Results! - Great Artists - Rec.1960s HoF 2004
Bob Roman
It is time to announce the 2004 Great Artist inductees of the
Rec.Music.Rock-Pop-R&B.1960s Hall of Fame.
The 10 inductees for 2004 are, in alphabetical order:
The Drifters
The Four Seasons
The Four Tops
The Hollies
Jefferson Airplane
The Mamas & the Papas
Paul Revere & the Raiders
The Supremes
The Velvet Underground
Stevie Wonder
Stevie Wonder was inducted into the Rec.70s Hall of Fame last year.
He joins the Rolling Stones and the Who as the only artists in both.
Vote points were tabulated as follows:
1 = 22 pts
2 = 20 pts
3 = 19 pts
4 = 18 pts
5 = 17 pts
6 = 15 pts
7 = 14 pts
8 = 13 pts
9 = 12 pts
10 = 11 pts
unranked = 16.1 pts
These were this year's final point totals.
The Four Tops - 331 pts
Stevie Wonder - 313
Jefferson Airplane - 307
The Mamas & the Papas - 276
The Drifters - 262
Paul Revere & the Raiders - 259
The Hollies - 255
The Velvet Underground - 252
The Supremes - 236
The Four Seasons - 224
-------------------------------------
The Monkees - 219
Booker T. & the MG's- 217
Dusty Springfield - 214
B.B. King - 205
The Shirelles - 193
The Dave Clark Five - 191
The Rascals (Young Rascals) - 190
Patsy Cline - 169
Them - 163
The Small Faces - 158
The Dells - 154
Etta James - 108
After four years, our complete roster of Rec.60s Great Artists is as
follows:
The Animals
The Beach Boys
The Beatles
Bobby "Blue" Bland
James Brown
Buffalo Springfield
The Byrds
Ray Charles
Sam Cooke
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Doors
The Drifters
Bob Dylan
The Four Seasons
The Four Tops
Aretha Franklin
Marvin Gaye
Jimi Hendrix
The Hollies
The Impressions
Jefferson Airplane
The Kinks
The Lovin' Spoonful
The Mamas & the Papas
The Miracles
Roy Orbison
Wilson Pickett
Otis Redding
Paul Revere & the Raiders
Rolling Stones
Sam and Dave
Simon and Garfunkel
The Supremes
The Temptations
The Velvet Underground
The Who
Jackie Wilson
Stevie Wonder
The Yardbirds
The Zombies
Thanks again to all who participated.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
Can you post the raw vote totals, as in how many ballots there were, and how
many mentions each artist got.
Among the posted ballots, Booker T. & the MG's had 14 mentions, which was more
than Velvet Underground (13), Supremes (13), Hollies (13), Four Seasons (11)
and the Drifters (12).
MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html
Bob Roman
>Can you post the raw vote totals, as in how many ballots there were, and how
>many mentions each artist got.
>
>Among the posted ballots, Booker T. & the MG's had 14 mentions, which was more
>than Velvet Underground (13), Supremes (13), Hollies (13), Four Seasons (11)
>and the Drifters (12).
There were 33 total ballots. These were the percent of total
mentions:
The Four Tops - 21 (64%)
Jefferson Airplane - 19 (58%)
Stevie Wonder - 19 (58%)
The Mamas & the Papas - 18 (55%)
The Drifters - 16 (48%)
Paul Revere & the Raiders - 16 (48%)
Booker T. & the MG's- 15 (45%)
The Hollies - 15 (45%)
The Four Seasons - 14 (42%)
Dusty Springfield - 14 (42%)
The Supremes - 14 (42%)
The Velvet Underground - 14 (42%)
B.B. King - 13 (39%)
The Monkees - 13 (39%)
The Rascals (Young Rascals) - 13 (39%)
The Shirelles - 12 (36%)
The Dave Clark Five - 11 (33%)
Patsy Cline - 11 (33%)
The Dells - 10 (30%)
Them - 10 (30%)
The Small Faces - 9 (27%)
Etta James - 7 (21%)
You are right that Booker T got screwed under the current method -
which was a bummer for me, because I voted for them.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
http://hometown.aol.com/nghalloffame/myhomepage/index.html
SavoyBG
>There were 33 total ballots. These were the percent of total
>mentions:
>Booker T. & the MG's- 15 (45%)
>The Four Seasons - 14 (42%)
>The Supremes - 14 (42%)
>The Velvet Underground - 14 (42%)
So despite more voters feeling that Booker T. & the MG's should be inducted,
they didn't get in, while three artists who had fewer mentions did....assuming
that was because of the "
ranked" votes, right?
>
>The Four Tops - 21 (64%)
>
>Jefferson Airplane - 19 (58%)
>Stevie Wonder - 19 (58%)
>
>The Mamas & the Papas - 18 (55%)
>
>The Drifters - 16 (48%)
>Paul Revere & the Raiders - 16
I move that from here on in an artist must get 50% of the votes (doing away
with the ranking option) to be inducted.
If less than half of the members of the group think that an artist belongs,
they shouldn't get in IMO.
Ludovic Delamare
>> From: Bob Roman
>
>> There were 33 total ballots. These were the percent of total
>> mentions:
>
>> Booker T. & the MG's- 15 (45%)
>
>> The Four Seasons - 14 (42%)
>> The Supremes - 14 (42%)
>> The Velvet Underground - 14 (42%)
>
> So despite more voters feeling that Booker T. & the MG's should be inducted,
> they didn't get in, while three artists who had fewer mentions
> did....assuming that was because of the "
> ranked" votes, right?
>
>>
>> The Four Tops - 21 (64%)
>>
>> Jefferson Airplane - 19 (58%)
>> Stevie Wonder - 19 (58%)
>>
>> The Mamas & the Papas - 18 (55%)
>>
>> The Drifters - 16 (48%)
>> Paul Revere & the Raiders - 16
>
> I move that from here on in an artist must get 50% of the votes (doing away
> with the ranking option) to be inducted.
Which would have resulted in only 4 artists being inducted. Is that
really what you want ?
--
Cordialement,
Ludovic
Please remove NOSPAM from my address to email me
Derek Homsberg
away
> with the ranking option) to be inducted.
>
> If less than half of the members of the group think that an artist
belongs,
> they shouldn't get in IMO.
Well that would eliminate your beloved Hollies. Of course, in MLB, you have
to be named on 75% of the ballots. Under that standard, no one would have
gotten in this time.
The key here is the rankings. Someone who really wants an artist to get in
will rank them first. But the rules require that you rank 10 artists, so
you are forced to vote for some that you don't really care about. There is
no truly accurate way to do it. And after all, it's just a ranking by 33
self-selected people.
Bob Roman
<ludovic.rl.d...@free.fr> wrote:
>SavoyBG a couché sur son écran :
>> I move that from here on in an artist must get 50% of the votes (doing away
>> with the ranking option) to be inducted.
>
>Which would have resulted in only 4 artists being inducted. Is that
>really what you want ?
Yes, that is what he wants. I'm not opposed to the suggestion it if
his opinion becomes the consensus.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
wrote:
>Well that would eliminate your beloved Hollies. Of course, in MLB, you have
>to be named on 75% of the ballots. Under that standard, no one would have
>gotten in this time.
The threshold can't be set a priori. It's not a philosophical issue
so much a pragmatic one. Different thresholds allow different average
numbers of inductees each year. The number of inductees must be set
to achieve a balance: What number of inductees per year will be enough
to be give a sense of accomplishment each year but still maintain the
number of reasonable inductees the longest into the future.
>The key here is the rankings. Someone who really wants an artist to get in
>will rank them first. But the rules require that you rank 10 artists, so
>you are forced to vote for some that you don't really care about. There is
>no truly accurate way to do it. And after all, it's just a ranking by 33
>self-selected people.
Do you want to get rid of the rankings? The '50s group did.
Bob Roman
Derek Homsberg
I don't know enough about it. If there had been no rankings this time, how
would the results have been different. I do like the idea of rankings.
If there are no rankings and I only put one name down, what's the impact of
that as opposed to putting 10 unranked names down?
