Talk:Boy band

Being founded in 1962 this agency should be mentioned as an early boy band manufacturer. Interstingly they are older than the jackson 5, the article is too anglo and centered around a random date. Are we sure there were not what would nowadays be considered a full boy band (formed by an agency and all) before the 60s? Mirad1000 (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Johnny Kitagawa aside, I don't know if Johnny & Associates would apply. --209.93.242.250 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources: https://pitchfork.com/news/nsync-return-with-better-place-first-new-song-in-over-20-years-listen/ https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1385517/nsyncs-reunion-continues-with-new-song-better-place-listen-now

NSYNC reunion status change. NSYNC reunited in 2023. The years active should be 1995–2002, 2023-present (28 years)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Claimed sales Nhanc123 (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why y'all don't include The Beatles on the table of "List of best selling boy bands"? -GogoLion (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Half this article is a debate about what a boy band is. The History section debates whether or not The Beatles are a boy band. It seems that nobody could make up their mind on either point. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The people I see currently listed are a male 'groups', not bands. A 'band' plays instruments, in which none of the groups listed do except Bay City Rollers. I do think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, and others should be included in the list. Sackkid (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

By far the majority of sources do not agree with you. Not only am I removing the Beatles from the list, but I'm removing the Bay City Rollers. The list should have only those groups which are consistently described boy bands. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may technically be right, but it makes Wikipedia and the music industry look pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The English dictionary defines a "music band" as "a musical group, usually employing brass, percussion, and often woodwind instruments, that plays especially for marching or open-air performances" or "a group of musicians who play modern music together". A band is a small group of musicians who play popular music such as jazz, rock, or pop. Ex. He was a drummer in a rock band. No matter which dictionary you use, it is defined as a group of people who play instruments together. When you add "boy" or "male" to it, it simply becomes a group of males who play instruments together. Therefore, the Beatles and others should be included on the list of highest-selling boy bands. Sackkid (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the boy band term has its own particular meaning, more than just a band made up of male musicians. The meaning is flexible, but most widely understood as a musical group of young males who perform together, especially by singing in harmony and dancing. Some observers say that an important element is that the boy band is highly produced. Other observers say that the boy band must attract a zealous female following. The Beatles fit that part but not the dancing part, or the highly produced part. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apparently that flexible meaning isn't flexible enough to include what, under any other definition without the boy bit, would be a group of people playing instruments. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would disagree with that. Because then it becomes what Wikipedia's definition of a boy band is rather than what an actual boy band is according to dictionary. Sackkid (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

True. My beef is with the claim of flexibility. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The scholarly book, Boy Bands and the Performance of Pop Masculinity, says in Chapter 1 that observers are split over the Beatles. Some writers say the Beatles were the first boy band, and others say the Beatles could not be considered a boy band for various reasons. The definition of boy band is essential to this question, and again, observers are split. A list of common features is described which seen together add up to "boy band" in every case, but some acknowledged boy bands are lacking one or two of these features. That's why the definition is hard to pin down. The common features are:

• Romantic music aimed at girls. (The early Beatles had this aspect.)
• High fashion sense, attractive clothing. (The early Beatles had this aspect.)
• Youth, median age 19 at time of joining. (The Beatles met this aspect well enough.)
• Youthful male beauty. (The early Beatles had this.)
• Emphasis on looks, fashion, style or personality rather than the music. (Not the Beatles.)
• Carefully crafted image, controlled by producer. (The four Beatles controlled their own brand and image.)
• Membership assembled artificially by producer for commercial purposes. (Not the Beatles.)
• Membership selection from elaborate audition process. (Not the Beatles.)
• Singing in close harmony. (Certainly the Beatles.)
• Not playing their own instruments. (Not the Beatles.)
• Not writing their own songs. (Not the Beatles.)
• Dancing choreography in performance. (Not the Beatles.)

The author, Professor Georgina Gregory from the University of Central Lancashire, gives some examples of boy bands that don't meet all the criteria. The Beatles don't, as seen here, and groups such as Hanson and Take That write much of their own music. Hanson and the Jonas Brothers are skilled instrumentalists. One Direction and Wanted don't have dance choreography.

The Gregory book is a great source for this topic, and should be used to rework the "Key factors of the concept" section. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

But when you visit music pages like Santana, Bon Jovi, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Maroon 5, Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, and many others, the opening description says they are all "bands". And ironically, they are male bands. Sackkid (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_band&diff=prev&oldid=1122477564 includes an accidental? pasting — changing ″Broadcasting″ to ″Broadband is not 6ft to a particular location casting″, which has not been rectified. The ″H″ at the end did disappear, after a busy evening … — 51.6.34.252 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Individuals can also go on to achieve greater success as a solo artist coming out of a boy band having used the groups popularity to build on. Usually this signals the end of the group until potential future reunions. Examples of this include Michael Jackson from The Jackson 5, Donny Osmond from The Osmonds, Ricky Martin from Menudo, Justin Timberlake from *NSYNC, and Ronan Keating from Boyzone."

Harry Styles should be added to this section, as he too has achieved greater success as a solo artist since One Direction went on indefinite hiatus. 209.93.242.250 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of the best available published material on the topic. If Harry Styles were to be added, someone would have to find a reliable published source saying that he is an example of a singer having a successful post–boy band career. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the best selling lists really adds to the article and just makes problems. For example, many sources claim BTS has sold a lot more records than most of the bands listed. But an even bigger problem is that it requires us to strictly judge what does and doesn't count as a boy band, despite the article itself even saying that it's a loosely defined term. The Jackson 5 and Osbornes predate the term, so do they qualify? People have suggested that boy bands were molded after the Beatles, so do they qualify? I think it's for the best to just remove it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we can shy away from the problems caused by inflated sales reports.

The idea that boy bands can be ranked in order of the most sales is a widespread one. Many sources list boy bands in order of sales, for instance TheThings website, US magazine, New York Post, Udiscover website, Forbes and Yahoo! Finance. Teen Vogue starts by listing boy bands in order of who has the most fans, but they support this by talking about who has the most sales. Not all of these sources are reliable for Wikipedia, but they show the media's interest.

We should keep that information. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A lot of those articles aren't ranking them by sales but on their personal opinions. They also don't have a consensus either on what actually are the highest earning boy bands. An individual article on best selling boys bands has actually been deleted twice for similar reasons.

JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with JDDJS. But if anything, I think it should be changed from "Best selling boy bands" to "Best selling male groups" when it comes to that part. But as far as I can see, I also agree that just makes problems to have it here when sources conflict against each other on who sold more, in addition to saying who qualifies as a "boy band" who doesn't. Personally, I think there should be a separate page for sales and for it be best/highest-selling male groups. Sackkid (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just a quick question. Why isn't CNCO mentioned in this article? It should because it's a boy band too and they mention about other International boy bands too. 2601:195:C683:C120:F3BB:AF2D:B4DC:D687 (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply