Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

The 60's are BACK!!


Recommended Posts

I think that no one can reproduce the impact of the Beatles ( or even Hendrix) these days partly cause the sounds enabled by electronics was so new back then it was a true quantum leap in the sounds and in the production possibilites that took things by storm. I still recall the first time i heard that strat thru a Marshall sound. It was totally unlike anything that had gone before. That tone alone had me hooked. Even tho samplng and digital enable some new stuff - somehow this does not match the real revolution in audio production and new sounds that occurred in late 60's early 70's. Radiohead pushes the envelope - but is a bit too dense & inaccessible for widespread accceptance. Another difference I see is that, today, everythng is overly categorized & fractionated. So many sub cultures and too much narrowness. (tho its nice to see this does not apply to most folks here based on Nika's "technogeek sheds a tear" thread) Because of this overcategorization & fractionalization there is little chance of any one thing being accepted by as wide a swatch of folks as was the case way back when.

Check out some tunes here:

http://www.garageband.com/artist/KenFava

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sadly, I don't think young people will ever be that naive again. It may have been the last generation which believed that the world could change. The music reflected this optimism and also the frustration with the way things were. I still see this spirit in pop music but the difference was that in the sixties it got into the mainstream. Of course once that happened the sixties were over. [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: gtrmac@hotmail.com ]

Mac Bowne

G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.

Osaka, Japan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b]Who are THE ROLLING STONES?[/b][/quote] Hall, I know you're a savvy MP'er so I guess youre joking about the Stones. :) In case not, they're possibly one of music history's most sub-average bands (with a more than decent rock guitarist and great British production) to ever become superstars, the "bad boys" of the British Invasion with a fluidly spastic entertaining lead singer Mic Jagger, whose most endearing original artistic accomplishment (to me) was Ruby Tuesday (it's a good listen, find if u can). They were and are awesomely popular and should give "if THEY can make it big surely WE can" hope to many bands at whatever skill level (as long as they vibe well together). [quote]Originally posted by inadequate.com: [b]I guess I can see which side of the growing social divide you live on.[/b][/quote] I guess I don't know which side you refer to, friend, but thanks for the perceptions. Certainly not the affluent side, nor jaded, hopefully not the ignorant side. I'm well familiar with the excellent Mr. Woods' juggernaut jaunts across the world's links. But ever heard of the great Calvin Pete, Tiger's prodigious predecessor who "won the second largest number of tournaments in the 1980s, second only to Jack Nicklaus." but had no such exclusive golf clubs rewrite ethnic membership exclusion rules because of it. Society's revolt against bigoted stupidity has reached the golf clubs board rooms and effected those changes you mention -- Tiger's excellence is the worldwide high-profile thorn in their flesh that leaves them without a Jim Crow leg to stand on if they did want to keep defending their exclusionist ways. Not sure how VCRs and cel phones would inately obviate embracing the 60's "be free" spirit, but maybe so. [quote]Originally posted by Kendrix: [b]I think that no one can reproduce the impact of the Beatles ( or even Hendrix) these days partly cause the sounds enabled by electronics was so new back then it was a true quantum leap in the sounds and in the production possibilites that took things by storm. [/b][/quote]I'd heartily agree that was a big part of it all. The average garage band has more harmony probably than the Beatles et al, but their sound and songs were new and fresh, any ad man will tell you are key things for commercial success from soap to singers. [quote]Originally posted by Kendrix: [b]Because of this overcategorization & fractionalization there is little chance of any one thing being accepted by as wide a swatch of folks as was the case way back when.[/b][/quote]You're a genius, my brother. It also bespeaks the narrow-centeredness prevalent in today's "growing social divide".
-- Music has miracle potential --
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]>>>The average garage band has more harmony probably than the Beatles et al, ... Huh?[/b][/quote]By that I just mean pure chromatic vocal intonation, Ted. The Beatles' were undoubtably great ... with only their reported 65 Watt amp setup, their overall musical effect was [b]wonderfully[/b] appealing, and their tunes standout TODAY for their mysterious uniqueness in a sea of diminished musical creativity. But listening to even possibly "remastered to perfection" anthology collections and focusing (not even with much effort) on the vocal blends there's an evident struggle to harmonize (tho I'm sure they didn't worry about it -- they sound on record like they had more fun jamming together than most recordings in existentence). The Sgt. Pepper stuff was better in that regard __ for one thing their voices were more matured past the occasional post-adolescent 'blatch' that marks many males' early young adult years. But earlier vocal work, as much as I'm endeared to them overall, might grunge the ears and concerns of the average high school choir teacher. Just one man's perceptions of course.
-- Music has miracle potential --
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's hard to argue that the Beach Boys had great harmonies...keeping in mind that they had more people harmonizing than the Beatles. But, it was the comparison to the "average garage band" that I drew exception to. Most garage bands I've heard can't harmonize at all. "Please Please Me" was an early Beatles tune that had great harmony, and it was a fast one. "She Loves You" as well...but, for me, comparing the Beatles to the Beach Boys is like comparing apple juice and orange juice, both refreshing, but tasting quite different. The bit about most people of the day cringing when they heard the Beatles harmonize is right on, though, as most ears were tuned to a "Perry Como" or "Dean Martin" style of singing back then. The Lettermen probably came closer to that. And then you have the whole Doo-Wop thing to contend with. And, even the illustrious Beach Boys have had a few gigs where their harmonies sounded a trifle off. I saw an infomercial on AMC that revealed that Brian Wilson doubled a lot of their harmony parts...fattened them nicely. But, IMO, the true mark of a classic is how well it wears over time, and I don't think either The Beatles or The Beach Boys have a thing to worry about...
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b] comparing the Beatles to the Beach Boys is like comparing apple juice and orange juice, both refreshing, but tasting quite different.[/b][/quote] [b]Big amen![/b] [quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]But, IMO, the true mark of a classic is how well it wears over time, and I don't think either The Beatles or The Beach Boys have a thing to worry about...[/b][/quote][b]Big BIG Amen!![/b]
-- Music has miracle potential --
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the harmonies on the early Beatle recordings it should be mentioned that the entire album took 3 hours to make. Since these weren't even multitrack recordings that included the mix since there wasn't any! Production values sure have changed and technology permitted this. I still contend that the Beatles sang pretty good- for white guys! :D :D

