So 1 out of 1000 saves the "genre?"

A group slapped together by a recording company for the sole purpose of herding the giant masses into a state mindless euphoria so that they can extract as much money as possible.

I've often wondered that too...Where do you draw the line? First, I hate the term "boy band" I find it childish and degrading to many of the artists that get grouped as one. I suppose 5 guys that sing and dance are considered a "boy band" to the masses. Course, with that term people assume that the group also doesn't write their own music, were formed by an outside source AND lipsynce. Which I think is a stupid assumption in itself........funny thing is that people always think NSYNC when they hear boyband....and none of those last three descriptons have anything to do with them.

It's just another stigma that society has created.

I believe that it was Jon Bon Jovi that said (and I'm not gonna quote it cause I don't remember the exact words) We're not in a boyband, We're in a man band......

:cool:

Jess

Same here. And this thread is evil for trying to make us choose :p

No...I'm just saying...Don't include them in the "boy band" assumptions, they don't hold to any of those stigma's and stereotypes....

Sorry if that makes me sound obsessive or weird....I get defensive about Savage Garden because I get so much crap about it!..lol!

I hold there music dearly to my heart. It's gotten me through some hard times when nothing else could help. Got me through those "lost in your own thought and worries" times......

Anywho....

*shakes it off*

*takes a deep breath*

I'm good now...

Jess

What is a boy-band?
Ya, I’ve heard this question before........in this forum & I’ve answer it too.........somewhere.
For that, I’ve to talk with people who know these bands like me or more than me(for your information, I’m a member of lot of boy-bands fan groups)
And everyone told me that this term "boy-bands" possibly has something to do with the age factor of the members. See, all these bands are started by young boys......... teenagers or something close…….and unfortunately they break up having some wonderful years in the middle. So while they break-up they still stay young and here comes the term "boy-bands."
It’s like that this young image of the members of boy-bands stays evergreen. So they are called boy-bands. Even if after their break-up…...... they grow older........some may join the music world as solo singer or stay in the entertainment world in someway or do whatever......they are only remember for their boy-band image........... mostly. Suppose Ronan Keating, he can’t be called young anymore but do you think of this Ronan when you listen to Boyzone?No, we remember that Boyzone ...........that young side that spellbound the fans with their music. And they stay like that........forever young in the hearts of fans…….that’s why they are called “boy-bands”
This is why some classic Rock bands are not called boy-bands coz although they started the band in young-age they don’t break-up…and continue.
The other terms like they write lyrics or not or use instruments or not are just rubbish.........I don’t even wanna think of it.Ya, they use some instruments sometime but its additional ........to add some variety. And if some boy-bands like Savage Garden (sorry Jess I’ll still call Savage Garden a boy-band.........see, they fulfill all the requirements) write their lyrics that is also an additional quality but all these normally has no influence in the primary definition of boy-bands.
Oh, I can’t believe how much I wrote? Is it clear now,ScorLibran? :p

In no way is Savage Garden a "boy band"...BOTH men were in their mid to upper 20's when the they were in the spotlight.....So that doesn't fit. They didn't dance. They played there own instraments, and wrote there own songs.

Besides....Boybands are Nsync, BSB, Westlife, 5ive, and groups like that. Mostly seen as useless, pointless pop.

And though I'm a fan of Nsync (only one of them)..I know that the music they wrote isn't exactly brilliant. And songs that were wrote for them....are just about as pointless. Heck, I could write songs that good.....

I find you defination of a "boy band" to be completly off.


And can we shut this boy band stuff off. It's moronic. To sit here and try to justify it as something that is full of meaning and is something of substance is a lie. It's not. I know that. Most fans with any sense of reality know that also. Can't we just say it was fun....and be done with it. It doesn't have to be special to be fun.

Don't glorify what is meant to be simple.

Jess

Quite insightful...

I hate Boy bands, sorry, but most of them are a waste of musical talent. All they are groups that can be Commerically explioted. Well I must get back on track, Ive got alot of favorite but here are some
-Matchbox 20
-Daft Punk(Probably my most favorite)
-Yoko Kano And the Seatbelts (They play the songs in Cowboy Bebop :))
-Sugar Ray
-50 cent and G-Unit
-Korn
-Limp Bizkit
-(2nd most favorite I think) Linkin Park
-Pink Floyd
-Jazz
-Ac/Dc
-Blink 182
-Fat Boy Slim
-Dave Matthews
Well the lists goes on and i have ALOT Of other favorites but I think you all are bored with it from here. Also anyone here listen to Daft Punk?

YUS! that was one of mine!

fav track: "Bad Dog, No Biscuit!"

Too many bands I like, but.....if I had to choose one, then I'd go for The Flaming Lips.

Kings of Leon are doing for me at the moment.

i should really mention sikth, their album kicks an almost inconceivable amount of ass.

Whew, am I old or what? I've never even heard of half the bands listed here. Favorite Band of all time: Rolling Stones, followed closely by Aerosmith. No other band will ever come close to the longevity of these two bands. Why? Because they are and have always been that good!

Gotta love the Stones. No too keen on Aerosmith though. But don't forget U2. They been aroung for over 20 years and still going great guns.

Stones, Aerosmith and U2...I've been a fan of all three.

And how about R.E.M.? A lot of people don't like them nowadays, and mostly I prefer the older stuff myself. One thing's for sure: In 1983, Murmur was the first time I heard what has since evolved into "modern alternative rock", and I was blown away by it. I would put it among the top 20 rock albums of all time, I think. Their later stuff seemed to become more "plastic".

Same with a lot of bands. I find myself liking an artist's or band's first one or two albums more than any of their later work. Case in point: Pink Floyd, Liz Phair, The Rolling Stones, R.E.M., U2, Queen, Rush, Fatboy Slim, garbage, Foo Fighters, Journey, Metallica, Veruca Salt. With all of these bands, their first (few) albums I liked the best, then their later stuff I never liked quite as much.

Seems like it would be the other way around: Experience ---> Improvement. But I guess it's more about: Time ---> Staleness. :(