jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Sept 21, 2006 8:40:03 GMT -5
This has always fascinated me: In the 1990's, there was no one hotter than Boyz II Men. In fact, combined their weeks at number one on the Hot 100 total 50 (!).
They account for three of the top 7 songs of the rock era ... then, nothing.
What happened? Have they just been pigeon-holed as "too 90s" / not hard enough for the hip-hop era? Was later material just not up to par?
Its really wierd how they went from the biggest thing for three or four years to not even being able to be arrested ...
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 21, 2006 9:59:28 GMT -5
Yeah, it is odd. I was listening to 'Thank You' last night actually. They had a few good songs but I think they just got old after. Nothing really to keep the attention of music fans. Nothing changed.
|
|
|
Post by A Thug Named Slickback on Sept 21, 2006 10:40:22 GMT -5
Well, they became popular with the over-the-top male R&B ballad that became really popular in the early 1990s. Plenty of groups had monster hits with this formula: Shai, All For One, etc.... Only thing is that musical tastes changed and they didn't. If you listen to some of the stuff they're making now, it sounds exactly the same.
Most of the acts with real longevity -- LL Cool J, Madonna, U2 -- are able to keep moving forward with their sound. These guys weren't.
With the exception of "Thank You" and "In The Still Of The Nite," I only really like the stuff from their first album.
|
|
jdanton2
Diamond Member
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 11,687
|
Post by jdanton2 on Sept 23, 2006 19:03:56 GMT -5
i loved alot of their songs especially the ones when they worked with Babyface . they need to record some more Face songs.
|
|
|
Post by francky on Sept 24, 2006 17:57:32 GMT -5
I think the last single that I've really loved from them is "Pass You By".
|
|
|
Post by jaxxalude on Sept 24, 2006 20:00:41 GMT -5
Well, they became popular with the over-the-top male R&B ballad that became really popular in the early 1990s. Plenty of groups had monster hits with this formula: Shai, All For One, etc.... Only thing is that musical tastes changed and they didn't. If you listen to some of the stuff they're making now, it sounds exactly the same. Most of the acts with real longevity -- LL Cool J, Madonna, U2 -- are able to keep moving forward with their sound. These guys weren't. With the exception of "Thank You" and "In The Still Of The Nite," I only really like the stuff from their first album. Thing is, for a group that made its mark by singing completely PC/family-friendly/"mature" material, a change to an altogether racier/edgier/provocative material wouldn't really quite cut it. I mean, they were so young when they started with the good-church-boys schtick, changing to a sexually-powered act would be seen as trying too hard, right? Whereas the other way around would actually convince many people they were maturing. Strange world, indeed...
|
|
|
Post by A Thug Named Slickback on Sept 24, 2006 21:16:22 GMT -5
Eh, it's not so much their image that I was talking about, but the actual sound of their music. If they threw in some more uptempos, introduced a little more variety, or explored new subject matter that might have changed things. They had many options other than introducing sexual lyrics.
|
|