Crazed Fans
monkeebro...@gmail.com
recovery from his recent surgery and cancer battle. He is the same
age as my dad and I look up to him very much. As for a post a while
back about Marilyn Ingram being a crazier fan? All I know about her
is that I like her music very much and while she may be crazy, who in
the entertainment industry isn't? Like most women she lies about her
age,... on who's dated who and other places she is listed as only 50
but she's really almost 55. The line about her saggy ass... From the
pics I've seen... that's not true, although she is certainly starting
to show her age and unfortunately for her that will certainly have a
negative impact on her career in this visual world. As for the nasty
stuff written about her... whoever wrote it should look in the mirror
and find themselves perfect. As for me, I am certainly not perfect, I
have a weight problem as I weigh well over 200 pounds, and have been
divorced 3 times... see... not perfect. I challenge the people
writing nasty stuff to come clean about themselves before they throw
stones at anyone else. Someone wrote about Davy and being in an
abusive relationship... wow, maybe instead of hurling insults, one
could do something positive and take that story if it is even true at
all and champion the victims of domestic violence, and offer help and
treatment.
Dr. Strangemonde
> First of all I would like to say that I wish Peter Tork a speedy
> recovery from his recent surgery and cancer battle.
I echo your sentiments.
> As for a post a while back about Marilyn Ingram, she may be crazy, who in
> the entertainment industry isn't? Like most women she lies about her
> age,... on who's dated who and other places she is listed as only 50
> but she's really almost 55. The line about her saggy ass... As for the nasty
> stuff written about her... whoever wrote it should look in the mirror
> and find themselves perfect. As for me, I am certainly not perfect, I
> have a weight problem as I weigh well over 200 pounds, and have been
> divorced 3 times... see... not perfect.
I know nothing of this Marilyn person, but as far as craziness and
saggy asses -- have you ever gotten so drunk you lost your husband's
credit cards in a punk rock club men's room, then got in a cat-fight
which left you with your dress torn down the back all the way to the
bottom of your, er, bottom -- with nothing on underneath -- and then
grabbed someone you barely knew and let loose with a screaming fit in
their face?
No? Well, Courtney Love has, and as the recipient of her outburst I
can assure you that I didn't appreciate what I saw through her "rear
view window" one bit!
- Dr S
PS: What I REALLY wanted to say was... "The Rough Guide To Cult Pop"
claims that the Monkees correspond to the Beatles as follows:
Micky = John
Davy = Paul
Mike = George
Peter = Ringo
Isn't that LUDICROUS??? It's actually:
Mike = John
Davy = Paul
Peter = George
Micky = Ringo
I mean, that's OBVIOUS, isn't it?!?
projectile...@netzero.com
>
> I know nothing of this Marilyn person, but as far as craziness and
> saggy asses -- have you ever gotten so drunk you lost your husband's
> credit cards in a punk rock club men's room, then got in a cat-fight
> which left you with your dress torn down the back all the way to the
> bottom of your, er, bottom -- with nothing on underneath -- and then
> grabbed someone you barely knew and let loose with a screaming fit in
> their face?
Yes. I also had sex in the freezer at a restaurant once. Think about
that next time you enjoy fine dining out.
Bob
I used to have sex with the soup and salad when I worked at a
restaurant...on a nightly basis. Switching between the hot soup and the
cold roughage created quite the enjoyable sensation...and added a bit of
flavor for the patrons!
--
-Bob
"My fault,my failure, is not in the passions I have,but in my lack of
control of them."
-J. Kerouac
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of
us left.
-Oscar Levant
projectile...@netzero.com
> projectilevomitch...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On May 4, 2:47 pm, "Dr. Strangemonde" <danc...@realtime.net> wrote:
> >> I know nothing of this Marilyn person, but as far as craziness and
> >> saggy asses -- have you ever gotten so drunk you lost your husband's
> >> credit cards in a punk rock club men's room, then got in a cat-fight
> >> which left you with your dress torn down the back all the way to the
> >> bottom of your, er, bottom -- with nothing on underneath -- and then
> >> grabbed someone you barely knew and let loose with a screaming fit in
> >> their face?
>
> > Yes. I also had sex in the freezer at a restaurant once. Think about
> > that next time you enjoy fine dining out.
>
> I used to have sex with the soup and salad when I worked at a
> restaurant...on a nightly basis. Switching between the hot soup and the
> cold roughage created quite the enjoyable sensation...and added a bit of
> flavor for the patrons!
I sprayed my Lipton's tea all over the damn place when I read that!
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bob
Tits.
Bob
I aim to please. And LOL@this being cross posted to a Monkees group!
Although I always did like 'Cheer Up Sleepy J(G?)ean'!
projectile...@netzero.com
> projectilevomitch...@netzero.com wrote:
> > On May 7, 7:35 pm, Bob <bob0...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> projectilevomitch...@netzero.com wrote:
> >>> On May 4, 2:47 pm, "Dr. Strangemonde" <danc...@realtime.net> wrote:
> >>>> I know nothing of this Marilyn person, but as far as craziness and
> >>>> saggy asses -- have you ever gotten so drunk you lost your husband's
> >>>> credit cards in a punk rock club men's room, then got in a cat-fight
> >>>> which left you with your dress torn down the back all the way to the
> >>>> bottom of your, er, bottom -- with nothing on underneath -- and then
> >>>> grabbed someone you barely knew and let loose with a screaming fit in
> >>>> their face?
> >>> Yes. I also had sex in the freezer at a restaurant once. Think about
> >>> that next time you enjoy fine dining out.
> >> I used to have sex with the soup and salad when I worked at a
> >> restaurant...on a nightly basis. Switching between the hot soup and the
> >> cold roughage created quite the enjoyable sensation...and added a bit of
> >> flavor for the patrons!
>
> > I sprayed my Lipton's tea all over the damn place when I read that!
> > HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> I aim to please. And LOL@this being cross posted to a Monkees group!
> Although I always did like 'Cheer Up Sleepy J(G?)ean'!
The best Monkees song is Teh Paperback Writer!
catg...@aol.com
> claims that the Monkees correspond to the Beatles as follows:
>
> Micky = John
> Davy = Paul
> Mike = George
> Peter = Ringo
>
> Isn't that LUDICROUS??? It's actually:
>
> Mike = John
> Davy = Paul
> Peter = George
> Micky = Ringo
>
> I mean, that's OBVIOUS, isn't it?!?
Almost. I'd have it....
Mike = John (moody, tempermental, best songwriters and rock voices)
Micky = Paul (best pop voices)
Peter = George (silent voices and great musicians)
Davy = Ringo (shortest but not short on talent)
Bob
Thats TEH Beatles...
Colonel Jake
"Bob" <bob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:h0u4t9$9h9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Here's my?,
"Favorite Beatles VideO!!!..."
"VideO Madness" "The Beatles - Tomorrow Never Knows!!!..."
COlOnel Jake Enterprises�
Presents
(http://www.coloneljake.com/videos/0109/)
NoTE: Those using Firefox Browsers on a Windows Operating
Systems? if above Links video doesn't play? tough, thats
what you get putting Non-Proprietary Browsers on Windows.
(ever spoken Spanglish?)
�,.,�
:And then some...
`^'^�
:
: --
:
: -Bob
:
: "My fault,my failure, is not in the passions I have, but in
: my lack of control of them."
: -J. Kerouac
:
: What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there
: are so few of us left.
: -Oscar Levant
:
<from Teh BoOk of Colonel Jake'ster>
Colonel Jake 3:1 - "Thats for GoDDAMNED sure!!!..."
Colonel Jake
"TJ" <t...@nonet.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C659776C...@nntp.charter.net...
: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:14:12 -0500, Colonel Jake wrote
: (in article <h0un8q$phn$1...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>):
:
: >
: > "Bob" <bob...@aol.com> wrote in message
:
: Windows? I don't do windows.
:
But we know Bob does?,
"If you check his message properties!!!..."
*did teh Beatles video open up for you?*
Bob
It opened seamlessly,or at least I'm sure it would open seamlessly.
--
-Bob
"My fault,my failure, is not in the passions I have,but in my lack of
MikeLawyr2
illustrate the significance of The Beatles. The Monkees had it all --
fame, hits, and the money (which is always last to materialize) was
finally starting to roll in. They threw it all away because they
could not stand to be inauthentic. They couldn't stand to be TV stars
-- they wanted to be a band. They tossed their Hollywood juggernaut
aside, tried to make their own music, and promptly flopped. In that
time, success was not measured by number of records sold or dollars
earned -- it was measured by the amount of independence from the
establishment. In that respect, The Beatles were as incorruptible as
anyone could get. From the very first germ of an idea of a song,
through its materialization and reduction to instrumentation and
vocalization, through the last note of an album or concert, there was
nothing between them and the listener. (Yes, I count Sir George among
them.) The Monkees knew that they were little except voices on
someone else's record, and it tore them apart.
TonyP
"MikeLawyr2" <Mbux...@lowenstein.com> wrote in message
news:9cfefb9e-e4e6-45dd...@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
But even the Beatles held the Monkees in higher regard than you seem to.
(And they broke up for similar artistic differences as the Monkees and most
other groups.) And I guess you ignore the fact that Mike wrote and/or
produced records for the Monkees AND many others, right from the start. The
Monkees also took as much control of making Headquarters (probably their
best album in many peoples opinion) as most other groups of the day, and
they even had more input in their TV show's second series. And personally I
reckon "Daily Nightly" and "Star Collector" were as innovative as anything
on Sgt Peppers, and well before Pink Floyd and others made the synthesizer
popular. And they are still being played on radio, TV, and selling records
over 40 years later.
Not really such a bad effort IMO.
TonyP.
Jan
"TonyP" <To...@home.net> wrote in message
news:4a373482$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
different.
They weren't into the same kind of music. If they hadn't been made The
Monkees, they would never have been friends or bandmates anyway. I doubt if
they even liked each other very much. Maybe after all these years and their
age they do...but even now they fight like a bunch of women. They just
basically split apart....same as the Beatles did.
TonyP
"Jan" <luv...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:7p6dnVunAZs...@comporium.net...
> I agree. They didn't break up because they "flopped". They were just too
> different.
> They weren't into the same kind of music. If they hadn't been made The
> Monkees, they would never have been friends or bandmates anyway.
Exactly. The problem was that putting together a mix of different musical
styles was designed to appeal to a wider audience, and that was a genius
stroke for Bob and Bert as it certainly had the desired affect. However it
was *bound* to cause artistic differences once the TV show ended and the
guys started to worry more about the music. The later idea of each guy
contributing a few "solo" songs each per album was a little incohesive, and
not one that was going to last forever IMO.
I was a little surprised Peter left first though, as I was sure Mike was
going to leave even before then. (And by many reports he came close a number
of times.) It was obvious to me and many others, that he was the most likely
to have a successful solo career, long before he actually left. Regardless
of musical talent though, I never understood what Peter thought he was going
to do alone however. And Mickey & Davy were too reliant on other producers
and songwriters to make it alone without big label support unfortunately.
All things come to an end.
TonyP.
Jan
Jan
catg...@aol.com
> > different.
> > They weren't into the same kind of music. �If they hadn't been made The
> > Monkees, they would never have been friends or bandmates anyway.
>
> Exactly. The problem was that putting together a mix of different musical
> styles was designed to appeal to a wider audience, and that was a genius
> stroke for Bob and Bert as it certainly had the desired affect. However it
> was *bound* to cause artistic differences once the TV show ended and the
> guys started to worry more about the music. The later idea of each guy
> contributing a few "solo" songs each per album was a little incohesive, and
> not one that was going to last forever IMO.
I don't think that what each of the Monkees brought to the musical
table was that much different from other rock acts in which there were
several creative individuals. Every member of a band brought in their
own musical preferences and those preferences shaped the songs they
wrote and/or sung. The difference with the Monkees was they didn't
have the time at the beginning to work out as a band, enough time that
Don Kirshner would never had needed to latch onto the project. As
Peter had said, if the Monkees had been allowed to work out their
musical differences in relative obscurity, they would've been okay.
