delboy Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 "don't blame it on the sunshine...."ah a great cover' date=' actually one of my ex's cousins was one of Big Fun Maybe a reformation for Keith Chaos CheersStuart[/quote']he he good idea jester - sort it, i'm sure they're available! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest haigyman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 5ive or Backstreet Boys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 McFly' date=' Rooster, Busted, Jackson5, The Osmonds, Some Homely Irish Boys From The Orphanage etc etc..[/quote']Exactly... I used to go on at my mates about the Beatles being a boyband (screaming girl fans, love songs aimed directly at hormonal teenage girls, shitty films, and just their whole general aesthetic) and their only reply was "fuck off, they played their instruments and wrote their own songs." Now I just have to say "Busted and McFly" and it pisses on their argument.What about the Bay City Rollers? Scotland's only boyband?? Unless someone can think of another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Exactly... I used to go on at my mates about the Beatles being a boyband (screaming girl fans' date=' love songs aimed directly at hormonal teenage girls, shitty films, and just their whole general aesthetic) and their only reply was "fuck off, they played their instruments and wrote their own songs." Now I just have to say "Busted and McFly" and it pisses on their argument.What about the Bay City Rollers? Scotland's only boyband?? Unless someone can think of another one.[/quote']The Beatles weren't a boy band, they were a creative bunch of guys who wrote songs(which changed and influenced the world, culture, music and musicians) and made it mega big. Saying they are a boy band means that the rolling stones were too, small faces, kinks, etc and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Commander Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 They are all crap, but east 17 were amusing with their chav stylings. STEAM!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 The Beatles weren't a boy band' date=' they were a creative bunch of guys who wrote songs(which changed and influenced the world, culture, music and musicians) and made it mega big. Saying they are a boy band means that the rolling stones were too, small faces, kinks, etc and so on.[/quote']The Kinks perhaps, the Rolling Stones were too sleazy to be a boy band though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 The Kinks perhaps' date=' the Rolling Stones were too sleazy to be a boy band though.[/quote']Some of the stones very early stuff is pretty cheasy, ala early beatles, as well though. Their 2nd or 3rd single was a beatles song!Listen to The Beatles: The Beatles (aka the white album) from 1968, the work of a boy band? I think not!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Listen to The Beatles: The Beatles (aka the white album) from 1968' date=' the work of a boy band? I think not!!![/quote']I'm sure if McFly started getting off their tits on LSD etc they'd stop writing songs about girls and move onto strawberries too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 I'm sure if McFly started getting off their tits on LSD etc they'd stop writing songs about girls and move onto strawberries too McFly on lsd, what a thought!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Main Agent Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Hmmm, perceptions of what constitutes a "boyband" are creeping into the thread...Beatles=boyband, nah, Monkees=TV show? yesKinks=boyband nah,McFly=boyband?yes,Stones=boyband? nah,Duran Duran=boyband? nahTake That=boyband? yesLed Zep=boyband? nahE17=boyband? yesTherapy=boyband? yes..........eh????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Beatles=boyband' date=' nah,McFly=boyband?yes,Take That=boyband? yesE17=boyband? yes[/quote']But what's actually the difference between McFly and the Beatles? Both bands played their own instruments, wrote their own music, got screamed at by little girls wherever they went/go, have gimmicky outfits and haircuts, and sang about kissing girls. The only difference is that the Beatles turned into a bunch of fucking druggies, along with 30-odd years of nostalgia. But they still started out as a boyband.I would suggest that the only reason people don't like the Beatles being called a boyband is due to the stigma attached to it (manufactured bunch of non-musicians put together for the sole purpose of squeezing money out of hormonal little girls who buy into the dream that their songs of love are being sung to them). However, this idea of a boyband didn't appear until the 80s.Besides, if it weren't for improvements in technology, there would be no such thing as boybands who don't play their instruments. Cursed DAT tapes!Also, Take That and East 17's songs were all written by a member of the band. In fact, the last East 17 album with Tony whatsisface had songs written by other members of the band as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 I thought that the definition of what constitutes a boyband is a band who is assembled by a record label or manager to specifically appeal to a mainly female audience, instead of a band who happen to appeal to that audience. CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 I thought that the definition of what constitutes a boyband is a band who is assembled by a record label or manager to specifically appeal to a mainly female audience' date=' instead of a band who happen to appeal to that audience. CheersStuart[/quote']The final step for McFly was to find the bands remaining members' date=' again through adverts in the NME. The auditions threw up Harry and Dougie - who was so nervous that he literally threw up minutes before his audition and finally McFly were complete. (The band still have that NME ad framed on the wall of their shared north London home: for Tom and Danny it was the first time their band had been in print, for Dougie and Harry it was their doorway to McFlydom.)