Originally Posted by Screen13

I know that this post is possibly filled with some gaps, but follow me on this...

Although I have read that type of statement before, I still slightly debate on that. The Beatles were mainly a great self-contained Pop/Rock band with a large following of Pop fans who found a group of presentable musicians who happened to have a pretty cool and then-groundbreaking style. Pop based "Boy Bands" to me are more connected to a lot of the vocal groups and bands that usually relied on outside writers and used the trends of the day, so in a 60's context that includes The Walker Brothers (One of the few GREATS that had the luck to have powerful songs and in their history a developing writer in Scott) to maybe say The Dave Clark Five, who were also self-contained but with a style that was certainly lightweight in my opinion, and Herman's Hermits, although they only had one 16-Magazine style face in my opinion (Peter Noone).

They also were a step for many kids to try and develop their skills as musicians. Outsider kids of the era certainly had a lot of influence from The Beatles, and while it was largely overtaken by bands like the Stones and The Who later on, The Beatles' mix of skill, style, and image had a strong effect for people to choose being musician as a career choice that Boy Bands never can.

To me, Beatlemania was one of the few era in Rock where the teenyboppers actually had focused on a great band instead of a charismatic singer with a great voice in the best of cases or a hype that had the luck to be with the right style at the right time in the worst examples.

The Beatles were certainly no Boy Band in my opinion.