Yeah? Go away and come back when you’ve written a two-minute pop song as smart, simple and hooky as “Rockaway Beach”.
My post was tangentially related to homosexuality, since it is related to what sorts of sexual images are considered masculine and which ones are to be derided as “gay” (not literally homosexual, of course - I am referring to how the term is used as an epithet).
I’m wondering just what you’re trying to say about my “perspective”. My perspective is one from which is seems that certain appearances and images are derided as “gay” while others are considered acceptable. The acceptable ones are considered acceptable because they comform more to masculist views of gender expression.
I no longer will try to argue that anti-homosexual bias plays a huge role in the derision received by popular boy bands, given that I already conceded that this is false.
But it now appears that you’re accusing me of some sort of anti-homosexual bias, simply because I referred to anti-homosexual terms. I did not use them, I referred to them. Am I the Great Satan because I referred to these words?
I like plenty of raging homo artists, 'cuz they make great music.
I can honestly say that it never occurred to me to peg “the Back Street Boys” and their sound-alikes as “gay” - they’re just a calculated product aimed at syphoning money from tween girls and their parents, like My Little Pony figurines. I’m not remotely in the same demographic; I don’t think this constitutes a “bias.”
Hell, I’ll play Mika with windows open. I’ll sing along with Blister in the Sun even if I do fully comprehend the lyrics. I will, however, stab you right in the fucking face if you bring a New Kids on the Block CD into my home. This is not about sexual orientation; this is about not wanted to be exposed to vapid crap.
[Flaming was italicized in original.]
This does not seem to be a reference to what others believe. And it is a phrase that no adult would ever use because it is so extremely pejorative.
There is no possible way to read your OP except as homophobic ugliness. That’s why everybody in fact did read it that way.
I gather you’re in college. Maybe the use of gay or flaming in this sense is common in your age group. It’s not among adults, and it looks just plain wrong whenever it is written. If you use it here you’ll find everybody attacking you from the first instant.
If you take anything from this thread, take this friendly advice. Never use gay or flaming or fag or any similar term as a negative. Ever.
Seriously? The music industry has been this way since time immemorial, and it is only the very talented, very lucky, or very contrary artist who has not had to bend to the will of commercial interest to make a living.
As for boy bands, I dislike them because they suck. And just because Lance Bass is gay doesn’t make his whole band gay; nor does it change my perspective on the quality of “music” they produce.
Stranger
Really? No possible way?
I think it’s possible to recognize that I was referring to the uses of homophobic terms by others without endorsing such language myself.
What if I wrote a paper that said this:
“The Nazi regime portrayed Jews as some sort of ‘disease’ or ‘pathogen’ that had to be expunged from the nation.”
Am I endorsing anti-Semitism by talking about how the Third Reich viewed Europe’s Jewish population? I take it that the answer is obviously no, and the same answer applies to my reference to words like “gay” or “faggot” in this thread.
Your perspective is one of ignorance, then: the Ramones, who were initially packaged by a gay Mexican artist named Arturo Vega {who designed their well-known “eagle with baseball bat” logo, which you would presumably consider a masculist {sic} view of gender expression}, had a visual image - ripped jeans and skimpy T-shirts - strongly based on the gay New York hustlers who hung out on, yes, 53rd and 3rd.
Other people didn’t read you as you intended. Many other people. A whole thread full of other people. Think about that.
Beyond that, I don’t care if you take my advice. Just as I don’t care if you wind up getting yourself pitted every day you stay here. My work here is done.
[This](Punk Rock: So What? : the Cultural Legacy of Punk - Google Books) seems to be the source for that theory, but I can’t say I buy it. The Ramones looked like tens of thousands other young, sloppy white white guys of that era. I don’t think the bulk of them were fashioning themselves on boy hustlers from Manhattan.
They are viewed as being “gay” because they make really effeminate music while pretending to be macho. It has nothing to do with actually being gay. It’s just that gay people get stereotyped as being effeminate and so sometimes effeminate music is called gay music.
I agree that gay people get stereotyped as being effeminate.
I agree that it has virtually nothing to do with actual homosexuality.
Some people misunderstood my point. Some of them disagreed and pointed out alternative explanations for the derision certain musical groups receive. They did it rather constructively, in fact.
Re-scanning the responses to my OP, I don’t see anyone accusing me of opposition to homosexuality. Maybe there are some subtleties I am missing - or maybe you want so bad for me to have seemed homophobic that you’re willing to suggest that all of my other critics within this thread feel the same way.