Mac Bowne

G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.

Osaka, Japan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting how "cool" as a life-style concept is becoming an antiquated notion. Chances are, if you think you're "cool", you're probably extreamly uncool to some particular social group or another. At least in a fashion sense; there isn't a dominant "cool" theme anymore. Cool is being yourself while being aware of what "cool" is thought of in differing social groups. No one is perfectly cool, unless they were cool prior to 1977: for instance people like James Brown, Sean Connery, Raquel Whelch, Johnny Carson. Past that era, a person *trying* to be cool is just trying to relive a prior social era in some manner - probably poorly. Unfortunately, the biggest shortcoming of modern society is the acceptance of the mediocre and the restraint of celebrating the truly great.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by gtrmac@hotmail.com: [b]I still contend that the Beatles sang pretty good- for white guys! :D :D [/b][/quote] And if it wasn't for the black singers that influenced 'em they'd probably have sounded like a bunch of Pat Boones (AUGHGHG).
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]I guess I don't know which side you refer to, friend, but thanks for the perceptions. Certainly not the affluent side, nor jaded, hopefully not the ignorant side. [/b][/quote] Sorry mate no offence intended. I guess the figure of speech got away on me a bit there. I only meant to question your statement that there was more poverty in the 60s Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lovesinger, I just don't think you get it, dude. Whether a high school choir teacher would think the Beatles sing great harmony or not is irrelevent. The Beatles' harmonies should not be judged by the same standards as a choir. And no, I don't mean the standards should be "lower", they are just different. A choir can't deliver like the Beatles either (and just for the record I personally much prefer the early Beatles harmonies to the later, more "mature" ones). And the Stones shouldn't give every garage band hope. There are zillions of garage bands and none of them deliver what the Stones do. They are not a "sub-average" band by the standards by which they should be judged. And if you don't understand those standards, that's OK, but it always cracks me up to see people judging rock'n'roll sheerly by technical merit. It's like saying Peanuts sucks because Charles Schultz isn't Van Gogh. --Lee [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Lee Flier ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] Whether a high school choir teacher would think the Beatles sing great harmony or not is irrelevent [/b][/quote] HAHAHA...reminds me of that bit on Saturday Night Live with the two high school music teachers...
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone pointed out that the Beatles were imitating girl groups as far as their singing. Mr. Postman and all that stuff was done by girl singing groups. I was a total Stones freak when I started playing though. I remember listening to Stones singles on my friends father's HiFi. Man their stuff sounded great! I'm talking about around '64 '65. I saw them live in '64 and they sucked but I still loved them because they knew how to generate a riot and they dressed great. I read an interview with their engineer from the old days and he said that the Stones could go from being the worst band in the world to the greatest depending on how they felt. I still like them best from when they were a blues and R&B band though.

Mac Bowne

G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.

Osaka, Japan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] :D And what is it with Mick Jagger? Was there an accident short after birth or something?[/b][/quote] Rumor has it that he was a difficult birth. The doctor had to use the [i]"Salad Tongs"[/i] to get him out of there. :eek:
So Many Drummers. So Little Time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] The Stones suck. Seriously.[/b][/quote] You're just jealous. :D [quote][b]Just because you can write catchy songs with three chords doesn't mean you're an Icon. heh [/b][/quote] That's true, but if you can write catchy songs with three chords and play them the way the Stones do, you ARE an icon. And I can't help it if you can't understand the difference between what the Stones do and what any old hack garage band does - maybe you had an accident at birth? :D --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]By that I just mean pure chromatic vocal intonation, Ted. The Beatles' were undoubtably great ... with only their reported 65 Watt amp setup, their overall musical effect was [b]wonderfully[/b] appealing, and their tunes standout TODAY for their mysterious uniqueness in a sea of diminished musical creativity. But listening to even possibly "remastered to perfection" anthology collections and focusing (not even with much effort) on the vocal blends there's an evident struggle to harmonize (tho I'm sure they didn't worry about it -- they sound on record like they had more fun jamming together than most recordings in existentence). The Sgt. Pepper stuff was better in that regard __ for one thing their voices were more matured past the occasional post-adolescent 'blatch' that marks many males' early young adult years. But earlier vocal work, as much as I'm endeared to them overall, might grunge the ears and concerns of the average high school choir teacher. Just one man's perceptions of course.[/b][/quote] Skirting aside the ugly issue as to whether some random choir teacher has any qualification to judge the merits of the Beatles arrangements, I'd like to make a few personal observations. Firstly, choirs sing in four parts (usually) with limited accompaniment. The Beatles had lots of accompaniment, so they didn't need four parts. Their songs usually featured a solo lead vocal with occasional harmonies for effect, or in some cases, the two part harmony that was extremely popular in the early 60's. Suggesting that the Beatles harmony does not fulfill the qualifications of choir harmony is like saying that a Corvette doesn't make a very good off-road vehicle. Secondly, the Beatles started life as imitators of American blues and R&B artists. Blues has a different harmonic structure than traditional choral music. Finally, in every Beatles song that I've heard to date, the vocal harmonies fit both the mood of the song AND its underlying harmonic structure perfectly. If you know of some examples that didn't work out as well, please feel free to bring them to my attention. I'll be happy to discuss them with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]Hall, I know you're a savvy MP'er so I guess youre joking about the Stones. In case not, they're possibly one of music history's most sub-average bands (with a more than decent rock guitarist and great British production) to ever become superstars, the "bad boys" of the British Invasion with a fluidly spastic entertaining lead singer Mic Jagger, whose most endearing original artistic accomplishment (to me) was Ruby Tuesday (it's a good listen, find if u can). They were and are awesomely popular and should give "if THEY can make it big surely WE can" hope to many bands at whatever skill level (as long as they vibe well together). [/b][/quote] Oh, OK, yeah i think i know those guys then. I totally agree with you about the decent guitarist, i really liked the way that that guy swung his arm around and played with his teeth. Great stuff man. Thanks for the heads up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b] Oh, OK, yeah i think i know those guys then. I totally agree with you about the decent guitarist, i really liked the way that that guy swung his arm around and played with his teeth. Great stuff man. Thanks for the heads up.[/b][/quote] Yeah, and the "duck walk" bit while he was playing his 335 truly cracked me up... :D
