Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 64 of 64

Thread: Beatles the 1st "boyband"?

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    Except that once again, The Monkees evolved past the "boyband" image. They revolted against their producer, started writing their own material, and made some seriously good music that went way beyond the "bubblegum" thing. .
    Still, the precendent of the 'boyband' packaging, image (& 'damage') was already set by the time of the revolt. They broadened their fan base after their independence but their initial image was well into most people's psyches.

  2. #52
    Member dgtlman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    581
    Yes, but the Beatles were bigger than Jesus... end of story!

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by dgtlman View Post
    Yes, but the Beatles were bigger than Jesus... end of story!
    Is Jesus and twelve Apostoles the 1st "boyband"?

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Progmatic View Post
    Is Jesus and twelve Apostoles the 1st "boyband"?
    Well, they didn't play their own instruments (or each others, for that matter) from what I understand.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickenbacker View Post
    Still, the precendent of the 'boyband' packaging, image (& 'damage') was already set by the time of the revolt. They broadened their fan base after their independence but their initial image was well into most people's psyches.
    OK, but then how is that different from The Beatles? Other than the fact that The Beatles were able to sidestep the "damage" issue, I mean.

  6. #56
    Well, this is where it slips into "depends who you ask" territory. If you ask me (& you are), I would say that by the time the Monkees came along, it was plain to everyone they were American tv's answer to The Beatles. An obvious cash-in on their humor & charm. Kind of like a weekly Hard Day's Night.
    Beatles, on the other hand, had no precedent like them (in a *band* context) & they did what they did on the strength of their own songs. (apart from Twist & Shout)

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickenbacker View Post
    Well, this is where it slips into "depends who you ask" territory. If you ask me (& you are), I would say that by the time the Monkees came along, it was plain to everyone they were American tv's answer to The Beatles. An obvious cash-in on their humor & charm. Kind of like a weekly Hard Day's Night.
    Beatles, on the other hand, had no precedent like them (in a *band* context) & they did what they did on the strength of their own songs. (apart from Twist & Shout)
    Actually, the Beatles did a lot more covers than just Twist And Shout. But I do see the point you're making. The Beatles were the originators, and at least initially, The Monkees were the copy. Even to the point that on a recent documentary I saw on TV on The Monkees, a guy who wrote a book about them even drew the parallels in terms of "which one" each of The Monkees were into relation to The Beatles, ie Davy was "the cute one" (as per Paul), Mickey was "the funny drummer" (as per Ringo), Mike was "the serious one" (as per John) and Peter was "the quiet one" (as per George). Or something like that.

    It's just a shame that some of the really good music they did after More Of The Monkees tends to get overlooked by those who dismiss as them as a joke. I especially find it annoying when people say "They didn't play on their own records". Apart from the fact that's only partially true, well, neither did The Beach Boys (well, not on Pet Sounds or Good Vibrations, etc), so what's your point?!

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    Actually, the Beatles did a lot more covers than just Twist And Shout. But I do see the point you're making. The Beatles were the originators, and at least initially, The Monkees were the copy. Even to the point that on a recent documentary I saw on TV on The Monkees, a guy who wrote a book about them even drew the parallels in terms of "which one" each of The Monkees were into relation to The Beatles, ie Davy was "the cute one" (as per Paul), Mickey was "the funny drummer" (as per Ringo), Mike was "the serious one" (as per John) and Peter was "the quiet one" (as per George). Or something like that.

    It's just a shame that some of the really good music they did after More Of The Monkees tends to get overlooked by those who dismiss as them as a joke. I especially find it annoying when people say "They didn't play on their own records". Apart from the fact that's only partially true, well, neither did The Beach Boys (well, not on Pet Sounds or Good Vibrations, etc), so what's your point?!
    Oh, yeah- definitely. About half the 1st 2 or 3 Beatles albums are covers on each. I neglected to mention that I was referring to that week in April '64 when they had the top 5 songs on the charts.
    I agree though. It's a drag the Monkees do get tossed to the left they way they often do. Nesmith, Mickey & Peter each did some fantastic pop songs. And wow- I enjoy the Beach Boys & never knew that about them. I always thought they didn't play (or hardly played) during that whole "Smiley Smile" mess.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickenbacker View Post
    Oh, yeah- definitely. About half the 1st 2 or 3 Beatles albums are covers on each. I neglected to mention that I was referring to that week in April '64 when they had the top 5 songs on the charts.
    I agree though. It's a drag the Monkees do get tossed to the left they way they often do. Nesmith, Mickey & Peter each did some fantastic pop songs. And wow- I enjoy the Beach Boys & never knew that about them. I always thought they didn't play (or hardly played) during that whole "Smiley Smile" mess.

    Oh yeah, I've forgotten exactly where it occurs, but there was a point where Brian started using the usual studio musicians, initially the so called "Wrecking Crew" (ie Tommy Tedesco, Hal Blaine, Glenn Campbell, Carol Kaye, etc). I think the early albums were actually the Wilson brothers, Mike Love, and either Al Jardine or Dave Marks playing, but at some point, Brian started using the studio rats. I'm not sure if that was because he was already working on the next record while the others were on tour, after he had his first nervous breakdown, or what. But pretty much every Beach Boys album after a certain point, is mostly studio musicians playing the instruments.

    And truth be told, that was and probably still is common place in the recording world. When you buy an album by a "band", the four or five guys you see pictured on the cover aren't necessarily the guys who hear playing the instruments on the records. The first Byrds single is Roger McGuinn playing electric 12 string, and all the other instruments are played by some of the Wrecking Crew guys (but it's actually Clarke, Clark, Crosby and Hillman playing on all the other songs on the first album and the subsequent records made by the original Byrds lineup).

