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.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Questions-Answers-About-Americans-Religion.aspx

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establishment?qsrc=2888

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!

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.