Since I now believe that other factors play a more important role than gender image in the reception of boy bands, this thread ought to be done with. Unfortunately, you - alone - felt the need to suggest that I had come across as anti-homosexual. Luckily, it seems that you were virtually the only one that felt this way. And since your work here is done, so is mine.
I was using my copy of Jon Savage’s England’s Dreaming, actually, which I note Sabin actually cites as a reference.
Thank you, I’m glad I am not the only Hanson defender on this board. I’ve got every album, and have seen them live over a dozen times. Their music may not be to everyone’s taste (and I’m the first to admit it’s not particularly innovative or challenging), but it is at least their music. That said, the Jonas Brothers have fully embraced the tween marketing machine far more than Hanson ever did. First of all, Hanson was never in the pocket of Disney, and the Jonases come from a background of musical theater and acting (Nick did commercials; Joe did Broadway) so it feels to me like having a rock band for the JB is just in the continuum of being “entertainers,” and they are not so much motivated by being simply musicians. On the other hand, Hanson were never seriously interested in doing anything besides making music (and babies; between them they have seven kids now, I think).
Correction: only Taylor is working with Tinted Windows, which is not just Adam from FoW but also James from Smashing Pumpkins and Bun E. Carlos from Cheap Trick: a real “supergroup.”
You’re right, I remember reading that too. But the reviews have been very good, so I took a chance on the CD for the library. I’ll see how it is pretty soon. Nothing Fountains of Wayne are involved with can be bad.
Go listen to some Me First and the Gimme Gimmes and say that again.
As far as my hatred of boy bands, it’s about equal to my hatred of Nickelback, the Spice Girls, anyone who’s ever been on Americal Idol, and Hole (they had some pretty hot chicks, but I swear their music was specifically crafted to drive me into a homicidal rage).
I knew at least one of them was really a girl! :eek:
Or because they’re not hipsters.
This. The average boy band is put together and marketed to be the musical equivalent of Hello Kitty. It’s kid’s music, but for older kids (say 12-13), but it’s also kind of designed for cross over appeal which is why it ends up on adult pop music stations.
I read an article once about by bands (probably back in the late 1990s), where they described the formula. Whether boy-band or girl-band the cast of characters is usually along the lines of: the Cute One, the Dangerous One, the Smart/Sensitive One, the Sporty One, and the Young One. If you compare New Kids on the Block from the 1980s to the 1990s Backstreet Boys, you can see the formula. The interesting thing about the article, was the way they talked about the cross-over to adult pop.
The writer (who was female, IIRC, not that it makes a difference), said you could always tell when a boy band was on the decline when their released singles were heavily skewed towards balads. It meant, she said, that they were becoming too old for squeenager demographic, so they were now shifting into the “office secretary” demographic - the last stab at getting a finger in the pie of the music market.
I’m probably a little late entering this thread but screw it. When reading the OP I understood it to mean that he was asking about the listener’s perception of self if caught listening to that style of music. That is, do some men avoid listening to a particular group because he doesn’t want to be perceived as “gay” (both the descriptive and perjorative meanings). Unfortunately, “gay” has come to mean “stupid”, “weak”, “sissy”, “girly” or whatever word you would like to use to describe non-masculine qualities in a negative way. I don’t believe she/he was being “anti-homosexual” or heterosexist, just using jargon from his/her demographic in an attempt to be brief but not get too long winded in his/her description, like I did here.
I believe that some people do avoid listening to particular styles of music because of their target audience and not wanting to be associated with it but secretly enjoy it. I also believe that the vast majority of people who flame groups/muscians do so because of a genuine dislike of the music or belief that it is talentless drivel.
The OP seems to like the music of boy bands/pop bands/popular hated bands and is wondering what the bias really is. He/she seems to think that punk/metal/rock is replete with untalented boobs who are making a buck because they, too, appeal to a particular demographic.
I would argue that good music appeals across genres, and in some cases probably avoiding genrefication (real word? probably not). Good music is good music because good art is good art, which strikes a chord, resonates in a way that nothing else can, that speaks a universal truth to the receiver. Music or art for entertainment has limited appeal in much the same way candy bars and twinkies taste good but don’t satisfy, are full of empty calories, and any kind/brand/flavor will do when in need of a quick fix.