|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 21, 2015 5:55:03 GMT -5
Pretty absurd comments here from Davy... he says that The Beatles were the first manufactured band, not The Monkees . Then he believes that The Beatles' hairstyle and boots came from OLIVER !
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 21, 2015 16:33:07 GMT -5
Sadly, we only have what he said - he can't answer back for himself now.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 21, 2015 17:36:50 GMT -5
Sadly, we only have what he said - he can't answer back for himself now. John Lennon can't answer back for himself either now, yet it doesn't stop others from saying whenever they felt John said or did something stupid. And what Davy Jones claims here is utterly stupid. But I'm not sure how it matters if he can't answer back now, anyway? People may always react to a stupid comment, whether the person who said it is still here or not.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 21, 2015 21:32:06 GMT -5
Sadly, we only have what he said - he can't answer back for himself now. That won't be a problem for Paul many years from now. The Macca Mad Hatters will speak for him forever and beat down any opposition, even loyal opposition, by whatever means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 1:08:00 GMT -5
The Monkees are a joke, Davy Jones knew that when he made those ridiculous comments.
The Monkees spent a good deal of their lives searching for credibility, Davy definitely didn't find any under that rock....
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 22, 2015 18:06:59 GMT -5
I think Davy Jones' rock'n'roll integrity was proven when he appeared on 'The Brady Bunch'...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 22, 2015 22:32:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 23:26:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jul 23, 2015 22:58:19 GMT -5
But Jones did have the good sense of humor to appear in THE BRADY BUNCH MOVIE.
And yeah his comments on th4 Beatles are stupid!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 25, 2015 21:31:14 GMT -5
Besides dredging up an old video whose subject matter has already been addressed, Davy Jones actually makes a very good point and valid observation if you REALLY listen to what he's saying. First, his admiration and affection for the Beatles is obviously genuine and he's not putting them down at all. Note the high regard he had for George Harrison as a musician and songwriter. Second, when you really look hard at the Beatles history, and Mark Lewisohn sort of backs this up in his Tune In book, the Beatles image was manufactured. Let's be honest. They wouldn't even have gotten out of England, let alone Liverpool, if Brian Epstein hadn't gotten them out of the leathers and into smart suits and cleaned up their rougher image to make a much more presentable appeal for a broader and wider audience. If Brian hadn't cleaned them up and reshaped their image, they would never have been able to set a foot on the Ed Sullivan stage, let alone get any kind of record deal. In that regard, Davy Jones was correct in stating that the Beatles "clean" image was to an extent manufactured in order to appeal to the widest audience possible. Third, buy my book and maybe you'll learn a little bit more about the Monkees. Link: Old Fred's Monkees Book
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2015 6:36:44 GMT -5
Second, when you really look hard at the Beatles history, and Mark Lewisohn sort of backs this up in his Tune In book, the Beatles image was manufactured. Let's be honest. They wouldn't even have gotten out of England, let alone Liverpool, if Brian Epstein hadn't gotten them out of the leathers and into smart suits and cleaned up their rougher image to make a much more presentable appeal for a broader and wider audience. If Brian hadn't cleaned them up and reshaped their image, they would never have been able to set a foot on the Ed Sullivan stage, let alone get any kind of record deal. In that regard, Davy Jones was correct in stating that the Beatles "clean" image was to an extent manufactured in order to appeal to the widest audience possible. Hold on, Fred. First, let me say that I like Davy and The Monkees in general very much -- and I don't want this to become a "Beatles Vs. Monkees" thing. But let's not mistake the Beatles' marketing strategy as them "being a manufactured band". There IS a difference there. With The Monkees, they were totally manufactured from Day One.. they were placed together by someone else, and the songs were made for them, and so on... With The Beatles, they were formed all on their own. They played instruments all on their own, and they wrote their songs all on their own. Even when they got a record deal, they insisted on recording their own work for their own singles. It was pretty ballsy of them to tell their new producer "we don't want to record HOW DO YOU DO IT, we only record out own stuff". Of course I fully agree that The Beatles were MARKETED (which is not the same thing as "manufactured"). And they all went along pretty willingly to help their image. But I think there is a very thin line when people (Davy included) often try to cross it with saying "The Beatles Were MANUFACTURED". The word should be "marketed", not manufactured -- and there is a difference. Davy specifically specifies here: "The Beatles were the first -- NOT The Monkees...", which indicates to me that he was trying to shake off that "The Monkees Were A Manufactured Group" stigma, and instead push it off to The Beatles. Now, like I said at the top ... I really do like The Monkees (and I think they belong in the RNR HOF)... but sorry, it was The Monkees who were the first "manufactured" group. The Beatles were marketed well, but it wouldn't have done enough for them and kept them the legends they are over 50 years today if the MUSIC wasn't the main selling point.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 26, 2015 8:40:36 GMT -5
