Funny, but a friend and I were having this debate? from the start you could have made this claim, I think they evolved into something greater, but they definately started as "N'sync" once upon a time.....sound off??
2006-08-18 02:59:08 · 15 answers · asked by O Jam 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I think you can compare the two (Beatles & N'sync) based on the fact they both started by appealing to young women. I am suure the beatles grew into the greatest of all times, but I don't think people knew that was going to happen when the played on the ed Sullivan show...they did dress alike and have pre-disposed characters.
2006-08-18 03:11:19 · update #1
NO. Boy band is an oxymoron. Because although they can sing and dance around, they can't actually play musical instruments...which is kinda what deifnes a "band"...and being that we all have this notion of what a boy band is, the beatles don't fit in with that idea. Were they famous for playing pop/rock songs and impressing young girls, in the early days yes. But what differentiated them from most boy bands today is that they grew out of it and they found their own voice. Whereas boy bands today continually make crap. Even when the "band" part is gone and J.T. splits from the group...it's still crap. What people need to factor in are the instruments. That's what makes a band. Otherwise, they're just a 'group'
xo
2006-08-18 04:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by pollypureheart 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, the thing is that the Beatles played they're own music (for the most part) from the start and this would differentiate them from the plastic pre-packaged boy bands of today. THey were into melodies and harmonizing an awful lot, though, and a LOT of their early success in the States especially, depended on screaming teeny boppers. In fact, Little Richard Penniman was offered a stake in the Beatles at the very start, but he declined seeing them as nothing more than the British knock-off of the Everly Brothers (a somewhat fair estimation). What also differentiates the Beatles is that they wrote their own music and positively refused to release any outside material as a single (although they did perform some cover versions of certain songs, e.g. Twist & Shout, Mr. Moonlight, etc.).
2006-08-18 03:10:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
N Sync is in no way comparable to the Beatles.
The Beatles were actually talented and had catchy beats and worthwhile lyrics to their songs. They also didn't dance around in unison all over the stage shaking their butts. The Beatles were musicians, N Sync was a carnival act. Definately all boys, but not a "boy band" as the description has become now-a-days.
2006-08-18 03:07:50 · answer #3 · answered by guitar4peace 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Here's why I think not. All these boy bands are created by record labels. The songs and dance moves and marketing is all done before they know who is actually going to be in the band. They hold try outs and whoever the record label likes, ends up being in the "Band"
The Beatles were not "put" together. They met on their own, decided to start a band. They shopped around to get a label to pick them up.
Plus, and this is my major point, so I'll use all caps here,
THE BEATLES WROTE THEIR OWN SONGS.
I can not stress this enough. If you took one hundred Justin Timberlakes and put them in a room with one hundred guitars and gave them one hundred years, they couldn't write a song as beautiful as "Yesterday"
2006-08-18 03:12:01 · answer #4 · answered by Answer Schmancer 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they were pretty much a boy band, but not like boy bands of this day and age. Boy bands usually are a bunch of guys that have less musical talent than normal bands, and to me, shouldn't be as famous as they are. The Beatles were great though, unlike other boy bands.
2006-08-18 03:08:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Beatles were NOT a "boy band" and are NO WAY comparable to "N'sync".
2006-08-18 03:35:17 · answer #6 · answered by smartypants 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope. I totally don't agree.
These 4 had raw talent. They were artists even before they got together and formed a band. And they certainly weren't trying to be Timberlakesexy. In fact, I think it took them completely by surprise when they discovered teen girls were swooning over them.
Not that they didn't enjoy that aspect of stardom, but honestly...A BOY BAND?!?
Oh puh-leeze.
2006-08-18 03:10:16 · answer #7 · answered by allaboutthewords 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
for starters n sync never came close to the beatles you could say that they where a boy band though its hard to see the beatles that way lol they fookin rock
2006-08-18 03:08:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well they may have been a boy band but they sang a lot better then nsync and they didn't act or look gay.
2006-08-18 03:14:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
But of course!
I think they were the pioneers of "boy bands."
2006-08-18 03:06:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