Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
None of those things disqualify them from being a boy band.
Also, the Beatles did not come togehter entirely organically (cough cough Ringo). Their music was not entirely their own creations either. They worked with many of the best producers, studio muscians, writers, etc of their time.
I see little difference in the way that the Beatles were formed and the way that N'Sync was formed. N'Sync was formed when Chris Kirkpatrick assembled a group of chidhood friends and approached Lou Pearlman. Lou then tinckered with the lineup. N'Sync also did much of their song writing.
The only real difference you've pointed out is that the Beatles can't dance. And that has more to do with what was in fashion in pop music at the time.
|
They weren't the first band to make a lineup change. Bringing in Ringo was a band decision. They paid their dues playing In Germany and Liverpool clubs. George Martin saw their potential and gave them a chance. He was the defacto fifth Beatle. The Rolling Stones started off playing covers as well, albeit more in a blues vein. Were they a boy band too?
I can see where the Beatles could be dismissed in this day and age as being a boy band. Boy bands over the decades have largely copied the Beatles. As for the dancing, it had nothing to do with the era. If the Beatles formed in this century they wouldn't be dancing on stage. They were never about that. They actually quit performing live very early on to concentrate on songwriting and honing their sound. They got sick of the hype and having their performances drowned out by screaming girls.