Billboard Hot 100: 9/30/2017

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Despacito (-2.084) and Shape Of You (-0.235) that's impressive. SOY is in the top 10 for 34 weeks (next week) of Radio chart . It's probably a record.

[jenglisbe]

I don't remember the term "body band" becoming a think until the late 90s with Backstreet Boys, N Sync, etc. I guess it was because of the amount of them. The 80s had New Edition and New Kids, but that was about it in terms of mainstream success, and they didn't even hit at the same time. I remember Hanson being compared a bit more to the Jackson 5 (plus they worked with the Dust Brothers and played instruments, so they weren't seen as cheesy as an act put together by someone). Once BSB hit and then N Sync and then 98 Degrees and a slew of others, it was a real trend so of course a term was coined.

But yeah, the irony is "boy band" actually fits acts like The Beatles and even Hanson more than it does the acts who were called that term.

[jenglisbe]

Sept 14, 2017 22:25:15 GMT -5 85la said:

Sept 14, 2017 21:44:51 GMT -5 felipe said:

Aren't Drake and Ariana Grande two of the biggest stars at the moment? It's not like I'm choosing random names here. And I don't think Gaga, Kanye or Timberlake are names that come to mind when we're talking about music stars of 2017.

Adele and Beyoncé are huge though and that's not for debate. You can count on them to release relevant music twice a decade.

Well, I was referring to the time period of roughly the mid-2000s and on (well after the NSYNC/early Britney era your referenced in your first post about this topic). I guess Gaga's record sales might not actually be what they were earlier, but I would call the Superbowl Halftime Show and headlining Coachella as pretty big.

Also funny you mention Adele and Beyonce releasing twice a decade, when first of all this is factually inaccurate (Beyonce released 3 albums last decade and 3 this decade so far, and Adele's career has not spanned an entire decade yet, but has released 3 albums in the first 9 years of her career), and Michael Jackson released only two albums in each of the '80s and '90s (if you would even consider HIStory a full new studio album). Not that I'm saying that's necessarily a downside. Artists can release albums every few years but still make a major impact.

Well, didn't some of Off the Wall feed into the 80s? Also, MJ was releasing a ton of singles from his albums (and all were hits) so his album cycles tended to last 2-3 years. I wasn't conscious enough then to experience it, but my guess is it didn't feel the same as Adele's hibernations do.

Beyoncé is a decent comparison to those artists, but again she isn't really from this decade. More than that, she still hasn't had anything impact on the level of Thriller (or, to be fair, 21 which is from this decade). She's a great entertainer people will pay to watch, but to me she hasn't had the same overall impact of a Michael, Madonna, etc. You can make a lot of arguments for why this is, of course.

And while people can argue it's because of when we grew up that we favor artists from the past, the opposite point can be made; it's because some people weren't around in the 80s and 90s that they think current artists are on the same level. Someone actually wrote in here that The Weeknd is on par with Michael. That is beyond ludicrous, but if someone wasn't alive in the 80s and 90s maybe they don't have a frame of reference for how ridiculous that thought is.

[Au$tin]

Sept 15, 2017 8:42:42 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

Sept 15, 2017 7:16:18 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

So why was Hanson referred to as a boy band?

Were they?  Don't know.  Hanson are a bit past my time.  LOL   They probably shouldn't be if they do more than sing and dance.

I always think of boy bands as (despite the name) a group of young males who don't play any instruments, and sing and dance (often doing choreographed steps) to their music either in live performances or in music videos.

Look at it this way, are the Rolling Stones a boy band?  Are the Who?  Are Pink Floyd?  Led Zeppelin?   All of them are groups from the 60's who played their own instruments and wrote their own music, just like the Beatles.

Actually, your definition is incorrect. I posted the definition of a boy band earlier which shows why both Hanson and The Beatles are indeed boy bands, but those rock bands you listed are not.

It all comes down to the music the create and their core demographic, not their ability to play instruments or write their material. By your definition, One Direction isn't a boy band because they often wrote their own material and occasionally played instruments.

[forg]

Scars to Your Beautiful airplay longevity is impressive

[Baby Yoda Hot100Fan]

^Unfortunately, that is not reflected in BB's Radio Songs chart ...

[areyoureadytojump]

Sept 15, 2017 10:13:42 GMT -5 forg said:

Scars to Your Beautiful airplay longevity is impressive

kworb.net/radio/

#5 at AC radio. They are always late to the game and play the same damn songs over and over again.

