy bands didn't have was the flexibility to do things with music that hadn't been done before. So they were able to win over music 'purists' eventually. If a boy band today were to attempt something like that, it would be death to their careers. Nobody would look at a member of One Direction with any sort of credibility the way the Beatles had, either as a group or solo. Even the mere mention of Harry Styles in the rock forum was a stain on that part of the board. There will never be another Beatles again because (well, other than the Beatles having the advantage of being among the first to shape the landscape of popular music) we won't allow another Beatles to be made. The audience the Beatles had coupled with the type of influencers that gave them their reputation and credibility could never align again because popularity and credibility have become so distanced.

I don't believe that. Popular artists like Adele, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar, Taylor Swift, The Weeknd, etc have plenty of credibility. It's also an irony because you refer to boy bands as "no-substance pop artists," which implies pop(ular) music isn't credible.

The Beatles were inherently different because from the start they were an actual band that played instruments and wrote a lot of (and eventually, all of) their songs.

What I said wasn't necessarily what I believe, but what I believe the general sentiment toward music nowadays to be. The powers that be (whoever they happen to be) who collectively decides which artists are deemed "credible" (whether that be critics, bloggers, or regular music fans over a long period of time) would never let a boyband like One Direction get an ounce of 'credibility' awarded to more "serious" artists. That's what separates the music of today from the music of the 60s. Popular music has the reputation of being soulless, mindless, not artistically credible, compared to non-popular music. Obviously there are exceptions, including many of the ones you listed above.

Consider, for example, that article being shared all over the past few days about how Avril Lavigne is the most "dangerous" celebrity to search online for due to computer viruses. I've seen several shares of that that made the joke of "oh, what's worse, listening to the music of Avril Lavigne or getting a virus?" You're much more likely to get that sort of comment (without rebuttle) about a pop artist than you would about someone who has the credibility.

[MilesW1998]

It still doesn't belong on this board and any thread here at all. Take it to YOP if you must, that's all I'm asking.

[rimetm]

As the OP, if I can have any say, I'm not exactly thrilled with half of this thread being off topic. Like, if it was tangentially about chart success or anything like that, it'd be one thing, but no, this is just semantics and cultural perception at hand.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Are these posts a dark cloud over an otherwise fabulous day for you? Do you get a charley horse whenever a post about a boyband is put in this presently out-of-date hot 100 thread? Does it keep you up at night that this discussion has continued because you don't want it to be here?

Seriously, at this point, it no longer matters because the discussion on the Hot 100 has moved on to the next Hot 100 thread. You'll be fine. Just remove the bookmark for this thread and move along.

[Gary]

Sept 20, 2017 15:49:33 GMT -5 MilesW1998 said:

It still doesn't belong on this board and any thread here at all. Take it to YOP if you must, that's all I'm asking.

If you haven't already done it, you do have the report button.  Then the people who "work" here can decide if it's a problem.  Given the length of this discussion and that it has been relatively civil, I have my guesses how it will turn out but you can try, that is probably your only hope (or you could wait for the discussion to end and do something else in the meantime?)

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 20, 2017 15:56:32 GMT -5 Gary said:

Sept 20, 2017 15:49:33 GMT -5 MilesW1998 said:

It still doesn't belong on this board and any thread here at all. Take it to YOP if you must, that's all I'm asking.

If you haven't already done it, you do have the report button.  Then the people who "work" here can decide if it's a problem.  Given the length of this discussion and that it has been relatively civil, I have my guesses how it will turn out but you can try, that is probably your only hope (or you could wait for the discussion to end and do something else in the meantime?)

If all the related posts could be moved to a separate thread, then absolutely. But at this point, enough has been said that to try to start the discussion in a whole new thread wouldn't really do much, especially since the discussion itself is pretty well winding down or done now anyway. Bitching about it does nothing but add to the number of off-topic posts being made in here. Like many threads, if a side-discussion can't be nipped early, it's best to just let them fizzle out. Most times they do. For a thread like this, which has a timespan of only a week to ten days, it's even less of an issue because once the chart is revealed, most people will just take the chart discussion to the newer Hot 100 thread.

td;tr - this just seems like an odd and pointless battle compared to other on-board issues but sure, if it makes someone happier to complain about something as pointless as this, go right ahead. I thought the discussion was pretty well over with anyway. I only chimed in again because I was quoted.

[Gary]

Sept 20, 2017 16:00:14 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Sept 20, 2017 15:56:32 GMT -5 Gary said:

If you haven't already done it, you do have the report button.  Then the people who "work" here can decide if it's a problem.  Given the length of this discussion and that it has been relatively civil, I have my guesses how it will turn out but you can try, that is probably your only hope (or you could wait for the discussion to end and do something else in the meantime?)

