Backstreet Boys, The Temptations... What's the difference?

powellmacaque · #1 08-10-2010, 10:53 PM

Now before the flaming begins, please understand that I do like both groups, and yes I am a straight male in my twenties.

I was lost in cyber space the other day and I just clicked an old Backstreet Boys video of the group singing a'capella. I will be the first to admit that I liked the group as a kid, and listening to them now I can really appreciate the fact that they were all great vocalists, entertainers, and dancers.

But yet they are really the butt of every joke in the music world. Why is that?

Let's look at the Temptations, for instance. The only non-subjective differences between the two groups are:

1. Era of relevance

2. Race

3. Instrumentation

The only one of those three that could even pass as a good argument against BSB is the Instrumentation... yes The Temptations did have the funk brothers and "real" instruments. But quite a few BSB songs feature "real" guitar, bass, drum parts along with the the standard "dance/MIDI" tracks. And for what it's worth, BSB is A TON better than the crappy autotune pop being produced today. Some of their beats are just funky!

The Backstreet Boys didn't write the majority of their material, neither did the Temptations.

The Backstreet Boys danced. So did the Temptations.

The Backstreet Boys were lighthearted. So were the temptations.

I could go on and on. Were most grown men just trained to dislike the group? Have any of you listened to the group with your "musician's" ears? I really would like to hear some of the more "pro" guys chime in.

Like I said, I'm not bashing either group, I'm just trying to draw a comparison. Please let's refrain from mindless and senseless bashing.

totallyfrozen · #2 08-10-2010, 11:17 PM

Good points and a very good question. I'd like to see how someone answers without coming across as bashing the Backstreet Boys unfairly.

The only reason why the BSB would be despised and the Temptations not is the Era. The Temptations were from an Era when DooWop was a very popular genre. By the time BSB hit the radio, we were entering the Grunge age and Heavy Metal was just starting to fade out. Other than that, I don't really have an excuse for why BSB is always bashed. I know my wife was a HUGE BSB fan back in their day. I was a radio DJ when BSB hit the scene and I liked some of their stuff.

elgecko · #3 08-10-2010, 11:32 PM

Easy...material. It's purely subjective but I have to say Temptations had the better material. My Girl? I'm Losing You? Ain't Too Proud To Beg? These are GREAT songs! Motown was really cranking out gems back in the day.

I'm racking my brains but I can't think of one single Backstreet Boys song let alone sing along like I could with the Temptations.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I'm not some elitist who "hates" pop music. I freely admit that pop songs have made their way into my head, usually against my will. I'm too ashamed to admit which ones, but that's neither here nor there.

At any rate, a Backstreet Boys song never did.

electracoyote · #4 08-10-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powellmacaque

The Backstreet Boys didn't write the majority of their material, neither did the Temptations.

The Backstreet Boys danced. So did the Temptations.

The Backstreet Boys were lighthearted. So were the temptations.

I could go on and on. Were most grown men just trained to dislike the group? Have any of you listened to the group with your "musician's" ears? I really would like to hear some of the more "pro" guys chime in.

Like I said, I'm not bashing either group, I'm just trying to draw a comparison. Please let's refrain from mindless and senseless bashing.

The Temptations had soul. The Backstreet Boys don't even know what that is.

The Temptations melted the hearts of women, grown women, of every color, size, and shape. The Backstreet Boys largely appealed to squealing little pre-pubescent white girls. And you.

Oh, and I'm most definitely bashing, but it's not senseless.

powellmacaque · #5 08-10-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

The Temptations had soul. The Backstreet Boys don't even know what that is.

The Temptations melted the hearts of women, grown women, of every color, size, and shape. The Backstreet Boys largely appealed to squealing little pre-pubescent white girls. And you.

Oh, and I'm most definitely bashing, but it's not senseless.

But have you ever actually listened to a Backstreet Boys song?

electracoyote · #6 08-10-2010, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powellmacaque

But have you ever actually listened to a Backstreet Boys song?

Yeah, I have a few of their CDs on the shelf. I actually like them quite a bit.

I just can't hang with your comparison. It's really a David and Goliath scenario, but this time the giant wins.

I appreciate the spirit of your thread, it makes for interesting observations.

powellmacaque · #7 08-11-2010, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

Yeah, I have a few of their CDs on the shelf. I actually like them quite a bit.

I just can't hang with your comparison. It's really a David and Goliath scenario, but this time the giant wins.

I appreciate the spirit of your thread, it makes for interesting observations.

I really don't see where there is such a big measurable difference. I don't know how one could measure "soul" nor do I know if The Temptations had more than the Backstreet Boys had/have.

It just seems like the groups have a lot more in common than people think, and I really think that the bashing has more to do with marketing than it does the actual music. I think it's fair to say that both groups could fall into the category of "vocal-oriented pop".