[vocech123]

simmnfierzig's Updated predictions or ATRL: 


1 Look What You Made Me Do 426 (=)
2 Bodak Yellow 365 (=)
3 1-800-273-8255 338 (+2)
4 Despacito 332 (-1)
5 Too Good At Goodbyes 323 (debut)
6 Wild Thoughts 266 (=)
7 Unforgettable 260 (+2)
8 Attention 257 (-1)
9 Believer 256 (-1)
10 Strip That Down 229 (+4)
11 Bank Account 222 (+1)
12 Sorry Not Sorry 221 (+1)
13 There's Nothing Holdin Me Back 219 (-3)
14 Slow Hands 217 (+1)
15 Feel It Still 215 (+3)
16 Rake It Up 204 (-5)
17 Shape Of You 189 (-1)
18 That's What I Like 181 (-1)
19 Mi Gente 178 (+3)
20 XO Tour Lif3 163 (-1)

21 Body Like A Back Road 161 (-1)
22 Ready For It 159 (-18)
23 Humble 158 (-2)
24 Praying 156 (+2)
25 Location 156 (+5)
26 I Get The Bag 150 (+5)
27 Young Dumb & Broke 149 (+6)
28 Dusk Till Daw 149 (debut)
29 Redbone 147 (-1)
30 What About Us 144 (+2)
31 Jocelyn Flores 144 (+7)
32 What Lovers Do 143 (-5)
33 I'm The One 141 (-4)
34 Something Just Like This 141 (-9)
35 Feels 140 (-12)
36 Love Galore 136 (+1)
37 Congratulations 135 (-13)
38 Friends 129 (-3)
39 What Ifs 125 (+1)
40 Loyalty 122 (-4)

41 The Race 120 (+3)
42 Small Town Boy 118 (-1)
43 Stay 117 (-9)
44 Say You Won't Let Go 117 (-5)
45 Thunder 117 (=)
46 No Promises 109 (-4)
47 Mask Off 106 (-4)
48 When It Rains It Pours 104 (=)
49 Crew 98 (+3)
50 Do Re Mi 96 (=)
51 The Way Life Goes 95 (-4)
52 **** Love 94 (-3)
53 Unforgettable Thomas Rhett 94 (+10)
54 Heartache On The Dance Floor 92 (+2)
55 It's A Vibe 92 (-4)
56 Transportin' 92 (-10)
57 Roll In Peace 91 (-4)
58 Silence 88 (-4)
59 Butterfly Effect 88 (-1)
60 The Weekend 87 (+1)

61 Love So Soft 83 (debut)
62 Magnolia 77 (-2)
63 New Rules 76 (-1)
64 Sauce It Up 73 (-7)
65 Havana 73 (+8)
66 All The Pretty Girls 71 (+1)
67 No Such Thing As A Broken Heart 70 (-8)
68 I'll Name The Dogs 69 (debut)
69 Bad At Love 68 (+12)
70 Felices Los 4 66 (-4)
71 Glorious 64 (-3)
72 Back To You 63 (-8)
73 Whatever You Need 61 (-1)
74 B.E.D. 61 (-5)
75 Everybody Dies In Their Nightmares 59 (-5)
76 Fetish 59 (-11)
77 Swish Swish 58 (-22)
78 Escapate Conmingo 57 (-4)
79 Every Little Thing 55 (-1)
80 They Don't Know 55 (-4)

81 Versace On The Floor 54 (-10)
82 Drinkin Problem 52 (-7)
83 These Heaux 52 (-6)
84 More Girls Like You 52 (-2)
85 Do I Make You Wanna 50 (-5)
86 Relationship 50 (+4)
87 Greatest Love Story 49 (-1)
88 Light It Up 47 (-3)
89 I Could Use A Love Song 47 (+3)
90 Found You 47 (debut)
91 Questions 47 (-2)
92 Let Me Go 47 (debut)
93 It Ain't My Fault 47 (-10)
94 Neon Guts 45 (=)
95 Fix A Drink 44 (=)
96 Sky Walker 41 (+1)
97 Untouchable 41 (re-entry)
98 Dark Queen 41 (-7)
99 Wish I Knew You 41 (-15)
100 No Fear 40 (=)

[singingrulebritannia]

Sept 13, 2017 3:55:09 GMT -5 @zach808 said:

Sept 12, 2017 17:43:39 GMT -5 superdroid73 said:

So XXXTentacion just released his "video" for Look At Me! Any chance of that re-entering the Hot 100?