Bob Roman
wrote:
>> Do you want to get rid of the rankings? The '50s group did.
>
>I don't know enough about it. If there had been no rankings this time, how
>would the results have been different. I do like the idea of rankings.
The power of the ranking is not dramatic. A #1 ranking is worth 1.37
compared to an unranked vote, and a #10 is worth 0.68.
>If there are no rankings and I only put one name down, what's the impact of
>that as opposed to putting 10 unranked names down?
As I was saying to Bruce, the biggest effect of the ranking is that
Booker T & the MG's would have been inducted in unranked voting.
And just below them, four artists would have been tied for the #9
spot. So if we were aiming for ten inductions we would have had to
have actually inducted eight or twelve.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
>Which would have resulted in only 4 artists being inducted. Is that
>really what you want ?
Yes. I don't think every artist in the world should be getting inducted,
particularly if we don't even have a majority of the memebers of this newsgroup
who believe that they belong.
Some of the artists that just missed this year would have to build momentum and
perhaps eventually get elected. Their worthiness could be debated in the group.
SavoyBG
>Well that would eliminate your beloved Hollies.
That's fine. Maybe they would have gotten in during a future year, maybe not.
>Of course, in MLB, you have
>to be named on 75% of the ballots.
Different story though, baseball careers can be measured somewhat objectively
by statistics. Music is much more subjective.
>The key here is the rankings. Someone who really wants an artist to get in
>will rank them first.
I was against Bob's ranking system from the start, for exactly the reasons that
you state. It causes voters to "play games" with their votes, and to attempt to
use the ranking system to maneuever things for personal reasons.
>But the rules require that you rank 10 artists, so
>you are forced to vote for some that you don't really care about.
The whole "ranking" thing was a mistake IMO. This is a hall of fame, not a
survey to rank the top artists, records, etc....
SavoyBG
>So if we were aiming for ten inductions we would have had to
>have actually inducted eight or twelve.
>
I think that the point is that after the first year or two we shouldn't be
AIMING for a particular number of inductees. We should set a thrshold that the
nominees should have to meet.
Maybe your idea of letting the voteres vote for as many (or as few) of the
nominees as they want might work, with a 50% threshold.
I just don't think it's right to induct someone as a hall of famer when less
than half of the voters think that they belong as hall of famers.
Maybe there are only another 8, 10, or 12 artists from the 60s who belong in a
hall of fame. I mean, we now have 40. I don't think this hall of fame is going
to be very meaningful if we end up with 197 artists in there.
This same standard should start being applied to the other categories too. We
can't just have a mandatory number of inductees in each category for every
year.
Derek Homsberg
> >to be named on 75% of the ballots.
>
> Different story though, baseball careers can be measured somewhat
objectively
> by statistics. Music is much more subjective.
You don't say!!
Intheway1
>that
>you state. It causes voters to "play games" with their votes, and to attempt
>to
>use the ranking system to maneuever things for personal reasons.
Different voting rules will just mean different games, and if "personal
reasons" includes wanting their favored candidate to be inducted, there is
nothing wrong with that. I suspect everyone voted with personal reasons
involved.
>baseball careers can be measured somewhat objectively
>by statistics.
But the Baseball HoF voting is not objective. If it were, there would be no
need for voting at all. I'm sure you have a list somewhere of players who, on
the basis of stats, should be in who aren't (based on comparisons to those who
are), and who shouldn't be in but are (based on the reverse comparison. All it
would take for an "objective" HoF is for someone to crunch the numbers. No HoF
voting is "objective," and it is silly to think that one means is going to be
any more "objective" than another.
I think there are still dozens of 60s artists who are worthy of consideration,
but let's take the search for objectivity to its logical conclusion. How,
objectively, can you justify a second year of voting at all? If an artist
didn't get in the first year, did he or she get better before the second year?
At lease both the Baseball and Rock and Roll HoFs have newly eligible
candidates every year. Our HoF can't claim the same thing.
Dean F.
> Yes. I don't think every artist in the world should be getting inducted,
I agree. Otherwise, our HoF will become as bloated as the United in
Group Harmony Association's, which currently has something like 85 R&B
and doo-wop groups inducted. That's just ridiculous, IMHO!
SavoyBG
>I agree. Otherwise, our HoF will become as bloated as the United in
>Group Harmony Association's, which currently has something like 85 R&B
>and doo-wop groups inducted. That's just ridiculous, IMHO!
>
Not only is it bloated, but Ronnie doesn't even hide the fact that the
membership has voted groups in, and he has just vetoed the election, and
refused to induct them, such as Dion & the Belmonts.
His hall of fame is most just a vehicle for him to put on shows and to create
interest and income for himself and the organization.
Ludovic Delamare
>> From: Ludovic Delamare
>
>> Which would have resulted in only 4 artists being inducted. Is that
>> really what you want ?
>
> Yes. I don't think every artist in the world should be getting inducted,
> particularly if we don't even have a majority of the memebers of this
> newsgroup who believe that they belong.
>
> Some of the artists that just missed this year would have to build momentum
> and perhaps eventually get elected. Their worthiness could be debated in the
> group.
OK I think you may be right. A HoF such as this one wouldn't make any
sense if all the artists
one could think of ended up being inducted. But there is a side effect
to this : only the really
consensual artists have really a chance of being inducted. So in the
end, the difference between this
HoF and the Cleveland one won't be that large. And, from what I
understand, that was not the purpose
of the whole thing.
Or maybe we could add a category (that applies to the 70's group as
well) : artists the less likely to be inducted in an official HoF. ;-)
Each voting member would then have a chance to champion his own
idiosyncratic taste, from The United States Of
America to Can or Magma.
Maybe it's a stupid idea but it would be a lot of fun, imo.
SavoyBG
>Each voting member would then have a chance to champion his own
>idiosyncratic taste, from The United States Of
>America to Can or Magma.
>Maybe it's a stupid idea
I agree with the last 4 words.
SavoyBG
>So in the
>end, the difference between this
>HoF and the Cleveland one won't be that large.
Sure it will.
We've already inducted artists that the Cleveland HGall Of Fame would never
touch (Huey Smith and the Johnny Burnette Trio in the 50s, and the Zombies in
the 60s, with more to come, such as the Dave Clark 5 and the Monkees, who came
close this year.
Ludovic Delamare
>> From: Ludovic Delamare
>
>> Each voting member would then have a chance to champion his own
>> idiosyncratic taste, from The United States Of
>> America to Can or Magma.
>> Maybe it's a stupid idea
>
> I agree with the last 4 words.
I don't know why but I'm not really surprised. But I rest my case. That
would be fun
and that's the reason why I'm here in the first place.
Todd Lucas
>50% of the votes (doing away with the ranking
>option) to be inducted.
>If less than half of the members of the group
>think that an artist belongs, they shouldn't get in
>IMO.
But you're currenly limited to voting for ten, no matter how many you
may think are deserving. I'd say that if we're going to use 50% of the
vote as the threshold for induction, then you should at least be allowed
to vote for up to half of the nominees, if you choose. This year, that
would have meant voting for up to 11 of the 22 nominees.
Todd
Bob Roman
wrote:
>But you're currenly limited to voting for ten, no matter how many you
>may think are deserving. I'd say that if we're going to use 50% of the
>vote as the threshold for induction, then you should at least be allowed
>to vote for up to half of the nominees, if you choose. This year, that
>would have meant voting for up to 11 of the 22 nominees.
This is a good idea, IMO.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
>then you should at least be allowed
>>to vote for up to half of the nominees, if you choose. This year, that
>>would have meant voting for up to 11 of the 22 nominees.
>
>This is a good idea, IMO.
>
I agree, although if there were an odd amount of nominees (25 let's say) I'd
allow voters to list 13 rather than 12, as Todd suggested in the 50s group.
12.5 should round up to 13. If the voter has a 13th artist that he deems worthy
(which he very well may not), let;s use that as a chance to perhaps get a
bordeline artist inducted.
