Comments on: Take that, Jonas Brothers

By: InDefenseofJoeJonas

InDefenseofJoeJonas — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:47:42 +0000

Pre-adolescent? The Jonas Brothers aren’t…do you mean Justin Bieber? *creepy*

I disagree about the Jonas Brothers. They have appeal to older fans who like poprock music, family bands, or whatever. I would consider myself one of those… I agree with the Hermans’ Hermits comparison (among many similar comparisons) and what you said about the limits.

I’ve seen the Jonases live, and they are actually great. The older of the two brothers that sing has quite a lot of robustness to his vocals! I will admit that this gets underplayed (much like his indomitable 5 o clock shadow…he’s 20, and perceived as a bit less “harmless” I suppose) but he’s got a lot of talent and range, old fashioned stage charisma and tons of potential which ultimately makes this band a winner for me. He’s a real pop/rock vocalist, does masculine teen angst very well, and I think it’s important to distinguish him from his younger brother.

I do see the appeal of the younger/whinier/nasally one who gets all the musical credit from adults and love from the 6-12 year olds. But I appreciate him to a far lesser degree. He does often seem to be damaging his voice in an effort to be soulful. But he doesn’t come of as preadolescent, necessarily, but his voice does seem to be maturing (perhaps for the worse).

Anyway, to their credit, they seem aware of the limits of the genre and appear to be on a creative break to decide what they will do next musically and promote the youngest one’s solo career (ick/eek)…who knows, their next step could be something great, or it could wipe them off the map…but I see no reason to disregard them as if they were a Bieber type deal.

By: Crank

Crank — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:18:24 +0000

I agree with this as far as the lack of quality in the music, but really, if you have daughters in that age group, you’d rather they listened to the Jonas Brothers and their ilk than be drawn immediately to grown men. They’ll have years enough for that.

By: CGHill

CGHill — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:30:10 +0000

Weirdly, I think one reason we responded so well to Michael Jackson and Donny Osmond back in the day was the contrast between pre-pubescent front man and Bigger Boys in Back; had the Jacksons or the Osmonds all sounded like they were fourteen, they’d have been dismissed as retreads of the Four Freshmen or some other long-forgotten Fifties act. (I haven’t forgotten, of course, but then I just don’t.)

Soft-spoken guys like Al Stewart can come off excellently, given suitable material and backing. (Stewart’s peak-period hits, circa Year of the Cat, were impeccably produced and offered storylines so intriguing you wouldn’t notice how wispy the man sounded; you were busy picking up on the visuals the words implied.)

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:01:18 +0000

I also wonder if these kids have appropriate vocal training, and if singing without it (especially while one’s voice is changing) can do damage to the voice.

I dunno; treble male voices just do not do it for me. I suppose given my comparatively-advanced age that’s a good thing, that the beardless boys just make me go, “meh” rather than getting me all excited.

(Now, someone with a nice baritone, like Mike Rowe, that’s another matter…)

By: Kirk

Kirk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:37:29 +0000

This is akin in its own way to the offense caused by the then-14-year-old Leann Rimes singing “hurtin’, man done me wrong” love songs. Try again, dearie, when you’ve actually suffered some pain at the hands of love.