    It's been stated that Jimmy Page played rhythm guitar on some of the early Kinks and Who singles. There's a couple Kiss records where it's Anton Fig deputizing for Peter Criss (there's one song on Dynasty that Peter plays on, Dirty Livin', the rest of that album and all of Unmasked, it's Anton), and there's records by bands like Chicago, The Tubes, and even Cheap Trick that have one or more members of Toto on them (because the original members of Toto were all studio rats, so they played on like every record that was made in LA in the late 70's and early 80's).

    The point being, the "they didn't play their own instruments" argument is hardly legitimate when criticizing The Monkees, because neither did a lot of other bands who get way more respect than The Monkees ever did.

  10. #60
    Man, I'm gettin schooled on this stuff. I mean I always knew that bands *sometimes* used outsiders or famous guests. But I didn't know about The Kinks or The Who, et al I'm surprised at learning about those 2. So basically, Dave Davies & Pete Townshend weren't good enough to do what Page had to?

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickenbacker View Post
    Man, I'm gettin schooled on this stuff. I mean I always knew that bands *sometimes* used outsiders or famous guests. But I didn't know about The Kinks or The Who, et al I'm surprised at learning about those 2. So basically, Dave Davies & Pete Townshend weren't good enough to do what Page had to?
    Actually, it would have been Ray Davies that Page would have been deputizing for. Apparently, this was before overdubbing was commonplace (or at least commonplace that you'd overdub a lead vocal) and Ray apparently didn't like to sing and play guitar at the same time in the studio. Or at least that's what Shel Talmy said, and he was the producer, so that's apparently his logic for using Page on the early Kinks records. Apparently, he's only officially credited with playing on a couple of the songs, but who knows what the truth is?

    I'm not sure what the deal on I Can't Explain is. Apparently, Page was at the session, but no one seems to remember if it's him you hear on the final mix, or Townshend. Likewise Page is said to have played on the B-side of that single, Bald Headed Woman (which was also recorded by The Kinks, and allegedly Page is said to have also have played on that version) At any rate, it does appear they did use backup singers on I Can't Explain, as well as a session pianist (and The Who would occasionally use session keyboardists on various recordings throughout their career, even after Townshend and Entwistle had both demonstrated their respective abilities in that area).

    I think what happens is if the producer or the record company or whatever doesn't someone's ability to "get it done" in the studio, they'll call in the studio rats. In the case of The Byrds, I think it was that they were deemed too inexperienced, initially by Columbia (in the case of Michael Clarke, he'd literally only been playing drums as long as he had been in the band, which had been less than a year). I think sometimes producers felt "your rhythm section is good enough for live work, but I need something more precise for the single" or whatever. I think that might have been the reason Page was called in to play on the I Can't Explain single.

    Some producers have a "sound", so they want to use "their guys" to get that sound. There's stuff Chicago did in the 80's where Peter Cetera is doing the vocals, and the rest of the track is studio guys.

    And sometimes it's because there's a tight deadline and you're not sure if the actual band members can deliver. There's a story that when Kiss recorded, I think it was Sweet Pain, Ace couldn't come up with anything for the guitar solo. Ace claims he says "I'll get it tomorrow, don't worry". But Bob Ezrin, who was producing the session basically said "Forget that, I'll have Dick Wagner do the solo". I think it was Wagner (or maybe Steve Hunter) who occasionally depped for Glen Buxton on a couple of the Alice Cooper records that Ezrin produced.

    I also remember Bob Kulick, who was a NYC studio guy, tell a story of being called by Paul Stanley and come do a Kiss session. Bob says, "Where's Ace?!", Paul says "He can't play". So Bob goes down to the studio, does a few takes, and after awhile took a break. So he goes in the studio lounge, and there's Ace sprawled out on the sofa. Ace looks up and him and drunkenly says "How's my playing?!", and Bob nervously responds, "Best you ever sounded, Ace!". I think that was for the tracks that ended up on the Killers compilation (or possibly some of the stuff on side four of Alive II). And it's definitely known that Vinni Poncia, didn't think Peter was in any shape to do play drums on Dynasty, and then by the time of Unmasked, Peter was pretty much already out of the band (and for the record, if I remember correctly, it's been said that the songs on Unmasked are effectively solo tracks except maybe the backing vocals, ie Ace played bass and all the guitars on his three songs, I know Paul has said he's the only member of the band on Shandi, and I've heard it suggested the rest of Paul and Gene's songs were done the same way).

    Oh, and to bring this back to The Beatles, I think it's the single version of Love Me Do, that's not Ringo playing drums. Apparently, George Martin didn't think Ringo was good enough initially to handle playing on a single, so he called in a studio guy.

  12. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    there's records by bands like Chicago, The Tubes, and even Cheap Trick that have one or more members of Toto on them (because the original members of Toto were all studio rats, so they played on like every record that was made in LA in the late 70's and early 80's).....

    .....Some producers have a "sound", so they want to use "their guys" to get that sound.
    Specifically, David Foster. With him, it wasn't even a matter of whether the band could play or not. He knew that Toto could, and could nail anything in two or three takes, so he didn't waste time trying to do it with the band themselves.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    Specifically, David Foster. With him, it wasn't even a matter of whether the band could play or not. He knew that Toto could, and could nail anything in two or three takes, so he didn't waste time trying to do it with the band themselves.
    Not just Foster. A lot of producers have done that over the years. Cheap Trick's Dream Police album was produced by Tom Werman, and he used Steve Lukather on one song, Voices. On his website, Luke says he has no idea why they called him because he knew Rick Nielsen was a fine player.

  14. #64
    I think Yes wardrobe choices for the 90125 tour were boybandish for that era standards
    I live in an ephemeral eternity

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •