Alan McGee, in his never ending wisdom that seems to get less wise as he gets older, recently posted a blog on the Guardian about The Monkees, the Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears that I assume had some sort of point about credibility in music which he never got around to actually making. It reminded me, in a round about way, of a chance meeting I had a few months back with the Jonas Brothers lawyer, who happens to also be Vampire Weekend’s lawyer. We got to talking about how certain older people in the music industry keep trying to make the Jonas Brothers into the new Beatles and he challenged me to explain why they couldn’t be the Beatles.
Before we start, let me say for the record that I think the Jonas Brothers are fine. I don’t hate them but I don’t love them. They are not, however, credible artists.
If you look only at the early careers of Jonas and the Beatles, on paper the two groups have a lot in common: both teeny-bopper bands who get dismissed by music snobs as a fad; both write or co-write their own songs which are largely simplistic pop affairs about puppy love; both rejected by record labels (Beatles – every single label in England, Jonas – Columbia Records signed and then dropped before the found their Disney home at Hollywood), both saw a great surge in popularity via appearances in movies and TV shows. The primary difference between early Beatles and the Jonas Brothers so far, as far as I can tell, is the desire to change the world.
The Beatles, even in their earliest and seemingly least offensive songs, were being subversive. John Lennon told journalists early in their career that they were singing about sex and that all their fans knew it. The Jonas Brothers, in comparison, wear promise rings to symbolize their intention to wait until marriage to have sex and have never indicated that their puppy love songs have any sort of raunchy subtext implied. Early in their career The Beatles were taking speed, out partying every night, getting girlfriends preggers (John’s early marriage, Paul’s girlfriend’s early miscarriage which he was reportedly relieved by) and meeting Bob Dylan who introduced them to pot and helped them move beyond writing teeny bopper songs.
While the Jonas Brothers have had their share of PG-rated, US Weekly-endorsed scandals (Miley’s shower photos that may have involved Nick! Joe’s text message break-up with Taylor Swift!), they have yet to express any desire to actually stand for anything except perhaps diabetes awareness and that is mainly because songwriter/lead Jonas brother Nick was diagnosed with the disease. The early Beatles were selling themselves with a winking irony and a desire to start a cultural revolution, but the Jonas Brothers seem to want to distance themselves from any sort of scandal and would never tell a reporter anything that wasn’t sanctioned by their manager/dad, record company publicist and probably Jesus Christ himself. That is nothing like The Beatles, who would once cause mass burnings of their records when noted smart ass John Lennon proclaimed them to be bigger than Jesus. Those Jonases write fine pop songs but until someone either whips out a sitar, expresses an agenda that deviates from societal norms or starts inspiring other bands to imitate them it is nothing more than pop music as usual. Until people of all ages consider the Jonas Brothers songwriting part of the cultural cannon they’ll never be the sort of landmark, beloved band who could start Beatlemania.
The Beatles had sex and drugs going for them and that made their songs rock ‘n roll. I’d really like Nick Jonas to take a cue from Elvis Costello, one of his favorite songwriters, and get subversive already.
The fundamental problem with your argument is that I think they DO want to change the world. And they are being somewhat subversive about it. Just not in a way that the world currently deems “cool” – sex and drugs and an independent label. Subversive doesn’t mean pro sex&drugs, to me it means anti-mainstream. They are commercially successful, but they aren’t really mainstream.
Right now, the world is pretty into overt sex, drug use, irony and anti-tradition/faith to the point that those are the mainstream ideals currently de rigueur to conform to; they are refusing to stick to that status quo because it’s not who they are and they are suffering backlash from all the so-called tastemakers as a result. Isn’t that what subversive is – going against the grain?
And I think the Jonas Brothers DO send subversive messages…that it’s OK to NOT have sex and fake highs be the sole focus of your good times, that it’s OK to look to a spiritual solution (a lot of their puppylove songs can easily be interpreted as “inspirational”). It’s marketed to kids…but older teens and adults are listening and curious (or hateful). Their message and very being are resonating with a lot of young people, and it IS a message of nonconformity for any kid who goes out in public with their eyes open these days. (It would have been 15 years ago when I was a teenager too.)
Beatles told us it was OK to celebrate sex, high times and irreverence(awesome!); Jonas Brothers are saying it’s okay to still want love and sincerity and that the pursuit of desires can be titillating even before they are fulfilled…
That might not catch on like the Beatles, but it’s certainly all right,they needn’t ape them or any of their other idols to be a respectable or credible band, in my eyes.
The Jonases’ll keep growing up, and be less innocent, but it doesn’t have to be all about debauchery, does it? As someone who’s been there and done that, I find little to be more trite and dull anymore. I’m not trying to get converted to Christianity either, believe me, but I can’t help but feel there is plenty to latch onto with the JB worldview, for people who want it.
Whatever way, I think it’s more subversive NOT to act subversive in the way that other great acts acted subversive. Because if they did that, they’d be exactly like the 1000s upon 1000s of other bands littering the pop-rock/alternative/indie landscape…that I stopped paying close attention to 10 years or so ago.
I have to respectfully disagree with you there, the message in saving yourself isn’t subversive. It’s conservative. Those two things are pretty mutually exclusive. I see what you’re saying, but they wouldn’t have to talk about sex per say to be more subversive – in fact I do agree that talking about sex would be quite mainstream for them in this day and age, although it was nutty as pie for the Beatles. Any intelligent topic that’s outside of the mainstream would do. That’s territory Jonas don’t cover.
I see your point but the definition of subversive is to infiltrate a system and attempt to change it from within…it doesn’t have anything to do with whether that is coming from a conservative or progressive angle, as long as your overt purpose is veiling your underlying message. Subversion is a politically neutral act.
Not that I think they are being sinister about it, they are just not flaunting the meanings of the music so it can be universal. Simple is not the same thing as unintelligent…it’s harder to boil things down than to make them complicated (see: bad poetry). :P
And if you mean they should take some sort of a political stand, they have written about social issues and criticism in music from their distant, pre-Mouse past. Their newest song has the vaguest hint of the pacifism they insinuated way back when in early songs. Though as long as they are with Disney, I wouldn’t expect much of it. Maybe someday…I agree, it would be nice. But remember, we have the benefit of looking back on the Beatles’ whole career and judging them. I don’t think it’s totally fair predict any current young band’s failure or success like there’s any certainty.
Anyway, interesting post, thank you!
(PS When I say subversion is a neutral act, I mean as a concept…once it’s being performed, it does have a direction one way or another, duh. :} )
Well, since the 2007 Gallup poll has 82% of Americans identifying themselves as Christian that would make the morality the Jonas Brothers tout the very definition of the establishment, in at least two different ways. :)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establishment?qsrc=2888
But being a Christian and having it be OK to overtly follow certain related principles are pretty different things. Just think of two major musical artists who have said they identify personally as Christians getting mainstream, taste-making “cool kids” acceptance these days would be Katy Perry & Kings of Leon…by being identified with losing faith or indulging in debauchery in order to be credible (well, at least in the case of KOL, don’t get me started on KP).
I’d say trying to give a platform to socially unpopular feelings (being religious or just secularly prude-ish, especially as a young person is marginalized behavior among peers) that many people have but feel embarrassed or ashamed to admit to can still be considered subversive and is still a fair parallel to what the Beatles did.
It’s not about what people actually ARE, but what is endorsed in the mainstream – the media, the mass culture, the opinions that tastemakers promote. (Since I bet a poll of Americans would have a similar percentage of people saying they felt sexual feelings, LOL.)
I just think the idea that them expressing a desire to be sober, nice and NOT oversexed fits into any kind of real popular male ideal for youth is a false delusion. They are more the misfits, at least in the entertainment industry at the moment.
Also, Billy Corgan just called them the “real deal” in an interview. Woot. LOL.
lol, but nothing you or Billy Corgan are saying make them the new Beatles and that, at the end of the day, is the point.
Completely superficially they are very reminiscent of The Beatles. I actually wrote a draft of a post comparing them mostly due to the wardrobe style, mayhem and screaming girls a few months ago, but abandoned. Nicely done lady!