I am not doubting the fact that The Temptations had more for the progression of music and I am not saying they are in the same league as the Backstreet Boys (I would consider the Temptations galaxies away from BSB as far as cultural relevance), but I just don't see why it's smooth to be a Temptations fan, but "gay" to be a BSB fan.

touji · #8 08-11-2010, 12:10 AM

^ I'm genuinely curious with the question as well. I'd be labeled as "gay" when I was in high school when people would look through my iPod and find Backstreet Boys (same when I entered college last year). I really feel that it has much to do with the timing of BSB. They became really really popular when I was in elementary school, and I know ALL of my friends listened to them. Then, shortly after, came middle school. We all know how middle schoolers are, the stage where they enter that state of mind where they become total punks. Thats when all the flak came about and many of the kids started branching out to different styles of music (in my personal case, a lot of people in my school started drifting towards RHCP, Incubus, classic rock and metal) and it stopped being "cool". Again, I feel like it really had to do a lot with the timing when they came out.

Just wondering to the OP, how old are you? :]

pbass337 · #9 08-11-2010, 12:12 AM

i understand the comparison: both very popular boy bands who cranked out hits. my biggest thing to separate them is what you said; instrumentation. but who knows, if "my girl" or "just my imagination" was written for some band in 1999-2004 it would probably be written for BSB or someone like them. 98 degrees or nsync. the songs would probably be synthesized pop ballads.

i guess you could make this comparison about any band from 1940-60s and 2000-?. chuck berry to john mayer. or marvin gaye and justin timberlake

electracoyote · #10 08-11-2010, 12:22 AM

Okay, I'll bite again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powellmacaque

I really don't see where there is such a big measurable difference. I don't know how one could measure "soul" nor do I know if The Temptations had more than the Backstreet Boys had/have.

I do, and the answer is "yes, The Temptations had more soul than BSB."

Soul, like pornography, is hard to define or quantify, but you know it when you see (or hear) it.

Quote:

It just seems like the groups have a lot more in common than people think

Absolutely, a lot in common. It's the differences that set them far, far apart.

Let's go no further than the very names of the groups:

Temptations. Tempting. Like, Garden of Eden tempting. Like, these guys might be a little bit bad. A bit of a sexual quality to it. That's kind of hard to resist. Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.

Backstreet Boys. What the hell is a "backstreet" anyway? I've been around the country, and I'm not sure where that term is popular. Okay, my intuition says maybe it's like an alley. Okay, alley. Boys. Not men, but boys. Alley boys. Um, not the most dangerous image forming in my head at the moment. Actually, I'm thinking of shooting marbles and puppies when I hear the name Backstreet Boys. Hardly the tempting sexual image presented by the Temptations.

And I think those images translated directly to the music as well.

Quote:

I am not doubting the fact that The Temptations had more for the progression of music and I am not saying they are in the same league as the Backstreet Boys (I would consider the Temptations galaxies away from BSB as far as cultural relevance)

Well, now you're going and making my points for me. I thought you were advocating for BSB?

Quote:

but I just don't see why it's smooth to be a Temptations fan, but "gay" to be a BSB fan.

Remember that thing I said about pre-pubescent little white girls? That might have something to do with it.

Or, perhaps the Temptations were smooth, and BSB were, um, not as smooth.

powellmacaque · #11 08-11-2010, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by touji

^ I'm genuinely curious with the question as well. I'd be labeled as "gay" when I was in high school when people would look through my iPod and find Backstreet Boys (same when I entered college last year). I really feel that it has much to do with the timing of BSB. They became really really popular when I was in elementary school, and I know ALL of my friends listened to them. Then, shortly after, came middle school. We all know how middle schoolers are, the stage where they enter that state of mind where they become total punks. Thats when all the flak came about and many of the kids started branching out to different styles of music (in my personal case, a lot of people in my school started drifting towards RHCP, Incubus, classic rock and metal) and it stopped being "cool". Again, I feel like it really had to do a lot with the timing when they came out.

Just wondering to the OP, how old are you? :]

I'm 20, so I graduated high school in 2008, which means I listened to the Backstreet Boys when I was 7-11. I personally branched into punk and ska of all things, but in my "mature" age I've been listening to just music by good musicians, whether it be blues, pop, hip hop, country, or indian religious music.

powellmacaque · #12 08-11-2010, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

Okay, I'll bite again.

I do, and the answer is "yes, The Temptations had more soul than BSB."

Soul, like pornography, is hard to define or quantify, but you know it when you see (or hear) it.

Absolutely, a lot in common. It's the differences that set them far, far apart.

Let's go no further than the very names of the groups:

Temptations. Tempting. Like, Garden of Eden tempting. Like, these guys might be a little bit bad. A bit of a sexual quality to it. That's kind of hard to resist. Women wanted them, men wanted to be them.

