|
||||||||
When did groups stop being groups and become bands? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,527
|
When did groups stop being groups and become bands?
In the sixties when popular music became pop music and we all followed our favourite groups, many of us wanted to 'be in a group', so we cobbled together a couple of guitarists, a bass player (that was me - I reckoned with only four strings how hard could it be .. big mistake!) and a drummer and formed a group .. and a lot of fun we had with it.
In latter years all groups of musicians seem to be referred to as bands, which to my older ears makes them sound like they should be like Billy Cotton or Count Basie or something like that. Does anyone know when the word 'group' was replaced by the word 'band'? Was it at the same time as the emergence of so-called boy bands and girl bands .. i.e. only singing, no playing of instruments? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,342
|
Much earlier than that. It developed as the 60's did. By the end of that decade we were talking about bands and not groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,883
|
I've mentioned this before and got shot down.
Bands in the 20th Century, were mostly, "Brass," "Dance," or "Jazz." Though some of the latter two attempted "gentrification," by calling themselves "Orchestras." But then they often also included a few strings, so the term was correct. My personal opinion is that if a collection of musicians doesn't include "some of those brass shiny things where you blow in the small end and when you wiggle your fingers the sound comes out of the big end," you can't call it a band. Even small groups of jazz musicians which include instruments in this category, aren't usually so pretentious as to call themselves a "band," they're usually, trios, quartets, quintets, sextets etc. Though Artie Shaw had "The Gramercy Five," as a section of his band/orchestra. In the pop world it was always "group" or numerals, Spencer Davis Group, Dave Clark Five, etc., However "group" these days sounds old fashioned to some. The worst offenders tend to be "boy/girl singing groups" who call themselves "a band." They aren't. Nor are four guitar thrashing 'erberts who also sing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,352
|
I've always thought of those that only have singers as groups and those that have instrument playing members too as bands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 730
|
For me it was the late 70s -80s you had Abba and Boney M and even Duran Duran and you called them groups then when I started getting into rock I called them bands so pop groups and rock bands yeh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,851
|
I think I've always said 'group'........to me a 'band' denotes a larger collection of musicians than your regular 4 or 5 man group........somewhere between a group and an orchestra
Similarly ......when did a 'mike' become a 'mic' ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
I think I've always said 'group'........to me a 'band' denotes a larger collection of musicians than your regular 4 or 5 man group........somewhere between a group and an orchestra
Similarly ......when did a 'mike' become a 'mic' ? Mike is how it is said, Mic is how it is written.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,883
|
Quote:
The difference between a band and an orchestra is the string section in an orchestra.
Mike is how it is said, Mic is how it is written. ![]() There you go. Artie Shaw http://www.artieshaworchestra.com/ Glen Miller occasionally had strings, mostly not, but was always called "The Glen Miller Orchestra." http://glennmillerorchestra.com/ Orchestras with just their names, since they're both dead, still tour. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 17,165
|
Doghouse Riley has it spot on, well up until the late sixties anyway.
In the 1950's the collection of musicians who backed Little Richard were called a rock 'n' roll band because that collection of musicians included a horn section, while Buddy Holly and the Crickets were called a rock 'n' roll group because they were guitar, bass and drums only. A few years later, in the early sixties, the Beatles were referred to usually as a pop group, often as a beat group and sometimes as a rock 'n' roll group - three different terms, but always featuring the word "group", never "band". Also, pop and rock 'n' roll were (rightly or wrongly) thought of as being more or less the same thing. In the late sixties as rock evolved and rock musicians wanted to distance themselves from pop (which they now considered an inferior form of music) they replaced the word "group" with "band", so you now had pop groups and rock bands. Over the ensuing decades, pop groups (even those that entirely consisted of singers) started referring to themselves as bands too. Not many people tend to use the word "group" anymore. A pity really. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Well you hear boy band but it is nearly always girl group. That's what you get when you check 1D and Little Mix on Wikipedia. A degree of sexism but maybe girl group is more accurate?
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,883
|
Quote:
Well you hear boy band but it is nearly always girl group. That's what you get when you check 1D and Little Mix on Wikipedia. A degree of sexism but maybe girl group is more accurate?