...the Beatles image was manufactured. Let's be honest. Except Davy doesn't say their image was manufactured. He says " The Beatles were the first manufactured group". Giant, king-sized difference. (And by the way, Lewisohn doesn't back that up at all -- in fact, he goes out of his way to point out how the thing that made The Beatles different was how completely natural their image and style was.) They wouldn't even have gotten out of England, let alone Liverpool, if Brian Epstein hadn't gotten them out of the leathers and into smart suits and cleaned up their rougher image to make a much more presentable appeal for a broader and wider audience. If Brian hadn't cleaned them up and reshaped their image, they would never have been able to set a foot on the Ed Sullivan stage, let alone get any kind of record deal. That's complete nonsense. Within a year of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan (that is, 1965), pop groups were out of suits and starting to wear casual clothes. The Beatles would have done the same. Ed Sullivan didn't even know what they looked like when he booked them. Besides which, The Beatles had become the biggest group in Liverpool and were invited to appear on BBC radio to over a million listeners before they ever wore suits. I realize Davy Jones was a fan of The Beatles, but it's sad that he couldn't face the reality that The Monkees were completely manufactured when The Beatles weren't.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 26, 2015 14:52:32 GMT -5
Second, when you really look hard at the Beatles history, and Mark Lewisohn sort of backs this up in his Tune In book, the Beatles image was manufactured. Let's be honest. They wouldn't even have gotten out of England, let alone Liverpool, if Brian Epstein hadn't gotten them out of the leathers and into smart suits and cleaned up their rougher image to make a much more presentable appeal for a broader and wider audience. If Brian hadn't cleaned them up and reshaped their image, they would never have been able to set a foot on the Ed Sullivan stage, let alone get any kind of record deal. In that regard, Davy Jones was correct in stating that the Beatles "clean" image was to an extent manufactured in order to appeal to the widest audience possible. Hold on, Fred. First, let me say that I like Davy and The Monkees in general very much -- and I don't want this to become a "Beatles Vs. Monkees" thing. But let's not mistake the Beatles' marketing strategy as them "being a manufactured band". There IS a difference there. With The Monkees, they were totally manufactured from Day One.. they were placed together by someone else, and the songs were made for them, and so on... With The Beatles, they were formed all on their own. They played instruments all on their own, and they wrote their songs all on their own. Even when they got a record deal, they insisted on recording their own work for their own singles. It was pretty ballsy of them to tell their new producer "we don't want to record HOW DO YOU DO IT, we only record out own stuff". Of course I fully agree that The Beatles were MARKETED (which is not the same thing as "manufactured"). And they all went along pretty willingly to help their image. But I think there is a very thin line when people (Davy included) often try to cross it with saying "The Beatles Were MANUFACTURED". The word should be "marketed", not manufactured -- and there is a difference. Davy specifically specifies here: "The Beatles were the first -- NOT The Monkees...", which indicates to me that he was trying to shake off that "The Monkees Were A Manufactured Group" stigma, and instead push it off to The Beatles. Now, like I said at the top ... I really do like The Monkees (and I think they belong in the RNR HOF)... but sorry, it was The Monkees who were the first "manufactured" group. The Beatles were marketed well, but it wouldn't have done enough for them and kept them the legends they are over 50 years today if the MUSIC wasn't the main selling point. I agree with this-"marketed" vs. "manufactured". Davy was reaching a bit here. The Monkees became a great and real "garage band". HOF? Definitely. Musically they were better musicians than acts in the HOF like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Love the Ramones, but they were high energy three chord Rock and Roll. I would argue though that the Supremes were manufactured!!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 26, 2015 17:20:38 GMT -5
Davy was reaching a bit here. A lot. The Monkees became a great and real "garage band". Uhh... Musically they were better musicians than acts in the HOF like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. No way. Two of the Monkees were actors who'd never done music seriously when they were signed to a TV show. The Ramones were good musically, as were Steve Jones and Glen Matlock (original bassist) of the Sex Pistols. The Monkees had one good musician, one guy who was at pub-night level, and two actors. I would argue though that the Supremes were manufactured!! The Supremes were not manufactured. The three of them (four, at first) were already together, singing for friends, years before Berry Gordy got a hold of them. I think some people -- and Davy Jones -- are confusing "manufactured" for "groomed by a manager/producer".