It had its 20 weeks. It's gonna need a LOT of views to return.

The more interesting question is whether the video's views will count for the song "Riot" which the video really is for.

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Feels #35??? This song was literally in the top 10 of every country except the United States. It's because America hates Katy now or what?

[vocech123]

Sept 15, 2017 17:48:50 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Feels #35??? This song was literally in the top 10 of every country except United States. It's because America hates Katy now or what?

No proper promo 

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Sept 15, 2017 17:50:35 GMT -5 vocech123 said:

Sept 15, 2017 17:48:50 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Feels #35??? This song was literally in the top 10 of every country except United States. It's because America hates Katy now or what?

No proper promo 

I know, ZERO promo. But, they are Katy Perry, Pharrell and Calvin..is that necessary? Plus, it's a great song, it was in the top 20 on Radio, people just don't care about that song.

[ry4n]

Sept 15, 2017 17:48:50 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Feels #35??? This song was literally in the top 10 of every country except the United States. It's because America hates Katy now or what?

Calvin's Hot 100 peaks have always been kinda low in the US compared to other countries. He gets a lot of love from pop radio though.

[inverse]

Ugh did that French Montana crap get a discount or something? Why is it projected to go back above Attention?

Also -13 for Congratulations what the heck that's not gonna happen

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Sept 15, 2017 18:25:07 GMT -5 ry4n said:

Sept 15, 2017 17:48:50 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Feels #35??? This song was literally in the top 10 of every country except the United States. It's because America hates Katy now or what?

Calvin's Hot 100 peaks have always been kinda low in the US compared to other countries. He gets a lot of love from pop radio though.

It seems like America only likes his songs with Rihanna...and David Guetta's with Nicki Minaj

[vocech123]

Sept 15, 2017 18:25:44 GMT -5 inverse said:

Ugh did that French Montana crap get a discount or something? Why is it projected to go back above Attention?

Also -13 for Congratulations what the heck that's not gonna happen

It is because of the radio. Which is weird because it was falling on the radio and then suddenly the great updates were back, maybe a radio deal or something?

[vocech123]

Sept 15, 2017 18:00:00 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Sept 15, 2017 17:50:35 GMT -5 vocech123 said:

No proper promo 

I know, ZERO promo. But, they are Katy Perry, Pharrell and Calvin..is that necessary? Plus, it's a great song, it was in the top 20 on Radio, people just don't care about that song.

That's very sad, it was the best quality song on the radio to be honest. 

[85la]

Sept 15, 2017 9:56:08 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Sept 15, 2017 8:42:42 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

Were they?  Don't know.  Hanson are a bit past my time.  LOL   They probably shouldn't be if they do more than sing and dance.

I always think of boy bands as (despite the name) a group of young males who don't play any instruments, and sing and dance (often doing choreographed steps) to their music either in live performances or in music videos.

Look at it this way, are the Rolling Stones a boy band?  Are the Who?  Are Pink Floyd?  Led Zeppelin?   All of them are groups from the 60's who played their own instruments and wrote their own music, just like the Beatles.

Actually, your definition is incorrect. I posted the definition of a boy band earlier which shows why both Hanson and The Beatles are indeed boy bands, but those rock bands you listed are not.

It all comes down to the music the create and their core demographic, not their ability to play instruments or write their material. By your definition, One Direction isn't a boy band because they often wrote their own material and occasionally played instruments.

I have rarely if ever heard the Beatles being referred to as a boy band. I'm not quite sure where you got your definition, but it does seem that garrettlen's definition is generally correct: rock (this genre is also key) groups whose members play their own instruments and contribute heavily to their songwriting/production, such as the Beatles, are usually not boy bands; boy bands are pop creations whose members are primarily vocalists and don't usually play their own instruments nor contribute heavily to their songwriting/production. I'm not aware of the members of One Direction or the Backstreet Boys, etc. contributing heavily to their own songwriting, and occasional instrument playing doesn't count.

You're right that their core demographic and how they're marketed is also key, which for boy bands is usually as these sex symbols for young girls to idolize, which I'll admit applied to the Beatles especially early in their career (not now though) so it is a little mirky with them. However, certain labels, such as "boy band", are often arbitrary and heavily based on time period. As already mentioned, the term didn't exist until at least the late '80s, so you can't really apply a retroactive label to the Beatles as a boy band since the term is heavily based on a certain era and not some objective, time-neutral description. Even today the term is used far less frequently, even to groups who might objectively fit the description. 