Taliesyn
>>From: Bob Roman
>
>
> Maybe there are only another 8, 10, or 12 artists from the 60s who belong in a
> hall of fame. I mean, we now have 40. I don't think this hall of fame is going
> to be very meaningful if we end up with 197 artists in there.
>
This virtual Hall has already gone too far. The Monkees, with one person
in the group with even limited talent, missed by a couple of votes this
time. Supergroup Cream with, arguably, 4 of the best musicians (with
several #1 albums) of the Sixties, had what, 1 person vote for them -
me? This is totally incomprehensible, unacceptable, and ridiculous. In
the real Hall, Cream have been in since 1993, entering along with
Creedence and The Doors, as they should. The Monkees have never even
been nominated. And they shouldn't be. The Hall is reserved for real
musicians and artists.
-Taliesyn
Taliesyn
Cream on the brain....
Did I say Cream with 4 musicians? That was 3 of course, with wonderful
additional help from producer Felix Pappalardi and lyricist Pete Brown.
-Taliesyn
SavoyBG
> Supergroup Cream with, arguably, 4 of the best musicians (with
>several #1 albums) of the Sixties, had what, 1 person vote for them -
>me?
I thought there were only three members of Cream?
>The Monkees have never even
>been nominated. And they shouldn't be. The Hall is reserved for real
>musicians and artists.
You're way off base here.
First of all, the real hall is bullshit, a corporate farce.
Secondly, the Monkees made more good records than lots of memebers of the
Clevelend hall. Who played on the records, or who wrote the songs, or any of
the outside stuff means nothing. All that matters is what the records sounded
like, and what the memebers here think of their recorded output.
Taliesyn
>>From: Taliesyn
>
>
>>Supergroup Cream with, arguably, 4 of the best musicians (with
>>several #1 albums) of the Sixties, had what, 1 person vote for them -
>>me?
>
>
> I thought there were only three members of Cream?
>
>
>>The Monkees have never even
>>been nominated. And they shouldn't be. The Hall is reserved for real
>>musicians and artists.
>
>
> You're way off base here.
>
> First of all, the real hall is bullshit, a corporate farce.
>
> Secondly, the Monkees made more good records than lots of memebers of the
> Clevelend hall. Who played on the records, or who wrote the songs, or any of
> the outside stuff means nothing. All that matters is what the records sounded
> like, and what the memebers here think of their recorded output.
>
If who played on the records isn't important, then why are The Monkees
being voted here instead of the studio musicians who actually made the
records. Again, please remind me, what is the whole point of this
virtual Hall? I know it's virtual, but that doesn't meant the talent
should be virtual too.
You call the real Hall "a corporate farce", but fully accept Monkees
records as legit, yet they were for the most part a corporate product
with token Monkee input. The whole concept of the Monkees was corporate!
If you call me "way off base here", you just broke your own base path,
Bruce!
-Taliesyn
Todd Lucas
Fine with me.
Todd
Todd Lucas
>with even limited talent
Yes, admittedly Davy Jones had limited talent.
Todd
SavoyBG
>>The Monkees, with one person in the group
>>with even limited talent
>
>Yes, admittedly Davy Jones had limited talent.
Plus it's a "hall of fame," not a hall of perceived musical talent.
The Monkees were one of the most successful and most famous recording acts of
the decade.
Based on Tali's logic, the Temptations and Four Tops should not get in because
they didn't play instruments or write songs.
Todd Lucas
>then why are The Monkees being voted here
>instead of the studio musicians who actually
Because, unlike the hall in Cleveland, our hall doesn't list individual
band members to be inducted but only the group as a whole. If you want
studio musicians to be a part of that whole, fine with me, as it's not
stipulated either way.
By the way, the four guys did play on several of the records, including
the entire Headquarters album, which is a fine record, probably their
best album.
They had more talent than you give them credit for. Yes, Davy Jones'
talent was limited to being cute and an average singer. But Mike
Nesmith was a pretty good songwriter, among other things. Mickey Dolenz
was a fine singer and Peter Tork could effectively play a variety of
instruments. Check ot his harpsichord playing on "The Girl I Knew
Somewhere".
Todd
Taliesyn
>
> They had more talent than you give them credit for.
(More? You're more generous than their moms. ;-)
> Yes, Davy Jones' talent was limited to being cute
> and an average singer.
(Excuse me?...)
> But Mike Nesmith was a pretty good songwriter,
> among other things.
(Those other things must be pretty impressive because his
lyrical output was minimal.)
> Mickey Dolenz was a fine singer
(Probably their best, but far from fine.)
> and Peter Tork could effectively play a variety of instruments.
(I doubt Tork could effectively play any instrument.)
Yeah, your right, Hall of Fame material, all of them.
I concede defeat. No further argument from me.
-Taliesyn
Taliesyn
>>From: trog...@webtv.net (Todd Lucas)
>
>
>>>The Monkees, with one person in the group
>>>with even limited talent
>>
>>Yes, admittedly Davy Jones had limited talent.
>
>
>
> Plus it's a "hall of fame," not a hall of perceived musical talent.
>
> The Monkees were one of the most successful and most famous recording acts of
> the decade.
>
> Based on Tali's logic, the Temptations and Four Tops should not get in because
> they didn't play instruments or write songs.
>
I wasn't going to talk about this matter any more, but I forgot about
you, Bruce....
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The Four Tops practiced and plied their trade since
1956 before making it. They were professionals. Same with the Temps.
Practiced, practiced, toured, recorded, for years before charting.
Both acts paid their dues, got respect.
The Monkees were picked off the street for a tv show monkee-ing The
Beatles and thrown in the studio (same month?) to put their weak
voices over some songs. The Monkees were an artificial, corporate
creation and would never have come together naturally as a group, since
only one of them was even a musician.
If you wish to honor pre-fab artists, fine, place them in the Pre-Fab
Home of Fame, but don't insult real artists who worked their butts off
for years to get where they were. The Monkees were not taken seriously
by anyone back then, unless you were 12 at the time. They were simply
the Sixties version of the New Kids On The Block or Britney Spears. Yes,
even those artists made some nice songs, and were very famous because
they were cute. But they're still as fake as the fake Rolex on my wrist.
Or do I have to remind you that when The Monkees finally took control of
their own music later in '68, they died a quick death (the charts bear
this out). In other words, no real talent to speak of, unless they
were handed the songs on a silver acetate.
-Taliesyn
SavoyBG
>The Monkees were picked off the street for a tv show monkee-ing The
>Beatles and thrown in the studio (same month?) to put their weak
>voices over some songs. The Monkees were an artificial, corporate
>creation and would never have come together naturally as a group, since
>only one of them was even a musician.
Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
How and why they got together, and what they did before they got together means
nothing.
>If you wish to honor pre-fab artists, fine, place them in the Pre-Fab
>Home of Fame, but don't insult real artists who worked their butts off
>for years to get where they were. The Monkees were not taken seriously
>by anyone back then, unless you were 12 at the time.
We don't really care about what you and your friends took seriously, all we
care about is what we feel about the music that the Monkees made in the 60s.
Many of the people here were 12 at the time, and still like the Monkees. Others
were much older than 12, and still like the Monkees. You can keep a lot of what
you think was "serious" music, I'd rather listen to the Monkees than most of
the "serious" music.
>when The Monkees finally took control of
>their own music later in '68, they died a quick death (the charts bear
>this out).
So I assume you are against the induction of acts like the Velvet Underground,
that never had a hit at all?
>In other words, no real talent to speak of, unless they
>were handed the songs on a silver acetate.
>
I don't really care about who had talent, all I care about is what came out of
the Speakers when I heard the records.
Pop music is filled with talented musicians who made bad (to me) records, and
also with little talented musicians who made real good records.
If you're interested in talented musicians, go to a symphony or something.
That's not what this is all about.
Derek Homsberg
speakers.
> How and why they got together, and what they did before they got together
means
> nothing.
That's your standard, but I saw no rule applying it to everyone else. That
is not the sole standard that most people would apply in determining the
greatest bands of an era.
> We don't really care about what you and your friends took seriously, all
we
> care about is what we feel about the music that the Monkees made in the
60s.
