When Things Go Wrong: 5SOS
13:52
Many people, including me, are upset at the new Rolling Stone interview featuring the pop punk band Five Seconds of Summer. While part of me is upset because of writing of the article its self (focusing on personal lives and partying instead of music, which y'know, is kind of important considering they're a band), the majority of my upset is because of the way the band have addressed the 'problems' of becoming a 'real' band.
Although Michael has addressed the article on twitter, saying "i hate when people include everything in an article EXCEPT the reason we're a band; the fans", he didn't touch on the fact that what the article did include were comments that could be badly interpreted at best.
Although Michael has addressed the article on twitter, saying "i hate when people include everything in an article EXCEPT the reason we're a band; the fans", he didn't touch on the fact that what the article did include were comments that could be badly interpreted at best.
 |
| Credit: Rolling Stone |
They say how they've tried to shed their 'boyband' persona, which is clearly a top priority to the band as they spend "Seventy-five percent" of their lives trying to brush it off. Although there is nothing wrong with wanting to be punk, or rock, or a 'proper' band, attempting to do this by projecting a dated idea of a rock star life, doesn't seem like the best way to do it. Although this could be managements doing, or a plan to make their image more 'edgy', it still doesn't sit right.
When talking about their parties at their Bel Air house, Luke states that the "ratio was huge". Although the definition of what the 'ratio' was of wasn't specified, in context of the article, it seems like he was talking about the ratio of women to men, which as The Tab so eloquently put, reduces girls to "a commodity at a party". Not the best thing to be quoted saying when the majority of your fan base is girls.
 |
| Getty Images |
After saying how good they've got at proving that they're a 'real band', Ashton goes on to say "We don't want to just be, like, for girls", which at first glance seems fine, they just want to expand their fan base. They want to reach a bigger audience, be more respected, and that's great. What isn't so great is the fact that it seems to have overtones suggesting that having a majority female fan base is somehow less of an achievement than having a majority male fan base.
It's common in pop culture for artists that have a majority female base to be looked down upon; One Direction, Justin Bieber, Fifth Harmony, Taylor Swift and a large number of other singers/bands also aren't given credibility due to their music reaching a mainly female/young audience. Although there are other factors that determine the lack of credibility given to them - such as Taylor Swift being branded as only writing songs about breakups (which deserves its own post on how ridiculous this is) the fact remains that if young women like something, according to mainstream media, it's not quite as good as when young men like it. I could be interpreting this wrong, but looking at others reactions to the article, I'm not the only one who is uncomfortable with their attitude.
It's common in pop culture for artists that have a majority female base to be looked down upon; One Direction, Justin Bieber, Fifth Harmony, Taylor Swift and a large number of other singers/bands also aren't given credibility due to their music reaching a mainly female/young audience. Although there are other factors that determine the lack of credibility given to them - such as Taylor Swift being branded as only writing songs about breakups (which deserves its own post on how ridiculous this is) the fact remains that if young women like something, according to mainstream media, it's not quite as good as when young men like it. I could be interpreting this wrong, but looking at others reactions to the article, I'm not the only one who is uncomfortable with their attitude.
(Also side note, Ashton talks about how the Beatles did it ((i.e. were a 'real' band)) and therefore so can they - has he never heard of Beatlemania? The reason why the Beatles were SO huge to begin with was because of their dedicated and huge female fan base).
 |
| Credit: teachrock.org |
Going back to the 'rock star' life they seem to want, the article goes on to discuss the boys adventures when first going on tour. Luke says "When you put four young dudes on a tour bus, playing theaters, then arenas, you're going to have sex with a lot of girls, I guess", which, okay they're teenage boys, they're are going to try a have a must sex as possible. It's nothing to get upset about, as long as it's all consensual, it shouldn't be a problem. However, it turns into a problem when they are happy to take all the bonuses of having a large female fan base -i.e. hundreds of girls screaming their name and eager to be at their beck and call when they want some hanky panky- but not the unfortunate negatives that come with the industry they in.
It is undeniable to say that groups with mainly female fans struggle to be recognised as 'real' artists in the pop industry, but as the article shows, they have the credibility of many accomplished and respected artists they look up to, so why are they so keen to change the opinion of unimportant people that can't take 10 minutes to listen to a few songs and decide for themselves their opinion on the band without preconceived ideas of the band based solely on the majority of the fan base? All Time Low, Twenty One Pilots, Goldfinger, The Veronicas, Sum 41, Good Charlotte all seem to have a high respect for the band as they are either personal friends or have written with them.
It is undeniable to say that groups with mainly female fans struggle to be recognised as 'real' artists in the pop industry, but as the article shows, they have the credibility of many accomplished and respected artists they look up to, so why are they so keen to change the opinion of unimportant people that can't take 10 minutes to listen to a few songs and decide for themselves their opinion on the band without preconceived ideas of the band based solely on the majority of the fan base? All Time Low, Twenty One Pilots, Goldfinger, The Veronicas, Sum 41, Good Charlotte all seem to have a high respect for the band as they are either personal friends or have written with them.
If this is a media stunt to change the bands image, or just a poorly written and conducted interview, it still stands that the band said what they said, and that needs to be addressed.
0 comments