WikiProject Music genres	(Rated Start-Class)	Music genresWikipedia:WikiProject Music genresTemplate:Genremusic genre articles
Music portal v • d • e Boy band is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Contents 1 Add to Parody list 2 Naked Brothers Band= 3 removed= 4 Comment 5 Rammstein 6 Hanson is not a boy band 7 Copyedit 8 Band Additions Should Be Discussed First 9 Questionable Choices 10 Explain 11 another non-boyband 11.1 reply 12 Rammstein??! 13 soulDecision Isn't a Boy Band Either 14 What about the Beatles? 15 Other "objectionable" entries 16 POV 17 citing sources 18 Top boyband list 19 Work needed 20 Suggestion for inclusion on the list 21 Notability 22 POV 23 Westlife Sales 24 Kaiser Chiefs? 25 Emo? 26 Rules to Naming Groups as Boy Bands 27 Jackson 5 28 Vandalism 29 Be guided by the sources, not opinion logic, common sense, or any other original research 30 Article topic is not notable

[edit] Add to Parody list

Shouldn't we add that D12's song "My Band" makes fun of the idea of Boy Bands especially the lead member getting more attention while the other members are dissatisfied.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Naked Brothers Band=

You know, there is a girl in the naked brothers band, they should not at all be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.195.168 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC) THRE WAS NO ONE FIWMN MDBI,M UOIAIOOLBMJKNM

[edit] removed=

I removed this line: This has been stretched into more recent times, as the stereotypical boy band has died away, giving way for bands such as Hellogoodbye to lead the "boy band" ideal in a more intense way.

It doesn't make sense in context of the article. Its also original research. Also, not everyone would call hellogoodbye a Boy Band. I think there are a lot of statements like this in this article. Lets all work together and improve them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlm1515 (talk • contribs) 22:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I have NEVER heard anyone refer to the Beatles or Beach Boys as boy bands. The songwriters from these groups wrote brilliant music, both bands played their instruments and did many live gigs, and got together by themselves, no by someone like Maurice Starr. These bands should be taken out of the article. To call either of them a boy band is to misunderstand the meaning of the term.

Typically, each member of the group will have some distinguishing feature and be portrayed as having a particular personality stereotype - such as "the baby", "the bad boy", "the nice boy", but this device is not limited to boy bands.

I would argue that the specific practice (picking members and marketing them to a personality sterotype so as to attract the broadest possible audience of preteen girls) *is*, whilst maybe not limited to boy bands, is far more identifiably used with these groups (and girl bands) than with any other type of pop groups. Who is the bad boy in, say Radiohead? --Robert Merkel

Typically, one of the members of the group will come out as gay in the closing chapters of the band's history.

I was guilty of making the same snide remarks in the original article - I know sniping at boy bands is fun and an easy target, but it's not NPOV. --Robert Merkel

By the way, has anybody got a link for Just 5, the polish boy band mentioned in the main article? It sparked my curiosity now :) --Robert Merkel

[edit] Rammstein

Remove Rammstein! They are not a boy band! Boy bands don't play their own instruments - well, they don't play them well.

Apparently A1 does. But that's beside point, since Rammstein also is a rock band, of the kind which frequently screams its lyrics. By definition, a boy band sings pop, dance and R&B music, or frequently a varying mixture of the three, as with *NSYNC. You'll be happy to know, dear anonymouse, that it's since been removed (by an editor before myself).Runa27 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanson is not a boy band

Hanson do not meet any reasonable definition of a boy band, including the one given in the intro of this article. They are not "manufactured". They are skilled musicians and play musical instruments, which boy bands typically don't even bother to pretend. They also don't do any of the elaborately choreographed dancing that is typical of boy bands. Mkweise 19:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You obviously have a very misinformed understanding of what is a boyband.

1. A boyband in the music industry is a group of singers of one sex, numbering usually between 2 and 6 in number put together for the purposes of being promoted as a vocal group. They may be put together at the start of their recording deal (eg. Boyzone) or already exist as a musical group prior to a recording deal (eg, Westlife).

