toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Jul 26, 2020 4:27:24 GMT
There may be a few exceptions, but for the most part most of us probably like all the classic 60s bands pretty well. I certainly won't attempt to deny that I think it's the best decade for music (though I guess the decade runs from '64 through '73 if you get right down to it). But there are some bands that are undeniably important to the history of music that may not be "all that." Not talking about your Beatle-resenters, or bands you truly hate. I'm talking about bands that you recognize as being well-loved, and you get why, you just don't share it.
For me they are:
The Yardbirds - Yeah, classic guitar lineup, great rhythm section, huge influence on the British Blues Boom, etc. Do they have a lot of great songs? I'd say no. No great songwriters, not super adventurous with their covers, and probably the worst singer of any major British invasion band (though he didn't do too badly for a guy with one lung).
The MC5 - The original "Lookin' At You" single is incendiary, and they were adventurous, added free jazz elements to the rock of the time, and played the revolutionary rhetoric to the hilt. For me they'll always suffer by comparison to the Stooges, and Tyner had maybe 1/10th the presence Iggy had on a good day.
John's Children - If not for being Bolan's entry to pop stardom, they'd be even more anonymous than their ilk. Second-rate Who copyists, mostly - and there were plenty of bands that were better at that.
You?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sneelock on Jul 26, 2020 12:55:29 GMT
I loved Keith Relf’s Singing! I also loved his harmonikle. Maybe Yardbird s are overrated but it sure seems like I spend a lot of time defending myself for loving them. Most of the criticisms against them seem pretty fair but I still love them. Love is like that sometimes.
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Jul 26, 2020 14:41:08 GMT
I loved Keith Relf’s Singing! I also loved his harmonikle. Maybe Yardbird s are overrated but it sure seems like I spend a lot of time defending myself for loving them. Most of the criticisms against them seem pretty fair but I still love them. Love is like that sometimes. I've come to enjoy the 'Birds shambolic-ness as their appeal, all phases ('cept Topham's cause nothing has appeared): Clapton, Beck, Beck & Page, Page. Picked up the 2cd Roger the Engineer as beck has different solos on the mono mixes. Irish kids a few years back, sought to conjure the 'Birds a few years back( the solo that begins at 2;19 pays homage to Beck : |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 7:02:41 GMT
There may be a few exceptions, but for the most part most of us probably like all the classic 60s bands pretty well. I certainly won't attempt to deny that I think it's the best decade for music (though I guess the decade runs from '64 through '73 if you get right down to it). But there are some bands that are undeniably important to the history of music that may not be "all that." Not talking about your Beatle-resenters, or bands you truly hate. I'm talking about bands that you recognize as being well-loved, and you get why, you just don't share it. For me they are: The Yardbirds - Yeah, classic guitar lineup, great rhythm section, huge influence on the British Blues Boom, etc. Do they have a lot of great songs? I'd say no. No great songwriters, not super adventurous with their covers, and probably the worst singer of any major British invasion band (though he didn't do too badly for a guy with one lung). The MC5 - The original "Lookin' At You" single is incendiary, and they were adventurous, added free jazz elements to the rock of the time, and played the revolutionary rhetoric to the hilt. For me they'll always suffer by comparison to the Stooges, and Tyner had maybe 1/10th the presence Iggy had on a good day. John's Children - If not for being Bolan's entry to pop stardom, they'd be even more anonymous than their ilk. Second-rate Who copyists, mostly - and there were plenty of bands that were better at that. You? Interesting post! 1. I can get the argument for The Yardbirds being overrated - they never really produced a classic album after all. On the other hand, their singles run is certainly one of the most inventive and colourful in 60s pop. From the pristine Gouldman hits to the wild proto-psych stuff, it's an exciting run. By all accounts they were a great live band. So I'm going to say no on that one. 2. Agreed. 3. I think you're setting up a bit of a false premise with this one. I mean who rates John's Children that highly? They are what they are - a cult band with an interesting story who put out one classic single in Desdemona and had a couple of other cool sounding songs. My nomination? The village idiots The Troggs. There seemed to be this weird cult around them in the 90s, particularly from some US music critics. But why? They were one of those bands that produced very generic, formulaic 60s pop and there wasn't much talent in the band. They were lucky to do as well as they did. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jul 27, 2020 7:38:07 GMT
