h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, whatever else you say about him, he was a good songwriter. Not so keen about the rest, but he wrote 'em well.

He was a good songwriter, I don't deny that. I have versions of his songs by other people, but nothing by him.

deemikay

There is this whole new generation of boybands that can play their own music.

Busted.

But they are still s**t.

Boybands do not create good music. They are the creation of a record company, and if they last longer than a year, they are turned into merchandise-gods, destined to play on the high emotions of pubescent teenaged girls and take their parents money.



Comparing Boyzone to Frank Sinatra, is not viable in my eyes. Frank Sinatra was an entertainer. He oozed class (with the degenerate lifestyle to fuel revelatory biographies posthumously), not to mention talent. There was nothing generic about Sinatra, even if he didn't write his own music. The ability to entertain varied audiences, throughout the years, simply with your voice (which is technically an instrument - ask anyone who does it seriously), makes him a classic. People will be listening to Sinatra in decades to come.

Whereas boybands fade into obscurity.



*rant over*

LOL



One word:

S A TUR D A Y !

OK. Four words in total.

Bay City Rollers


Gawd, I'm old!

Frank Sinatra was one of the first SENSATIONS when he sang with the Tommy Dorsey band in the 40's. I'm sure there were plently of people saying: "if they last longer than a year, they are turned into merchandise-gods, destined to play on the high emotions of pubescent teenaged girls and take their parents money." He subsequently became something different and bigger. And that was only after he had been in From Here to Eternity in the early 50's...

Yes, some boyands fade into obscurity... but we still remember Wham, The Bay City Rollers, the Monkees, and more. Still sell albums. Who's to say that at leaast a couple of the current load of boybands won't repeat that.

Lots of bands fade into obscurity, we only remember the good ones. And quite rightly. The Mersey Beats v. The Beatles? Sham69 v. The Clash? A Flock of Seagulls v. The Smiths. The Gyres v. Oasis? (Apologies to fans of the first groups in these pairs... but they are mainly forgotten.)

Anyway, what was I saying? Mmmm.... oh yeah, I like music!

deemikay

I think you maybe misunderstand what a boyband is?

It's not just those of the male variety performing music.

The Beatles, The Monkees - can you seriously compare them to the likes of New Kids on the Block, Boyzone, Westlife, Blue etc?

Do you really think they are the same?

Heh. The Monkees were as pre-created and stage-managed as the Spice Girls or the Backstreet Boys or N*W*nk are.

They just had better tunes. And their own TV show! And Davey Jones was a cutey.

Yes, but their being manufactured is completely independant from the whole UK boyband thing that dominated the 90's and has continued on through here.

Maybe it's just a UK thing, so exterior alien type people might not understand what I am getting at?

"here" being a lazy end to a sentence.

I actually meant :

"continued on through the current decade"

I know what a boyband is... the Monkees were a plastic, manufactured band. Just like Steps, Boyzone, Westlife, etc. *And* the Sex Pistols while we're at it... bands put together by an individual/record company to make money. (Malcom McLaren would happily admit it.)

The music scene as it is now is no different from that of the early 60's (All the Bobby's in the states, Adam Faith and his type in the UK); the early 70's (Bay City Rollers, Gary Glitter, all the *terrible* glam rock bands (not Bowie, Roxy Music, Bolan, etc.), the 80's with synth pop bands (Kajagoogoo anyone?). Nowadays we have boy bands, girl groups and other folk.

The music industry has always had disposable pop... don't try and pretend it's just a new fad. Record companies want money. They always have done... I'm not worried about the state of music, because it's no different now from any other time. And there's still people moaning about it.

I was using the other bands as an example of how we forget the bad music and remember the good stuff. Not because I thought they were boybands.

deemikay

So, I am the only one that sees a vast difference between the boybands like Boyzone, and bands assembled by record companies, like the Monkees and the Sex Pistols?

Ok then.

I don't really know much about the Sex Pistols, but I don't really see that big a difference between the Monkees and Boyzone.

Actually, I don't know that much about the Monkees either, which may be why. I've just heard that one song and seem pictures of them looking like morons.

Saturnine... the Monkees were created to cash in on the Beatles. Boyzone were created to cash in on Take That. Both had the same market (teenage girls). The Sex Pistols, I admit, were slightly different. Malcom McLaren invented them to get publicity for himself and (his then girlfriend) Vivienne Westwood's shop Sex. And then to make money of course.

But, and I think this is important, none of this is bad. It's the way the industry works. I don't have a problem with it. I'll happily ignore it and buy the music I like instead. Why people get so worked up about it I'll never know...

deemikay

I watched Fame Academy with my girlfriend. Now, I watch shows like this with 'my eyes shut'. I don't care what someone looks like as long as their vocal output is pleasing to the ear. However my gf said "I wouldnt vote for him because he's got funny eyebrows".

Is it any wonder the pop charts are in such a state?

It would appear that in these programs the people who vote are (obviously) those who care the most. I, at 18, watch the programs with an attitude ranging between faintly amused interest and mild disdain. If anyone good ever comes on I'll just think "Hmmm... they're a bit unique, still I can't really be bothered to pick up the phone and pay for the phone call because I'm sure everyone else will vote for that one anyway." And then that person loses out because some limp, slurring overgrown bathspider of a boyband member lookalike has got all the votes of the neurotic 12 year old girls ("pleeeeeeeeease let me phone them up Daddy - he's sooooo lovely!")

...Which is why, although the different programs appear to promise at the start to find a unique new star by the end, they're all EXACTLY the same!



ie...

Will Young
Gareth Gates
The Sned
Lemar whatsitsface
That one from Hearsay, not the one that looks liek Schreck but the other one - isn't he just a clone of The Sned?!?!

Shrek?!? Poor Danny. I never noticed the resemblance. But now you mention it....

Lol - I'm sure somewhere satirical I saw photos of them placed side by side - the resemblence is VERY bizarre - almost as scary as the way Vladimir Putin (i think thats his name) looks JUST like Dobby!

"*And* the Sex Pistols while we're at it... bands put together by an individual/record company to make money. (Malcom McLaren would happily admit it.)"

Well, that's McLaren's word against Lydon's. John Lydon has always claimed that the idea that McLaren "manufactured" him and the Sex Pistols is pure fantasy. Given that McLaren was recently on a documentary about Adam Ant claiming to have, effectively, give Adam's "Pirate/Dandy" persona to him (when, as far as I know, all he did was jettison Adam from his band "the ants" and use them to create "Bow Wow Wow"), I'm inclined to go with Lydon's version of the story. Given that Lydon is (and always has been) highly-intelligent and confrontational, it does seem unlikely that he would be a "puppet" in anyone's vision of a band. I suspect all McLaren did was make some suggestions and deal with the promotion of the Sex Pistols.

Hmm. Maybe none of you see it the same as I do then.

Fair enough.