The ideal time would've been the down time between when they finished
shooting the pilot and when they started shooting the episodes. It
must not have occurred to Bob Rafelson or Bert Schneider to tell the
Monkees to go ahead and start working out together as a band, even
though the series hadn't been greenlighted. When they began filming
the series, the Monkees didn't have sufficient time to work together
as a band. But, when they finally did work together as a band, they
kind of disproved the idea that a band had to work together for years
before finally making it. Any band working together for years simply
perfected their craft but I think that polish sometimes took away the
edge and rawness in the music.
> I was a little surprised Peter left first though, as I was sure Mike was
> going to leave even before then. (And by many reports he came close a number
> of times.) It was obvious to me and many others, that he was the most likely
> to have a successful solo career, long before he actually left. Regardless
> of musical talent though, I never understood what Peter thought he was going
> to do alone however. And Mickey & Davy were too reliant on other producers
> and songwriters to make it alone without big label support unfortunately.
> All things come to an end.
Eh, you got to remember Peter wasn't quite alone in Release. I don't
believe he intended to sing all of the songs. Riley Wildflower and
Judy Mayhan (or Myhan) wrote songs as well, and they probably sung
their own songs rather than letting Peter sing them. I was never sure
if Reine was capable of writing or singing but if she was, she
probably would've sung them too. I think Peter may have thought
Release getting a recording contract wouldn't have been all that hard
but in the Monkees, he didn't have that much of a track record as far
as vocals were concerned. Mike had a good track record including a
couple of Top 40 hits. What may have killed his chances for success
was expecting to be a country singer while RCA was promoting him as a
rock artist. I think RCA tried to get him some airplay on country
stations with "Propinquity" but there was resistance for the country
market for any rock artist seeking the greener pastures of country
once their rock success had subsided. The attitude was "Don't pollute
our music!" Kind of a crappy attitude to have but for folksy friendly
people, most of them did not have out the welcome mat.
As the main voices for the Monkee recordings, Micky and Davy should've
had the best chances for post-Monkees success, but neither managed to
forge a solo career with lots of hits. Not that they didn't try. Micky
had the more interesting recordings, which should've increased his
chances for success. But, what likely happened with him was being on
MGM at a time when Mike Curb's terrorist actions of dropping rock
artists from the label in favor of family friendly artists probably
hurt the few still left on the label.
Jan
<catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0a56a6fb-6738-4f11...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> I don't think that what each of the Monkees brought to the musical table
> was that much > different from other rock acts in which there were several
> sung. The difference with the Monkees was they didn't have the time at the
> > beginning to work out as a band, enough time that Don Kirshner would
> never had needed to > latch onto the project. As Peter had said, if the
> Monkees had been allowed to work out their > musical differences in
> relative obscurity, they would've been okay.
> What may have killed his chances for success was expecting to be a country
> singer while > RCA was promoting him as a rock artist. I think RCA tried
> to get him some airplay on > country stations with "Propinquity" but there
> was resistance for the country market for any > rock artist seeking the
> greener pastures of country once their rock success had subsided. The >
> attitude was "Don't polluteour music!"
> As the main voices for the Monkee recordings, Micky and Davy should've had
> the best > chances for post-Monkees success, but neither managed to forge
> a solo career with lots of > hits. Not that they didn't try. Micky had the
> more interesting recordings, which should've > increased his chances for
> success.
I don't feel that way. I personally do not like country music. If I had
talent and was given the opportunity to be in a band, if the only choice I
had was country, I would pass. Mike may well have felt that way about
bubblegum...which was essentially what they were in the beginning. And I
don't consider that an insult. I adore bubblegum music...it is my favorite.
It would not surprise me if Davy felt the same way about country as I
do...but he and Micky probably didn't really care. However, they were
promoted and branded as bubblegum and would never have been able to be taken
seriously as hard rock artists. And their voices, although we all love
them, are not in the caliber of the truly best singers. Peter is a
musician...but is he up there with Eric Clapton or Elton John or George
Harrison? Not in my book. None of them had a gimmick like Rod Stewart or
even someone like Tom Jones.. Like you said, Michael was already branded
too, and the country cliche didn't want him either.
When bubblegum became an embarrassment and hard rock took over, they didn't
have a chance. The Beatles had an edge that the Monkees didn't have. They
were too cute, too "clean" and just not quite what the public wanted by the
time the 70's rolled around. It takes more than long hair and Indian
clothes to present the dangerous rocker persona.
And the main reason I feel this way is because I was 14, 15, and 16 years
old by this time, and was laughed at all the time because I still liked that
kind of music and they were considered "Wusses", for lack of a better word.
Everybody of that genre fell out during those years. Cassidy, Barry
Manilow, Neil Diamond.
Their times had just come and gone. Broke my heart, believe me.
Jan
TonyP
>table was that much different from other rock acts in which there were
>several creative individuals.
I do. Most groups get together because they have a common interest in a
certain style/genre. I really can't think of any other group that combined a
country singer, a broadway style performer, a coffee shop folk singer with
blues tastes, and a pop/rock singer.
>Eh, you got to remember Peter wasn't quite alone in Release.
No he wasn't, but neither did the Monkees fame and fan base transfer in any
real way, so it was just another struggling group which failed to make the
big time.
>Mike had a good track record including a
>couple of Top 40 hits. What may have killed his chances for success
>was expecting to be a country singer while RCA was promoting him as a
>rock artist. I think RCA tried to get him some airplay on country
>stations with "Propinquity" but there was resistance for the country
>market for any rock artist seeking the greener pastures of country
>once their rock success had subsided. The attitude was "Don't pollute
>our music!" Kind of a crappy attitude to have but for folksy friendly
>people, most of them did not have out the welcome mat.
Yep, just like Rick Nelson, Gram Parsons and many others at the time.
History has been far kinder to them all.
Sad to think Billy-Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks were far bigger stars however.
I bet their careers were helped enormously by the trail blazers like Mike
etc.
>As the main voices for the Monkee recordings, Micky and Davy should've
>had the best chances for post-Monkees success, but neither managed to
>forge a solo career with lots of hits. Not that they didn't try.
As I said, with enough big label support it could have happened, but most
execs thought the Monkee image was a liability by then rather than anything
to put money into. The Monkees themselves are partly to blame, after all
they themselves did a very good hatchet job on their image with things like
HEAD and 33 1/3 RPM.! Sure it wasn't *all* their idea, but they were
certainly complicit.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> >table was that much different from other rock acts in which there were
> >several creative individuals.
>
> I do. Most groups get together because they have a common interest in a
> certain style/genre. I really can't think of any other group that combined a
> country singer, a broadway style performer, a coffee shop folk singer with
> blues tastes, and a pop/rock singer.
Maybe not quite so diverse as the Monkees, but it would be a mistake
to think that all other bands had solid rock influences. In the
Beatles, you had John and George with a mostly rock influence, while
Paul's influence seemed to be a pop ballads influence. It's
conceivable that had there been no Beatles, Paul would've been a pop
singer or writing for Broadway. And then there was Ringo with his
country influence. The different influences that made up rock bands of
the 60s and 70s was there, even if the various members of the bands
never said who or what genre influenced them.
> >Eh, you got to remember Peter wasn't quite alone in Release.
>
> No he wasn't, but neither did the Monkees fame and fan base transfer in any
> real way, so it was just another struggling group which failed to make the
> big time.
Peter's case was a very sad one. I think he had the least number of
fans, even though a 60s teenzine placed his fan base third in terms of
popularity, with Mike fourth and having almost no fan base. Needless
to say, Davy ruled at number one (with more than half) followed by
Micky at number two. Had Peter had more songs on each of the Monkee
albums, whatever fan base he had might have transferred with him once
he left the Monkees. But, was his letdown over not being able to
establish his career with another band or as a solo artist less
painful than that of Davy and Micky, the two most popular Monkees, and
Mike, the most artistically creative member of the Monkees?
Mike had some fan base coming from the Monkees but it apparently
wasn't enough to sustain his solo career. Also, I think his wanting to
be a country performer was a turn off to the teens of the day. I
remember the music attitude at school: "You like country? We don't
wanna be around you!" I know Mike was aiming for his music to appeal
to the adults rather than the teens but during that time, country was
a small part of the music market. A country artist might've been
considered a success if he or she (and very few country groups) sold
25,000 copies. It took country a while to get on even footing with
rock, pop and soul/R&B or overtake those genres. So, Mike's desire,
however genuine it was, was aiming for a market that rejected him, not
because he was a Monkee but because he was a rocker, and aiming for a
market where the sales expectations were considerably lower than those
of other genres. Had he opted to stay the course as a rocker, his
sales figures might well have been much different.
> Yep, just like Rick Nelson, Gram Parsons and many others at the time.
> History has been far kinder to them all.
> Sad to think Billy-Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks were far bigger stars however.
> I bet their careers were helped enormously by the trail blazers like Mike
> etc.
Parsons got a lot of the credit for country rock that should've gone
to Mike and Rick. Mike, in fact, said most, if not all of the credit
should've gone to Rick, because Rick was making country rock before he
or Parsons were making it. I don't think Billy Ray Cyrus's career was
helped along by Rick, Mike and Gram. "Achy Breaky Heart," big hit that
it was, also became an albatross around Cyrus's neck. Funny, but I
think Cyrus's star had more to do with his tv series than his music.
But, I wonder what he thinks of his daughter's success? Myley's (or is
it Miley?) music career is bigger than what her dad's ever was and her
teen series for Disney has been a huge moneymaker for that company.
Hopefully, she is being amply rewarded for all the money she's brought
into Disney.
As for Garth Brooks, I can't recall him ever naming his musical
influences but I'm very surprised that he has been able to sell huge
amounts of recordings without the burnout factor setting in. What
really did the Monkees in during the 60s or the Bee Gees and Peter
Frampton in the 70s was their enormous presence. And I think the
public just got tired of hearing them or seeing them every time they
turned around. Garth Brooks should've flamed out early as he was one
of the most, if not the most, aggravating and irritating artist of all
time. More irritating than Michael Jackson, who did flame out, not
because of his music, but the sideshow circus his life became. Brooks
finally flamed out, but he was replaced by Toby Keith, who is also
aggravating and irritating, not to mention calculating.
> >As the main voices for the Monkee recordings, Micky and Davy should've
> >had the best chances for post-Monkees success, but neither managed to
> >forge a solo career with lots of hits. Not that they didn't try.
>
> As I said, with enough big label support it could have happened, but most
> execs thought the Monkee image was a liability by then rather than anything
> to put money into. The Monkees themselves are partly to blame, after all
> they themselves did a very good hatchet job on their image with things like
> HEAD and 33 1/3 RPM.! Sure it wasn't *all* their idea, but they were
> certainly complicit.
Given the fact very few people managed to see "HEAD" in the movie
theaters or watch their tv special because it was on opposite the
Oscars, I'm not sure the movie and special had that much to do with
their popularity declining. "HEAD" was never promoted right, the movie
or the album. And by the time the tv special aired, the group was
minus Peter and their popularity was already on free fall. The tv
special wasn't that great and NBC likely did them a favor by putting
them on opposite the Oscars. I don't hold the Monkees accountable for
the things Bert and Bob should've been doing to promote their career.
With "HEAD" being the flop that it was, that could've spelled the end
of B&B's career. What would they have done if Columbia had told them,
"Guys, you can't make successful movies! Successful tv series, yes,
but movies, no?" Where the Monkees failed themselves was in their
choices of the songs for the singles. Or rather, Lester Sill's and
Brandon Cahill's choices. Lester Sill admitted "D.W. Washburn" was a
mistake. "Porpoise Song" was criminally ignored by radio and the fans.
But, the Monkees had far better songs for possible singles sitting on
the shelves after "Porpoise Song." I wouldn't have released "Tear Drop
City" or "A Man Without A Dream" as the songs promoting "Instant
Replay." My pick would've been Mike's "While I Cry" and Davy's "You
and I." After that, I might've paired "Someday Man" with "Steam
Engine," saving Mike's "Listen to the Band" for the next single.