What do you mean "We", white man? Again, that's your standard.
> Many of the people here were 12 at the time, and still like the Monkees.
I like the Monkees, but I don't take them to be HOF material. I doubt if any
member of the Monkees would agree they belong in a 60s music HOF.
> were much older than 12, and still like the Monkees. You can keep a lot of
what
> you think was "serious" music, I'd rather listen to the Monkees than most
of
> the "serious" music.
Yes, you've already established that.
> I don't really care about who had talent, all I care about is what came
out of
> the Speakers when I heard the records.
Yes, you've already established that.
> Pop music is filled with talented musicians who made bad (to me) records,
and
> also with little talented musicians who made real good records.
OK.
> If you're interested in talented musicians, go to a symphony or something.
> That's not what this is all about.
Not quite. A 60s rock / r & b music HOF has something to do with talent.
Intheway1
>How and why they got together, and what they did before they got together
>means
>nothing.
Since the four actors were not responsible for a lot of what came out of the
speakers, the Monkees don't even meet this standard.
> all we
>care about is what we feel about
We? Are you speaking for Bruce and Grossberg again? Or have those Kansas
wheat farmers and uncultured Iowans sent messages to you again? Has Jack
given you his proxy?
> the music that the Monkees made in the 60s.
The Monkees didn't make the music, Bruce. That's Taliesyn's point, and it is
valid.
>>when The Monkees finally took control of
>>their own music later in '68, they died a quick death (the charts bear
>>this out).
>
>So I assume you are against the induction of acts like the Velvet
>Underground,
>that never had a hit at all?
Nice misinterpretation, Bruce.
The point was that,at the peak of their popularity. they were essentially
puppets, with no creative control or imput over their most popular music, and,
to be frank, little direct involvement. When they got control, they tanked,
commercially AND critically.
They were four moderately talented actors, and modestly talented musicians, who
fronted for a corporate trademark that was put on some very catchy pop songs
for a couple years.
The only lasting legacy they have left is the idea a marketing department can
think up a concept for a band first and then manufacture the human components
to fit the plan, and then make tons of money by continuing to market the
concept. This has hardly been a positive advancement.
SavoyBG
>What do you mean "We", white man? Again, that's your standard.
"we" meaning the 12 or so members of this group who voted for the monkees for
the hall of fame.
>I like the Monkees, but I don't take them to be HOF material. I doubt if any
>member of the Monkees would agree they belong in a 60s music HOF.
I think you're 100% wrong there, and I've even seen Dolenz saying that the
Monkees belong in the Cleveland Hall Of Fame.
>Not quite. A 60s rock / r & b music HOF has something to do with talent.
So let's put Wayne Newton in, he's got more talent than most of the rock
musicians. It's a rock, pop, and R & B hall of fame byu the way, just like the
title of the newsgroup.
SavoyBG
>Since the four actors were not responsible for a lot of what came out of the
>speakers, the Monkees don't even meet this standard.
If you're going by that standard, than we should expel the groups like the Four
Tops, who had nothing to do with any songwriting, music, and not even the
background vocals on some of the records.
>The Monkees didn't make the music, Bruce. That's Taliesyn's point, and it is
>valid.
I don't care who made it. It was released as by The Monkees," and that's who
should be ensrined if they get enough votes.
If we induct "Someday We'll Be Together" should we list it as by Diana Ross?
Because there's no other Supremes singing on the record.
How about "Unchained Melody?' Should we list that as by Bobby Hatfield, since
Medley is nowhere to be heard?
>The point was that,at the peak of their popularity. they were essentially
>puppets, with no creative control or imput over their most popular music,
Sounds like the Coasters, should we expel them from the 50s hall of fame?
Based on this theory, none of Phil Spector's groups should ever get any credit
either, since they also had no creative control or input on any of their music.
>When they got control, they tanked,
>commercially AND critically.
Just like almost every Motown artist did when they left the label. Should we
expel the Temptations because they had no creative control over any of their
most popular records, and they tanked when they switched labels?
>They were four moderately talented actors, and modestly talented musicians,
>who
>fronted for a corporate trademark that was put on some very catchy pop songs
>for a couple years.
And almost half of the members of this group who just voted in Bob's hall of
fame think that they belong. They will probably get in next year.
>The only lasting legacy they have left is the idea a marketing department can
>think up a concept for a band first and then manufacture the human components
>to fit the plan, and then make tons of money by continuing to market the
>concept. This has hardly been a positive advancement.
Who cares if there was an advancement or not, I just care about the records.
One of the members of the group sings lead on every one of their hits. Some of
the songs include background vocals by non-members. They didn;t write any of
their hits. They didn't play the instruments on most of their hits. Sounds just
like most of the motown acts. Why should they be respected any more than the
Monkees?
Intheway1
>Four
>Tops, who had nothing to do with any songwriting, music, and not even the
>background vocals on some of the records.
The Tops never pretended to, either. The Tops were four guys who got together
on their own and started creating remarkable music once they joined a creative
team of writers, producers and musicians.
The Monkees were four guy who made some catchy music after some marketing
people decided they could make money putting ersatz Beatles on TV.
>Based on this theory, none of Phil Spector's groups should ever get any
>credit
>either, since they also had no creative control or input on any of their
>music.
The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the Monkees
were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins themselves.
The Monkees were fakes, Bruce. No more an actual band than the Archies.
>Should we
>expel the Temptations because they had no creative control over any of their
>most popular records, and they tanked when they switched labels?
>
Check again, Bruce, they charted with their last-but-one CD.
>Sounds just
>like most of the motown acts. Why should they be respected any more than the
>Monkees?
Talent.
Are you seriously arguing that the Monkees were as talented as, or more
talented than the Motown groups you've named? That Mickey Dolenz equals Levi
Stubbs? Davy Jones equals Smokey Robinson?
I realize you have a problem recognizing creativity and talent as important in
the making of music, but the fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't
there.
Bob Roman
>So let's put Wayne Newton in, he's got more talent than most of the rock
>musicians.
You make this statement based on what?
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
>The Tops never pretended to, either. The Tops were four guys who got
>together
>on their own and started creating remarkable music
How they got together means nothing. Whether or not their music is remarkable
is an opinion.
>The Monkees were four guy who made some catchy music
A matter of opinion whether or not their music is as good as the Four Tops
music.
The members of this group apparently agree with you somewhat, as the Four Tops
were just inducted, and the Monkees didn't quite get in, but I think they will
eventually.
>The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the Monkees
>were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins
>themselves.
Who cares how they were marketed?
When I listen to "I'm A Believer,": which I think is a better record than
anything the Crystals ever released, I don't care how it got that way.
>The Monkees were fakes, Bruce. No more an actual band than the Archies.
>
The members of the Monkees were the lead singers on every record. The members
of the Archies were never even named. If and when we induct "Ther Monkees," Bob
is not going to list the names of the actual people who are inducted. The whole
"Monkees" package is being inducted, however and whoever they were.
As for the Archies, I'd have no problem inducting them either if I thought they
had made enough good records.
>Check again, Bruce, they charted with their last-but-one CD.
I'm talking about their initial excursions away from Motown (Atlantic). How
they are doing nowadays, when all, or virtually all, of the 60s members are
dead, has no bearing on a 60s or 70s hall of fame.
>Why should they be respected any more than the
>>Monkees?
>
>Talent.
Other than Levi Stubbs I don't think there's much talent among the Four Tops.
They are barely even heard on several of their hits, and were not a good
harmony group.
Mickey Dolenz is a better singer than several of the members of other Motown
groups too.
That bbeing said, this is not about talent, it's about the recorded works of
the artist.
Glen Campbell is much more talented than almost any Motown artist. When will he
be inducted?
>Are you seriously arguing that the Monkees were as talented as, or more
>talented than the Motown groups you've named? That Mickey Dolenz equals Levi
>Stubbs? Davy Jones equals Smokey Robinson?
No, I'm seriously arguing that the Monkees recorded output in the 60s was at
least as good as acts like the Marvelettes, Four Tops, and other Motown acts.
I'm, also arguing that your point about them having no creative control, and
not playing instruments is the same psoition that almost all of the Motown acts
were in.
The Supremes certainly had no creative control over anything, and were not
particularly great talents either.
>I realize you have a problem recognizing creativity and talent as important
>in
>the making of music, but the fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't
>there.
Even if it is there, I don't feel it should be a criteria when voting for a
hall of fame. This is not about which artists have the most talent, it's about
which artists had the best records in the 60s.
SavoyBG
>>So let's put Wayne Newton in, he's got more talent than most of the rock
>>musicians.
>
>You make this statement based on what?
>
He's a better "singer" than most of them, and he also plays about 12
instruments.
What about Glen Campbell?
Would you deny that he has more talent than most of the artists that we have
inducted already?
Bob Roman
>>From: Bob Roman
>
>>>So let's put Wayne Newton in, he's got more talent than most of the rock
>>>musicians.
>>
>>You make this statement based on what?
>
>He's a better "singer" than most of them, and he also plays about 12
>instruments.
His throat contained a strong intrument, but he's never been a very
interesting singer. Good singing is a matter of what you do with your
voice, not the voice itself.
>What about Glen Campbell?
>Would you deny that he has more talent than most of the artists that we have
>inducted already?
He's a good guitarist with a pleasant voice. But I don't see what
that has to do with Wayne Newton.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
>His throat contained a strong intrument, but he's never been a very
>interesting singer. Good singing is a matter of what you do with your
>voice, not the voice itself.
Matter of opinion. Millions of people who go to see newton every year would
disagree with you, and would certainly hate the singing of some of our hall of
famers, exampple - Lou Reed.
>>What about Glen Campbell?
>>Would you deny that he has more talent than most of the artists that we have
>>inducted already?
>
>He's a good guitarist with a pleasant voice. But I don't see what
>that has to do with Wayne Newton.
He's a great guitarist, and the point is that the hall of fame in not about
talent, it's about results, just like in sports.
Lots of players have had way more talent than other players who became hall of
famers.
Taliesyn
>>Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what's coming out of the speakers.
>>How and why they got together, and what they did before they got together
>>means
>>nothing.
>
>
> Since the four actors were not responsible for a lot of what came out of the
> speakers, the Monkees don't even meet this standard.
>
I think we're all way too generous here too. Only one was a minor actor,
Dolenz.
>>
>>So I assume you are against the induction of acts like the Velvet
>>Underground,
>>that never had a hit at all?
>
>
> Nice misinterpretation, Bruce.
>
> The point was that,at the peak of their popularity. they were essentially
> puppets, with no creative control or imput over their most popular music, and,
> to be frank, little direct involvement. When they got control, they tanked,
> commercially AND critically.
>
> They were four moderately talented actors, and modestly talented musicians, who
> fronted for a corporate trademark that was put on some very catchy pop songs
> for a couple years.
>
> The only lasting legacy they have left is the idea a marketing department can
> think up a concept for a band first and then manufacture the human components
> to fit the plan, and then make tons of money by continuing to market the
> concept. This has hardly been a positive advancement.
>
Which is precisely why Don Kirchner created the cartoon group Archies
after The Monkees slipped away from him. He simply needed an image to
market, the Monkees had proven way too troublesome, as humans, by
wanting to play their own music - like a real group. Let's pray that no
one nominates The cartoon group Archies one day.
-Taliesyn
Todd Lucas
>inducting them either if I thought they had made
>enough good records.
Agreed. Besides, everyone knew that Jughead wasn't 'really' playing
those drums, right Fred?
Todd
Todd Lucas
>commercially AND critically.
Not exactly true. They had quite a bit of control by the release of
Headquarters, probably critically regarded as their best album. They
sang and played all of the lead instruments on every cut. I don't have
the numbers handy but am assuming it did pretty well on the charts.
Todd
SavoyBG
Good point Todd, just like everyone supposedly knew that the Crystals were not
playing all of those violins.
SavoyBG
>Not exactly true. They had quite a bit of control by the release of
>Headquarters, probably critically regarded as their best album. They
>sang and played all of the lead instruments on every cut. I don't have
>the numbers handy but am assuming it did pretty well on the charts.
If you consider # 1, with a chart life of 51 weeks to be "pretty well."
Does this mean that they also had control on the next two albums, both of which
were monsters too?
DianeE
"Intheway1" <inth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041026030558...@mb-m24.aol.com...
[quoting Bruce]
> >Based on this theory, none of Phil Spector's groups should ever get any
> >credit
> >either, since they also had no creative control or input on any of their
> >music.
>
> The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the
Monkees
> were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins
themselves.
>
The Crystals are the worst possible example for you to use here, because
they did not sing at all on some of the most famous records released under
their name.
DianeE
Bob Roman
>>He's a good guitarist with a pleasant voice. But I don't see what
>>that has to do with Wayne Newton.
>
>He's a great guitarist, and the point is that the hall of fame in not about
>talent, it's about results, just like in sports.
Fine. I'm not part of that conversation. I'm just wondering why
you're suddenly so enamored with Wayne Newton.
Bob Roman
Todd Lucas
>you to use here, because they did not sing at all
>on some of the most famous records released
>under their name.
Yeah, wasn't it in fact The Blossoms or some such group singing on those
records?
Todd
Todd Lucas
>to be "pretty well."
>Does this mean that they also had control on
>the next two albums, both of which were
>monsters too?
One thing that I should mention about Headquaters to be fair. They did
use an "outsider" to play bass on that album, mostly Chip Douglas. But
the lead guitars, drums and vocals were "The Monkees" proper.
The next album was Pieces, Aquarius, etc. and was still mostly the band,
although there were more studio guys ivolved than on the previous album.
By The Birds, The Bees and The Monkees, they'd gone back to a lot of
outsider involvement.
Anyhow, the argument that they weren't commercially successful as the
four memebers proper isn't really true. And the two albums they made as
mostly the "real" Monkees are probably their best records.
Todd
Taliesyn
So when are you going to talk about Head, Instant Replay and The Monkees
Present? These are the albums they were fully responsible for? None
of the singles from any of these albums even made the Top 30. Heck, the
albums didn't even make the Top 30. Their amazing ascendancy was only
matched by their equally fast disappearance from radio, after mid 1968,
once they took control of their own product. Hall of Famers? Humbug!
They proved they couldn't make it on their own as a "rock band". That is
NOT Hall of Fame material.
For what it's worth, Nesmith declared their 1967 album More Of The
Monkees "the worst album in the history of the world." Ask Nesmith
if he thinks the Monkees should be in the Hall of Fame.
I personally think Nesmith himself could be nominated in the real Hall
of Fame, in Cleveland, for his lifetime achievement. And we all know (at
least I do) that his best work came after the Monkees. He's got my vote.
Unfortunately, his 3 stiffs from his Monkees days don't get any votes
from me, unless its for their nomination to the Pre-Fab Home of Fame.
How about it Mr. Roman, got room for a new category - Pre-Fab?
-Taliesyn
-Taliesyn
Solostar1A
>Good point Todd, just like >everyone supposedly knew that >the Crystals were
not
>playing all of those violins.
And I'm sure you meant to mention Darlene Love's involvement as a "Crystal".
Solostar1A
>Would you deny that he has more >talent than most of the artists that >we have
inducted already?
We? Who has done the inducting. No general music fan has a vote. Voting is done
be a preselected group of people. Whether the general music fan approves or not
has no bearing on anything, ever. That's a helluva statement on "rock". But,
I'm glad you're part of the flock that goes along with this cr*p. Personally, I
think the genre at large got a raw deal with this contrived farce. Granted,
there are good points to the HOF, but the negative aspects are significant.
Intheway1
>those drums, right Fred?
>
I'm not sure Bruce does know who played the drums, but I am sure he thinks
Archie was singing the lead, because that's what comes out of the speakers,
right?
Intheway1
Which is precisely why I used them. At least you were sharp enough to pick up
on the reference.
SavoyBG
>I'm not sure Bruce does know who played the drums, but I am sure he thinks
>Archie was singing the lead, because that's what comes out of the speakers,
>right?
