I had an argument with someone recently, who said that the Duran Duran of the 80's spawned later acts like NKOTB, Backstreet Boys and N'Sync. I could see maybe concerning the image of five goodlooking guys being like a prototype, and making really glossy videos that would appeal to teenagers and such, but I didn't agree with other stuff.
Duran Duran did play some disposable mindless pop in their day, but they didn't have that wholesome family image of the later bands, ever check out the videos for the Chaufeeur and the banned video for Girls on Film? Parents would have freaked to see those. DD also played their own instruments and wrote their own songs which was big difference to any Maurice Starr managed act. Also, Duran Duran had more of a disco-post-punk thing that made it hard for me to compare to those boy bands. The only thing they had in common was the marketing of the five hearthrob thing. What do you think?
Posted by The Exorcism of Sammy Hain (Member # 3150) on :
what you said
Posted by mamamiasweetpeaches (Member # 1715) on :
Theyw ere very good looking...but they KNEW HOW TO PLAY INSTRUMENTS! (Lets see Justin timberlake pick up a bass and play it!) AND they wrote their own songs. And they play live and dont lip synch! So I would have to say No, they werent responisble for boy bands.
Posted by P.S It's Paul... (Member # 1022) on :
All this at the time when Take That release a new single. Yes - Fat Garry's Band is back! Posted by logan5 (Member # 1467) on :
That's like saying The Beatles spawned boy bands.
There have always been acts that appealed to teenage girls, that wouldn't necessarily make them a 'boy band' in the modern sense. Duran Duran did several things that what we refer to as boy bands seldom do:
They formed themselves Picked their own look Played their instruments Wrote/produced their own songs Toured before having hits
They were therefore, a proper band. At no point did the record company or management dictate what they thought the band should or shouldn't do (a rare post-punk window when the record companies hadn't got a clue). The fact that they were boys and appealed to the raging hormones of teenage girls is incidental. Even describing the teenfest that was Wham! as a boy band in the modern sense, isn’t true.
If your friend really believes that Duran 'started' the trend (ignoring bands like the Bay City Rollers from the 70's, and the Monkees from the 60’s, and every doo-wop act from the 50’s), then ask him who he thought was most boy band-like; Duran Duran or New Edition (Maurice Starr's previous group), it should be clear who was and wasn't an 80’s boy band.
Posted by mamamiasweetpeaches (Member # 1715) on :
Duran Duran was fortunate enough to come out at the dawn of MTV...and so we all KNEW what they looked like...and they looked good! I think in many ways they are pioneers of the art of video. theirs were some of the best.
Posted by Riptide (Member # 457) on :
Good post Logan5, you are right, there were groups like the Monkees and Bay City Rollers who were more of the prototype of the manufactured group. When Duran Duran formed they wanted to be a cross between disco group Chic and the Sex Pistols. I always thought they were very influenced in look and sound to the group Japan myself. I just bought Japan's videos on DVD and the singer David Sylvian's look was almost the same as Nick Rhodes look.
They were at the right place and time, having exotic videos of jungles, yachts and other locales was a masterstroke with the dawn of MTV.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)