2. The idea that they are not skilled musicians is largely an urban myth. The membership of That That involved some lads who had been to stage school. The lead singer is an accomplished composer, who composed for the band and who is now a prolific composer for other singers over a wide variety of musical genres. Another member, Robby Williams, had as a kid starred in the West End in the musical Oliver and now has an internationally successful musical career doing everything from rock to swing; he has composed some of his own music. Westlife had had a musical career with largely the same membership under a different name. Many of its members play more than one instrument. Boyzone, which was a totally manufactured band, consisted of five members; four have composed music, three had musical careers of their own subsequent to the band's career. One is now an actor. The lead singer has an international musical career and has appeared on stage with a famous tenor, another is the critically acclaimed star of a production currently on in the West End. One True Voice (and the rival Girls Aloud) were formed as part of a live show and all the members without exception were highly accomplished singers and musicians. OTV broke up recently because they felt they weren't being allowed to show their actual ability to full effect, a complaint made by many boybands, from the Monkees to 5ive to Westlife and OTT.

The idea that boybands do not consist of skilled musicans is bullshit. Not all boybands consist of an entire membership of skilled musicians (but at least three of a band of five must be, to cover eventualities where one or more may leave, or may due to illness be unavailable, alternative singers capable of singing the lead being built in as standbys), but many are entirely made of singers. I had the pleasure as a freelance journalist of interviewing two of the bands on the list. One group of five, whom I was interviewing in the RTÉ canteen before they appeared on a TV show, in response to a joke about whether they really could sing, sang in perfect five part harmony a famous Irish folksong. (My old music teacher in school must have dreamt of having a choir who could sing the particular song, one of the most difficult of the famed late 18th century/early 19th century Moore's Melodies, note and intonation perfect.)

In reality most members of most boybands do play at least one instrument. However they are promoted as a vocal group, which means that except on rare occasions their contract requires them to appear exclusively as vocalists. The nature of their ability is such that on a number of occasions, bands such as Westlife and OTT have annoyed TV shows by asking to be allowed to sing live; TV shows don't like that because it complicates the 'package', requiring sound checks, live feed, accurate balance of mike levels. Lipsincing is much easier for a show because all they have to do is play a pre-balanced track rather than do the balancing themselves. Many boybands for that reason hate appearances where they have to lipsinc because it creates the impression you have that they can't actually sing when they can and want to be able to show they can.

Boybands are a marketing commodity but the idea that five nobodies of limited or non-existent talent are picked and used as a 'front' is rubbish. That did occasionally happen at the start of the boyband craze but there are three very clear reasons why record companies avoid such 'creations'. 1 - as happened with two less than skilled members of Boyzone, one of the early bands, the company and the good singers resent paying large sums of money to people who are just 'hangers-on', 2 - for all the money earned, the 'hangers on' usually are well known in the music industry and viewed as the proverbial turds of the industry; as a result they often feel so humiliated that they quit, causing the band to prematurely disintergrate, 3 - money conscious companies don't like paying on the double, millions to miming front men and then large sums to session singers everytime they need a note from the band, so they prefer band members who can do the music too, and 4 - boybands have a very limited shelf-life. No company wants to spend the millions involved in promoting a band if all they can get out of them is a three or four year career. Choosing a full compliment of singers opens the prospect that subsequent to the band, one, two, three, if they are lucky, all five members will then be capable of having solo careers for the record company, so ensuring a return for their investment for a decade or more from each artist, rather than the three or four years.

The impression you seem to have about boybands is largely urban myth, and also has developed due to professional jealousy within the industry, because they tap into a mass market that is beyond the reach of most bands, who in response dismiss boybands as 'phoney' and 'manufactured' out of professional jealousy. But in fact the boyband phenomenon is in fact one of the oldest forms of music. Exclusively choral groups have existed for centuries, many in the middle ages were celebrities, many choral groups (eg, gospel choirs) use choreography and dance, etc. It is simply a reinvented form of vocal-based music, with the background music provided by another group of people. (BTW I have never seen Pavorotti play an instrument, but I have seen him sing alongside people who began their musical careers in boybands.) FearÉIREANN 00:13, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

"A boy band (American English) or boyband (British English) is a style of somewhat to mostly prefabricated pop group featuring about between three and six young male singer/dancers, but normally five. " If there were no such things as boy-bands, I could nominate this article for the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest Joestynes 10:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Band Additions Should Be Discussed First

I think that additions of new bands should always be discussed on this page before being added to the real one. Many people are complaining about various bands that they feel are not boybands being added the the page. I think that in general, it is definately NOT a boyband if: each member plays an instrument (except for the lead vocalist), and they have a sort of dark, punk/emo image.