[Au$tin]

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

Sept 15, 2017 9:56:08 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Actually, your definition is incorrect. I posted the definition of a boy band earlier which shows why both Hanson and The Beatles are indeed boy bands, but those rock bands you listed are not.

It all comes down to the music the create and their core demographic, not their ability to play instruments or write their material. By your definition, One Direction isn't a boy band because they often wrote their own material and occasionally played instruments.

I have rarely if ever heard the Beatles being referred to as a boy band.

That's nice, but it is purely anecdotal and doesn't add anything to the discussion. I mean, here is a Vulture article claiming The Beatles as the best boy band of all time and criticizing Rolling Stones magazine for not considering them as such.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

I'm not quite sure where you got your definition

www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aboy+band&oq=define%3Aboy+band&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.3374j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
But if you want a more "reliable" source, then here's Webster's.

"a small ensemble of males in their teens or twenties who play pop songs geared especially to a young female audience"

Which does differ slightly from Google's in the sense that Webster clarifies that the music is pop. (Which starts a whole new argument over what to classify The Beatles as because they sure as hell fit into several categories, pop being one of them.)

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

but it does seem that garrettlen's definition is generally correct: rock (this genre is also key) groups whose members play their own instruments and contribute heavily to their songwriting/production, such as the Beatles, are usually not boy bands; boy bands are pop creations whose members are primarily vocalists and don't usually play their own instruments nor contribute heavily to their songwriting/production.

I don't know, any official source I'm finding doesn't mention anything about instruments.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

I'm not aware of the members of One Direction or the Backstreet Boys, etc. contributing heavily to their own songwriting

I'm not sure where the Backstreet Boys came from. I never mentioned them at least. Anyway, check out the writing credits from One Direction's music. You will find that they indeed write on a lot of their music, especially in the later years.

"Story of My Life" Julian Bunetta Jamie Scott John Ryan Louis Tomlinson Liam Payne Niall Horan Harry Styles Zayn Malik
"Night Changes" Harry Styles Niall Horan Zayn Malik Liam Payne Louis Tomlinson Jamie Scott Julian Bunetta John Ryan
"History" Wayne Hector John Ryan Ed Drewett Julian Bunetta Liam Payne Louis Tomlinson

Niall almost always played guitar on their tracks. Does this instrument definition specify that it has to be all members?

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

and occasional instrument playing doesn't count.

Oh I wasn't aware of this part of the definition that just arbitrarily appeared to enhance your own personal point. Please, let's at least stay consistent.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

You're right that their core demographic and how they're marketed is also key, which for boy bands is usually as these sex symbols for young girls to idolize, which I'll admit applied to the Beatles especially early in their career (not now though)

So... apparently a band can go in and out of "boy band status" according to this part. Is there a certain point at which they can leave the term behind? Who decides that? And why should it matter if they don't currently appeal to that demographic? Firstly, they're not even around anymore. Secondly, what you're now saying is not only can one part of their career be "boy band status" while the other isn't, they apparently can change status years later arbitrarily. This is quite intriguing. This definition of "boy band" is getting quite long with a bunch of asterisks now.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

However, certain labels, such as "boy band", are often arbitrary

Well, I'll at least give you that. Who actually cares which bands are labeled as a "boy band" or not?

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

and heavily based on time period. As already mentioned, the term didn't exist until at least the late '80s, so you can't really apply a retroactive label to the Beatles as a boy band since the term is heavily based on a certain era and not some objective, time-neutral description. Even today the term is used far less frequently, even to groups who might objectively fit the description. 

Now this I will strongly disagree with. Just because a term didn't exist in a certain time period does mean that it cannot be applied to that object in the past. That's like saying Pangaea wasn't a continent because the term "continent" didn't exist back then. And I would very much argue that "boy band" is indeed time-neutral. What about the term or the existence of boy bands is time-specific? They definitely existed long before the term did* and the term certainly isn't extinct, nor is the whole idea of a boy band. And do you have evidence that the term is used far less frequently? The reason I ask is because I would greatly beg to differ with us discussing the topic literally right now and coming up with a long list of modern bands that apply to it.

*Instead of The Beatles, think about The Monkees. Similar time frame, definitely considered a boy band.