Backstreet Boys. What the hell is a "backstreet" any way. I've been around the country, and I'm not sure where that term is popular. Okay, my intuition says maybe it's like an alley. Okay, alley. Boys. Not men, but boys. Alley boys. Um, not the most dangerous image forming in my head at the moment. Actually, I'm thinking of shooting marbles and puppies when I hear the name Backstreet Boys. Hardly the tempting sexual image presented by the Temptations.

And I think those images translated directly to the music as well.

Well, now you're going and making my points for me. I thought you were advocating for BSB?

Remember that thing I said about pre-pubescent little white girls? That might have something to do with it.

Or, perhaps the Temptations were smooth, and BSB were, um, not as smooth.

I see something "measurable" as something that's not subjective and more or less universal. Soul is just something that is highly subjective to the person, place, and time.

And the only reason why I see the Temptations as more revolutionary is because they were a "black" group appealing to all demographics in a time where the races weren't exactly getting along, and they were one of the "originators". But saying the Temptations are "better" because of their age is kind of like saying Ampeg is better than Gallien-Krueger purely because Ampeg has been there longer and Ampeg came along at a time that made them stand out.

touji · #13 08-11-2010, 12:37 AM

You're a year older than I am, so I'm guessing the flak I've seen is probably what you've seen.

@Electracoyote's post, about the whole "backstreet" thing, I think of Billy Joel... ahaha. And no one is advocating that the BSB were better than the Temptations, that's not even part of the discussion. I'm honestly curious as to why am I'm titled "gay" of for enjoying a couple of their songs by my peers? Pre-pubescent white girls may have been the target group of the BSB, but when I was growing up when they became popular, it wasn't ONLY those pre-pubescent girls who listened to the Backstreet Boys. My guy friends in elementary school listened to them, my friends older brothers in middle school and high school listened to them. It wasn't ONLY the pre-pubescent white girls!!!!

powellmacaque · #14 08-11-2010, 12:45 AM

I think it's funny that just as certain trends arise, such as in my lifetime: grunge, ska, boy bands, nu-metal, pop-punk, emo, and now metalcore, it seems like the guys who loved the music 5 months ago jump on the 'bash'wagon.

I think there are good examples of all genres of music. I just don't get the constant bashing of boy bands.

rodl2005 · #15 08-11-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powellmacaque

I think there are good examples of all genres of music. I just don't get the constant bashing of boy bands.

+1. But for me. it's simply THE SONGS!!!! For ME, the Temptations had GREAT songs, I aint heard a BSB song I've liked ANYWHERE near as much as Shaky GRound, My Girl etc...

totallyfrozen · #16 08-11-2010, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

...Oh, and I'm most definitely bashing, but it's not senseless.

Umm...yeah it is.

So far the only bashing that I've heard in this thread so far is bashing the songwriters; not the singers. So the Temptations had more hits and "better material" as people say. That translates into better songwriting. Of all the things I see the OP asking about in comparison, songwriting isn't one of them. As I read the OP, it seems to be asking about comparing the performing groups themselves. Singing ability, performing ability, image, etc. not songwriting.

So Motown had good songwriters. That's no secret.

electracoyote · #17 08-11-2010, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by totallyfrozen

Umm...yeah it is.

So far the only bashing that I've heard in this thread so far is bashing the songwriters; not the singers. So the Temptations had more hits and "better material" as people say. That translates into better songwriting. Of all the things I see the OP asking about in comparison, songwriting isn't one of them. As I read the OP, it seems to be asking about comparing the performing groups themselves. Singing ability, performing ability, image, etc. not songwriting.

So Motown had good songwriters. That's no secret.

I'm failing to make the connection between your comment and the section of my post you quoted and bolded.

totallyfrozen · #18 08-11-2010, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electracoyote

I'm failing to make the connection between your comment and the section of my post you quoted and bolded.

You seemed to be heartily bashing the BSB simply because you LIKE the Temptations better--not because they were better performers.

The rest of my comment about song material was just a comment to the thread in general. Rather than make two separate posts, I decided to put it all in one. Sorry for the confusion.

perogato02 · #19 08-11-2010, 02:16 AM

Well, it needs to be the material ... the songs from the Temptations are a part of musical history.
When someone says 'temptations' I can think of a few songs of them. When it would be 'backstreet boys' my mind goes blank ... But I was 16-17 when they came around and listening to grunge so I wasn't paying attention

And yes, the OP has a point: Motown started the trend of pushing (not only, but in this case) boy bands ... it was an industry and the Backstreet Boys are tributary to the Temptations.

electracoyote · #20 08-11-2010, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by totallyfrozen

You seemed to be heartily bashing the BSB simply because you LIKE the Temptations better--not because they were better performers.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing, in addition to supplying some reasons why I like the Temptations better.

What the hell is wrong with that? It's what the OP was asking for! Why call me out dude?