Ok….age old debate…what makes a boy band? In my opinion the term ‘boy band’ seems to be extremely negative. Just because guys who are in a group that sing and dance they get labelled as a boy band. Granted when they start they often are ‘boys’ (as in young) it still seems derogatory. Take Backstreet Boys for example…they are not ‘boys’ anymore. Nick Carter is the youngest and he’s 25 or 26? A ‘boy’? No way! He is a man! I mean you look at Simple Plan…a band…made up of five guys…are THEY called a ‘boyband’? No! Far from it! But they’re all ‘boys’ aren’t they?
So…tell me…is it to do with the fact that SP play their instruments and don’t dance? Where as BSB just dance? Come on…the word ‘boyband’ is so old now…but they can’t think of something new. I suppose. Is it to do with the songs they sing?
I suppose it’s just human nature to ‘label, label, label,’ but it’s weird to me. I love BSB and I love SP…and both sorts of ‘boy’ bands have lots to offer.
Here’s a list of ‘boy’ bands (ie is bands with guys in it) Old and ‘new’
- Backstreet boys
- West Life
- Human Nature
New School (ie…some people will label these bands as the ‘new’ boybands…)
- Good Charlotte
- Blink 182
- Sum 41
- Simple Plan etc…
Of course in Pierre’s own words: Us, Sum 41 and Good Charlotte are all bands who have made it on their own, who have written their own songs and who are actually a real band who play their own instruments. So, if that’s considered the new boy bands, then it makes for a brighter future.