I'm sorry for being so hostile, I'm just so tired of this "The Beatles can't be a boy band because they did so many great things for music" rhetoric. News flash, people, a boy band can achieve great strides in the history of music. Labeling The Beatles as such does not demote anything they achieved or influenced.

[felipe]

Is Boyz II Men considered a boy band?

[kingofpain]

It's weird, most ethnic acts from the 80's/90's that initially geared toward the r&b/soul demographic aren't labeled as 'boy bands'. I don't think anyone ever referred to New Edition, After 7, Jodeci, LSG, Silk, Shai, 3W, Soul For Real, All 4 One, etc in the same vein as say New Kids On the Block, Color me Badd and Take That who were conquering the pop format and clearly labeled as a 'boy band'.

[deepston]

Bodak Yellow #6 on iTunes, discounted since yesterday. Will this be enough to close the gap for #1 next week?

[Golden Bluebird]

kworb.net/airadio/

*** = Dropped or added a format

Overall AI (Top 20) - 09/16/2017
1. (=) CHARLIE PUTH - Attention (178.375) (-0.045)
2. (=) SHAWN MENDES - There's Nothing Holdin' Me Back (167.530) (-1.575)
3. (=) DJ KHALED F/RIHANNA/B. TILLER - Wild Thoughts (153.935) (-4.036)
4. (=) NIALL HORAN - Slow Hands (144.641) (+2.315)
5. (=) IMAGINE DRAGONS - Believer (136.653) (-2.204)
6. (=) LIAM PAYNE - Strip That Down f/Quavo (119.544) (+2.517) ***
7. (=) FRENCH MONTANA - Unforgettable f/Swae Lee (113.397) (+1.317)
8. (=) ED SHEERAN - Shape Of You (111.901) (-0.141)
9. (+1) TAYLOR SWIFT - Look What You Made Me Do (107.050) (+2.216)
10. (+1) PORTUGAL. THE MAN - Feel It Still (105.173) (+1.847)
11. (-2) BRUNO MARS - That's What I Like (104.599) (-0.889)
12. (=) THE CHAINSMOKERS & COLDPLAY - Something Just Like This (97.653) (-0.181)
13. (=) ZEDD & ALESSIA CARA - Stay (95.012) (-1.494)
14. (=) LUIS FONSI - Despacito f/Daddy Yankee (93.737) (-2.220)
15. (=) SAM HUNT - Body Like A Back Road (83.622) (-0.369)
16. (=) CARDI B - Bodak Yellow (76.682) (+0.419)
17. (+2) P!NK - What About Us (72.445) (+1.616)
18. (=) JAMES ARTHUR - Say You Won't Let Go (71.262) (-0.269)
19. (-2) DUSTIN LYNCH - Small Town Boy (71.193) (-0.695)
20. (=) CHEAT CODES - No Promises f/Demi Lovato (66.852) (+0.891)

Others:
23. (+2) MAROON 5 - What Lovers Do f/SZA (62.687) (+2.902)
26. (+1) KENNY CHESNEY - All The Pretty Girls (59.886) (+1.468)
28. (=) KESHA - Praying (58.929) (+1.080)
29. (+1) LOGIC - 1-800-273-8255 f/A.Cara/Khalid (57.774) (+1.942)
35. (+2) DEMI LOVATO - Sorry Not Sorry (50.847) (+1.808)
45. (-14) SAM SMITH - Too Good At Goodbyes (39.649) (-16.121)

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

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.

[.It'sGriffin]

Feel it Still is #5 on iTunes and hit the top 10 on airplay. How?

[Harx]

Sept 16, 2017 8:57:09 GMT -5 .It'sGriffin said:

Feel it Still is #5 on iTunes and hit the top 10 on airplay. How?

Because it's popular?

[kingofpain]

I don't understand how Slow Hands is doing so well on airplay and still can't crack the top 10 on Hot 100.

[85la]

Sept 16, 2017 0:01:30 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

I have rarely if ever heard the Beatles being referred to as a boy band.

That's nice, but it is purely anecdotal and doesn't add anything to the discussion. I mean, here is a Vulture article claiming The Beatles as the best boy band of all time and criticizing Rolling Stones magazine for not considering them as such.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

I'm not quite sure where you got your definition

www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aboy+band&oq=define%3Aboy+band&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.3374j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
But if you want a more "reliable" source, then here's Webster's.