"Someday Man" should've been a hit but it faltered in the charts
because the djs started playing LTTB. The chart positions for either
song might have been higher had they not been on the same 45. The
Monkees's popularity decline wasn't so far down the tubes that it
couldn't have been revived, but the fault for that had more to do with
their manager (Cahill, who also managed Danny Bonaduce after the
Monkees), who I think wasn't experienced enough at the time to have
rebuilt their careers.
TonyP
<catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe93300a-dd09-4de2...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe not quite so diverse as the Monkees, but it would be a mistake
> to think that all other bands had solid rock influences. In the
> Beatles, you had John and George with a mostly rock influence, while
> Paul's influence seemed to be a pop ballads influence. It's
> conceivable that had there been no Beatles, Paul would've been a pop
> singer or writing for Broadway. And then there was Ringo with his
> country influence. The different influences that made up rock bands of
> the 60s and 70s was there, even if the various members of the bands
> never said who or what genre influenced them.
Ringo was a latecomer, and had very little influence on the Beatles in any
case. But the others had a common ground or they never would have got
together in the first place. All their early stuff was influenced by Chuck
Berry etc. and yet they still broke up because of artistic differences.
> Peter's case was a very sad one. I think he had the least number of
> fans, even though a 60s teenzine placed his fan base third in terms of
> popularity, with Mike fourth and having almost no fan base.
But of course "teen magazines" were exclusively the domain of young girls.
Fortunately for the Monkees their fan base was a little wider than that. All
the men I knew preferred Mike. And the older girls I knew at the time
prefered Mickey. Still do for that matter.
>Had Peter had more songs on each of the Monkee
> albums, whatever fan base he had might have transferred with him once
> he left the Monkees.
But how? He just wasn't that great a singer, and didn't write many songs of
his own.
> Mike had some fan base coming from the Monkees but it apparently
> wasn't enough to sustain his solo career.
In fact it did as far as I'm concerned. Many artists would be proud of his
post Monkee accomplishments. He could easily sell concerts and records
today, if he wanted to. In fact my local record store is *still* selling his
CD's, even though his real fans already have all that old material.
>Also, I think his wanting to
> be a country performer was a turn off to the teens of the day.
The female teeny boppers perhaps. I think he was moving on from that
audience though. And as you say, was never their biggest appeal anyway.
> remember the music attitude at school: "You like country? We don't
> wanna be around you!"
Yeah, and most Australians say they *hate* Country music and yet Shania
Twains "Come on Over" was the biggest selling record of the year here when
it was released :-)
>I know Mike was aiming for his music to appeal
> to the adults rather than the teens but during that time, country was
> a small part of the music market.
And he was part of the change that lead to Garth Brooks outselling nearly
everyone else. Just check the RIAA sales figures.
>A country artist might've been considered a success if he or she
>(and very few country groups) sold 25,000 copies.
>It took country a while to get on even footing with
> rock, pop and soul/R&B or overtake those genres.
And Mike was part of that change IMO! If nothing else, that's something to
be proud of.
>So, Mike's desire,
> however genuine it was, was aiming for a market that rejected him, not
> because he was a Monkee but because he was a rocker, and aiming for a
> market where the sales expectations were considerably lower than those
> of other genres. Had he opted to stay the course as a rocker, his
> sales figures might well have been much different.
I seriously doubt it. How could he "stay a rocker" when he never was one?
> Parsons got a lot of the credit for country rock that should've gone
> to Mike and Rick. Mike, in fact, said most, if not all of the credit
> should've gone to Rick, because Rick was making country rock before he
> or Parsons were making it.
I know, I had Rick Nelson albums before the Monkees were even formed. But to
be fair, Mike was doing that stuff before he joined the Monkees too.
And of course even Elvis Presley was doing his Nashville stuff, and they all
"shared" James Burton :-)
>I don't think Billy Ray Cyrus's career was
> helped along by Rick, Mike and Gram. "Achy Breaky Heart," big hit that
> it was, also became an albatross around Cyrus's neck.
What an albatros, I'd sure like to have those royalties!
>Funny, but I
> think Cyrus's star had more to do with his tv series than his music.
I didn't realise he even had a TV series. His daughter of course would be
nothing at all without hers.
> But, I wonder what he thinks of his daughter's success? Myley's (or is
> it Miley?) music career is bigger than what her dad's ever was and her
> teen series for Disney has been a huge moneymaker for that company.
> Hopefully, she is being amply rewarded for all the money she's brought
> into Disney.
I'm sure she is, far more than she deserves. Just like Hilary Duff before
her.
> As for Garth Brooks, I can't recall him ever naming his musical
> influences but I'm very surprised that he has been able to sell huge
> amounts of recordings without the burnout factor setting in. What
> really did the Monkees in during the 60s or the Bee Gees and Peter
> Frampton in the 70s was their enormous presence. And I think the
> public just got tired of hearing them or seeing them every time they
> turned around. Garth Brooks should've flamed out early as he was one
> of the most, if not the most, aggravating and irritating artist of all
> time. More irritating than Michael Jackson, who did flame out, not
> because of his music, but the sideshow circus his life became. Brooks
> finally flamed out, but he was replaced by Toby Keith, who is also
> aggravating and irritating, not to mention calculating.
Having more money than 100 people make in a lifetime, and being able to
retire young and wealthy, is hardly the same as "flaming out" IMO.
Very few artists stay at the top forever, most just get sick of touring and
life on the road, and fail to appeal to the next generation of record
buyers.
Michael Jackson is currently proving he can still make squillions when he
needs to though, regardless of his mental condition.
> Given the fact very few people managed to see "HEAD" in the movie
> theaters
Actually it was a huge success over here. I saw it many times and the
theatre was FULL every single time.
>or watch their tv special because it was on opposite the
> Oscars, I'm not sure the movie and special had that much to do with
> their popularity declining. "HEAD" was never promoted right, the movie
> or the album. And by the time the tv special aired, the group was
> minus Peter and their popularity was already on free fall. The tv
> special wasn't that great and NBC likely did them a favor by putting
> them on opposite the Oscars.
The fans would have watched them, and they were never going to appeal to the
rest of the public in any case. What we are arguing over is how they could
have maintained a few of the fans they already had.
>I don't hold the Monkees accountable for
> the things Bert and Bob should've been doing to promote their career.
Bert and Bob's job was done when the TV show finished. That's life. It was
time for them to capitalise on their fame themselves.
> With "HEAD" being the flop that it was, that could've spelled the end
> of B&B's career. What would they have done if Columbia had told them,
> "Guys, you can't make successful movies! Successful tv series, yes,
> but movies, no?" Where the Monkees failed themselves was in their
> choices of the songs for the singles. Or rather, Lester Sill's and
> Brandon Cahill's choices. Lester Sill admitted "D.W. Washburn" was a
> mistake. "Porpoise Song" was criminally ignored by radio and the fans.
And yet it was voted their best single in a radio poll here.
> But, the Monkees had far better songs for possible singles sitting on
> the shelves after "Porpoise Song." I wouldn't have released "Tear Drop
> City" or "A Man Without A Dream" as the songs promoting "Instant
> Replay." My pick would've been Mike's "While I Cry" and Davy's "You
> and I."
"Listen to the Band" was a well deserved big hit here.
>After that, I might've paired "Someday Man" with "Steam
> Engine," saving Mike's "Listen to the Band" for the next single.
Steam Engine, like Teardrop City was very old material. Album filler or B
side maybe. I wasn't surprised that Teardrop City didn't chart well, and RCA
here managed to release it as a stereo single out of phase, making it almost
unlistenable. :-(
Not sure if they ever fixed it on later pressings or not.
> "Someday Man" should've been a hit but it faltered in the charts
Just not top 40 IMO. Good B side though.
> because the djs started playing LTTB.
And why not, a far better song for top 40 airplay.
>The chart positions for either
> song might have been higher had they not been on the same 45.
The same thing happened here with "Good clean fun/Mommy and Daddy" Stations
played both, it didn't chart well, but sold enough copies to be a worthwhile
earner. So what's wrong with that? Most groups would kill for sales like the
Monkees, even in those twighlight years.
> Monkees's popularity decline wasn't so far down the tubes that it
> couldn't have been revived, but the fault for that had more to do with
> their manager (Cahill, who also managed Danny Bonaduce after the
> Monkees), who I think wasn't experienced enough at the time to have
> rebuilt their careers.
It takes more than a manager to stay at the top of the heap unfortunately.
TonyP.
catg...@aol.com
> case. But the others had a common ground or they never would have got
> together in the first place. All their early stuff was influenced by Chuck
> Berry etc. and yet they still broke up because of artistic differences.
John Lennon's biggest influence was Elvis, with Carl Perkins for
George, and I think Little Richard for Paul. But, no question that
Berry was also an influence. The Beatles didn't quite break up because
of artistic differences so much as they did over business and
management problems. Apple wasn't run very well and the Beatles were
pouring a lot of the money they had made into Apple. Then there were
the management issues with John, George and Ringo siding with Allan
Klein (which they would ultimately come to regret) and Paul's
preference that the Beatles be managed by his father-in-law and/or
brother-in-law. All the business and management issues spilled over to
their creative side, where they were finding something new to complain
about. Someone should've said to the Beatles to just carry on with
making the music and they'd deal with the business and report back to
them. But, it was the business and management that was driving the
Beatles crazy at the end. It didn't have to be that way.
> But of course "teen magazines" were exclusively the domain of young girls.
> Fortunately for the Monkees their fan base was a little wider than that. All
> the men I knew preferred Mike. And the older girls I knew at the time
> prefered Mickey. Still do for that matter.
It was the same here in the US: any male who listened to the Monkees
preferred Mike over the others. Davy didn't have a lot of support
among the male fans; after Mike, the pecking order may have been
Micky, Peter and (finally) Davy.
> But how? He just wasn't that great a singer, and didn't write many songs of
> his own.
Likewise, Ringo wasn't a great singer. All of the Monkees should've
been represented on the albums. Part of Peter's problem was that he
was in a situation where Lester and Brendan were directing songs
Micky's and Davy's way, and essentially producing them. Neither seemed
to have given him any thought of sending songs his way. Maybe they did
but he rejected them. Another problem Peter had was taking his time
recording what he did, recording take after take and never having
enough songs finished for the albums. When Chip Douglas was producing
the Monkees, Peter demo'd several songs which he didn't write and for
which the copyright was held by a non-Screen Gems publisher. At best,
Peter should've thrown in his lot with Micky and Davy as they didn't
write a lot of songs either. Mike was the only one strong enough as a
songwriter that he didn't need to rely on songs from songwriters
working for Screen Gems, although he'd never turn down a good song if
it came his way.
> In fact it did as far as I'm concerned. Many artists would be proud of his
> post Monkee accomplishments. He could easily sell concerts and records
> today, if he wanted to. In fact my local record store is *still* selling his
> CD's, even though his real fans already have all that old material.
Certain record (cd) stores still have a card on Mike even though
there's no albums by him sitting on the shelves. Mike accomplished
quite a bit as a solo artist but in the US, his recordings weren't the
big sellers they should've been.
> >Also, I think his wanting to
> > be a country performer was a turn off to the teens of the day.
>
> The female teeny boppers perhaps. I think he was moving on from that
> audience though. And as you say, was never their biggest appeal anyway.
One of my favorite memories of the 70s is of my then-16 year old
girlfriend listening to "Joanne" being played on the radio. But, she
quickly changed the station, embarrassed that I had caught her
listening to the song.
> > remember the music attitude at school: "You like country? We don't
> > wanna be around you!"
>
> Yeah, and most Australians say they *hate* Country music and yet Shania
> Twains "Come on Over" was the biggest selling record of the year here when
> it was released :-)
I think Shania has likely been the biggest selling country artist
outside the US. Bigger than Garth Brooks.
> And he was part of the change that lead to Garth Brooks outselling nearly
> everyone else. Just check the RIAA sales figures.
Yeah, I see Brooks's totals, but some of those totals need to be
adjusted as any album which consists of two discs or more and which
exceeds a certain run time is counted as each disc selling however
many millions of copies. That's a cheat, but there was an article
which said once you subtracted half of those totals, Brooks isn't the
number one male vocalist. Brooks's totals have been a source of
irritation for RCA and BMG. In the 90s, when Brooks racked up most of
his sales (on cassette, nor cd), RCA claimed Elvis's US only sales was
430 million. They claimed they would be supplying the books for the
audits needed for the certification, but they've been a little slow in
coming forth with the books. I suspect the claim likely was false, but
on the other hand, they own most of Elvis's recordings (everything
recorded before March 31,1973), they'd really have no reason not to
submit the books, unless by chance, RCA owed royalties to Presley on
those pre-March 31 '73 recordings that exceeded the amount of money
Presley and his manager were paid on the buyout of those recordings.
Neither Presley or his manager ever requested a yearly independent
audit of the books to verify that RCA was on the up and up on the
royalties.
> And Mike was part of that change IMO! If nothing else, that's something to
> be proud of.
Eh, strangely, Mike didn't like a lot of the country music at the
time, and I've heard he still doesn't like a lot of the current
country artists. How many of the current bunch or recent bunch of
country performers liked Mike's solo recordings is open to question.
> >So, Mike's desire,
> > however genuine it was, was aiming for a market that rejected him, not
> > because he was a Monkee but because he was a rocker, and aiming for a
> > market where the sales expectations were considerably lower than those
> > of other genres. Had he opted to stay the course as a rocker, his
> > sales figures might well have been much different.
>
> I seriously doubt it. How could he "stay a rocker" when he never was one?
He said in a 70s interview for Bomp (I believe) that he was rock and
roll and that he never fooled himself or considered himself a country
performer. Who knows, maybe he grew tired of trying to break into the
country market and getting nowhere? Mike could be quite the rocker
when he wanted to be -- songs like "Mama Rocker," "Dance," "Factions"
and "Horserace" provide proof of that. Really, Mike can be most adept
in any musical genre he decide to work in.
> I know, I had Rick Nelson albums before the Monkees were even formed. But to
> be fair, Mike was doing that stuff before he joined the Monkees too.
> And of course even Elvis Presley was doing his Nashville stuff, and they all
> "shared" James Burton :-)
Mike had some interesting pre-Monkees recordings: folk, pop, rock --
there's one song on youtube, think it's "Just a Little Love," in which
Nez has a very pronounced Byrds-like feel to the song. But, the
curious thing is I think the song was recorded before the Byrds had
even formed, and if that was the case, maybe the Byrds heard the song
and decided that's what they wanted their sound to be like. Mike may
well have made it on his own but for whatever reason, was in the wrong
place and time.
> >I don't think Billy Ray Cyrus's career was
> > helped along by Rick, Mike and Gram. "Achy Breaky Heart," big hit that
> > it was, also became an albatross around Cyrus's neck.
>
> What an albatros, I'd sure like to have those royalties!
Same here but I don't think he collects near as much as he used to.
Most singles and albums, once the sales slow to a trickle, the
royalties get smaller and smaller. There's a movement under way here
by the government which would require radio and TV stations to pay
royalties to the artists, as well as the songwriters. Satellite radio
already pays the artists and our Canadian friends last year required
their radio and TV stations to pay the artists. But, there's
resistance here in the US from the radio and TV industry. They don't
want reverse payola. Personally, I think it would be great as I think
the Monkees would be among a handful of artists whose artist royalties
would be in six figures or larger. All of their main hits are still
played on a regular basis.
> I didn't realise he even had a TV series. His daughter of course would be
> nothing at all without hers.
Cyrus's tv show was called "Doc." The show wasn't bad but it took away
from his music. I think Miley has earned more than $200 million for
Disney. So, that young lady should be getting a lot of that money.
Wouldn't be fair.
> I'm sure she is, far more than she deserves. Just like Hilary Duff before
> her.
I don't know. Miley has something in common with the Monkees in
earning more than $200 million for their companies. Screen Gems once
claimed that in 1967 alone, the Monkees brought in more than $250
million. The Monkees got very little of that and they were quite right
in being angry and bitter over not getting a fair share of the money
they generated.
> Having more money than 100 people make in a lifetime, and being able to
> retire young and wealthy, is hardly the same as "flaming out" IMO.
My reference isn't to the artist so much as it is to the fans. Garth
has done quite well, as you say, having more money than what 100
people make in a lifetime. But, there comes a point in the US when the
fans are done with you and they're moving on to the new kids in town.
After that point, the artist can only hope he or she can come up with
something that will reestablish them. Although, when they do find
something, it usually turns out to be a one time thing.
> Very few artists stay at the top forever, most just get sick of touring and
> life on the road, and fail to appeal to the next generation of record
> buyers.
I agree although here in the US, this year's next big thing is next
year's forgotten artist. Much of that undeserved although some of the
fade is deserved.
> Michael Jackson is currently proving he can still make squillions when he
> needs to though, regardless of his mental condition.
Here, Jackson barely rates any mention in the news. His legal troubles
and weirdness have turned off a lot of his fanbase. Another part of
his decline is his refusal to play in the US. Course, there's also the
age factor -- he's past 50, a difficult age for any artist to navigate
in getting a hit. Not impossible but just more elusive.
> Actually it was a huge success over here. I saw it many times and the
> theatre was FULL every single time.
I would love to see "Head" in a movie theater. The next best thing is
having a big size TV and a widescreen edition of the movie.
> The fans would have watched them, and they were never going to appeal to the
> rest of the public in any case. What we are arguing over is how they could
> have maintained a few of the fans they already had.
Arguing? I'd call it a friendly debate but you're right about the fans
watching. As for appealing to adults, that's something where the
manager should've been thinking about something more than the Monkees
on "Hollywood Squares." The Monkees were briefly considered for
regulars or semi-regulars on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh In" by the
show's producer, George Schlatter. I don't know what the deal killer
was, whether it was a question of how much money for how many episodes
or if Cahill thought he could land something better for the Monkees.
"Laugh In" would've been a damned good fit for the Monkees, although
maybe another reason the offer may not have been taken may have been
over the Monkees being allowed to perform songs from their latest
album. The public might have taken to the Monkees as regulars on
"Laugh In."
> Bert and Bob's job was done when the TV show finished. That's life. It was
> time for them to capitalise on their fame themselves.
I don't think B&B's jobs were finished once the series ended. The
Monkees' name was owned by Columbia Pictures, the Monkees were still
under contract to them for any project B&B or others could come up
with for them. I think their contract ran through 1973 as that seemed
to be the year when all of their contracts as songwriters ended,
although Mike and Peter both gave up a lot of money in exchange for
being let out of most of their contracts. Screen Gems Music retained
all the rights to any song they wrote through 1973. After that, they
were free to sign with another publisher or come up with their own.
> > With "HEAD" being the flop that it was, that could've spelled the end
> > of B&B's career. What would they have done if Columbia had told them,
> > "Guys, you can't make successful movies! Successful tv series, yes,
> > but movies, no?" Where the Monkees failed themselves was in their
> > choices of the songs for the singles. Or rather, Lester Sill's and
> > Brandon Cahill's choices. Lester Sill admitted "D.W. Washburn" was a
> > mistake. "Porpoise Song" was criminally ignored by radio and the fans.
>
> And yet it was voted their best single in a radio poll here.
"Porpoise Song" was one song that was beautifully done. The public
here didn't know what they missed.
> "Listen to the Band" was a well deserved big hit here.
It should've been a big hit here. 1969 was an odd year where the
Monkees could've revitalized their music career. Their music was on
par and in some cases, above average than some of the songs charting.
> Steam Engine, like Teardrop City was very old material. Album filler or B
> side maybe. I wasn't surprised that Teardrop City didn't chart well, and RCA
> here managed to release it as a stereo single out of phase, making it almost
> unlistenable. :-(
> Not sure if they ever fixed it on later pressings or not.
"Steam Engine" was recorded in 1969, so, for the Monkees, it was a new
song. The only reason it wasn't released was that Chip Douglas spent
too much money on the production. They wanted him to reimburse
Columbia Pictures on the overage, although strickly speaking, it
wasn't Columbia that forked over the money -- it was the royalty money
going to the Monkees. Columbia was watching in their best interest
that the music producers didn't overspend, such spending costing the
Monkees.
> > "Someday Man" should've been a hit but it faltered in the charts
>
> Just not top 40 IMO. Good B side though.
SM was the song getting the airplay originally. The picture sleeve had
it "Someday Man" in big letters with "Listen to the Band" in smaller
letters. Once the djs started flipping, the next edition's picture had
"Listen to the Band" in big letters with SM in smaller letters.
> > because the djs started playing LTTB.
>
> And why not, a far better song for top 40 airplay.
Even though it didn't make the Top 40, it was a top ten on the local
radio station charts. "Mommy and Daddy" was also a local top ten.
"Good Clean Fun," what was meant as the A-side also had some local air
play, though I don't know if its chart position was included with the
chart position for "Mommy and Daddy."
> The same thing happened here with "Good clean fun/Mommy and Daddy" Stations
> played both, it didn't chart well, but sold enough copies to be a worthwhile
> earner. So what's wrong with that? Most groups would kill for sales like the
> Monkees, even in those twighlight years.
Agreed, although I'd've had the original version of "Mommy and Daddy."
That would've made the older public take notice. Likewise for Davy's
"War Games." That Micky had to record a more radio friendly version of
his song suggests they weren't quite as free on controlling what song
coul be released. Micky should've just told Lester (or whoever it was
that told him to water the song down) what they could do with
themselves. Both were and are good versions but I prefer the original
over the remake.
> It takes more than a manager to stay at the top of the heap unfortunately.
These days, I think the artists are better informed although it's the
manager's job to come up with ideas for keeping his/her client on top.
And, unfortunately, if the artist is failing, so too is the manager.
TonyP
<catg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2211cc62-3afd-459c...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> John Lennon's biggest influence was Elvis, with Carl Perkins for
> George, and I think Little Richard for Paul. But, no question that
> Berry was also an influence.
Yep, and as I said, all of those were of a fairly similar style/genre. They
all seemed to go transcendental together in the mid sixties, but by the
seventies they were drifting apart. Yoko didn't help a lot there either. Not
all "artistic differences" of course, that's usually short hand as much for
personal differences, or often more so.
Still *VERY* unusual for a group to last as long as the Rolling Stones
however, and even they have had a few changes, and only come together to
make another album and tour now and then. *No* group today takes on a work
load like the Monkees had in the mid sixties. The number of TV shows,
concerts and recordings in only a few yers must have been a killer. No-one
could sustain that for ever! Not being able to is not "failure" IMO.
>The Beatles didn't quite break up because
> of artistic differences so much as they did over business and
> management problems. Apple wasn't run very well and the Beatles were
> pouring a lot of the money they had made into Apple. Then there were
> the management issues with John, George and Ringo siding with Allan
> Klein (which they would ultimately come to regret) and Paul's
> preference that the Beatles be managed by his father-in-law and/or
> brother-in-law. All the business and management issues spilled over to
> their creative side, where they were finding something new to complain
> about. Someone should've said to the Beatles to just carry on with
> making the music and they'd deal with the business and report back to
> them. But, it was the business and management that was driving the
> Beatles crazy at the end.
Well that's one view.
>It didn't have to be that way.
Exactly. *IF* they wanted to make music together, considering what they were
able to earn from it, management problems would have been easily settled.
And Apple had to be dealt with in any case.
> > But how? He just wasn't that great a singer, and didn't write many songs
of
> > his own.
>
> Likewise, Ringo wasn't a great singer.
Exactly, and he had the least success after the Beatles. Although his All
Star Band is great because it has many others with more talent.
(He did have a couple of good songs of his own of course, just like Peter)
>All of the Monkees should've
> been represented on the albums. Part of Peter's problem was that he
> was in a situation where Lester and Brendan were directing songs
> Micky's and Davy's way, and essentially producing them. Neither seemed
> to have given him any thought of sending songs his way.