[/quote']So there we have it, McFly were formed not by a record label boss, but by the two founding members advertising for other members, much in the same way that 99% of bands do. Does this suddenly make McFly any less of a boyband?Please note: I despise McFly with a passion. But they are an excellent argument beater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Main Agent Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 But what's actually the difference between McFly and the Beatles? Both bands played their own instruments, wrote their own music, got screamed at by little girls wherever they went/go, have gimmicky outfits and haircuts, and sang about kissing girls. The only difference is that the Beatles turned into a bunch of fucking druggies, along with 30-odd years of nostalgia. But they still started out as a boyband. yes, well the Beatles were original, and produced a unique formula of pop music, which many have attempted to "cover" and emulate ever since, from other bands, through to multinational marketing corporations,I wouldnt think that the description "a bunch of fucking druggies" actually applies to them any more than any other band, or football stars or newsreaders, or Big Brother contestants,But the "boyband" tag as you rightly pointed out started in the eighties, although that does not mean that all post eighties bands are boybands, (I dont think) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 yes' date=' well the Beatles were original, and produced a unique formula of pop music, which many have attempted to "cover" and emulate ever since, from other bands, through to multinational marketing corporations,I wouldnt think that the description "a bunch of fucking druggies" actually applies to them any more than any other band, or football stars or newsreaders, or Big Brother contestants,But the "boyband" tag as you rightly pointed out started in the eighties, although that does not mean that all post eighties bands are boybands, (I dont think) [/quote']McFly are a blatant rip-off of Busted. Doesn't mean Busted aren't a boyband. Anyway, the Beatles weren't original. What about Elvis?"produced a unique formula of pop music"... I'm not trying to start a fight here, so please don't take offence, but that's just wanky hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Does this suddenly make McFly any less of a boyband?If what you quoted from their website is true, then I would say yes. Am I the only one that thinks they sound like a very poppy Oasis?Shit, a further Beatles connection, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 If what you quoted from their website is true' date=' then I would say yes.[/quote']It wasn't from their website, because the biography on that seems to think their entire career is based around their latest single. But that's just nitpicking I'm pretty sure it's true. But if that makes them suddenly NOT a boyband, then presumably we're saying that the one and only requisite for calling a band a boyband is being formed by some record boss...Aw I don't fucking care. The Manics and The Clash shared my hatred of The Beatles and have absolutely nothing in common with them. That's all I care about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Am I the only one that thinks they sound like a very poppy Oasis?Shit' date=' a further Beatles connection, heh.[/quote']Just one of the many reasons why I despise Oasis with a passion. On the other hand, one of the many reasons why I hate the Beatles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Aw I don't fucking care. The Manics and The Clash shared my hatred of The Beatles and have absolutely nothing in common with them. That's all I care about I'm sure there is some common ground, all 3 bands share similar influences(50's r&r). I bet also, that, a member of those two bands has liked The Beatles at some point in their life. Anyway, you like the Beatles by default, cos you like my demos and I love the beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 I'm sure there is some common ground' date=' all 3 bands share similar influences(50's r&r). I bet also, that, a member of those two bands has liked The Beatles at some point in their life. Anyway, you like the Beatles by default, cos you like my demos and I love the beatles. [/quote']Some choice lines..."I laughed when Lennon got shot" (Motown Junk by the Manics)"No Elvis, Beatles and the Rolling Stones" (1977, The Clash... although they actually did like the Rolling Stones)"That phoney Beatlemanis has bitten the dust" (London Calling, The Clash)Dunno about the Clash really, since they had a tendancy to lie about things to keep their punk cred, but the Manics certainly hated them. Although probably not as much as me.I suddenly dislike your demos immensely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zeenat Aman Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Some choice lines..."I laughed when Lennon got shot" (Motown Junk by the Manics)"No Elvis' date=' Beatles and the Rolling Stones" (1977, The Clash... although they actually did like the Rolling Stones)"That phoney Beatlemanis has bitten the dust" (London Calling, The Clash)Dunno about the Clash really, since they had a tendancy to lie about things to keep their punk cred, but the Manics certainly hated them. Although probably not as much as me.I suddenly dislike your demos immensely [/quote']I supect the drummer from the manics may like em, something about him just says 'yeah, I've loved the beatles since I was 10' ... and I saw Richy buying the beatles anthology 3 cd in tower records in new orleans a couple of years ago, honest. My demos are hurt now, they miss the evil one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Main Agent Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 McFly are a blatant rip-off of Busted. Doesn't mean Busted aren't a boyband. Anyway' date=' the Beatles weren't original. What about Elvis?"produced a unique formula of pop music"... I'm not trying to start a fight here, so please don't take offence, but that's just wanky hyperbole.[/quote']Well thats allright mama, was purely generic cotton pickin music straight out of the fields, Hey, I'm certainly not offended by good healthy debate , but the Beatles sounded unlike anything that had been done before them, So in that sense they were very original, although they would probably not hide from where they drew their influences, at the time they, "produced a unique formula of pop music"... wanky or not, not previously heard or generic, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 I supect the drummer from the manics may like em' date=' something about him just says 'yeah, I've loved the beatles since I was 10' ... and I saw Richey buying the beatles anthology 3 cd in tower records in new orleans a couple of years ago, honest. My demos are hurt now, they miss the evil one![/quote']Well actually, I DID read nicky Wire saying something about the White Album, and it was in a positive light. But then he went off the rails years ago when he decided Oasis were great.Don't worry, I still like the demos really. They're just slightly tainted now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Well thats allright mama' date=' was purely generic cotton pickin music straight out of the fields, Hey, I'm certainly not offended by good healthy debate , but the Beatles sounded unlike anything that had been done before them, So in that sense they were very original, although they would probably not hide from where they drew their influences, at the time they, "produced a unique formula of pop music"... wanky or not, not previously heard or generic, [/quote']I daresay I could find something from the same era, or maybe before, that sounded exactly like the Beatles and just didn't get the same exposure, but I can't be arsed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Dunno about the Clash really' date=' since they had a tendancy to lie about things to keep their punk cred, but the Manics certainly hated them.[/quote']that doesnt really matter though, the manics were and still are rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.