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by felix: [b]Judging from this thread - apparently the 60's aren't back - but you guys are definitely back in the 60's![/b][/quote] 'When people say "You're showing your age; you're stuck in the '60s," I think, "Listen motherfucker, you're stuck in the '90s. Where would you rather be, if you had a choice?" I'd still rather be around crazy hippies than obedient consumers.' -- Ray Manzarek of the Doors, in an interview with musicplayer.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a great quote, Lee! LMAO! I only said you guys were stuck in the 60's because the thread had devolved into a Beatles/Beach Boys/Rolling Stones debate. As for whether the 60's are back, I'm not sure. Fashion seems to still be somewhat 70's driven, though I've noticed some 80's influence lately. In music I'm noticing a resurgence of the singer-songwriter as the whole pop music thing implodes. But I don't see the singer-songwriter genre overtaking the hip hop phenomenon, not even in my wildest dreams. I think the dynamics of life and times in 2001 are so far removed from the 60's (as much as I know - I was only alive for 4 years that decade) that it will never be that way again. Nothing wrong with wishing it could be, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, nothing is "back", nothing is dominant, there isn't such a thing as "cool" anymore. Saturday night I go see a room mate's band play at the local "Big Gen-X/Alt/Underground Club". The opening band featured a piercing fetish guy sing like a diseased Elvis fronting a shockabilly band dressed in red cardigans. My room mate's band does the Americana thing, Driving N' Cryin meets "whatever", plus covers of Willie Nelson songs and Motley Crue. The same crowd loved both bands. In the crowd you've got yuppie types dressed like they do at their stockbroker/banker/whatever jobs. Hippies. Rastas. Wanna-be beatnik types. The occasional older post-metal rocker. Sitting next to me was a friend and her Horde of Hot Babe Friends, one wearing a cowboy hat looking like she walked off the set of a contemporary country video, one dressed like a goth in mourning, one typical college t-shirt attire, one in a sort of evening dress. The owner of the place, a friend that I went to school with and used to teach at that same school, wears a t-shirt sporting subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatista Liberation Army, jeans. Sitting next to me on the other side is a guy in Docs with liberty spikes in his (blue) hair. One of the bartenders is dressed in a sort of 20's "dime store flapper" get up. I'll be playing at this place next week doing an experimental "something" with one of the bartenders, doing basically "space music". This guy plays standup bass really well, but also has two trunks of toys that makes sounds and a saxaphone; I'll be doing "whatever else" and I'll also have the Dan Gifted Nord Lead while I'm looping chords or "whatever". People at the same place, most of the same people that packed this place out above, will come and hang out and listen to this as well. This same place has modern jazz on wednesdays where all the old, OLD school guys (in their 60's/70's) come hang out with all the ruffians. http://www.soulbar.com/calendar.htm This place has been voted "Augusta's Best Nightspot" many times. *This* is what the future is: a gumbo of things, not one predominant trend. A large number of the people that go to this place are trendbots, but I think it's becoming apparent that that is sort of an antiquated concept - everyone jokes about it. About the only thing that's unanimously accepted as being "not cool" are mullets. That, and people trying to mold their look into something they're not. There's 60's retro types there, but they hang out with people that are into techno, or look like hicks, or whatever. Nothing in fashion is "coming back" - nothing is going to dominate again because everyone is jaded now.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, now that i got to make my last little joke there, i can brag about how proud i am that i actually got people to argue over how good(bad) the Rolling stones are.! HA.Laughing out loud!!!!!! Lovesinger, that was a fabulous desciption of who they were,I was hoping for more.