[edit] Questionable Choices

2 Live Crew and Wu-Tang Clan are "boy bands?" Yes, both are comprised entirely of young men with (possibly) fabricated personalities but they certainly weren't aiming for the teenage girl demographic and both made frequent use of profane/extreme lyrics. I fail to see how they fit in with the other bands on this list. --feitclub 22:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

What does "somewhat to mostly prefabricated pop group" mean? What does "prefabricated" mean here and "somewhat to mostly"? Mandel 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone find the photo of Garvis (looking in their 40s) look anything like a typical boy band with teenage appeal? Mandel 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just deleted Maroon 5 from the list, since ther are NOT a boyband; They are a group that met and formed during high school. Boyband members usually meet during auditions made by record producers.

[edit] another non-boyband

Boyz 2 men are more of a street corner group: doowop, than boy band. I took them off the list at the end.

[edit] reply

A lot of confusion seems to have arisen between those acts which are marketed to tweens and those who are vocal harmony and urban acts, so a separate section has been given to these mostly American acts

[edit] Rammstein??!

It would seem some person added Rmmstein on to this list, possibly as a joke or an attempt at vandalism...I see no possible correlation between them and the concept of a boyband, other than the fact that they comprise of a bunch of males....I would remove them myself..but I'm fairly certain I'd screw up and delete the article at the same time!..

[edit] soulDecision Isn't a Boy Band Either

soulDecision doesn't fit your term of boy band either. They were a trio who had been writing songs and working their butts off trying to make it in the industry since 1998 - if not earlier. They all play instruments, they didn't dance and they weren't manufactured. It's really not their fault that the record label "brought them out" when all the pop boy groups were getting big.

I agree, Hanson isn't a boy band - and neither is BBMak which is also listed. If someone is going to argue the point, then I have to ask - why isn't Savage Garden or even the BeeGees on the list? I'd classify them in the same grouping as soulDecision, Hanson and BBMak.

Just noticing Simple Plan is on there - totally not a boy band. If they were then you'd have to add Blink182 and Green Day to the list. ;) By the way, they're Canadian not American.

[edit] What about the Beatles?

Do the Beatles not count as a boy band? It seems to me they were the blueprint for all that have followed to this day.

Reply

No, The Beatles were not a boy band. Reasons:

1) They formed the band on their own. They were not assembled, as most (all?) boy bands are.

2) They wrote their own songs.

3) They wrote great songs. And that's an understatement.

4) The played instruments on stage, as opposed to choreographed dance moves.

5) Hundreds (thousands?) of artists - from Kurt Cobain to Elliot Smith - list them as huge influences.

6) They're the most covered band in history. Yesterday alone is the single most covered song.

7) The Beatles helped lead a generation through the turmoil of the 60s, from the spiritual to the political.

--Millifoo 17:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

um, what do those things have anything to do with being a boy band? They were not part of the phenomenon, that's all you had to say. To say that by definition, something can't be 5 or 6 or 7 has zero factual backing, and is highly opinionated Blueaster 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any serious musician or music fan would even entertain the falsity that the Beatles were a "Boy Band". Yes, they were all guys, and yes, they all sang. But they were all accomplished musicians who had been playing in bars and clubs for years. No prefab, no dancing, no pretty boys just because they were pretty and could dance and sing. Anyone who thinks the Beatles were a boy band needs to go back and read the definition at the beginning of the article.

Actually, plenty of people entertain the notion; it's even debated among musicologists. It's entirely reasonable and encyclopedic to list early Beatles here as an example of a '60s boy-band. Chubbles 17:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For the 60s they might've been but not really, they where a ROCK GROUP. not HARD ROCK but they had ROCK. Boy Bands don't do ROCK they do POP. ROCK has BLUES INFLUENCE. The Beatles where NOT a BOY BAND. They where ROCK, SOFT ROCK. George Harrison is considered one of the best guitarists ever...thtats an insult to the beatles to say they boy band. Ownt.01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverPwnzor (talk • contribs)

The Beatles in some ways were a pre-cursor to boy bands, especially if you think of the way they were marketed to young people. Look at Sluts and Teddy Bears then look at the Beatles novelty stuff they marketed at the time, it's not much different. They also contributed to the template of four good looking boys as teen idols, with each harmonising with each other, though they were the catalyst. Musically, without The Beatles, there would be no harmonies or melodies for boy bands to sing. Take That even did Beatles covers as part of their live sets. (Chris Henniker (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