"a small ensemble of males in their teens or twenties who play pop songs geared especially to a young female audience"

Which does differ slightly from Google's in the sense that Webster clarifies that the music is pop. (Which starts a whole new argument over what to classify The Beatles as because they sure as hell fit into several categories, pop being one of them.)

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

but it does seem that garrettlen's definition is generally correct: rock (this genre is also key) groups whose members play their own instruments and contribute heavily to their songwriting/production, such as the Beatles, are usually not boy bands; boy bands are pop creations whose members are primarily vocalists and don't usually play their own instruments nor contribute heavily to their songwriting/production.

I don't know, any official source I'm finding doesn't mention anything about instruments.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

I'm not aware of the members of One Direction or the Backstreet Boys, etc. contributing heavily to their own songwriting

I'm not sure where the Backstreet Boys came from. I never mentioned them at least. Anyway, check out the writing credits from One Direction's music. You will find that they indeed write on a lot of their music, especially in the later years.

"Story of My Life" Julian Bunetta Jamie Scott John Ryan Louis Tomlinson Liam Payne Niall Horan Harry Styles Zayn Malik
"Night Changes" Harry Styles Niall Horan Zayn Malik Liam Payne Louis Tomlinson Jamie Scott Julian Bunetta John Ryan
"History" Wayne Hector John Ryan Ed Drewett Julian Bunetta Liam Payne Louis Tomlinson

Niall almost always played guitar on their tracks. Does this instrument definition specify that it has to be all members?

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

and occasional instrument playing doesn't count.

Oh I wasn't aware of this part of the definition that just arbitrarily appeared to enhance your own personal point. Please, let's at least stay consistent.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

You're right that their core demographic and how they're marketed is also key, which for boy bands is usually as these sex symbols for young girls to idolize, which I'll admit applied to the Beatles especially early in their career (not now though)

So... apparently a band can go in and out of "boy band status" according to this part. Is there a certain point at which they can leave the term behind? Who decides that? And why should it matter if they don't currently appeal to that demographic? Firstly, they're not even around anymore. Secondly, what you're now saying is not only can one part of their career be "boy band status" while the other isn't, they apparently can change status years later arbitrarily. This is quite intriguing. This definition of "boy band" is getting quite long with a bunch of asterisks now.

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

However, certain labels, such as "boy band", are often arbitrary

Well, I'll at least give you that. Who actually cares which bands are labeled as a "boy band" or not?

Sept 15, 2017 23:24:42 GMT -5 85la said:

and heavily based on time period. As already mentioned, the term didn't exist until at least the late '80s, so you can't really apply a retroactive label to the Beatles as a boy band since the term is heavily based on a certain era and not some objective, time-neutral description. Even today the term is used far less frequently, even to groups who might objectively fit the description. 

Now this I will strongly disagree with. Just because a term didn't exist in a certain time period does mean that it cannot be applied to that object in the past. That's like saying Pangaea wasn't a continent because the term "continent" didn't exist back then. And I would very much argue that "boy band" is indeed time-neutral. What about the term or the existence of boy bands is time-specific? They definitely existed long before the term did* and the term certainly isn't extinct, nor is the whole idea of a boy band. And do you have evidence that the term is used far less frequently? The reason I ask is because I would greatly beg to differ with us discussing the topic literally right now and coming up with a long list of modern bands that apply to it.

*Instead of The Beatles, think about The Monkees. Similar time frame, definitely considered a boy band.


I'm sorry for being so hostile, I'm just so tired of this "The Beatles can't be a boy band because they did so many great things for music" rhetoric. News flash, people, a boy band can achieve great strides in the history of music. Labeling The Beatles as such does not demote anything they achieved or influenced.

Wow, your skills at dissecting and trying to refute and hyper-analyze everything I say is impressive. But I actually don't and shouldn't care too much about this issue or want to drag it on any further, so I'll let you have it your way. The Beatles are a boy band.

[vocech123]

Sept 16, 2017 14:29:02 GMT -5 kingofpain said:

I don't understand how Slow Hands is doing so well on airplay and still can't crack the top 10 on Hot 100.

It isn't even on the top 50 in the streaming song chart. & Streams counts for more than 50% on the Hot 100. 

[felipe]

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 think there'll ever be another Beatles for the exact reason you mentioned. One thing I always wondered though: part of the prejudice towards Backstreet Boys or One Direction is them being seen as directed exclusively at a female audience, but was the Beatles' original audience only girls or was it ok for boys to listen to The Beatles without being called names?