I don't know about your stereo Fred, but if I play an Archies record on my
stereo, I don't SEE anybody singing, I just hear it.
Intheway1
>Present? These are the albums they were fully responsible for? None
>of the singles from any of these albums even made the Top 30.
Chart performance aside, "what comes out of the speakers" on these three albums
is insipid, and "Changes" makes those three sound like "Blonde on Blonde."
At about equivalent career points, the Beatles put out Revolver, Rubber Soul
and Sgt. Pepper, and the Monkees put out Head, Instant Replay and Present.
Hardly equivalent accomplishments.
In extolling "Headquarters" as an example of good work done by the group under
their own control, our Monkees proponents have failed to notice that the album
really didn't break any new ground musically. I know this makes Bruce happy,
because he thinks originality is overrated, but, if anything, it shows that the
four members of the group had wholly adopted the formula invented for them at
the beginning. If the four chafed under the level of control of the earlier
stuff, the yoke they put on themselves was strangely similar.
Headquarters is a "good Monkees record," which is a pretty easy target to hit
if you hire the right session guys and pick the right songs. Putting out "good
Monkees records" is hardly the stuff of Hall of Fame careers.
>Their amazing ascendancy was only
>matched by their equally fast disappearance from radio, after mid 1968,
>once they took control of their own product.
Funny thing about that. The TV show got cancelled in mid-68, and despite the
amazing publicity and marketing exposure by the three years of the series, once
they were truly on their own, nothing happened.
There were a handful, just a handful, of catchy pop songs that bore the Monkees
name. Even if they had written and performed them all on their own, I
seriously doubt they would ever get my vote for HoF just on that history. I
think a great deal of that musical success can be attributed to the use of
great pop songwriters, rather than anything in the performances by the four
members of the group
Intheway1
>I don't know about your stereo Fred, but if I play an Archies record on my
>stereo, I don't SEE anybody singing, I just hear it.
Interesting, but nonsensical, so in keeping with your usual responses.
I didn't say anything about seeing. I said I was sure that you thought Archie
was singing. I obviously was giving you too much credit, saying you actually
thought.
Derek Homsberg
speakers.
> >>How and why they got together, and what they did before they got
together
> >>means
> >>nothing.
> >
> > Since the four actors were not responsible for a lot of what came out of
the
> > speakers, the Monkees don't even meet this standard.
>
> I think we're all way too generous here too. Only one was a minor actor,
> Dolenz.
Davy Jones was an actor, having played the Artful Dodger in Oliver! on
Broadway. I actually saw him in it in 1962, although I didn't know who he
was at the time. But I kept my Playbill and after the Monkees became known,
and it became known that he had been in Oliver! I fetched out my Playbill
and confirmed that I'd seen him that night.
SavoyBG
>Putting out "good
>Monkees records" is hardly the stuff of Hall of Fame careers.
It will be in this group in the next year or two.
> I
>think a great deal of that musical success can be attributed to the use of
>great pop songwriters, rather than anything in the performances by the four
>members of the group
Same can be said for the Supremes. Will they get your vote.
Todd Tamanend Clark
>
> If who played on the records isn't important, then why are The
> Monkees being voted here instead of the studio musicians who
> actually made the records?
You would be surprised at how many groups back in the sixties and
elsewhen substituted professional studio musicians on their hit
records, even though they usually did their own vocals on the
records and played their own instruments at live concerts.
Television appearances were usually lipsinced, though.
Other than Roger McGuinn, none of the other Byrds played on their
earliest songs, and their original so-called drummer was never on
any of the final released tracks. Dennis Wilson rarely played
drums on any Beach Boy records, either. Many of Brian Wilson's
bass parts are actually played by Carol Kaye.
Paul Revere And The Raiders used almost as many studio musicians
as The Monkees. So did The Turtles, The Young Rascals, Tommy
James And The Shondells, and hundreds of other "groups". Even on
some occasions, The Mothers Of Invention. Max Frost And The
Troopers are actually Davie Allen And The Arrows backing up actor
Christopher Jones on vocals. Other posters have already cited the
extensive production-oriented behind the scenes playing on most
Motown and Phil Spector records. Is Ike Turner even on "River Deep
Mountain High"?
Even The Doors hired Douglas Lubahn from Clear Light to play bass
guitar on songs credited to Ray Manzarek's left hand as having
played keyboard bass, which it did live. Also, many of the bass
parts on Hendrix's records are actually overdubbed by Jimi himself
because Noel Redding was such a weak bassist.
After The Beatles laid down the tracks in England for some of
their early albums, their manager Brian Epstein flew the tapes to
New York City and had Aretha Franklin's drummer Bernard Purdie
overdub about half the drumming. In fact, Purdie and another
prominent session ace, Hal Blaine, did literally thousands of
anonymous sessions during their peak years in the 1960s.
A lot of George Harrison's supposed guitar parts are actually
played by Eric Clapton or Paul McCartney or others. Maybe even
Jimmy Page, who did tons of session work all over the place.
> Again, please remind me, what is the whole point of this virtual
> Hall? I know it's virtual, but that doesn't meant the talent
> should be virtual too.
Well, then you're going to have to exclude two of the albums that
are frequently cited as among the sixties' greatest masterpieces
("Pet Sounds" and "Forever Changes") because The Beach Boys and
Love used session players extensively throughout them.
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
Endorsement Artist For Moog Synthesizers
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
http://tinyurl.com/5uu5c
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
- - - -
"There is no line between the 'real world' and the 'world of myth and
symbol'. Objects, sensations hit with the impact of hallucination."
- - William S. Burroughs
SavoyBG
>You would be surprised at how many groups back in the sixties and
>elsewhen substituted professional studio musicians on their hit
>records,
Excellent post Todd.
People just want to knock artists like the Monkees because it's well known that
they had others play on their records, but all of the exampoles that you cited
show that we should not be so concerned with who actually played on the
records, but rather, as I've been saying all along, with the finished product,
or "what's coming out of the speakers."
I still say that the Monkees made plenty of very good records. certainly as
amny or more good records than several artists who we have already inducted in
this hall of fame.
Todd Tamanend Clark
>
> By the way, the four guys did play on several of the records,
> including the entire Headquarters album, which is a fine record,
> probably their best album.
I like "Headquarters", but I think "Pisces Aquarius Capricorn And
Jones Limited (And boy was he ever!) is their best.
> [To Taliesyn:] They had more talent than you give them credit
> for.
Well, three of them did, anyway.
> Yes, Davy Jones' talent was limited to being cute and an average
> singer.
You're being far too generous about Davy.
> But Mike Nesmith was a pretty good songwriter, among other
> things. Micky Dolenz was a fine singer, and Peter Tork could
> effectively play a variety of instruments. Check out his
> harpsichord playing on "The Girl I Knew Somewhere".
Right on! You go, fellow Toddster!
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
Endorsement Artist For Moog Synthesizers
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
http://tinyurl.com/5uu5c
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
- - - -
"We need to look beyond the pyramid, into the shadow, to find the
truth." - - Tommy Hall
DianeE
"Todd Tamanend Clark" <tama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41960cc5.0410...@posting.google.com...
>
> After The Beatles laid down the tracks in England for some of
> their early albums, their manager Brian Epstein flew the tapes to
> New York City and had Aretha Franklin's drummer Bernard Purdie
> overdub about half the drumming.
Has Ringo Starr ever confirmed this? I'd be very interested to know which
tracks were involved.
It sounds like a strange story, because when Ringo joined The Beatles some
folks derided him for being a studio musician--IOW, too "professional" for
an authentic rock and roll band.
DianeE
Dean F.
> I still say that the Monkees made plenty of very good records.
So, let me get this straight:
Monkees = very good.
Mitch Ryder, MC5, Ray Charles (post-Atlantic) = crap.
Bruce, buddy, I hate to say this, but I find it increasingly difficult
to take your opinions seriously!
DianeE
Huh? You were claiming that the Crystals were more "authentic" than the
Monkees. You said:
<<The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the
Monkees
were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins
themselves.