 I only chimed in again because I was quoted.

OK now me too - LOL

My two cents:

The "boy band" term did not exist until the 80s when actual "boy bands" were hitting the charts with regularity.  "Boy" bands meaning kids.    


Beatles were grown men even at the time of their first hit

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 20, 2017 16:05:00 GMT -5 Gary said:

Sept 20, 2017 16:00:14 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

 I only chimed in again because I was quoted.

OK now me too - LOL

My two cents:

The "boy band" term did not exist until the 80s when actual "boy bands" were hitting the charts with regularity.  "Boy" bands meaning kids.    


Beatles were grown men even at the time of their first hit

;) Welcome to the discussion!

The Beatles were all in their early 20s, eh?

The Backstreet Boys had members in their early 20s too, didn't they? Wasn't there a nearly ten-year gap between the oldest and youngest member? Not sure about the other well-known boybands though.

[Gary]

Sept 20, 2017 16:08:40 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Sept 20, 2017 16:05:00 GMT -5 Gary said:

OK now me too - LOL

My two cents:

The "boy band" term did not exist until the 80s when actual "boy bands" were hitting the charts with regularity.  "Boy" bands meaning kids.    


Beatles were grown men even at the time of their first hit

;) Welcome to the discussion!

The Beatles were all in their early 20s, eh?

The Backstreet Boys had members in their early 20s too, didn't they? Wasn't there a nearly ten-year gap between the oldest and youngest member? Not sure about the other well-known boybands though.

Not going to prove or disprove that. 

None of us here likely remembers  the early 60s but just to say if a never before used pop culture term such as "boy band" would be branded on a musical act, why wasn't it branded on the Beatles first?  Or is it simply because one thought of it until  the New Kids were born?  What qualities did the Beatles possess? that other "boy bands" did not. 

My guess is that Overwhelming mass appeal would probably be the answer.  Boy bands, teen acts, etc. are a niche market.  "Boyband" or not, they likely transcended a label that would identify them to such a small market, at the time they were bigger than that.

[Gary]

Rolling Stone 50 greatest Boy Band songs ever

www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-greatest-boy-band-songs-of-all-time-20150924/backstreet-boys-everybody-backstreets-back-1997-20150923

and an accompanying article disputing the exclusion of the Beatles

www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 20, 2017 16:21:02 GMT -5 Gary said:

Sept 20, 2017 16:08:40 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

;) Welcome to the discussion!

The Beatles were all in their early 20s, eh?

The Backstreet Boys had members in their early 20s too, didn't they? Wasn't there a nearly ten-year gap between the oldest and youngest member? Not sure about the other well-known boybands though.

Not going to prove or disprove that. 

None of us here likely remembers  the early 60s but just to say if a never before used pop culture term such as "boy band" would be branded on a musical act, why wasn't it branded on the Beatles first?  Or is it simply because one thought of it until  the New Kids were born?  What qualities did the Beatles possess? that other "boy bands" did not. 

My guess is that Overwhelming mass appeal would probably be the answer.  Boy bands, teen acts, etc. are a niche market.  "Boyband" or not, they likely transcended a label that would identify them to such a small market, at the time they were bigger than that.

I think that's the main question. Obviously the term didn't exist back then so it's all in hindsight. If "boyband" was a thing back in 1963, would it apply to the Beatles? Why or why not? They seemed to possess many of the same qualities that boybands of the late 90s had. The exception was that they played their own instruments and wrote most of their own songs (like Hanson, a 90s boyband), but they would later go on to achieve many great things - and this is where the divide comes in. My point earlier was that they were afforded the ability to do those things because they didn't have the same restrictions put on them the way boybands of the modern day era had. They likely didn't have that negative connotation associated with them because to be a band playing popular music with a heavily female-leaning teen audience wasn't really a bad thing. Nowadays, you have One Direction members doing their own thing but they'll hold on to their "boy band" status for many years and in some ways, that limits what they're able to do because being a pop artist isn't as credible as being a soulful songwriter/musician - even if they are. It all comes down to the labels and the associations with those labels.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 20, 2017 16:43:05 GMT -5 Gary said:

Rolling Stone 50 greatest Boy Band songs ever

www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-greatest-boy-band-songs-of-all-time-20150924/backstreet-boys-everybody-backstreets-back-1997-20150923

and an accompanying article disputing the inclusion of the Beatles

www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html

This is interesting.

This section jumped out at me:

Perhaps the chief motivation for the band's omission is that because the Beatles are considered rock and roll's primary influencers, it could be seen as a diss to "relegate" them to boy-band status.