It seems to me Peter was given a shot at vocals on a few songs which were
then given to one of the others for a better result.
Like Ringo, his voice only suits certain songs. Even some of Mikes songs
were done by Mickey, so it wasn't his problem alone, just more so.
> Peter should've thrown in his lot with Micky and Davy as they didn't
> write a lot of songs either. Mike was the only one strong enough as a
> songwriter that he didn't need to rely on songs from songwriters
> working for Screen Gems, although he'd never turn down a good song if
> it came his way.
Pretty much what I said already. Peter being the first to leave surprised
me.
> > In fact it did as far as I'm concerned. Many artists would be proud of
his
> > post Monkee accomplishments. He could easily sell concerts and records
> > today, if he wanted to. In fact my local record store is *still* selling
his
> > CD's, even though his real fans already have all that old material.
>
> Certain record (cd) stores still have a card on Mike even though
> there's no albums by him sitting on the shelves.
Some of our shops have had a compilation album on their shelves for many
years. One put together in Europe has more recently replaced the one put
together in Australia quite some time ago.
>Mike accomplished
> quite a bit as a solo artist but in the US, his recordings weren't the
> big sellers they should've been.
Agreed.
> One of my favorite memories of the 70s is of my then-16 year old
> girlfriend listening to "Joanne" being played on the radio. But, she
> quickly changed the station, embarrassed that I had caught her
> listening to the song.
Yea, shame some people like to follow the herd rather than go with what they
think themselves.
> I think Shania has likely been the biggest selling country artist
> outside the US. Bigger than Garth Brooks.
Quite possibly, but while I have all her records, she is no Linda Ronstadt
IMO :-)
(Thanks Mike for helping to kick start her career with "Different Drum")
> Yeah, I see Brooks's totals, but some of those totals need to be
> adjusted as any album which consists of two discs or more and which
> exceeds a certain run time is counted as each disc selling however
> many millions of copies. That's a cheat, but there was an article
> which said once you subtracted half of those totals, Brooks isn't the
> number one male vocalist. Brooks's totals have been a source of
> irritation for RCA and BMG. In the 90s, when Brooks racked up most of
> his sales (on cassette, nor cd), RCA claimed Elvis's US only sales was
> 430 million. They claimed they would be supplying the books for the
> audits needed for the certification, but they've been a little slow in
> coming forth with the books. I suspect the claim likely was false, but
> on the other hand, they own most of Elvis's recordings (everything
> recorded before March 31,1973), they'd really have no reason not to
> submit the books, unless by chance, RCA owed royalties to Presley on
> those pre-March 31 '73 recordings that exceeded the amount of money
> Presley and his manager were paid on the buyout of those recordings.
> Neither Presley or his manager ever requested a yearly independent
> audit of the books to verify that RCA was on the up and up on the
> royalties.
In fact Colonel Tom was fastidious about getting any money owed to him!
However there is no doubt Elvis easily outsold Garth Brooks. The big problem
is adjusting for population and record price Vs income level.
It could easily be argued that Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra were far bigger
sellers, all things considered, than any of the recent acts.
Personally I only go by total audit sales figures by dollars adjusted for
inflation. Try finding many lists based on those figures :-)
The Monkees did pretty well however by most measures.
> > And Mike was part of that change IMO! If nothing else, that's something
to
> > be proud of.
>
> Eh, strangely, Mike didn't like a lot of the country music at the
> time,
Exactly, that why he and the others I mentioned went about changing it.
>and I've heard he still doesn't like a lot of the current
> country artists.
Not surprised, there is a lot to like AND a lot to *dislike*.
>How many of the current bunch or recent bunch of
> country performers liked Mike's solo recordings is open to question.
Hardly relevent. What is relevant is that new country is now mainstream, and
traditional country on the fringe, rather than the other way around.
> > I seriously doubt it. How could he "stay a rocker" when he never was
one?
>
> He said in a 70s interview for Bomp (I believe) that he was rock and
> roll and that he never fooled himself or considered himself a country
> performer.
And apart from a live version of Nadine and a few others, hard to remember
many real rock & Roll songs he did.
Lets face it, published "interviews" are not a good souce of facts. But who
knows maybe he considered "Begin the Beguine" rock & roll? :-)
>Who knows, maybe he grew tired of trying to break into the
> country market and getting nowhere? Mike could be quite the rocker
> when he wanted to be -- songs like "Mama Rocker," "Dance," "Factions"
> and "Horserace" provide proof of that. Really, Mike can be most adept
> in any musical genre he decide to work in.
Of course, my point is he didn't usually bother.
> Mike had some interesting pre-Monkees recordings: folk, pop, rock --
> there's one song on youtube, think it's "Just a Little Love," in which
> Nez has a very pronounced Byrds-like feel to the song.
And isn't that more country than rock? Even before the Gram Parsons era
Roger McGuinn was more country/folk than rock.
>But, the
> curious thing is I think the song was recorded before the Byrds had
> even formed, and if that was the case, maybe the Byrds heard the song
> and decided that's what they wanted their sound to be like.
I seriously doubt it. Even most of Mike Nesmith fans haven't heard it!
>Mike may
> well have made it on his own but for whatever reason, was in the wrong
> place and time.
He *DID* make it on his own, unless you call everyone besides Elvis and the
Beatles as total failures?
What a sad opinion of peoples achievements if that's the case.
> > What an albatros, I'd sure like to have those royalties!
>
> Same here but I don't think he collects near as much as he used to.
I'm absolutely amazed at your measure for success. He made more money from
that one song than I (and most others) have in a lifetime of work!
> Most singles and albums, once the sales slow to a trickle, the
> royalties get smaller and smaller. There's a movement under way here
> by the government which would require radio and TV stations to pay
> royalties to the artists, as well as the songwriters.
They do here and have for a very long time. APRA charges for all public play
rights, both broadcast and clubs, bars etc. And includes both recorded music
and songs performed live by others.
> Cyrus's tv show was called "Doc."
Never heard of it. May or may not have been shown here.
>The show wasn't bad but it took away
> from his music. I think Miley has earned more than $200 million for
> Disney. So, that young lady should be getting a lot of that money.
And I bet she is. However IMO Disney has made her, not vice versa. The next
teen sensations after Miley and the Jonas brothers are already waiting in
the wings.
> I don't know. Miley has something in common with the Monkees in
> earning more than $200 million for their companies.
You need to allow for inflation if the comparison is to have any meaning.
>Screen Gems once
> claimed that in 1967 alone, the Monkees brought in more than $250
> million. The Monkees got very little of that and they were quite right
> in being angry and bitter over not getting a fair share of the money
> they generated.
Exactly, the current crop of teen stars have much better agents and lawyers
to get a FAR better share than the Monkees did.
Many stars of the sixties were royally screwed over, some even losing money
on top 40 hits after "deductables".
> My reference isn't to the artist so much as it is to the fans. Garth
> has done quite well, as you say, having more money than what 100
> people make in a lifetime. But, there comes a point in the US when the
> fans are done with you and they're moving on to the new kids in town.
> After that point, the artist can only hope he or she can come up with
> something that will reestablish them. Although, when they do find
> something, it usually turns out to be a one time thing.
You have a stange view IMO. I work with artists that were pretty huge in the
sixties, who now play to small venues, and sell only a few records. Not so
much to make money, but just for the love of it. IF (yes not always the case
unfortunately) they invested wisely, they have been able to live in a nice
house and not worry where their next meal is coming from, even if they have
not had another hit for 40 years. For most their love of music goes on
however.
It seems to me all the Monkees have done far better than average, and have
the luxury of making whatever choices they desire.
Should they have got more compared to todays stars? No question.
Should they bitch about being given a break most never get, and then being
dumped? No way.
> > Michael Jackson is currently proving he can still make squillions when
he
> > needs to though, regardless of his mental condition.
>
> Here, Jackson barely rates any mention in the news.
His plastic surgery makes the news here all the time :-)
He is doing huge concerts in Europe however.
>His legal troubles
> and weirdness have turned off a lot of his fanbase. Another part of
> his decline is his refusal to play in the US. Course, there's also the
> age factor -- he's past 50, a difficult age for any artist to navigate
> in getting a hit. Not impossible but just more elusive.
Sure, but he will make $millions from a few concerts, hard to cry for
someone able to do that.
Of course the Rolling Stones are over 60, they still make more money from a
few concerts every year than most do in a lifetime.
> I would love to see "Head" in a movie theater. The next best thing is
> having a big size TV and a widescreen edition of the movie.
At least it is now on DVD. I waited over 20 years to see it again after its
theatre run ended before I got it on VHS.
head isn't too bad on TV though. The movie I am always dissapointed in on
TV, is 2001 a Space Odyssey, after originally seeing it in full Cinerama
(not just the later 70mm print)
> > The fans would have watched them, and they were never going to appeal to
the
> > rest of the public in any case. What we are arguing over is how they
could
> > have maintained a few of the fans they already had.
>
> Arguing?
Sorry, I meant in a nice fashion, not impolite.
>I'd call it a friendly debate but you're right about the fans
> watching. As for appealing to adults, that's something where the
> manager should've been thinking about something more than the Monkees
> on "Hollywood Squares." The Monkees were briefly considered for
> regulars or semi-regulars on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh In" by the
> show's producer, George Schlatter. I don't know what the deal killer
> was, whether it was a question of how much money for how many episodes
> or if Cahill thought he could land something better for the Monkees.
> "Laugh In" would've been a damned good fit for the Monkees, although
> maybe another reason the offer may not have been taken may have been
> over the Monkees being allowed to perform songs from their latest
> album. The public might have taken to the Monkees as regulars on
> "Laugh In."
Would have been nice, but lets face it, the Monkees are remembered by more
people than Ruth Buzzi, Artie Shaw, or even Dan and Dick. Only Goldie Hawn
went on to become a truly lasting name, and only because she traded on her
"Laugh In" fame to break into Hollywood.
> > Bert and Bob's job was done when the TV show finished. That's life. It
was
> > time for them to capitalise on their fame themselves.
>
> I don't think B&B's jobs were finished once the series ended. The
> Monkees' name was owned by Columbia Pictures, the Monkees were still
> under contract to them for any project B&B or others could come up
> with for them. I think their contract ran through 1973 as that seemed
> to be the year when all of their contracts as songwriters ended,
> although Mike and Peter both gave up a lot of money in exchange for
> being let out of most of their contracts. Screen Gems Music retained
> all the rights to any song they wrote through 1973. After that, they
> were free to sign with another publisher or come up with their own.
As I said, the contracts were one sided, but did NOT guarantee they would
get more work after the Monkees ended.
Whether they should have signed them is debateable, and whether they would
have simply been replaced by someone else who would if they didn't, is
likely.
However expecting *anything* not stipulated in the contract, after the
series ended is to ignore how business works.
> "Porpoise Song" was one song that was beautifully done. The public
> here didn't know what they missed.
Yeah, seems to me the USA is strange like that. Many US acts are better
recieved in other countries like here, than over there. Not to mention many
foreign acts being picked up every where else well before the USA. Even the
Beatles.
> "Steam Engine" was recorded in 1969, so, for the Monkees, it was a new
> song.
Re-recorded, since they'd already recorded it years earlier.
>The only reason it wasn't released was that Chip Douglas spent
> too much money on the production. They wanted him to reimburse
> Columbia Pictures on the overage, although strickly speaking, it
> wasn't Columbia that forked over the money -- it was the royalty money
> going to the Monkees. Columbia was watching in their best interest
> that the music producers didn't overspend, such spending costing the
> Monkees.
I think there was more to it than that. Mostly the doubt that it would
actually be a hit. Whilst I disagree with very many of the decisions made at
the time, I have doubts about it myself.
> SM was the song getting the airplay originally. The picture sleeve had
> it "Someday Man" in big letters with "Listen to the Band" in smaller
> letters. Once the djs started flipping, the next edition's picture had
> "Listen to the Band" in big letters with SM in smaller letters.