<<The Monkees were fakes.>>
----------
Obviously the "Crystals" of "He's A Rebel" and "He's Sure The Boy I Love"
were even more fake than the Monkees...the real Crystals didn't even
lip-synch on those records!
In fact, I'll bet most younger people today, who've seen Darlene Love belt
out "He's A Rebel" on TV many times, don't even realize the record didn't
come out under her name.
DianeE
SavoyBG
>So, let me get this straight:
>Monkees = very good.
>Mitch Ryder, MC5, Ray Charles (post-Atlantic) = crap.
Mitch Ryder is mostly crap, and the MC5 are all crap. Neither of those artists
will get inducted into this hall of fame before the Monkees do.
As for ray Charles, he made several good record on ABC, but nowhere near as
good as they could have been, and his output in the 1964 to 1965 time was
pathetic.
>Bruce, buddy, I hate to say this, but I find it increasingly difficult
>to take your opinions seriously!
That's up to you Dean. I can tell you this, most people who are very big fans
of the soul music that you love think that the MC5 are horrendous, just a bunch
of loud noise.
I sentence you to 50 straight listenings of Ray Charles' version of "Cry."
Todd Lucas
>which is a pretty easy target to hit if you hire the
>right session guys and pick the right songs.
>Putting out "good Monkees records" is hardly
>the stuff of Hall of Fame careers.
I was rebutting your claim that Headquarters was both a commercial and
critical failure, neither of which are true. I don't recall using the
album itself as justification for the Monkees induction into a hall of
fame.
Todd
Todd Lucas
>many studio musicians as The Monkees.
Apparently especially true of their later 60's output. I don't think
that Paul Revere himself was even on a lot of those records.
Todd
Derek Homsberg
> were even more fake than the Monkees...the real Crystals didn't even
> lip-synch on those records!
Why would anyone need to lip-synch on a record? If you're not recording the
song, what would be the point of moving your mouth in the studio?
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>"Todd Tamanend Clark" <tama...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> After The Beatles laid down the tracks in England for some of
>> their early albums, their manager Brian Epstein flew the tapes to
>> New York City and had Aretha Franklin's drummer Bernard Purdie
>> overdub about half the drumming.
>------------
>Has Ringo Starr ever confirmed this? I'd be very interested to know which
>tracks were involved.
>
>It sounds like a strange story, because when Ringo joined The Beatles some
>folks derided him for being a studio musician--IOW, too "professional" for
>an authentic rock and roll band.
No, it is not confirmed, nor believed by many people. Max Weinberg
has a cash offer waiting for anyone who can show ANY supporting
evidence for this claim.
Bob Roman
Todd Tamanend Clark
>
> The Monkees were picked off the street for a tv show...
No, there was an elaborate audition process.
Even Stephen Stills auditioned.
> ... monkee-ing The Beatles...
The second major boy band imitating the first major boy band.
The early albums by both groups are weak.
> ... and thrown in the studio (same month?) to put their weak
> voices over some songs.
Micky Dolenz has a very strong voice, actually. Mike Nesmith's
voice is adequate, and Peter Tork's voice may have been effective
only for deep background harmony during the 1960s, but he sings
much better now on their reunion tours.
> The Monkees were an artificial, corporate creation...
But three of them were hip and intelligent enough to use the
platform they had been given to subvert mainstream Amerika to
the best of their ability. They also helped to introduce Jimi
Hendrix, Frank Zappa, and Tim Buckley to wider audiences.
> ... and would never have come together naturally as a group,
> since only one of them was even a musician.
No, TWO of them were musicians (Mike and Peter) and two of them
were actor/singers (Micky and Davy).
> The Monkees were not taken seriously by anyone back then,
> unless you were 12 at the time.
I was fourteen by September 12, 1966 when The Monkees television
series debuted, and I enjoyed it immensely, even with having a
background in serious avant-garde jazz since a young age. And
today, I'm the proud owner of both Monkee complete season sets
on DVD.
> Do I have to remind you that when The Monkees finally took
> control of their own music later in '68...
They had already taken control by the spring of 1967. Their third
album ("Headquarters"), on which they began to play their own
instrumental tracks, was released on May 20, 1967, and had been
in the works for three months.
> ... they died a quick death (the charts bear this out).
Fuck the CORPORATE charts, remember?
> In other words, no real talent to speak of, unless they were
> handed the songs on a silver acetate.
Wrong. They wrote many of their own best songs.
Michael Nesmith wrote:
Circle Sky
Daily Nightly
Listen To The Band
Mary Mary
Papa Gene's Blues
Sweet Young Thing
Tapioca Tundra
The Girl I Knew Somewhere
The Kind Of Girl I Could Love
You Just May Be The One
You Told Be
While I Cry
Writing Wrongs
Micky Dolenz wrote:
Just A Game
Mommy And Daddy
Randy Scouse Git
Shorty Blackwell
Peter Tork wrote:
Can You Dig It
For Pete's Sake
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
Endorsement Artist For Moog Synthesizers
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
http://tinyurl.com/5uu5c
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
- - - -
"The total statement of rock music and its audience is revolutionary.
Long hair, for example, is an upfront revolutionary statement."
- - Ray Manzarek
SavoyBG
>I was rebutting your claim that Headquarters was both a commercial and
>critical failure, neither of which are true. I don't recall using the
>album itself as justification for the Monkees induction into a hall of
>fame.
Typical Wilhelms being proven wrong on a specific point, so he cahnges the
subject.
DianeE
"Derek Homsberg" <dhom...@wbc.com> wrote in message
news:8oFfd.8896$5i5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It was my way of saying they weren't even *in* the studio, Derek.
DianeE
Todd Tamanend Clark
>
> So when are you going to talk about Head, Instant Replay, and
> The Monkees Present?
"Head" is one of my favorite cinematic experiences of the 1960s,
and the soundtrack includes three very good songs: "Porpoise Song",
"Circle Sky", and "Can You Dig It". The script was co-written by
Jack Nicholson, and it has nifty cameos from Frank Zappa and
Annette Funicello.
I fully concede that "Instant Replay" and "The Monkees Present"
are weak albums, but at least the latter includes "Mommy And
Daddy" in which Micky Dolenz addresses his interest in justice
for his fellow Native Americans.
> In extolling "Headquarters" as an example of good work done by
> the group under their own control, our Monkees proponents have
> failed to notice that the album really didn't break any new
> ground musically.
True, but their fourth album ("Pisces Aquarius Capricorn And
Jones Limited") certainly did. Michael Nesmith wrote his one
true masterpiece, the lyrically and musically brilliant gem
"Daily Nightly", for this album, and Micky Dolenz purchased the
first commercially available Moog Synthesizer to accompany his
dynamic vocal delivery of Nesmith's ultra-psychedelic poetry.
Also included is The Monkees best and most socially conscious
hit single "Pleasant Valley Sunday".
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
Endorsement Artist For Moog Synthesizers
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
http://tinyurl.com/5uu5c
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
- - - -
"The Monkees' records are better-produced than ninety percent of
what I hear coming out of San Francisco."
- - Frank Zappa
Intheway1
>critical failure, neither of which are true.
I think you mis-cited me. I never claimed Headquarters was a commercial and
critical failure. I said the post-TV albums were commercial and critical
failures.
Intheway1
>subject.
Typical Grossberg leap to the wrong conclusion on insufficient evidence. I
never said Headquarters was a commercial and critical failure.
Intheway1
>Monkees. You said:
>
Nice try, Diane, but read what I actually said (and you quoted it)
>The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the
>Monkees
>were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins
>themselves.
The Crystals were a studio creation of Spector's, but there was no pretense
they were anything but. I never claimed they were "authentic."
>In fact, I'll bet most younger people today, who've seen Darlene Love belt
>out "He's A Rebel" on TV many times, don't even realize the record didn't
>come out under her name.
>
And the point of this is...?
Intheway1
>that Paul Revere himself was even on a lot of those records.
Not true. Paul would show up to do the keyboard parts, usually on his own and
by himself, on anything going out under the Raiders name.
