|
||||||||
Were Take That the first boyband? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,955
|
Were Take That the first boyband?
Something I've often wondered, were Take That the first boyband (who don't play their own instruments etc.)?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Preston
Posts: 1,572
|
Weren't New Kids On The Block before Take That?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,849
|
New edition
NKOTB Boyz Il men |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Boy vocal groups go back a long way.
The Four Tops and The Temptations from the 60s are pretty well known soul groups. Then there are doo-wop groups like The Drifters, The Platters and The Coasters. (And they are part of a tradition that goes back to the 19th Century at least). |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melting pot of friendship
Posts: 11,734
|
Bros?
Beatles? |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,284
|
The Osmonds
The Jackson 5 The Monkees The Bay City Rollers New Edition New Kids On The Block Ah-ha Boys ll Men Bros |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,071
|
Quote:
Bros?
Beatles? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The rolling Green of Wales.
Posts: 16,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,009
|
Quote:
The Beatles played instruments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 9,202
|
Quote:
The Osmonds
The Jackson 5 The Monkees The Bay City Rollers New Edition New Kids On The Block Ah-ha Boys ll Men Bros |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
|
Quote:
they did play instruments though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 25,824
|
I regard New Kids On The Block as the archetypal "boy band"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 15,659
|
Quote:
I regard New Kids On The Block as the archetypal "boy band"
Someone mentioned a-ha above but they played their own instruments as did Bros. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 15,659
|
Quote:
As do Take That.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
depends on what qualifies as a boyband. true acts long before new kids on the block fitted the template... but the term wasnt used. it first came to my attention around 1990 when new kids on the block were formed.
earlier acts really werent quite the same, the bay city rollers, osmonds, jackson 5, beatles, monkees a-ha were not boybands...although all acts first had some features that later boybands would employ. (bcr and monkees pretty much manufactured, early beatles had merchandising aimed at kids, osmonds, jacksons, had a 'pretty boy' lead and did dance routines...but they played intruments and created their own music). bros nearly qualify, they were out just before nkotb, but again were an instrument playing pop group as oposed to a bunch of pretty boy karaoke singers....... but i guess take that kinda evolved away from that as gary barlow composed.... it could be argued that take that werent a real boyband! |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,410
|
If you take the generic term of "boyband", or "girlband" for that matter as a vocal group formed to sing songs written for them by composers then in terms of pop music you can go right back to the 1950s, as most groups of that time fitted in to that generic term.
The early days of Motown being a classic example. A song would be written and then the best person to sing that song would be chosen. In those days the singles chart was more about the actual song, rather than who was singing it, so it wasn't uncommon for two or three versions of a song, sung by different artists, to be in the singles chart at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 50
|
The earliest contenders I can think of were the Mills Brothers who formed in 1928 and had far more top ten hits than take that will ever have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_Brothers
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
The earliest contenders I can think of were the Mills Brothers who formed in 1928 and had far more top ten hits than take that will ever have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_Brothers
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: inside the PS3
Posts: 1,080
|
Quote:
The Beatles played instruments.
Quote:
still just a boy band
![]() ![]() for me "both statements i agree with" (sorry mushy) But thats my view.... Depends on what individuals think is what matters i suppose. Anyway moving on people
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 50
|
I Think the difference with the Beatles is that if they had not existed as performers their Song writing was of such a standard that they would have been taken seriously in their own write (and draw - as John Lennon would have said)
And, whilst they were marketed as a boy band - their creative songwriting combined with their history as a rough rock and roll outfit on the mean streets of Liverpool and Hamburg meant that they were a lot more than that.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,058
|
Quote:
The Osmonds
The Jackson 5 The Monkees The Bay City Rollers New Edition New Kids On The Block Ah-ha Boys ll Men Bros
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 50
|
Aha - weren't they cartoons - I've Never seen them at a Music Festival.... Were they real?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Banging my head on wall
![]() for me "both statements i agree with" (sorry mushy) But thats my view.... Depends on what individuals think is what matters i suppose. Anyway moving on people ![]() c'mon! its ridiculous! they are stylistically and musically poles appart! the only simularity is that in the early days, they created simplistic pop that appealled to young girls....they soon evolved way above that . same with busted and mcfly... they are so much different from westlife, blue, 5ive... they are closer to being rock then a boyband.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
anyway, i dont know why this article wasnt consulted, it is, for my money pretty much spot on....even if i dont like some of what it says. its a pretty much concise article of the evolution of boybands. please note, id doesnt refer to the beatles as a boyband, but states that they employed some aspects that were later employed by boybands...ie marketing to young girls! and that the term 'boyband' wasnt used before the 90's....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_band |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the southstand
Posts: 87,671
|
Quote:
... how can you lump into the same generic class, the group that popularised the template for all rock/pop groups, whos creativity is unequaled, who lead the pop music explosion and evolved from a simplistic pop group (they were called pop groups back then!) and who are regarded by music fans, critics, contemporaries, industry insiders, as the biggest influence on pop music ever.... as a bunch of pretty boy karaoke manufactured puppets?
c'mon! its ridiculous! they are stylistically and musically poles appart! the only simularity is that in the early days, they created simplistic pop that appealled to young girls....they soon evolved way above that . same with busted and mcfly... they are so much different from westlife, blue, 5ive... they are closer to being rock then a boyband.... |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:03.