Yes I know, I have the original version myself, but that's what happens to
many records, and the DJ's should be thanked for listening to the audience
reaction when the record companies have made the wrong choice.
> Agreed, although I'd've had the original version of "Mommy and Daddy."
> That would've made the older public take notice.
Yea, but considered a little controversial for the "teen" market or their
parents :-)
>Likewise for Davy's
> "War Games." That Micky had to record a more radio friendly version of
> his song suggests they weren't quite as free on controlling what song
> coul be released.
Of course they weren't. Hell even the title of "Randy Scouse Git" was nixed
:-)
>Micky should've just told Lester (or whoever it was
> that told him to water the song down) what they could do with
> themselves. Both were and are good versions but I prefer the original
> over the remake.
I doubt it was all Lester's fault. When you have a record contract, there is
only so much you can do IF you want the song to be released at all.
Of course some companies support their artists far more than others however.
> > It takes more than a manager to stay at the top of the heap
unfortunately.
>
> These days, I think the artists are better informed although it's the
> manager's job to come up with ideas for keeping his/her client on top.
> And, unfortunately, if the artist is failing, so too is the manager.
Nope, the best manager in the world can't keep a fly by night act at the
top. Conversely it wasn't Colonel Tom that made Elvis what he was. Everyone
knows his decision to take the easy road (for Parker) with so many B grade
movies kept Elvis from making better records, and even more money for years!
Could someone have done a worse job, absolutely, but a million people could
have done a better job.
Who do you think could keep Milli Vanilli at the top forever?
(Not that the Monkees would have been that hard however :-)
TonyP.
frizzlejean
look to be so.
Just saw her first solo CD go up on major places like amazon.com and
itunes and just checked various web presences. It seems she will be
touring with mitch ryder and other bands sometime this year. Doubt if
she is responsible for listing her age on anything. I have never seen
it on any of her official pages. Who cares, have you seen her up
close? No way she looks even 50. I agree with your other sentiments
about her music. I love it as well and her bum does not sag.
On May 4, 1:19 pm, monkeebrowneyedg...@gmail.com wrote:
> First of all I would like to say that I wish Peter Tork a speedy
> recovery from his recent surgery and cancer battle. He is the same
> age as my dad and I look up to him very much. As for a post a while
> back aboutMarilyn Ingram being a crazier fan? All I know about her
> is that I like her music very much and while she may be crazy, who in
> the entertainment industry isn't? Like most women she lies about her
> age,... on who's dated who and other places she is listed as only 50
> but she's really almost 55. The line about her saggy ass... From the
> pics I've seen... that's not true, although she is certainly starting
> to show her age and unfortunately for her that will certainly have a
> negative impact on her career in this visual world. As for the nasty
> stuff written about her... whoever wrote it should look in the mirror
> and find themselves perfect. As for me, I am certainly not perfect, I
> have a weight problem as I weigh well over 200 pounds, and have been
> divorced 3 times... see... not perfect. I challenge the people
> writing nasty stuff to come clean about themselves before they throw
> stones at anyone else. Someone wrote about Davy and being in an
> abusive relationship... wow, maybe instead of hurling insults, one
> could do something positive and take that story if it is even true at
> all and champion the victims of domestic violence, and offer help and
> treatment.
catg...@aol.com
> all seemed to go transcendental together in the mid sixties, but by the
> seventies they were drifting apart. Yoko didn't help a lot there either. Not
> all "artistic differences" of course, that's usually short hand as much for
> personal differences, or often more so.
John bringing Yoko with him to Abbey Road every time the Beatles had a
recording session added to the growing tensions between the Beatles.
Particularly so as some of the accounts I've read about her presence
indicated she'd offer her opinion about the songs they were working
on. It was never spelled out whether it was just John's songs or his
songs plus the songs by Paul and George. I can see why Paul and George
would've been incensed by Yoko's presence in the studio, given the
hostile environment those songs were being recorded in. Funny thing
is, if Yoko was offering her opinion on all their songs, why didn't
John ask her to keep quiet? I don't know if she would have but while
she may have been a contributing factor in the Beatles's break up, it
was the Beatles's decision to ultimately to stop working together as a
group.
> Still *VERY* unusual for a group to last as long as the Rolling Stones
> however, and even they have had a few changes, and only come together to
> make another album and tour now and then. *No* group today takes on a work
> load like the Monkees had in the mid sixties. The number of TV shows,
> concerts and recordings in only a few yers must have been a killer. No-one
> could sustain that for ever! Not being able to is not "failure" IMO.
I'm surprised the Rolling Stones are still around but they have proven
that rockers didn't need to retire when they turned 30 and do
something else. As for the work load the Monkees had, that more than
anything else, I think, why they couldn't keep working together as a
band in the studio, although given the large number of tracks they
recorded or someone recorded for them in which they never laid down a
vocal track, I think they could've kept working together as a band and
the recorded output probably would've been about the same as the
number of tracks with their vocals, released or unreleased.
> >The Beatles didn't quite break up because
> > of artistic differences so much as they did over business and
> > management problems. Apple wasn't run very well and the Beatles were
> > pouring a lot of the money they had made into Apple. Then there were
> > the management issues with John, George and Ringo siding with Allan
> > Klein (which they would ultimately come to regret) and Paul's
> > preference that the Beatles be managed by his father-in-law and/or
> > brother-in-law. All the business and management issues spilled over to
> > their creative side, where they were finding something new to complain
> > about. Someone should've said to the Beatles to just carry on with
> > making the music and they'd deal with the business and report back to
> > them. But, it was the business and management that was driving the
> > Beatles crazy at the end.
>
> Well that's one view.
Actually, that view was one given in the court records when McCartney
sought to break the business ties with the others. The Beatles, as a
corporate entity, undermined the musical entity. The trial to break
the business ties also revealed that the Beatles had an agreement with
each other that all the corporate shares had to be equal between them,
yet it was revealed that McCartney (through his in-laws) had secretly
been acquiring more shares in the company, giving him an advantage
over the other three. The business ties, along with McCartney
acquiring more stock in the Beatles's company and the managerial
issues, ended the group.
> >It didn't have to be that way.
>
> Exactly. *IF* they wanted to make music together, considering what they were
> able to earn from it, management problems would have been easily settled.
> And Apple had to be dealt with in any case.
But, I'm not sure they would've stayed together as a group without the
business and managerial problems. John was on record circa 1965-66 as
not wanting to be a Beatle when he was 30. I wonder if that was a view
shared by the others as John's comments proved to be a self-fulfilling
prophecy? If they all shared that view, then that self-induced
sabotage may have contributed to the break up just as much as
everything else that was a contributing factor.
> > Likewise, Ringo wasn't a great singer.
>
> Exactly, and he had the least success after the Beatles. Although his All
> Star Band is great because it has many others with more talent.
> (He did have a couple of good songs of his own of course, just like Peter)
Believe it or not, John said on the "Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder" in
late 1973 or early 1974 that Ringo may have done better as a solo
artist than what the other three had done. In the US, Ringo had
several hit singles and two huge hit albums. The first of those albums
featured help from John, George and Paul, not together but independent
of each other, leading to rumors of the Beatles getting back together,
which led to Ringo's biggest solo album. At the time, I think Paul had
yet to release "Band on the Run," but prior to that, his albums, while
mostly successful, had never sold in the large numbers that "Ringo"
had sold. Same for John. His albums had been mostly successful
although not like Ringo's solo album. It's funny in a way, as both he
and Paul in 1972 had albums that didn't sell a lot of copies ("Wings
Wild Life" for Paul and "Sometimes in New York City" for John) and
again in '73 ("Red Rose Speedway," "Mind Games"), so it was like the
two of them were joined together, whereby if one had an album that was
a sucess or a flop (by their standards), the other did as well. I
wonder if they took notice of that? John said in the early 70s that
there was still a competition between him and Paol, that if he had a
hit record, that would inspire Paul to try and best John. John would
do the same when Paul was having hits, but both having so-so/fair
sales during the same period perhaps pointed why they needed to work
together. No one could imagine John and Paul as solo artists having
lower sales than what they had in the Beatles.
> It seems to me Peter was given a shot at vocals on a few songs which were
> then given to one of the others for a better result.
During Kirshner's reign, Jeff Barry tried to involve Peter and Mike
more in the Monkees's recordings than what Boyce and Hart had done.
Unfortunately, Barry and Mike clashing over Barry's "joke" response to
Mike about his comment that "I'm a Believer" not being a hit, Barry's
"joke" being that he was going to add horns and strings to the song.
Mike, not recognizing that it was a joke but recognizing it as a joke
at his expense, resulted in Barry subsequently kicking Mike out of the
studio. He didn't really give Peter a lot of lead vocals to do, but he
gave him a lot of the backing vocals. I'm guessing that's what
might've happened with Mike had Barry kept him involved. Of course,
both Mike and Peter have always said they wanted yo be playing on the
songs and not just singing them. Could Barry have placated both by
simply letting them play guitar or keyboards along side the studio
session players?
> Like Ringo, his voice only suits certain songs. Even some of Mikes songs
> were done by Mickey, so it wasn't his problem alone, just more so.
What I see with Mike's songs that were sung by Micky or Davy,
sometimes it was a case of him writing the songs with either of them
in mind for the lead vocalist. Mike's "My Share of the Sidewalk" was
written for Davy. Peter said years ago that he felt Mike had no group
spirit, yet I think writing songs for one of the others to sing, did
demonstrate some form of group spirit on Mike's part. I think he
showed respect for Davy and Micky as singers in letting them sing his
songs. Who knows, he may have felt the same about Peter. It would be
nice to think there could be some Nesmith-written and produced track
in the archives that features Peter on lead vocals.
> Pretty much what I said already. Peter being the first to leave surprised
> me.
Based on what I've read, I think what mattered more to Peter than lead
vocals was being treated seriously as a musician. I think he
recognized or felt that goal wasn't possible within the Monkees.
Rather than forming his own group, I think he might've been served
better if he could've persuaded some of his musical buddies to be in a
band with them. Some accounts have it that Crosby, Stills and Nash
came together at his house, although I think the official story has it
taking place at Joni Mitchell's house. If CSN getting together at
Peter's house, that says a lot as to their non-respect for him if they
had to claim they got together at Joni's house.
> Some of our shops have had a compilation album on their shelves for many
> years. One put together in Europe has more recently replaced the one put
> together in Australia quite some time ago.
Most, if not all of Mike's albums are available through his website,
including the ones issued by Rhino and Collectables. What I'd like to
see would be the albums reissued with songs left off of the original
albums and any unreleased recordings. A few years ago, his website
offered a couple of songs left off of the "Infinite Rider" album. The
songs were rather ordinary and didn't quite fit in with the rest of
the IR songs, yet the different sounds was enough to make one wonder
if the songs were recorded early on and possibly rejected by Mike as
not being the kind of sound he was wanting. But, Mike has always been
a musical shapeshifter and capable of surprising the fans with his
music. The instrumentals on "Rays" didn't please some yet New Ageish
songs seem to be what he wants to do these days. All of the guitars
and most of the keyboard work (piano, synthesizer) on "Rays" was by
him. And it's a good bet most of the work on the recent "Helen's
Eternal Birthday" and post-"Rays" "January" was by him as well.
> > One of my favorite memories of the 70s is of my then-16 year old
> > girlfriend listening to "Joanne" being played on the radio. But, she
> > quickly changed the station, embarrassed that I had caught her
> > listening to the song.
>
> Yea, shame some people like to follow the herd rather than go with what they
> think themselves.
Eh, I always cutted her some slack as she was still in high school, at
the time when peer pressure is the greatest. But, I was 19, maybe 20
at the time, and not one to out her to her brothers or sisters or to
her friends as to her musical tastes. Still, given some of her
classmates lived next door or a few doors down or up, and I knew all
of them through her, maybe she just didn't want to take a chance on
one of them finding out.
> > I think Shania has likely been the biggest selling country artist
> > outside the US. Bigger than Garth Brooks.