Intheway1
>
If there aren't five more worthy finalists, I'll consider them.
SavoyBG
>The Crystals were a studio creation of Spector's, but there was no pretense
>they were anything but.
Sure there was at the time that they were current. They appeared on TV shows
and lip synched the records as if they had sang on them.
Nobody knew that they were a studio creation until many years later.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> SavoyBG wrote:
> >>From: Bob Roman
> >
> >
> > Maybe there are only another 8, 10, or 12 artists from the 60s who belong in a
> > hall of fame. I mean, we now have 40. I don't think this hall of fame is going
> > to be very meaningful if we end up with 197 artists in there.
> >
>
> This virtual Hall has already gone too far. The Monkees, with one person
> in the group with even limited talent, missed by a couple of votes this
> time. Supergroup Cream with, arguably, 4 of the best musicians (with
> several #1 albums) of the Sixties, had what, 1 person vote for them -
> me? This is totally incomprehensible, unacceptable, and ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is the assumption that being a better musician
technically necessarily makes you a better rock and roller.
SavoyBG
twisting asshole ) posted....
>I think you mis-cited me. I never claimed Headquarters was a commercial and
>critical failure. I said the post-TV albums were commercial and critical
>failures.
Here's what you said...
Message 34 in thread
From: Intheway1 (inth...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Results! - Great Artists - Rec.1960s HoF 2004
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1960s
Date: 2004-10-25 21:44:09 PST
<<irrelevant parts deleted>>
The point was that,at the peak of their popularity. they were essentially
puppets, with no creative control or imput over their most popular music, and,
to be frank, little direct involvement. When they got control, they tanked,
commercially AND critically.
Let's repeat that last part again, slowly Fred...
<<When they got control, they tanked, commercially and critically.>>
You said NOTHING about post-TV albums Fred. You even spelled "input" wrong.
As usual, you were proven wrong, and you are now trying to lie your way out of
it.
SavoyBG
>What's ridiculous is the assumption that being a better musician
>technically necessarily makes you a better rock and roller.
Amen, brother.
DianeE
"SavoyBG" <sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041027031117...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >From: inth...@aol.com (The Albino fuck)...posted....
>
>
>
> >The Crystals were a studio creation of Spector's, but there was no
pretense
> >they were anything but.
>
> Sure there was at the time that they were current. They appeared on TV
shows
> and lip synched the records as if they had sang on them.
>
> Nobody knew that they were a studio creation until many years later.
But they weren't a studio creation, they *were* a real group. They really
sang "Uptown" and "Then He Kissed Me."
DianeE
DianeE
> >Huh? You were claiming that the Crystals were more "authentic" than the
> >Monkees. You said:
> >
>
> Nice try, Diane, but read what I actually said (and you quoted it)
>
> >The Spector groups weren't marketed as a self contained band like the
> >Monkees
> >were. No one expected the Crystals to be playing all those violins
> >themselves.
>
> The Crystals were a studio creation of Spector's, but there was no
pretense
> they were anything but. I never claimed they were "authentic."
First of all, as I just said in another post, the Crystals *were* a real
group originally. Second, when was there any pretense that the Monkees were
a real band? Everyone knew they had never met each other before they
auditioned for the TV show.
----------
> >In fact, I'll bet most younger people today, who've seen Darlene Love
belt
> >out "He's A Rebel" on TV many times, don't even realize the record didn't
> >come out under her name.
> >
>
> And the point of this is...?
The point is that it's been forgotten that this was supposedly a Crystals
record.
DianeE
SavoyBG
>> >The Crystals were a studio creation of Spector's, but there was no
>pretense
>> >they were anything but.
>>
>> Sure there was at the time that they were current. They appeared on TV
>shows
>> and lip synched the records as if they had sang on them.
>>
>> Nobody knew that they were a studio creation until many years later.
>-----------
>But they weren't a studio creation, they *were* a real group. They really
>sang "Uptown" and "Then He Kissed Me."
>
>DianeE
Yes, but when the lip synched "He's A Rebel" on TV, without Darlene Love even
beinmg there, nobody questioned it, and nobody in thopse days had any inkling
that the people lip synching on the stage were not the people who sang on the
record.
To take it even further, when they performed live in those days, and sang songs
like "He's A Rebel," nobody in the audience was questioning whether or not the
people who were singing were the same people who sang on the records.
It wasn't until many years later that these things came to light.
Todd Lucas
>Headquarters was a commercial and critical
>failure. I said the post-TV albums were
>commercial and critical failures.
Here's what you claimed:
>"When they got control, they tanked,
>commercially AND critically."
I guess you could argue they didn't really have full control on
Headquarters but you never mentioned anything about post-TV albums in
that post. I think Tali brought those up later.
Todd
Todd Lucas
>better musician technically necessarily makes
>you a better rock and roller.
Absolutely. I think it may have been Mark who made a nice post in that
regard a few days ago, dealing with Chuck Berry's guitar playing v. Eric
Clapton.
Todd
Todd Lucas
>Spector's, but there was no pretense they were
>anything but. I never claimed they were
>"authentic."
So, you don't think a lot of people believed those girls were really
doing the singing on those records?
Todd
Intheway1
I stand by my earlier posts. I never said Headquarters was a commercial and
critical failure.
I pointed out in another post in this thread, Headquarters, which is being
offered as an example of the Monkees in control of the production process,
sticks very close to the formula of their earlier albums, which certainly
doesn't say a whole lot for what they did with that new control. Beyond that,
the best evidence offered so far for their "control" on Headquarters is the
fact that they played the lead instruments. Forgive me if I don't see this as
a major advance of their artistic vision.
When they took complete control (once the TV show was cancelled and nobody else
really cared what went on the records), the records took a commercial nosedive,
and, to be blunt, were not successful musically. This would tend to prove that
what made them in any way notable in the first place was the marketing power of
TV, and had nothing to do with the music put out with their name on it.
As far as "input" is concerned, keep in mind you are the first one to criticize
someone's spelling here. If someone subsequently points out your own
shortcomings in this regard, you really shouldn't start your usual sniveling
complaints about being picked on again.
SavoyBG
posted...
>I pointed out in another post in this thread, Headquarters, which is being
>offered as an example of the Monkees in control of the production process,
>sticks very close to the formula of their earlier albums, which certainly
>doesn't say a whole lot for what they did with that new control.
Would you rather they continued to have commercial success when they were under
control, or would you rather that they bombed with something like "Head?"
You can't criticize them both ways Freddie.
> the records took a commercial nosedive,
>and, to be blunt, were not successful musically.
Matter of opinion. Todd Clark, who is an accomplished musician is of the
opinion that they WERE succesful musically.
Doesn't make them good records, but being successfuil musically, and being good
records are two different things.
Strictly from a technical sense, I would have to trust Todd's judgment over
yours.
Taliesyn
We were speaking of Cream and the Monkees, weren't we?
Two of the Monkees weren't even musicians, the other two were minor
musicians (beginners) with no previous credentials. The members of
Cream were already dubbed the world's first supergroup when they formed
in 1966, the year Monkees were invented. Cream got rave reviews from
the critics, press, radio, and fans. Monkees also got rave reviews -
from their youthful fans.
You're counter argument doesn't hold a note, Brett. If you think anyone
off the street - you, me, Bruce and DianeE could simply go in the studio
and be "better rock and rollers" than Cream, then you're in the wrong
newsgroup. The odds of that happening are 0 to the 25th power (I worked
it out) ;-)
-Taliesyn
T P Uschanov
> After The Beatles laid down the tracks in England for some of
> their early albums, their manager Brian Epstein flew the tapes to
> New York City and had Aretha Franklin's drummer Bernard Purdie
> overdub about half the drumming.
Except it's not true: http://tinyurl.com/3uz8f
--
"I have tried too, in my time, to be a philosopher; but, I don't
know how, cheerfulness was always breaking in." --Oliver Edwards
T P Uschanov tusc...@cc.helsinki.fi +358 (0)40 584 2720
Visit my home page! http://www.helsinki.fi/~tuschano/