Little known fact: John, Paul, Jesus and Luko were the very first boy band.
…Sir Mark Martin was responsible for the sound of their gospels, however.
If what I read some years ago is correct, the fact that the Monkees wanted more independence made Don Kirshner consider them more trouble than they were worth. He solved his “rebellious frontmen” problem by forming The Archies, who did what they were told. 
Don’t you mean John, Paul, Greg, and Scottie
We need to stop overestimating the producer’s power over what a group wants to do. After all, Mickie Most produced BOTH Herman’s Hermits and the Animals:eek:
I thought the Herman’s Hermits version of “House of the Rising Sun” was very catchy.
I loved Herman’s Hermits then and now. They had nine straight top ten U.S. hits in 16 months for a good reason. (Plus two more in the next year.)
BTW, that’s how different the music world was then. How long would it take a modern group to get nine hit singles?
The Animals were a great group, too. They did not write a single song on their debut album. One on the second. Two on their third.
Producer is a very loose term. Sometimes the producer really is everything. In the case of some acts, they’re the songwriters and band members. For instance, there really is no band named The Hollywood Argyles, at least not one that was anything besides the guys who get producer credit on Alley Oop, and they folks they hired for that session. In others, sometimes the guy getting a producer credit was never even in the studio.
Not to poke this too much, but I think you deserve a reply, and I got caught up in a busy week earlier and didn’t respond then.
Do you really think you can define a hard line where “rock 'n roll” cuts off and “pop” starts? I cannot, that seems to be like claiming there’s a hard line between country and pop, and I’ve never seen anyone sane claim that. I write (and have written) very hard rock songs that were also pretty poppy. They were too poppy for my band mates at the time, at least.
Everyone didn’t write love songs then (good lord, at least car songs gave people something else to write about), but love songs form the preponderance of modern songwriting, no matter the era. Pop songs are generally discussing whatever subject in a socially acceptable way, and have a delivery to match. Compare “Please Please Me” (which Martin though “dreary” at first and had the boys re-work before he’d use it instead of releasing a cover, but it is pop-y rock n’ roll in the end), to Link Wray’s version of Ain’t That Loving You, Baby, which is from 1960. Both are love songs, but one’s much more rock n’ roll, and is also a darker way to think about and express love. I’m not really sure if there’s any pop in Link Wray’s version of that song. Elvis’, The Jimmy Reed original, and other versions, sure. But no, I don’t hear any pop left in Link’s version.
Excuse me but you drew a hard line by claiming the beatles were a “boy band.” and not rock. Now you are playing it the other way?
I am not aware of establishing any hard lines. I said they were firmly within that fuzzily defined area, and never excluded them from being anything else at the same time.
Dude, we like scabpicker. He is leading with his assertion - the Beatles are Boy-Band-y - and backing up his argument with links to Link Wray. How can you not love that?
Who cares if you agree with him, or think he is changing his POV; respect his effort. Not to mention that this this thread has gone from bullying trainwreck to an ongoingly-interesting thread. I submit scabpicker’s and 'Xap’s and others’ discussion of Boy Bands as a big part of it.
To me, “Boy Band” means "assembled and likely didn’t play their own stuff’ - which, besides from Exapno’s top-notch overview of the British Boy-Pop scene, would already disqualify the Beatles.
I would argue that you, scabpicker are conflating two different forces: Boy Bands and the emergence of teenagers as a separate Consumer population. There were Boy Bands, and they did focus primarily on teenybopper girls. But at the same time, those girls were gaining in spending power - post-war USA, followed by Brit teens finally had a little scratch to spend - and technology made the instruments, the recording and the records more affordable. That made them a profitable target population - if a band could appeal to them, they could make more money. The Beatles targeted that sweet spot.
The Beatles were a “real” rock band who spoke fluent Pop because Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly showed them the say. But the little girls understand. 
Look at the thread title, and your prior posts. . You weren’t just discussing the many aspects of their personas to enlighten, or discourse about them. You were challenging the Beatles creativity and originality by saying “Boy band boy band.” Now you don’t want to own that.
Sigh.
scabpicker, just so’s we’re clear: you’re ugly, and your momma dresses you funny. Okay?
I don’t really think I’m conflating them. They are two sides of a coin. Without the rise in spending power of the teens, you’d have no boy bands sprouting up to capitalize on it. If that market hadn’t panned out, they probably would have been smart enough to change their looks and style a bit to cater to a different crowd.
And to be clear, yes, The Beatles were a “real” rock 'n roll band, but they had stretch where they put out boy band music. It turns out that was a fantastic move, financially. Lots of hair metal bands were essentially “boy bands”, as well, but the twist was they were for girls who smoked.
I was born a cutie, but now I’m old, fat, hairy and bald at the same time. My mom (god rest her soul) didn’t even try. I was a free range child, and wore whatever I found in the yard.
Hehe, I like that :D, though I thought that you met the girls who smoked at punk/wave concerts ;).
A great Ringo performance. Everybody Wants to be my Baby was another excellent cover - and so very appropriate. Roll Over Beethoven was also great - Till There was You, not so much.
Great line! I never heard a better explanation for Poison, Slayer, Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Def Leppard, Quiet Riot, etc. But a lot of guys liked these bands, too, which doesn’t quite compute.
As an aside, Van Halen and Guns "n Roses get lumped into the hair metal bands, but to me they are just a little outside of the mold.
These hard categories didn’t really exist back then - and especially for the Beatles. Paul was doing music hall on their very last album, after all. There was nothing odd about covering country and western or show tunes or blues (like the Stones did). And while it didn’t get on the second album, Dylan did “Mixed Up Confusion” as part of the session, which was a rock song that would have fit nicely on Bringing it all Back Home.
I … think you may have included Slayer by accident.