I'd suggest that the Beatles can be discussed in this article, but not categorized properly as a "boy band" for the reasons described here. The Beatles were an influence in as much as the record industry put together The Monkees as a knock-off of sorts. Boy Bands are largely an attempt to cash in on the commercial side of what the Fab Four started, but have little artistic resemblence as musically they influenced Hard Rock more than pop, disco etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles are a rock group, not a boy band. if you are going to apply the term boy band to The Beatles, then you should apply the term "elephant" to chairs, "glass" to oranges, "mouse" to airplanes, and so on, because, if it doesn't matter for something to be called anything the fact that it doesn't have the caracteristics of what it is called, you might as well call everything anything.

boy bands don't play instruments, they dance. boy bands don't write their own songs, the beatles did. boy bands are made up by producers, the beatles aren't. boy bands use studio session musicians and almost never perform live, the beatles performed both in studio and on stage, they played the instruments and did the vocals themselves without session singers or musicians. boy bands don't play rock, they do mostly pop and follow the trends. the beatles played all kinds of styles, rock, pop, folk, covers from the 50s, ballads, acoustic songs, distorted-guitars rock, psychodelic experimental music, some stuff today might be considered "adult contemporary", some stuff might be called "alternative" or even "proto-grunge", and they even played a couple of 20s-like numbers. boy bands always just stick to what's trendy. the only thing in common between the beatles and boy bands are the screaming teenagers, but that's it. the fact that oranges and carrots have the same color doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

so, please, remove them from that 60's list in the right of the article.

edit: sorry if I'm not clear enough, english is not my native language. I meant "if the fact that something doesn't have the caracteristics of a thing doesn't matter for it to be called that thing, then you might as well call everything anything". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.179.127 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

bye. Pelger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.179.127 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other "objectionable" entries

-Are Evan and Jaron a boy band? I think they play instruments (in at least one of their videos, they are playing guitars), so wouldn't that automatically make them not part of the genre? I think they're more in the John Mayer/Joss Stone "coffeehouse" genre

-I don't think the St. Lunatics would qualify either. They don't have teenage girls falling all over them like the rest of the groups, not to mention that they aren't pop/R&B. --Ecurran 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-- actually the original drummer of the Beatles was kicked out by producer, Brian Epstein. He then recruited Ringo Star because the group members had worked with him previously and they had chemistry.

[edit] POV

Who had the bright idea of segregating the list? I've merged all the entries (except the mixed gender acts) because the so-called seperations were highly POV (both in terms of scope -- UK scope -- and in tone). Someone just needs to alphabetize the list. Also, I removed any R&B groups who weren't specifically packaged in the Tiger Beat style from the list (for example, The Jackson 5 should be here, but K-Ci and JoJo or The Temptations should not be. --FuriousFreddy 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"They can evolve out of church choral or Gospel music groups, but are often put together by managers or producers who audition the groups for appearance, dancing, and singing ability (often in that order), and often seem to be prefabricated."

__________________ the parenthetical statement is funny, but not based on fact and is unencyclopedic. I'm removing itBlueaster 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citing sources

although we're all probably familiar with some of the history and facts that have to do with this subject, and it's not a very written about thing, i'm pretty sure that we could improve the quality of this article if we could find authoritative sources on this subject. I'm sure VH1 has covered everything about boy bands in multiple programs. Or maybe there's something on mtv's or vh1's site, or some magazine article or something. some stuff on this page seems purely original research, based on personal conclusions or opinions. this is especially true for the Groups commonly referred to as boy bands section. People are adding and taking off bands to the list based on their own opinions. We could easilly fix this problem with a simple plan:

Find 2 references by a reviewer, a magazine, or something and place links next to each band listed to support their placement in there. Blueaster 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top boyband list

Someone messed-up the top selling boyband list yesterday. Suddenly The Jackson 5 are in it (not even a boyband. It's got boys, but they are simply brothers, not selected individuals. Plus, they made R&B not mainstream-pop) and Boys II Men. And suddenly NSync and Take That got kicked out (incl. New Edition, but they are disputable). Someone please return a better list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.160.35 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Boyz II Men... Because Wikipedia is based on citing references and having edits verifiable by reliable sources, you must leave Boyz II Men in this article seeing there are cited references in support of leaving this group in the article. You cannot decide that a certain group is not a boy band based on your own personal feelings. If the information in this article is cited and verifiable but you disagree with these references, the best way to address this would be to discuss it in this very discussion page. Groink 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BOYZ 2 MEN ARENT A BOYBAND.

Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that they are not a boy band, they are more commonly considered a soul group, they weren't manufactured, they weren't overtly aimed at teenagers and they wrote their own material. --Neon white 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think B2M is a boy band either, but that's a POV on my part and therefore don't allow it to affect my edits. What I have a problem with is the way Fadiga09 goes about his edits. Other editors before me added B2M to the list - and WITH cited resources to back it up, such as industry critics (the sources are in my previous edits that were reverted.) Lou Pearlman HIMSELF stated, according to B2M's Wikipedia article, that he used B2M's formula to produce The Backstreet Boys and 'Nsync - and only the race of the members changed. Regardless, Fadiga09 goes about his selfish way and does his edits - and without discussion that is required by Wikipedia. It isn't up to any of us to decide whether or not a particular group is a boy band. We must follow what the cited resources point out. Once again, if reliable sources on the 'net mention B2M as being a boy band, then under the reliable sources guidelines of WP we can use them. I also have a WP administrator monitoring this very article, and have warned Fadiga09 about his actions. Once again, please edit as a community, and to communicate conflicts via this discussions page. Groink 21:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree they probably aren't a typical "boy band", they are referred to as such, and have been since they hit the scene. I think it is not the best term, personally, but please refer to the following: "The US boyband - who became famous with their smooth tracks including 'I'll Make Love to You' and 'End of the Road' - will be acting as Motown mentors" and "If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Boyz II Men should feel honored by the "boy band" craze that has blossomed in their soulful wake." and "Boyz II Men Proud Of Rival Boy Bands". There are a whole bunch of other sources, but they are obviously classified in this category by both the media, and music industry, even if they are more Soul/R&B. All that being said, Fadiga09, I would respectfully request that you please discuss your changes in a civil manner here if everyone else disagrees with them, so consensus can be reached. Ariel♥Gold 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The first source isn't that reliable for this subject and the second and third do not actually say they are a boy band. I don't think a reliable source on the subject would refer to them as such. They simply do not fit the criteria specified in the article, text should be added about contradictory claims. There seems to be a consensus that they aren't a boy band. --Neon white 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, the first URL Is a New York Times Company, The Boston Globe, which is quite a reliable source, lol. The other two are media reports that do consider them a "Boy Band", explicitly in the title. The point is, the is how the media classifies them, whether it is how they see themselves or not, so to deny that is to deny the common perception. Ariel♥Gold 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really known for a specific expertise in the area of music. The others do not specify that they are boy band, read them. Boyz II Men Proud Of Rival Boy Bands does not say they are a boy band and Boyz II Men should feel honored by the "boy band" craze that has blossomed in their soulful wake does not say they are a boy band either. This isn't a common perception amongst the majority and it certainly doesn't seem like the consensus here especially consider that more notable and more verifiable source like allmusicguide specify that they are an R&B group. --Neon white 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point is not that you, or I, think they belong (I don't classify them that way) but that the media does, obviously, the titles state right there, "Boy Band", ("rival" means they are in the same genre), and others above agree they belong on this page, (see Groink's comments) as they are generally referred to and grouped in this classification by the public and the media. Just because those who are familiar with their work feel offended by the term, that is not a valid reason to remove them. That is allowing our own opinions to influence the article, which must remain neutral. The three sources which are all no less reliable sources than allmusic (and as mentioned, there are many more than that), do specifically classify them as a boy band, and that backs up the fact that it is valid to have them in this article. Again, note that I don't think of them that way, so I'm not arguing with you about whether they are or not, but I do again point you to the general public, and media. (P.S., it is possible to be both R&B, and a "boy band". [1][2]) :o) Ariel♥Gold 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

More refs to validate the group belongs on this list as this is one of the ways the public, and media, views them:

• CNN:Boyz II Men were the hottest boy-band on the music charts.
• Press release:'The Originals' of Boy Bands Return! World Renowned Recording Artists Boyz II Men Set to Release Single and Album
• Rolling Stone: Backstreet Boys consider themselves the same type of group as Boyz II Men:"We're a vocal group. We'd like people to look at us like Boyz II Men or New Edition."
• The Star:"If you are wondering whether Boyz II Men is included in the line-up... then the answer is yes. (About the release of a "Boy Band" compilation album)
• USA Today:Philadelphia's Boyz II Men against Boston's New Edition in a battle of boy bands.
• CNN:Boy band bonanza: A new generation of boy bands emerged, including New Kids on the Block, Menudo and New Edition. Boyz II Men also drew flocks of young fans in the early '90s.
• Los Angeles City Beat:A very loving parody of every boy-band cliché – from the Osmonds and the Jackson 5, to Boyz II Men and *NSYNC".
• The Oakland Press:Boyz II Men, "Throwback" (MSMŽKoch) - The faded boy band looks to the past
• Oregon Daily Emerald: ..a group that has been compared to Boyz II Men and other popular "boy bands"
• The New York Times: In the 1990's, back when boy bands were singers above all, close a capella harmonies and sinuous, Stevie Wonder-style lead vocals made million-sellers of Boyz II Men.
• Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages: "A celebration of boy bands that includes songs from the Temptations, the Osmonds, the Jackson Five, New Kids on the Block, Boyz II Men, the Backstreet Boys, and (let me catch my breath!) 'N Sync."

