im stunned....

the general basis of the rock-doc was sound, it told alot of truths... but was completely ruined by the vast contradictions it broadcast.

on one hand it told us that the monkees were the original manufactured boyband... but ignored that motown had been doing that years before..

it broadcast the 'deadly sins' which no boyband could breech, but also refered to the beatles as a boyband ( ) dispite the fact they broke all but one of the 'deadly sins', though highlighting east 17's penalty for brian harveys 'e's are good' statement.

the show refered to motowns four tops and temptations as 'boybands', yet totp2 which followed proclaimed (correctly) " before there was boybands there were vocal harmony groups" ...which is exactly what the four tops, temptations etc were! not the same thing!

ultimately how can a group of musicians be generically lumped in the same catagory as a manufactured karaoke group?. or is the definition of a boyband 'a group of young men who attract girls'? ...because thats the only simularity between the beatles (etc) and westlife (etc) ! and would then include EVERY group who have ever had a female following fanbase...

interesting idea, let down by its gaping flaws in its premis, probably conceived by a bunch of 20 somethings who have no idea on how things really were.

I saw this in the TV listings and didn't watch it, because as soon as i saw that the four tops were being mentioned in the same breath as One Direction and lumped into the 'boyband' genre, I knew it would anger me to the point of throwing something at my TV.

How on earth could you sully the name of the brilliant Levi Stubbs to comapre him with members of Westlife etc, it's disrecptful and wrong! and now you tell me The Beatles were also being classed as a boyband??? oh, well at least my TV is still working and not smashed to pieces

I suppose it may be down to the way that Motown etc marketed the acts initially - very much according to a manufactured-act model. OK - there was the whole Gospel ecosystem that fed it all...

but that model, which the show highlighted, wasnt in existence until the very late 80's. as was the term.

as i see it, the term was created around 1990 to discribe a manufactured act, created to fit certain criteria, and follow what the show called 'the sins' or something (cant remember lol) . now boybands since have followed that criteria, proclaim your single (and available), dont take drugs, etc .

now whats being done is retrospectively lumping any group who had an appeal to a largely young female and gay fanbase, did a dance routine, etc as being a boyband.

the point is...that nearly every pop act, be they groups or solo artists prior to the term being created, have had a young female following. elvis did, the rolling stones did, every pop group or male singer had a female fanbase of some size. so by that criteria every male pop act was a boyband, or boysolo...

the programme suggested that the beatles courted their young female audience. to a degree they did, although it was more of a response to the building fanbase they were aquiring....but...that phase lasted 18 odd months before they evolved away from 'yeah yeah yeah' and their fanbase became cross board.... like no other act had been before.

the monkees were put together, but became real (i saw them in 86 and they were bloody good!).

the bay city rollers however were only courting the young, (too much so...the drummer has been prosecuted on child porn offences), but then again in the early 70's glamrock did appeal to a whole new generation of young fans.

i never rated the bcr.... nor much the osmonds, david cassidy, had some time for the jackson5 and the young michael.. they all courted the young, but are they boybands?... like heck they are/were...

the programme was flawed... ive never heard any motown act refered to as a boyband...let alone instrument playing pop groups..