(NOTE I SAID WHO THEY "WERE"). These guys are so 'has been' it is embarassing. Mick in his Flourescent pink and blue tights, all old and shit,jumping around making those godawful sounds with his mouth. AND WOrSE THAN THAT IS DARRYL JONES UP THERE TAKIN THE GIG! Oh i bet the Homies been razzin him for a few years solid now! WHAT A CATASTROPHE. Actually Keith can still play. But man o man, It is over, it is so over. :eek: [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: halljams ]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah felix and Chip, really I pretty much agree with you that massive "trends" are kinda a thing of the past in themselves and that the future will consist of a lot of diverse and fragmented little "scenes" instead. I don't know if that's necessarily because we are jaded, but rather because a lot of people have discovered that they don't have to take what is force fed to them by the mass markets and feel a greater sense of freedom of choice when it comes to things like music and fashion. IMO, in most respects that's a good thing. On the other hand, there WAS something cool about that feeling of a new record taking the world by storm. Maybe in some sense that was a false feeling anyway, because as a friend of mine said all the way back in the early 80's, "If a record sells a million copies in the U.S., so what? That means there are 239 million people who DIDN'T buy it! What are THEY listening to?" LOL... when you really think about it, "trends" have victimized more people than they have benefited. A few people get very rich off them and a few more people get to think they're really cool and important for some brief period of time by wearing the "latest" clothes and listening to the "hippest" music - but that's about it. The vast majority of us have either ignored trends or been made fun of for not following them - yet many still cling to the dream that one day OUR thing will be the "cool" thing, even if it's an underground sort of cool. We still want that shared response, that feeling of community, of belonging and fitting in. Human nature, but hard to achieve in a massive society like ours. Bottom line, even though it probably won't make me rich, I like today's climate a lot better. It really does feel like there's room for everybody to be heard, even though it may seem harder to get anyone to pay attention. And it is deeply soul-satisfying for me to be in a band with other people who genuinely don't give a rat's ass whether we are "cool" or "trendy" or "retro" or "modern" or not. Sure we want to be heard by people, but not at the expense of caring about such things. It's all about the music and whether we love it, not what somebody else thinks we ought to like, and I'll take that over being back in the 60's and being "trendy" any day. --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading Chip's post that sums up the diversity of the "scene" in his town, I wondered if that isn't the "real" legacy of the 60's-that different is good. It made me want to pack up and move there, to meet all those people and hear all those different sounds. My understanding of the 60's is that somehow the times were conducive to a virtual explosion of creative artistic expression. And that people were very "hungry" for that expression. So many great styles came into their own in that era. Reading Lee's posts, I was struck by her deep affection for the Stones. And I can really relate. I super-dig The Who. I had Who's Next and several others on vinyl when I was about 17, and even though it was ten years out of date, approximately, I just thought it was killer. When music really moves you, I think it has little to do with the issue of whether you're hearing the greatest guitarist in the world or just hearing a guitarist who's "on". The whole guitar-shootout hierarchy of supremacy thing, as talked-about as it is, is basically a dead end. If the song and the vibe are timeless, then a competent guitar player is the right one for the job. You know it when you feel it. Well, I'll wrap this opinion piece up by saying that I hear a lot of fab music coming out these days. Anybody else digging Lenny Kravitz? Lee, I'm curious how you feel about the Black Crowes, too. Until soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...