Again, note that I don't think it would be necessary to put any of this in their article, and my personal view is obviously that I do not consider them this way, but I do think that a great deal of the non-savvy public lumps them into this category, and to leave them off this list is not presenting the facts neutrally as mentioned by others above, as this is how the media perceives them much of the time. Ariel♥Gold 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That Boyz II Men is a boy band is well documented, had mass appeal to young girls, has valid refs, and they were in their teens when they started. I'd have to say that meets the definition of a boy band. So what's the problem here? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people being 'offended by the term', there is no consensus here as the band clearly do not fit with the criteria in the article regardless of what the erroneous media may report. These are all newspapers and are not as reliable as sources such as all music guide which was founded by music scholars. Wikipeda is not a news site, it does not exist to report what the media thinks. You need to read WP:RS, like alot of editors you seem to be under a mishaprehension as to what is considered reliable, it says Mainstream newspapers may be a reliable source for some subjects. Newspaper and magazines have various different forms of articles from straight and neutral reporting through to opinion pieces of dubious veracity. Newspaper articles will rarely have the stature of academic works. With regard to popular culture articles, they may be the best or only source but should still be treated with care, especially with regard to assessing a neutral point of view. The publication of the same facts in several newspapers is not necessarily proof of reliability due to the way the news industry works with common agencies and self-published press releases. The fact that allmusicguide contradicts those sources pretty much makes them worthless. If the article is to include bands that are erroneously called boy bands then the article should have text to reflect the mistaken use of the term by the media to represent bands that don't fit the criteria as is generally understood. The fact that the term is used pejoratively, as is stated in the article, means that in order to keep the POV neutral, sources need to be a little better than tabloids. --Neon white 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree, about WP:RS, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. ", and every one of these publications fits into that category. Just because they are wrong in calling this band a "boy band", doesn't change the fact that they do it, others do it, and the public in general does. The term came about from the media, not from any group deciding to call themselves a "boy band". 10+ reliable media sources should not be dismissed, just because another source contradicts them. And again, the issue is that this group is perceived by the public and media as a boy band, and readers who would come here and expect to find them listed, as explained by others above. The media and public refer to Boyz II Men as a "Boy band", and have for years, and it is not done in a negative way much of the time. Despite the fact that I don't consider them such, I do think they should be listed in this article, because many readers unfamiliar with the technicalities would not understand why they aren't. The very first sentence of this article states: "A boy band is a type of pop group featuring three or more young male singers." This group falls into that, especially when they first began putting out records. (Yes, they are R&B, but their hits have been on the pop charts multiple times.) However, all that being said, I came across this issue during recent changes patrol due to sourced, valid information being removed, and I chose to discuss it here, rather than just revert. I have no stake in this, I'm impartial, but I would really encourage you to understand the context of the article. I'm trying to be helpful here, and I don't have any stake in this, other than noting that this article has a lot of neutrality issues already. I do understand what you're saying, and note that I don't disagree with your opinions about the classification, but for the article to be comprehensive, not including bands that have been referred to this way for years, by the public and the media, just seems to add to the neutrality issues here. That being said, I really don't have an interest in debating it, honestly I'm not a music-focused editor (although I do have all of Boyz II Men's CDs, lol) so I'll just hope consensus can be reached. No hard feelings, as I honestly do see your point of view. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 05:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for 'boy band' can't solely be a group of male singers or it would apply to 90% of all pop acts, i think the opening sentence is a description that could apply to alot of acts and does not really open the article well. I think you have to consider the guidelines overall rather than just that sentence, wikipedia calls them guidelines rather than rules cause they aren't set in stone, there are exceptions and it is ok to question sources reliabililty even if the do have editorial policies. I'm sure you can agree that newspaper aren't the most accurate source. The problem i think is that currently the list has no definition, is it to be a list of bands considered popularly to be boy bands? or is it considered a list of boy bands according the generally understood criteria which we need sourced for? As a compromise i suggest that one is chosen and the list is titled accurately or another option is to seperate into 'defined' bands and bands labeled as boy bands who don't fit the definition. I think it would also be useful to explain the ambiguity over the term and the fact that at the height of boy band popularity it was often used to describe bands that wouldn't have fit into the original definition, whether due to lack of research in the media or it being used pejoratively. --Neon white 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work needed