I often feel that's why people are against calling them a boy band (even in hindsight) because to do so is an insult to their legacy, which in itself is a statement on the status of the term "boyband". It's a 'lesser' in the music world. Pop music is often considered to be beneath most other types of music. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[jayhawk1117]

Wow this boy band shit is still happening huh....

[Deleted]

Well to bring this topic a bit on topic, did SOTT by Harry get to 20 weeks on Hot 100? Somehow the song is top 50 on iTunes - while the main single is nowhere to be found. But it would be cool if all of OD members charted at the same time

[tanooki]

The Beatles weren't considered a boy band at the time but looking back at who they were at the start of their career, it's kinda hard to ignore the similarities between them and modern boy bands.

[Deleted]

Sept 20, 2017 22:29:20 GMT -5 @pete said:

Well to bring this topic a bit on topic, did SOTT by Harry get to 20 weeks on Hot 100? Somehow the song is top 50 on iTunes - while the main single is nowhere to be found. But it would be cool if all of OD members charted at the same time

I think it spent 13 weeks on the chart

[85la]

Ok, I'll admit the Beatles in some ways qualify as a boy band, but aren't they overwhelmingly remembered and referred to as a classic rock band?

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 21, 2017 2:05:50 GMT -5 85la said:

Ok, I'll admit the Beatles in some ways qualify as a boy band, but aren't they overwhelmingly remembered and referred to as a classic rock band?

A label of "classic rock" has way more respect and credibility than "boy band" so that'd be the one people who like them would use.

[jebsib]

Were the Dave Clark Five a boy band? Herman's Hermits? Rolling Stones?
These groups created massive teen hysteria at the time and were similar to the Beatles in attitude, appearance and style.
They are considered rock groups. Perhaps not Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd level, but still rock bands.
How about the Monkees?

[jenglisbe]

Maybe a better question is are there actual bands now that could be seen as a boy band due to their age and their fan base, but aren't because they are a rock band? Even back in early 00s a band like Sum 41 would fit "boy band" but was not grouped with BSB and N Sync, presumably because they played instruments (and perhaps wrote their songs, not sure).

[tanooki]

The Monkees were definitely a boy band.

[Au$tin]

Sept 21, 2017 7:47:21 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Maybe a better question is are there actual bands now that could be seen as a boy band due to their age and their fan base, but aren't because they are a rock band? Even back in early 00s a band like Sum 41 would fit "boy band" but was not grouped with BSB and N Sync, presumably because they played instruments (and perhaps wrote their songs, not sure).

I posted about this before but apparently everyone skipped over it?

To be a boy band, you have to obtain the following qualities:

-Be comprised of only male members
-Have a core demographic of teenage and young adult females
-Perform music that would be considered pop or had a direct influence on pop
-Optional, but common: All the members are fought over on who is the best/cutest/coolest/etc

The Beatles fit all of that. Even if they were considered "rock," their music has had an astounding influence on pop music as well as rock, lately because they were just so damn popular that they were massively successful in both markets. That's something that bands like Sum 41, blink182, or even Led Zeppelin don't have.

And Max is hitting the nail on the head. The reason people don't want to accept this is because they perceive the whole "boy band" moniker as negative. Like it somehow tarnishes their name and is only used for foul music. This is also how pop music in general is perceived today. In fact, here is an interesting article about the phenomenon. Anyone who doesn't perceive pop music or the term "boy band" negatively is much more likely to apply the term to The Beatles.

[mluv]

For a long time the definition of a boy band are a group that don't play instruments. Maybe that's changed but that rules out the Beatles. Plus they wrote and produced their music which is usually not done as much with boy bands. I can't go by just the fanbase since lots of musicians have a teenage fanbase without being a boyband.

Many boybands are also created like One Direction, by an outside party. The Beatles came together organically. Whether they influenced pop music or not, a lot of their music was also rock not pop.

[imbondz]

Being one of the biggest boy bands of the past 10 years has multiple members on the countdown, I think boy band talk is ok. I could care less what we talk about in these forums as long as its about music. Ignore and scroll are easyyyyy to do nowadays, takes way less energy than complaining.

[thebops]

Since everyone else was posting off topic in this thread, figured I'd chime in. The Boy Band discussion went on far too long and was off topic. It has been my honor to help contribute to this conversation.

[Deleted]

What else is there to talk about this? LOL This thread needs to die. Just create a new one in the YOP

[Au$tin]

Sept 25, 2017 21:41:45 GMT -5 thebops said:

Since everyone else was posting off topic in this thread, figured I'd chime in. The Boy Band discussion went on far too long and was off topic. It has been my honor to help contribute to this conversation.

And you felt you needed to bump a four day old thread to say that?