My nomination? The village idiots The Troggs. There seemed to be this weird cult around them in the 90s, particularly from some US music critics. But why? They were one of those bands that produced very generic, formulaic 60s pop and there wasn't much talent in the band. They were lucky to do as well as they did. I don't agree with that at all. Their best stuff was anything but generic. The trouble is, there isn't much of it. I agree with everything else you say, more or less, although I'm probably closer to hatz's opinion on the Yardbirds than yours. I'm not even sure MC5 were a great live act - the infamous live LP suffers from a huffin' and puffin' Tyner and a complete lack of stylistic consistency. I think Dave has brought up John's Children before - nobody I know gives a rat's arse about them! |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jul 27, 2020 7:41:03 GMT
Probably for a different thread, but I tend to think there are more 60s bands that remain underrated (or at least overlooked) mostly from the US - Elephant's Memory, WCPAEB, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Ultimate Spinach, Pearls Before Swine etc. etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 8:02:57 GMT
Probably for a different thread, but I tend to think there are more 60s bands that remain underrated (or at least overlooked) mostly from the US - Elephant's Memory, WCPAEB, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Ultimate Spinach, Pearls Before Swine etc. etc. The problem with many British 60s bands is that they often never got to make an album so their discographies can be quite thin. The well is much deeper with 60s US bands. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jul 27, 2020 8:06:51 GMT
Agreed.
The Attack are one band that come to mind.
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Jul 27, 2020 18:08:50 GMT
I think with the John's Children thing I'm probably reacting to Adam's declaration (iirc) that Bolan was better in the 60s than the 70s. Not the most outrageous thing he's said (and I think he said the same about Bowie), but that feels like some serious revisionism, and he's not the only one I've heard it from. And "Desdemona" isn't really up to much that special for that matter. It's a little limp to my ears, honestly.
Agreed that the underrated 60s band thread would be an interesting one. Do it! (Or I will, if someone else doesn't.) I'd add the Peanut Butter Conspiracy to the list. And maybe even the Music Machine. Most folks who've moved past "Talk Talk" probably realize they had a lot of songs that good, and the half of the first album that's originals is pretty classic despite the reliance on the usual covers.
|
|
toomanyhatz
god
I've met him/her. He/she's great!!
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by toomanyhatz on Jul 27, 2020 18:23:07 GMT
Closer to G's opinion of the Troggs than JC's, btw. "Wild Thing" is a great one-off, and the ocarina solo is a touch of genius, the kind of ridiculous-idea-that-worked so prevalent to the era. But again, similar to the Yardbirds - some good ideas that they didn't have anybody in-house to make something of. It's not their only good (or even great) track, I realize, but the best of the rest probably falls under the 'fortunate mistakes' category too. They were essentially very, very lucky.
And of course their greatest and most lasting work is a hilarious celebration of their ineptness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jul 27, 2020 21:55:35 GMT
Beach Boys Can't argue with the hooks, or the sometimes great harmonies, the a cappella pet sounds is a favorite, but overall they are lyrically trite and musically lightweight. Genius, no, not when you have Laura Nyro and Tim Buckley working similar tropes more widely and more ambitiously. Elaborate and start a thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Jul 27, 2020 22:03:41 GMT
Beach Boys Can't argue with the hooks, or the sometimes great harmonies, the a cappella pet sounds is a favorite, but overall they are lyrically trite and musically lightweight. Genius, no, not when you have Laura Nyro and Tim Buckley working similar tropes more widely and more ambitiously. Elaborate and start a thread. Or not! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 6:34:02 GMT
The Beach Boys sound nothing like Laura Nyro or Tim Buckley. Can't see the comparison there at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jul 28, 2020 7:21:53 GMT
They don't, no, but with all of them you get these big sad melodies that owe something to classical music. Buckley (especially) didn't sweeten it enough for mainstream appeal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 8:07:31 GMT
They don't, no, but with all of them you get these big sad melodies that owe something to classical music. Buckley (especially) didn't sweeten it enough for mainstream appeal. Or rather he moved too quickly to build up that loyal fan base. His early folk stuff was quite successful, but within a few years he'd moved into abstraction. He was like a Bowie without the commercial nous in that regard. I love him myself of course! |
|