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 26, 2015 18:37:45 GMT -5
Davy was reaching a bit here. A lot. The Monkees became a great and real "garage band". Uhh... Musically they were better musicians than acts in the HOF like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. No way. Two of the Monkees were actors who'd never done music seriously when they were signed to a TV show. The Ramones were good musically, as were Steve Jones and Glen Matlock (original bassist) of the Sex Pistols. The Monkees had one good musician, one guy who was at pub-night level, and two actors. I would argue though that the Supremes were manufactured!! The Supremes were not manufactured. The three of them (four, at first) were already together, singing for friends, years before Berry Gordy got a hold of them. I think some people -- and Davy Jones -- are confusing "manufactured" for "groomed by a manager/producer". Boy panther, when you show your ignorance of the Monkees, you REALLY step in it! Perhaps Davy meant marketed instead of manufactured when talking about the Beatles. He's no longer around to clarify and expand on his opinion, so all we have is a quote that is nearly ten years old to begin with. Two of the Monkees never did music seriously before the TV series? Really? Oy! How many times do I have to respond to such ignorant statements? Davy Jones was a musical theater artist in England and Broadway and earned a Tony Award nomination for his role as the Artful Dodger in 'Oliver!', and with the Monkees became a decent enough musician on guitar, bass, drums and piano besides percussion. Micky Dolenz learned and played Spanish guitar when he was a ten year old actor in Circus Boy, his first TV series in the 1950's, and he did promotional tours around the country for that show doing a musical act. As he got older he formed and performed in several bands playing several of the Los Angeles clubs before landing his role in the Monkees where he was cast as the drummer, and with his acting training, learned to play the drums proficiently enough to perform on tour as well as on the Monkees records. As the years progressed Micky developed into an excellent drummer, Frank Zappa even considered him as the drummer in the Mothers of Invention after the Monkees. (Google it, it's true!) Dolenz is still an active actor, director, author and artist and is highly regarded in the Broadway community. Michael Nesmith was very well known on the L.A. Music scene prior to the Monkees and has proven himself many times over to be an excellent musician and songwriter as well as a renaissance man in the field of Music Video, being the first, FIRST, major music artist to win a Grammy Award for Music Video. He's been a movie producer, book author and an Internet innovator and is a highly regarded and respected artist in the Industry. I take it you're referring to Peter Tork as the "pub night level" musician. Tork was and is considered the best musician in the Monkees, having done serious music study and is proficient on multiple instruments. You can hear his distinctive keyboard playing on songs like 'Pleasant Valley Sunday', 'Daydream Believer' among many Monkees tracks, especially on 'Headquarters' where he plays keyboards, guitar and bass. Outside the Monkees, Tork has his own band Shoe Suede Blues who perform and tour around the country. Before the Monkees, Tork came out of the same Greenwich Village Music scene as Bob Dylan, Stephen Stills, the Mamas & the Papas and was part of the same L.A. Music Scene as Nesmith and hung out in the same company with the Buffalo Springfield, Janis Joplin among others. Peter is still highly regarded as a musician and I've had people come up to me after a Monkees concert who have never attended one before being surprised and praising Tork on his incredible musicianship. We've had this dance before, so I'm not going to waste much more time on this. You're welcome to check out my book if you want, or you don't have to if you don't want to, whatever pleases you. Now, if you don't mind, I'll just hang around with folks who appreciate the Monkees. Peter Asher at recent Micky Dolenz SOLD OUT Broadway cabaret show earlier this month, Mr. Asher graciously allowed me to take this photo. By the way, Elvis Costello attended the same solo Michael Nesmith concert I did in New York in 2013, I was sitting just a few seats away from him.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 26, 2015 21:04:40 GMT -5
Good grief!