>
> Quite possibly, but while I have all her records, she is no Linda Ronstadt
> IMO :-)
> (Thanks Mike for helping to kick start her career with "Different Drum")
That's the truth. I'm not sure if she or her record company or
managers has ever compared her to Ronstadt. The only one I'm familiar
with is Patti Loveless. And that was on a sticker for the album "The
Trouble with the Truth." Loveless was touted as a cross between
Ronstadt and Patsy Cline. Ouch! That was two big heavyweights for her
record label to be comparing her to, and somewhat surprising, seeing
as she's related to two well known country singers, Loretta Lynn and
Crystal Gayle. But, her albums almost always have some rock influence,
so maybe the comparison to Ronstadt and Cline was the right one?
> In fact Colonel Tom was fastidious about getting any money owed to him!
> However there is no doubt Elvis easily outsold Garth Brooks. The big problem
> is adjusting for population and record price Vs income level.
> It could easily be argued that Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra were far bigger
> sellers, all things considered, than any of the recent acts.
> Personally I only go by total audit sales figures by dollars adjusted for
> inflation. Try finding many lists based on those figures :-)
> The Monkees did pretty well however by most measures.
At the time of his death, it was reported that Crosby had sold 800
million recordings. Sinatra is nowhere close as far as sales. In one
of the books I have on the music industry and rock and roll, there's a
claim that Sinatra was never a big seller, as far as gold and platinum
records were concerned. Sinatra was also with three or four different
record companies, which meant that the companies he left might have
had no interest in seeking certification on his records for a gold
record. The RIAA credits him with just 27 million in sales. That's
more than Crosby even has but the RIAA has only certified records for
gold status since 1958, and platinum since circa 1976-78. How many
recordings they sold pre-1958 is anyone's guess. Both also had
recordings where they performed with big bands, yet the big band
recordings were largely radio transcript recordings and Sinatra and
Crosby were the featured vocalists in those bands. With the total
audit sales figures adjusted for inflation, Elvis's soundtrack for
"Blue Hawaii," which earned over $10,000,000 in 1962, would be
$73,000,000 in today's money.
> >and I've heard he still doesn't like a lot of the current
> > country artists.
>
> Not surprised, there is a lot to like AND a lot to *dislike*.
What was surprising was Nez working in a genre in which he didn't care
much for or apparently respect. Nez's outspoken Texan personality
probably didn't go over well with country stations. One figures they
would look at what he said and say to themselves, "Well, screw him!"
Any in the Nashville establishment aware of his sentiments may have
felt the same way. (Btw, for being the country mecca, Nashville was
more rock than country, last time I was there. It was almost as if the
city was trying to distance itself in some respects.)
> Hardly relevent. What is relevant is that new country is now mainstream, and
> traditional country on the fringe, rather than the other way around.
A lot of the old traditionalists die hard. They don't want to be out
there on that fringe; their situations are much like the rock and pop
artists from the earlier eras: still wanting to be part of it all but
marginalized by the industry. For that reason, I figured the internet
would be the place to go for the artists now shunned by the industry
and make their music available through the internet. But, the internet
has only relaunched a few artists and not enough I think to really
matter. Course, now you've got iPod, the new transistor radio and
other new media the artists are flocking to, which is good there is
that avenue for their music to be heard. But, I find myself preferring
to stay with the older media of vinyl and cd. I see no purpose in
repurchasing music I've already repurchased and unless there's
something incredibly new in the way of what you hear, I'll continue to
choose to stick with what I've got for now.
> And apart from a live version of Nadine and a few others, hard to remember
> many real rock & Roll songs he did.
> Lets face it, published "interviews" are not a good souce of facts. But who
> knows maybe he considered "Begin the Beguine" rock & roll? :-)
The Bomp story is from the mid 70s, possibly around the time of "The
Prison," so whatever Nez was thinking at the time probably was the way
he saw himself. Nez's Deep Purplish-take on "Nadine" at the beginning
of the song was a lot of energy taking place. I thought it was great
and wished that energy had continued all the way through the song.
But, the problem with interviews is that by the time they're
published, they're already out of date. Goldmine published interviews
on Harry Nilsson and Maurice Gibb after their deaths but both
interviews took place a couple of years before their deaths. The most
interesting comment I found on Nilsson was his comment about all of
the Monkees except Peter going crazy over his music. Peter, he said,
didn't give a sh*t, which I guess wasn't anything personal but just a
matter of personal taste. But, I think that it did bother Harry to
some degree, enough for him to bring it up a couple of decades on.
Goldmine was holding the Gibb interview for a cover story on the Bee
Gees, but they were trying without success to get Barry and Robin to
agree to an interview. They finally gave up on that idea and finally
published the interview with Maurice, about a year roughly after his
death.
> >Who knows, maybe he grew tired of trying to break into the
> > country market and getting nowhere? Mike could be quite the rocker
> > when he wanted to be -- songs like "Mama Rocker," "Dance," "Factions"
> > and "Horserace" provide proof of that. Really, Mike can be most adept
> > in any musical genre he decide to work in.
>
> Of course, my point is he didn't usually bother.
But, my point is that he can do it, but he seems more content to
confound anyone's expectations as to what his music will sound like.
> > Mike had some interesting pre-Monkees recordings: folk, pop, rock --
> > there's one song on youtube, think it's "Just a Little Love," in which
> > Nez has a very pronounced Byrds-like feel to the song.
>
> And isn't that more country than rock? Even before the Gram Parsons era
> Roger McGuinn was more country/folk than rock.
Possibly but a lot of early to mid 60s rock songs had pop, country and
folk influences to them yet were still considered rock. Most of what
was considered rock in those days wouldn't be considered as rock by
others today, yet there's no reason to place songs from earlier eras
into a genre they were never part of anyway.
> >But, the
> > curious thing is I think the song was recorded before the Byrds had
> > even formed, and if that was the case, maybe the Byrds heard the song
> > and decided that's what they wanted their sound to be like.
>
> I seriously doubt it. Even most of Mike Nesmith fans haven't heard it!
And all they gotta do is find it on youtube. Mike's pre-Monkee songs
were pretty good with maybe the possible exception of "Well, Well,
Well." That's one that could've stayed hidden. And where did someone
find that apparently pre-Monkees take of "Don't Call On Me?" (Or was
it a demo made during the Monkees?) That version is a gem! I prefer it
over the proper studio take. I hadn't thought about it, but I wonder
if someone has posted a video for Denny Elba'a (Ezba???) version of
Mike's "Go Somewhere and Cry?" I heard about that tune in the late 70s
but have never been able to locate a copy. Mike was credited as
playing sagebrush (?) guitar (yeah, whatever) and whistling. But, I
think that with all of those recordings, Mike was looking to be
discovered. Had the Monkees not come along, I think he would've been
discovered eventually.
> He *DID* make it on his own, unless you call everyone besides Elvis and the
> Beatles as total failures?
> What a sad opinion of peoples achievements if that's the case.
He did make it on his own as far as artistic ahievements but
commercially, he was never as successful as he should've been. That is
personal opinion, speaking as a lifelong Nez fan, one who is more
inclined to blame the record company (RCA) than the artist. But, when
it comes to music, I don't know why people think the artist should
never profit from their work. Record companies have never been in the
business of pressing up 45s, LPs, cassettes, cds, whatever media and
doing it for free. Recording is a costly investment to make and
expecting the artist to be happy with low sales and not receiving any
of their royalties because the recording didn't sell enough to pay
back the cost associated with that recording. Starving artists doesn't
make sense to me. What makes an artist an artist is still there,
regardless of whether they sell three copies or 50 million copies. The
artist didn't compromise their integrity just because they happened to
be successful at it. But, didja ever notice people do resent certain
artists for being successful while being okay with other artists who
were just as successful?
> I'm absolutely amazed at your measure for success. He made more money from
> that one song than I (and most others) have in a lifetime of work!
It's not my measure for success, but again, it goes back to the
recording industry. Your last hit is your last hit, but what have you
done lately? The money to be made from any song is during the period
when it is on the charts, being played on radio and tv and sold in the
stores. When it's off the charts, there's still residual royalties for
the songwriters (and possibly soon in the US for the artists) but the
residuals often slow to a trickle. The singer-songwriter-musician (or
any variation thereof) may have made the bucks from whatever sources
but the record industry wants you to keep repeating the trick. Over
and over again. It doesn't matter if your last hit sold 2.5 million
copies; they want the next single to sell 2.5 million as well, and the
next single after that one. If a songwriter is lucky, their song
becomes an oldie staple, played for years and years on oldies radio.
But, the songwriter earning bucks doesn't mean a thing to the labels
or nonwriting artists. But, most songwriters want multiple number of
hits instead of just one hit. They may be in it for the music but
don't be fooled, they're in it for the money as well.
> They do here and have for a very long time. APRA charges for all public play
> rights, both broadcast and clubs, bars etc. And includes both recorded music
> and songs performed live by others.
The artist being paid makes sense. There's resistance from the
industry but it's not being called a royalty here, but a performance
tax. I'd like it better if they referred to it as a royalty as I'm
pretty sure some politician of a Republican nature will use it to
claim the government is taking money from the taxpayers, to go to some
liberal Hollywood fatcats. It won't be depicted as an artist who had a
million seller but never saw a dime in the way of royalties and who
possibly is destitute.
> And I bet she is. However IMO Disney has made her, not vice versa. The next
> teen sensations after Miley and the Jonas brothers are already waiting in
> the wings.
Actually, there's a story in today's paper about the next big Disney
act. Selena Gomez, who is 16 and super cute. Of course, being a man my
age, perhaps I shouldn't be saying that. I don't know what plans
Disney has for Miley, if any, but with the Jonas brothers, they are
supposed to be doing a new musical sitcom for the brothers in which
Disney invoked the Monkees's name as to the kind of show it will be.
The brothers seem very respectful of artists from eras past and have
acknowledged that some of those artists influences their music. That's
a good thing.
> > I don't know. Miley has something in common with the Monkees in
> > earning more than $200 million for their companies.
>
> You need to allow for inflation if the comparison is to have any meaning.
Adjusting for inflation, the Monkees $200 million in 1967 dollars
would be over a billion dollars today. That's a staggering amount of
money!
> Exactly, the current crop of teen stars have much better agents and lawyers
> to get a FAR better share than the Monkees did.
> Many stars of the sixties were royally screwed over, some even losing money
> on top 40 hits after "deductables".
I wouldn't be too sure of that. Sometimes even a good lawyer can
overlook something in the contracts, something which allows the label
to pull a fast one. That happened to the Bee Gees when they were with
Polydor/Universal. The label stuck in a stipulation the Bee Gees were
to be charged with cross collateralization on their albums, that is,
if one album was a hit and the follow up was a flop, the one that was
a hit paid for the one that was a flop. The Bee Gees objected and the
stipulation was to be stricken from their contracts. Only thing is, it
wasn't. Polydor/Universal did strike the stipulation but added it back
in after the Bee Gees and their attorneys had left. The label thought
they had pulled a fast one but elder brother Barry discovered their
deception in his contract. That deception nullified all the contracts.
Makes me wonder how many other acts read the terms of their
contracts?
> You have a stange view IMO. I work with artists that were pretty huge in the
> sixties, who now play to small venues, and sell only a few records. Not so
> much to make money, but just for the love of it. IF (yes not always the case
> unfortunately) they invested wisely, they have been able to live in a nice
> house and not worry where their next meal is coming from, even if they have
> not had another hit for 40 years. For most their love of music goes on
> however.
Not so much me as a lot of other people. People here in the US are or
can be a fickle bunch. Also, jealous and resentful towards certain
artists. I've always been loyal to the artists I grew up with or
became a fan of later on. I'll buy their latest recordings even if
their last hit was in 1967 or if they never had a hit at all. For me,
I think every artist has done some song I'll like if I get a chance to
hear it. But, my budget is such that I can't buy every recording I
hear which can sometimes work against me. I've searched for a song
from the 70s, a duet between a male and female performer that I heard
a lot on radio. It was never a hit, just a featured album cut. I don't
remember who the artists were and have come up empty trying to find
out who they were and what the name of that song was.