This article really needs work. Some sentences seem awkward and there aren't alot of citations. --Neon white 16:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for inclusion on the list

How about the Osmonds pre marie? Bay City Rollers? --Neon white 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem here is that there is no known source showing that the term "boy band" was used prior to the 1980s. Once a label has been invented, you can't go back pre-label and start rattling off names that fit the label. For example, someone could say that Jimmi Hendrix was a metal guitar player; although his style of music was metal-like, the term "metal" was never used until long after his death. It is the same thing with boy band as a label. I think in order for a group to be added to the boy band list, the group must have been active at the time the term was regularly used, AND there must be at least two credible sources making references to the group as being a boy band by definition of this article. I think there should be a consensus as to when the term "boy band" started being used in the music industry, and then drop all names prior to that date. Groink 08:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Neon white pointed out that "wikipedia is not used as a source for notability" and pointed to WP:N. Reading through this guideline, I actually read the total opposite: Wikipedia has EVERYTHING to do with notability. If you read through the thousands of articles that have been deleted, most of them were due to insufficient evidence of notability. And, in many of the arguments for deletion, WP:N was applied as the basis for the deletion by many of the editors who chimed in on the discussions. According to the guideline (as of this writing), for an article to exist on Wikipedia, "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'", and that there must be significant coverage of the subject matter, reliable sources that can be verified to support the coverage, and that the source is independent of the subject itself. Although the guideline itself does not mention it, I must assume then that the notability must apply both directly and indirectly, i.e. to both the article itself, as well as wikilinked references within other articles. That is my basis for keeping the list free of non-existing Wikipedia articles, as well as free from attempts by regional boy bands in order to promote their own groups via these types of lists. In other words, if you feel that an XYZ boy band should be added to the list, the two things you should do are:

1. Create the article, so that you establish the band's notability. For an editor to push a boy band, I can't see why he isn't also participating in the development of the linked article.
2. And THEN provide a wikilink to that article within the boy band article.

If you create the article, and eventually the article is removed because of a lack of notability, then the name of the band should also be removed from the boy band list. And, according to WP:NOT#CBALL, articles within Wikipedia should not be used to reserve spots for possible future notability. That is the reality of how Wikipedia has been functioning. If other editors can't provide an argument that overturns everything I mentioned here in the next few days, I'll go forward and remove the red links. Groink 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly that isn't how wikipedia works, if you'd read the article you'd have figured it out my now, if notability relies on reliable sources then wikipedia cannot be used as a source for reliability, it isnt a reliable source. Then of course there is the rule Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. If a band is notable according to the guidelines whether it has a page or not is irrelevant. You cannot use the lack of an article as proof of non notability, we dont prove negatives, we prove notability using the guidelines. Claiming a band is not notable because they don't have a page is pretty ridiculous and not wikipedia policy. If you want to discuss changes to notability guidelines try to perform a consensus on the talk page there. It is completely inappropriate to try and push you're own personal guidelines here. The only criteria for inclusion here is reliable verifiable sources the same as in any article. --Neon white (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read over the relevant section in the notability guideline for article contents: Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Dreadstar † 07:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is a bit negative POV on boy bands. 213.240.234.212 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which aspects? --Neon white (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall tone. And another thing - I think they are even boys that listen to boy bands. You don't need to be attracted to band members in order to like their music, I think? 213.240.234.212 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's text it doesnt have a tone. You need specify which phrases you dont think are neutral or nothing can be done. --Neon white (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westlife Sales

Are the secondary sources quotes their own self-published claims and if so is it still acceptable? --neonwhite user page talk 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Would these be enough? ;-)

I've misunderstood your meaning on that page and now I get it. I don't think any bands (boyband or not) can be objectively calculated for how many records they sell. Newspapers have quoted them selling anywhere from 36 to 50 million. I've found most sources (the current ones) to be ~40 (not including the latest album) so that seems to be a fair statement to make. --Cahk (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaiser Chiefs?