Look, I have nothing against the Monkees -- they were a briefly super-successful teen industry, the same as New Kids on the Block or Justin Bieber. Nothing more, nothing less. With some good commercial songwriters and a major American corporation behind them, they produced a few good pop hits that were mostly played by other musicians. Fine, if that floats your boat.
Mike Nesmith was a good musician. However, the issue of whether or not they could play their instruments is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're talking about whether or not they were manufactured. They were. The Beatles obviously were not. Difference.
You can go on and on (and presumably do, in your book) about how wonderful The Monkees are as musicians, and how so-and-so went on to do this or that. Doesn't matter a whit. The fact is: they were 100% manufactured for commercial consumption by 12-year-olds.
And what are those photos supposed to prove? We all know Jack Nicholson made a movie with them and that The Beatles are not music elitists. Paul's photo with a Monkee does not mean he liked The Monkees.
The Monkees may (or may not) have developed into a passable quartet for live shows and minor-success albums by 1968/69, but they only did so because a TV show's production team put them together in the first place. It's incredibly ingenuous (and absurdly ignorant) of Davy Jones to suggest a parallel with The Beatles, a group that worked together from its mid-teens and then set the template for all 60s' rock bands.
Jones' apparent jealousy and fatigue about being asked about The Beatles does not excuse his ridiculous comment.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 26, 2015 21:24:48 GMT -5
Paul's photo with a Monkee does not mean he liked The Monkees. Posted originally by our Fearless Leader Steve, who has also written a Monkees book, too. link: Paul Defends Monkees - 1967
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 27, 2015 2:41:16 GMT -5
Again, whether Paul likes The Monkees or not (and let's be honest, he doesn't) is not the relevant point. What's relevant is that The Monkees were completely manufactured, while The Beatles were not.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 27, 2015 7:45:12 GMT -5
Davy was reaching a bit here. A lot. The Monkees became a great and real "garage band". Uhh... Musically they were better musicians than acts in the HOF like the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. No way. Two of the Monkees were actors who'd never done music seriously when they were signed to a TV show. The Ramones were good musically, as were Steve Jones and Glen Matlock (original bassist) of the Sex Pistols. The Monkees had one good musician, one guy who was at pub-night level, and two actors. I would argue though that the Supremes were manufactured!! The Supremes were not manufactured. The three of them (four, at first) were already together, singing for friends, years before Berry Gordy got a hold of them. I think some people -- and Davy Jones -- are confusing "manufactured" for "groomed by a manager/producer". I'm not sure if you are a musician. I am. I've seen the Ramones and I've seen the Monkees. Maybe the Ramones outside of their "niche" could pull together some non-three chord songs but they rarely showed it. And Glen Matlock might have been a good bassist, but Syd might as well have been Stu Sutcliffe he was so messed up. The Ramones and Pistols were very influential early pioneers of punk and belong in the hall, but if you want to pick apart the Monkees for lack of musicianship that is a poor arguement. And while my point of them becoming a good "garage band" points them more in the direction of the bands mentioned here, they also oversaw production of solid pop and country rock, whether they wrote it or not. And some of the Supremes singing at family parties hardly qualifies for "hard knocks".