> It seems to me all the Monkees have done far better than average, and have
> the luxury of making whatever choices they desire.
> Should they have got more compared to todays stars? No question.
> Should they bitch about being given a break most never get, and then being
> dumped? No way.
Actually, I'd allow them to bitch given their attempt to gain respect
has been a road so long, that they paid their dues so long ago and
yet, they are still being dumped on. Also, the hundreds of millions
they made for everyone else while they received very little in the way
of compensation. All those Monkees-related products that fattened
Columbia's bank accounts, products that were based on their
likenesses, to say they got a fair deal? No, they got royally ripped.
The Monkees were a Columbia franchise but Columbia could never have
hired four different individuals and try to make the public believe
they were the same people they were seeing on tv.
> His plastic surgery makes the news here all the time :-)
> He is doing huge concerts in Europe however.
I don't believe he has done any of the concerts yet as here, we're
still hearing he's still preparing for those concerts. Given he's
supposed to be making something like $50 million (US$), I wonder what
that translates into as far as ticket prices?
> Sure, but he will make $millions from a few concerts, hard to cry for
> someone able to do that.
True but the bucks for a ticket! That would probably make six payments
on my car.
> Of course the Rolling Stones are over 60, they still make more money from a
> few concerts every year than most do in a lifetime.
Right now, with the economy here still not in too good of a shape,
some of the ticket prices are starting to drop, back to reasonable
prices. That said, there are still certain artists whose tikets are
still pretty high. Is it the artist or the ticket seller/promoter
setting ticket prices or both? I'd be willing to bet some of those
acts will play to almost empty houses.
> At least it is now on DVD. I waited over 20 years to see it again after its
> theatre run ended before I got it on VHS.
> head isn't too bad on TV though. The movie I am always dissapointed in on
> TV, is 2001 a Space Odyssey, after originally seeing it in full Cinerama
> (not just the later 70mm print)
I still think "Head" could've been a success if Bert and Bob hadn't
gone with that artsy campaign for the movie. The dvd is kind of
disappointing, given the lack of extras. I'd still love to see the
original version of the movie and keep wondering why Rhino hasn't
released a director's cut? Why not do it now for those who would be
interested? Waiting another two decades, many of us might not be
around to see the original version.
> > Arguing?
>
> Sorry, I meant in a nice fashion, not impolite.
My apologies. Intent is sometimes hard for me to interpret.
> Would have been nice, but lets face it, the Monkees are remembered by more
> people than Ruth Buzzi, Artie Shaw, or even Dan and Dick. Only Goldie Hawn
> went on to become a truly lasting name, and only because she traded on her
> "Laugh In" fame to break into Hollywood.
True enough. Goldie was the break out star but some of the others had
some limited success outside of "Laugh In" (Arte Johnson, Henry
Gibson), mostly supporting roles. "Laugh In" brought in a couple of
the stars from "Hogan's Heroes" -- Richard Dawson and Larry Hovis --
on a semi regular basis. I'm guessing Dawson and Hovis might have been
signed once the Monkees became unavailable. It was around the same
time, I think. Also, I believe that Dawson and Hovis were writing some
of the "Laugh In" skits while they were still part of "Hogan's
Heroes." There was something said about them writing for "Laugh In"
being a conflict of interest as regards their parts on Hogan. I'm not
sure why that would've been the case. Appearing on "Laugh In" while
still appearing in "Hogan," would've been a conflict of interest.
Writing for "Laugh In" would not have been a conflict of interest.
> As I said, the contracts were one sided, but did NOT guarantee they would
> get more work after the Monkees ended.
> Whether they should have signed them is debateable, and whether they would
> have simply been replaced by someone else who would if they didn't, is
> likely.
> However expecting *anything* not stipulated in the contract, after the
> series ended is to ignore how business works.
Thinking about this being one sided, actually, if you think about it,
it didn't make much sense for Screen Gems to sign the Monkees to a
seven year contract. Five years of which, had it gone the distance,
the Monkees could've done nothing and Screen Gems would still have
been contracted to pay them. Presumably, that would seem to suggest
Screen Gems and/or Columbia could've been developing new projects for
the Monkees to have appeared in. I'm also guessing that the pay or
play rider in their contracts did not apply to any income earned from
their record and publishing royalties. Recall Don Kirshner's claim of
presenting each of the Monkees with royalty checks of over a quarter
of a million a piece, as well as Mike's additional royalties for
writing and producing. Bert and Bob took care of the Monkees on the
recording side, to the point the music producers could not charge
production expenses against the Monkees's royalties.
> Yeah, seems to me the USA is strange like that. Many US acts are better
> recieved in other countries like here, than over there. Not to mention many
> foreign acts being picked up every where else well before the USA. Even the
> Beatles.
The US is definitely strange like that. The Beatles as recording
artists actually made their US debut in 1963, but they didn't get
anywhere. "She Loves You" charted in '63 but just barely made the Top
100. Of course, they were on a smaller label, which probably didn't
have the money to promote them or didn't know how to promote them.
Things were different a year later and what bombed in '63 was a number
one in '64!
> > "Steam Engine" was recorded in 1969, so, for the Monkees, it was a new
> > song.
>
> Re-recorded, since they'd already recorded it years earlier.
I don't see no entries listed for the song in '66 or '67 in Andrew's
book. Chip's history with the Monkees began in early '67 and the only
song he contributed to the Monkees at the time was "Forget That
Girl."
> I think there was more to it than that. Mostly the doubt that it would
> actually be a hit. Whilst I disagree with very many of the decisions made at
> the time, I have doubts about it myself.
As regards Screen Gems not releasing the song because Douglas spent
$5000 recording the song, Andrew's book notes the song was produced
independent of Screen Gems involvement and without the Monkees's
knowledge of the song. It mentions that Chip had been routed from his
producer's role for the Turtles and not having anything better to do,
put a session together to record four songs with the possibility of
trying to get the Monkees to add their vocals. Chip didn't write all
of the songs but still, it was a rather bold step for someone to
record a few tunes and hope the Monkees would do them. I don't know,
maybe Chip billed $5000 to Screen Gems or against the Monkees's
royalties and Screen Gems couldn't pay because of that proviso. As for
being a hit, I don't know. I think it might've done better than "Good
Clean Fun" and "Mommy and Daddy" and "Oh My My," which barely limped
into the Top 100. A lot of the Monkees's late 60s misfortunes was
choosing the wrong songs for singles.
> Yes I know, I have the original version myself, but that's what happens to
> many records, and the DJ's should be thanked for listening to the audience
> reaction when the record companies have made the wrong choice.
Obviously, RCA took notice since they reversed the titles. However,
I've seen a claim that indicated the sleeve with "Listen to the Band"
in the bigger letters was the sleeve that was released first. I don't
think so as I bought the single when it was released. And every
picture sleeve for that single had "Someday Man" in bigger letters.
> Yea, but considered a little controversial for the "teen" market or their
> parents :-)
Even the "tame" version might have been a little controversial for the
"teen" market. I don't think the Monkees were on the parents' radar as
far as being controversial. Maybe if one of them had said "We're
bigger than the Beatles, so we're bigger than Jesus and we're all
gay," the parents might've noticed that. But, the Monkees were
considered cute and harmless by the parents. Even if their biggest sin
was having long hair.
> Of course they weren't. Hell even the title of "Randy Scouse Git" was nixed
> :-)
Different rules. "Randy Scouse Git" was nixed because the Monkees
didn't have creative control over their recordings. They got it later
in '67 and Lester Sill (head of Colgems) and Brendan Cahill (manager)
were only suppose to release what the Monkees authorized for release.
But, Sill was responsible for "Valleri" being released as a single and
getting the Monkees (Micky) to record "D. W. Washburn." I suspect that
all the Monkees really cared about as far as creative control was
concerned, was in the studio and not in the final product. It probably
wouldn't have hurt if they had been a little more concerned about the
singles and album tracks. That music represented them and if Sill or
Cahill picked a song that bombed, it was the Monkees's name on the 45s
and LPs and not theirs (although Cahill did get a "Music coordinator
credit on their '69 albums).
> I doubt it was all Lester's fault. When you have a record contract, there is
> only so much you can do IF you want the song to be released at all.
> Of course some companies support their artists far more than others however.
Sill took responsibility for "Washburn" even though that song was a
Top 20 in Billboard and a Top 10 in Cashbox. Sill was doing his job as
head of Colgems and maybe the Monkees trusted his instincts, since he
had worked with Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller and with Phil Spector.
Curiously, he also headed Screen Gems Music as well and reportedly
refuse to sell Mike the copyrights on his songs.
> Nope, the best manager in the world can't keep a fly by night act at the
> top. Conversely it wasn't Colonel Tom that made Elvis what he was. Everyone
> knows his decision to take the easy road (for Parker) with so many B grade
> movies kept Elvis from making better records, and even more money for years!
> Could someone have done a worse job, absolutely, but a million people could
> have done a better job.
On the subject of why Elvis didn't dump Parker, he had grounds and
justification to get rid of him. But, Parker had been good for Elvis
at the beginning, getting him a much better than average artist
royalty on singles and LPs, and probably EPs as well. He established
the music publishing companies, another source of income and managed
to get a lot of money for Presley to star in movies. Where Parker went
wrong was keeping Elvis in the movies as the scripts got worse with
each passing film. Also, for a man who had sold 125 million records by
1965, one would've thought Presley was rightfully entitled to a
substantial bump in his record royalties. Nope. Presley's royalties
from RCA stayed at the same level from 1956 up to his death in 1977.
By comparison, the then-newly signed Jefferson Airplane was reportedly
getting a dollar per album, despite their unknown potential at the
time. Experts said Elvis should've been getting the same or more as
the Jefferson Airplane, but Parker kept things as they were and when
things didn't work out, took more of Presley's income for his bad
business decisions. And, although Elvis bore the responsibility for
letting Parker do the things he did, that's still no excuse to let
Parker off the hook. Parker was in charge of the business decisions
and knew Presley objected to many of those decisions but Parker did
them anyway. Why didn't Presley dump Parker? Perhaps it was a case of
dealing with the devil he knew, as opposed to the one he didn't know.
> Who do you think could keep Milli Vanilli at the top forever?
> (Not that the Monkees would have been that hard however :-)
If there was any act that got it worse than the Monkees, it was Milli
Vanilli. They were ripped apart. I don't think anyone worked with
those two guys whatsoever before they were sent out on the road.
"You're Milli Vanilli! Now, get out there and sing!" They shouldn't
have been allowed to step one foot outside the video studio pretending
they could sing, especially when the powers that be knew the voices
belonged to someone else. Someone should've had the good sense to have
stopped it before it got that far.
marika
>
>>
> I do. Most groups get together because they have a common interest in a
> certain style/genre.
Thanks for the info.
mk5000
Megan: There's something I need to tell you.
Thomas: You're pregnant! Oh no.
Megan: What? No Thomas I'm not pregnant.
Thomas: OK, 'cause with your big head and my ears, God only knows.
Megan: No I'm performing at the senior show case.
Thomas: That's great!
[Leans in to kiss her]
Megan: [Puts her hand over his face and pushes it back] And i was
kinda thinking you know, maybe we should just kinda cool it for a
while.
Thomas: What do you mean?
Megan: I'm saying I think we need to take a break.
Thomas: Right definitely, yeah we should definitely take a break how
long do you need like 30 40 minutes? We should synchronize our
watches.
Megan: No Thomas I need space.
Thomas: Oh, okay. Space.
[starts moving chairs around to give her space around her]
Thomas: Space is good. That's enough space?
Megan: [Standing up] Thomas we're done.
Thomas: Defiantly this has been a long rehearsal very tough.
Megan: Thomas I'm leaving you! I don't wanna be your girlfriend
anymore! We spend more time defending our relationship than actually
having one! No body wants to see us together, not my friends, not
yours. I'm saying its over.
Thomas: Fine. Fine leave! Get out!
Megan: I'm sorry! --Dance Flick