I've always considered dignifying pubescent singers, who formally sang in front of their bathroom mirror singing into a hairbrush (you know what I mean) by calling them a band, who probably "wouldn't know a Crochet, or a Quaver, from a Pringle," an insult to trained professional musicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,410
|
Quote:
I've always thought of those that only have singers as groups and those that have instrument playing members too as bands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
|
It's just a word surely? 😉
If you're really pretentious, you could always call it a "collective" |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,883
|
Quote:
It's just a word surely? 😉
If you're really pretentious, you could always call it a "collective" The OP asked a question and some have given their opinions. Actually the term "The Collective," has already been used. Musician, producer and former Yes member Billy Sherwood has put together what he’s dubbed “the biggest super group of progressive rock players ever assembled,” to form The Prog Collective. http://www.gonzomultimedia.co.uk/ima...ollective-1jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
|
[quote=Doghouse Riley;82123686]Of course it's just a "word," that's the whole point of the discussion.
The OP asked a question and some have given their opinions. Actually the term "The Collective," has already been used. /QUOTE] I know, I was giving my opinion as well ![]() The 'collective' you refer to is an example of an entirely different beast I'd say.. i.e.t he 'supergroup' This can be made up of musicians from either 'bands' or 'groups' just to add to the confusion...though there is no strict definition as far as I know
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,324
|
I don't think there's any logic to it.
The Beatles were a group. Led Zeppelin were a band. The Beach Boys were a group. Cream were a band. The other thing that I find increasingly illogical is that in the USA, a group or a band is always singular but here we tend to treat it/them as plural: Foo Fighters is my favourite band (USA) vs Foo Fighters are my favourite band(UK). |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
|
Quote:
I don't think there's any logic to it.
The Beatles were a group. Led Zeppelin were a band. The Beach Boys were a group. Cream were a band. The other thing that I find increasingly illogical is that in the USA, a group or a band is always singular but here we tend to treat it/them as plural: Foo Fighters is my favourite band (USA) vs Foo Fighters are my favourite band(UK). Foo Fighters is on tour...?? Nah
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,324
|
And there's a famous line from the Woodstock film: "Blind Faith is a groovy group".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
|
Quote:
And there's a famous line from the Woodstock film: "Blind Faith is a groovy group".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,527
|
Quote:
I don't think there's any logic to it.
The Beatles were a group. Led Zeppelin were a band. The Beach Boys were a group. Cream were a band. The other thing that I find increasingly illogical is that in the USA, a group or a band is always singular but here we tend to treat it/them as plural: Foo Fighters is my favourite band (USA) vs Foo Fighters are my favourite band(UK). As far as I can remember, the sort of outfit that my friends and I might have called Underground, would be the likes of Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep, Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Vanilla Fudge, Iron Butterfly, Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin, etc. Take your pick and add others as you think of them. The point was, we wanted to demonstrate that our listening taste had got more serious .. we now eschewed the pop groups with whom we'd grown up! If you were into Underground man, you were a serious muso ... whatever the hell that meant! One thing's for certain though, we would never have referred to the Pink Floyd group! |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: arizona
Posts: 5,220
|
By the late 60s, early 70s, they were bands.
At least according to the Moody Blues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_J-hmyAS6c and Wings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBX2dySWGew and of course, The Band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFqb1I-hiHE |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; Henry V, Act 4.3 |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
Quote:
I've always thought of those that only have singers as groups and those that have instrument playing members too as bands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,781
|
Quote:
By the late 60s, early 70s, they were bands.
At least according to the Moody Blues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_J-hmyAS6c and Wings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBX2dySWGew and of course, The Band: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFqb1I-hiHE |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
|
Quote:
Much earlier than that. It developed as the 60's did. By the end of that decade we were talking about bands and not groups.
ive always regarded pop groups as pop groups.... well into the 80's at least. the jam, sex pistols, buzzcocks, siouxsie, etc werent 'bands' they were 'groups'. we even had a board game in the early 70's called 'pop groups' (where we had imaginary groups who rose up and down the charts). although i dont think theres a definitive answer, id suggest maybe its as a result of some snobbery. perhaps the term 'band' came in to describe prog rockers or rock groups in general as they didnt want to be associated with the 'pop group'.. obviously the term 'group' was dropped, although i insisted busted and mcfly were 'good old fashioned pop groups - NOT boybands) edit...i see johnny forget has mentioned this... my bad ...
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:48.