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 27, 2015 8:16:02 GMT -5
I forget the name of the group, but there was one featured in the Wrecking Crew movie that was completely manufactured. Didn't even perform on their records.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 27, 2015 9:45:36 GMT -5
I forget the name of the group, but there was one featured in the Wrecking Crew movie that was completely manufactured. Didn't even perform on their records. The Beach Boys? The Byrds? Buffalo Springfield? I'm not as passionate about the Monkees as Fred, and yes of course they were completely manufactured. However to me as a musician influenced by both these kind of acts and studio musicians like the Clique (Wrecking Crew) and Booker T-it is a cool Pinocchio story-that the Monkees actually had pretty good musical chops, enough to go on stage and perform, and even make a number 1 album even if it took 100 takes on each song. I can play Beatle songs rather easy, but I can't play Yes songs easy, does that make the Beatles sucky?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 27, 2015 9:48:42 GMT -5
I forget the name of the group, but there was one featured in the Wrecking Crew movie that was completely manufactured. Didn't even perform on their records. The Beach Boys? The Byrds? Buffalo Springfield? I'm not as passionate about the Monkees as Fred, and yes of course they were completely manufactured. However to me as a musician influenced by both these kind of acts and studio musicians like the Clique (Wrecking Crew) and Booker T-it is a cool Pinocchio story-that the Monkees actually had pretty good musical chops, enough to go on stage and perform, and even make a number 1 album even if it took 100 takes on each song. I can play Beatle songs rather easy, but I can't play Yes songs easy, does that make the Beatles sucky? Wasn't it "The Association"?
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 27, 2015 10:12:26 GMT -5
No, not The Association. It was around the time Gary Lewis was being interviewed. They had to recruit an all new band to go on tour. May have been surf music. I'll have to look it up.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 27, 2015 10:24:47 GMT -5
No, not The Association. It was around the time Gary Lewis was being interviewed. They had to recruit an all new band to go on tour. May have been surf music. I'll have to look it up. Jan and Dean? They were sort of a vocal group anyway.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jul 27, 2015 10:35:50 GMT -5
I think it was the Marketts.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 27, 2015 11:53:44 GMT -5
Great story about The Byrds in both the Wrecking Crew book and movie, both required reading and viewing. I think it was David Crosby who complained about the Wrecking Crew playing all the music on the Byrds' first records and he assisted on the next record the Byrds would play all the instruments. The thing was while the Crew got a track down in no time flat with time to spare, it took the Byrds many hours and multiple takes just to get the drum and guitar sound right!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 28, 2015 20:16:19 GMT -5
I think it was David Crosby who complained about the Wrecking Crew playing all the music on the Byrds' first records Let's clarify that one -- The Wrecking Crew plus Roger McGuinn played on "Mr. Tambourine Man" (A-side) and "I Knew I'd Want You" (B-side -- a Byrd original), and that's it. They didn't play on the rest of the Byrds' first album, or any of the others.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 28, 2015 22:17:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 29, 2015 10:12:20 GMT -5
Interesting article, Fred!
Hal Blaine says:
"I recall that the Byrds' drummer Michael Clarke hated that I played on Mr. Tambourine Man. He was probably the only drummer in any band who resented me recording and helping to make their first single a hit."
Not so fast Hal, you are forgetting The Partridge Family's drummer controversy, the biggest band controversy since the Ringo Starr/Pete Best debacle of The Beatles!
Original PF drummer Jeremy Gelbwaks was madder than hell to be replaced by Hal Blaine in the recording studio but not live appearances as filmed for the show! And he spoke his mind! The show's producers made up nonsense to fire Jeremy like he was immature, that he bit people on the set, that he was not fair skinned like the rest(possibly suggesting to the audience that Shirley Partridge had a love child while in an illicit love affair while Mr. Partridge was still alive) and other silly excuses.
Fair skinned and blonde/blue eyed Brian Forster was brought in and though an accomplished drummer for his age, Hal Blaine was still used for recordings. Forster though knew where his paychecks came from!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 29, 2015 17:35:14 GMT -5
Danny Partridge kept chasing after Ron DeKlein shouting "Where's our doggone money!"
|
|