I'm definitely not a diehard Kaiser Chiefs fan, but I find it pretty strange that they're on the list of boy bands. I think there needs to be some sort of classification system for boy bands; this article's a mess. McFlyStarGirl27 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emo?

Realistically, what boybands are influenced by emo, post hardcore or indie rock? DavidJJJ (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the emerging boy bands post-Busted are starting to incorporate those influences. They're more likely to sound like The Hives or JAMC than Take That. (Chris Henniker (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

I wouldn't say the hives. I would say more like Simple Plan and Good CharlotteDavidJJJ (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary Chain??? What an idiot. Seriously, is this a joke? Where in the hell is there even any minuscule connection between the sound of any modern boy band and 80s shoegaze? Where? Or is someone just name-dropping an obscure band for the sake of it? This emo/hardcore/indie as influence to boy bands thing is complete and utter toss. Boy bands are not all of sudden going "edgy" just because they no longer resemble NKOTB. Maybe they're dressing like Good Charlotte now, but that still gives them no serious link to real indie and punk music. 74.69.64.52 (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rules to Naming Groups as Boy Bands

A definitive definition of Boy-Band needs to be made to better associate groups with the term. Also, a new section should be made showing groups that fit the Boy-Band formula but were out before the term Boy-Band was used as they should not be called a boy-band. The reason for this is because alot of these groups have men over 25 in them when the groups were started and weren't aimed at a younger market. Boy-Bands are aimed at younger fans (i.e. think artists like Tiffany, Debbie Gibson, NKOB). Also, with some of these groups they can also Ascend to not being a boy band anymore. New Edition (at least in my opinion) would no longer be considered a boy band because they no longer make power pop songs while i do consider NKOB as still being a boy band. There are alot of groups in this list who are included (as it seems) just because they are a group of guys singing. I think we should do a consensus to what characteristics are needed to be a boy-band. KillerSim187 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we bear in mind that there are bands that straddle the line between being a boy band and something else? You can straddle the line between boy band and ska-punk, mod revivalism or even neo-psychedelia, for instance (Chris Henniker (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Jackson 5

remove them, they are not a boy band, they were assembled by their father AND were just brothers and not casted, and they played their instruments i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.252.248 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They were a template an precursor, like The Beatles. (Chris Henniker (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Vandalism

I don't know where it started, but there seems to be a fair bit of vandalism on the description. Also, I'm not sure about the standard of placing locks on pages, but I have a feeling this page could do with one. laparaparapa 2:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Be guided by the sources, not opinion logic, common sense, or any other original research

This subject and associated category seems to have a history of original research when it comes to definitions and decisions about whether band X is a boy band. Definitions should be based on sourced definitions. A band is boy band if sources and/or common usage say it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article topic is not notable

There's a difference between a term heard constantly on YouTube, and encyclopedic. The term "boy band" is not encyclopedic. "Boy band" does not appear in Webster's 3rd or the OED or the OED supplements.

The article itself shows the confusion. "there are no distinct traits defining a boy band" Do they have to be young? No, they are often in their 20s, 30s, or even 40s E.g., Donnie Wahlberg. Do they have to dance? No. Must they have "appearance"? No. Would "The Beatles" or "The Monkeys have seen themselves as boy bands. No. Would they have considered themselves as "predecessors" as the article maintains. I've never heard them say so.

This is a term contrived by marketing departments to differentiate their product.

Furthermore, the term is trivial. What does a "boy band" do that a group of boys with one girl not do? The music wouldn't necessarily be different, the dance wouldn't necessarily be different.

The term not defined by the major dictionaries, and it has no set meaning. It is unencyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the term is, at the very least, highly problematic. A (so far - but I am continuing it) limited search has not produced even an attempt to create a viable definition in a reliable source. Perhaps the problem is that the article confuses the phenomenon of "boybands" with a genre. Boybands are not a genre, the genre is pop music or sometimes pop rock. As a result what are referred to as boybands sometimes are purely vocal and sometimes use instruments. As a result they are extremely difficult to distinguish from other all male pop and rock groups. I wouldn't necessarily rule out deletion, but at the very least the article needs to have its genre info box removed and should be rewritten to say, in effect, from the late 1980s journalists began to refer to certain types of pop/pop rock acts as boybands, it can also say they sold a lot of records, but this is a vague journalistic label and definitely not a genre.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)