Topic: 60's Music Thread

[garystooge]

Rich, that is a real cool Blue Cheer song.  A bit more mellow than what I'm used to from them, but I can dig it.  Interesting instrumentation, too.  Unless if my ears are lying to me, that sounds like a sitar

yeah, that's sitar and synth I think....good song but I wanna hear Dickie Peterson's vocals when I listen to Blue Cheer...I like their Original Human Being album best.

[Curly4444]

great song but that group is not a one-hit wonder by any means...Procol Harum had lots of great tunes & albums and is still touring today....

Were they hits though? Whiter shade of pale was the only one i knew of.

[Curly4444]

From the last of couple of posts ... you poor late born children have to deal with "messed with" versions of original '60s and 70's tunes. Like the tune "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells with the wonderful guitar interlude immersed in the song strangely deleted from your ears.

What's with all that blank space at the end? I had to edit it out.

[Rich Finegan]

What's with all that blank space at the end? I had to edit it out.

I wondered about that too. I was thinking, "Where did he find an almost eight-minute version?!"
But yes, it's just got a couple minutes of blank space at the end.

[JazzBill]

The music of the 60's wasn't without its flaws. We had stuff called "Bubblegum music". It was to the 60's what disco was to the 70's.

[youtube=425,350]h6Zs8qbExfs[/youtube]

[shemps#1]

I always thought "Yummy Yummy Yummy" was a good to start a killing spree too. Pure dreck.

[Curly4444]

I wondered about that too. I was thinking, "Where did he find an almost eight-minute version?!"
But yes, it's just got a couple minutes of blank space at the end.

I have the fixed edited version, but i dont know how to post attachments here.

[falsealarms]

This was my first love from 60s music:

[youtube=425,350]V6jxxagVEO4[/youtube]

For me, it remains one of the best of its time.

[falsealarms]

And by the way, if you could have attended just one, would you have rather went to Woodstock or Monterey?

[RICO987]

Since everyone’s posting 60s memories, I have to chime in with one of my favorites from then.  I always thought Eric Burton never received credit for being one of the best blues singers ever, at least imho.  Here is an example.  His vocal is live, not certain if the band was miming to a record.

[Rich Finegan]

Gary said:
Procol Harum - A Whiter Shade of Pale.

Great song but that group is not a one-hit wonder by any means...Procol Harum had lots of great tunes & albums and is still touring today....

"Whiter Shade of Pale" was of course Procol Harum's biggest hit, in the summer of 1967.
Their next single, "Homburg" a few months later did okay. Moderate-sized hit.
Then their next several singles through 1971 were not hits at all. At least not "Top 40" radio hits. They were popular on FM radio to various degrees, though. Some of these included "Quite Rightly So", "A Salty Dog", "Boredom", "Whiskey Train" and "Simple Sister".

Then...another hit! In 1972 they did very well (top ten on many charts) with a live version of an older song, "Conquistador".
Unfortunately, no more big AM radio hits for them after that.
I liked their 1973 single "Bringing Home the Bacon" a lot and bought the 45 while it was new, but my purchase of one copy didn't help to make it a hit.
The rest of their singles through the late 1970's again got FM radio play here & there, but not "Top 40".
Some of these were "Grand Hotel", "Nothing But the Truth", "Pandora's Box", and "Wizard Man". 

[garystooge]

The rest of their singles through the late 1970's again got FM radio play here & there, but not "Top 40".
Some of these were "Grand Hotel", "Nothing But the Truth", "Pandora's Box", and "Wizard Man".

I guess I'm just a bit defensive because I own more than dozen of their albums. Granted, none of PH's songs ever attained the status of Whiter Shade of Pale, but by the same token they weren't a singles band. It 's just that when I hear the term "one-hit wonder", to me it implies someone who had a brief career.

How about this for an analogy... Procol Harum is one-hit wonder just like the Grateful Dead were one-hit wonders ("Touch of Grey")? Valid or not?

[FineBari3]

And by the way, if you could have attended just one, would you have rather went to Woodstock or Monterey?

Oh, Monterey!  I'd get to see The Who's first appearance in the US!

...and The Who were a one-hit-wonder as well. Their only US top ten was "I Can See For Miles".

[metaldams]

How about this for an analogy... Procol Harum is one-hit wonder just like the Grateful Dead were one-hit wonders ("Touch of Grey")? Valid or not?

I know Procul Harum is an album oriented band who catered more so to their fan base than any mainstream success, so I know exactly what you mean, Gary.  Unfortunately, several people, including one of my best friends, equate relevance and success with top 40 radio success, and those people are missing out on so much great music.  You're a Kinks fan as am I, so since this friend of mine is so obsessed with the U.S. charts, he completely ignores the '66 - '71 period, is not very open minded to trying it, and feels LOW BUDGET is one of the great Kinks albums (For the record I like some songs off that album, but compared to ARTHUR?).

I remember back in the day, Islipp referred to Black Sabbath as a one-hit wonder band (!), again, completely missing the point of album rock and building a long term fan base.

[metaldams]

And by the way, if you could have attended just one, would you have rather went to Woodstock or Monterey?

Altamont.

Seriously though, I watched some of Woodstock on television recently, and I was shocked over how much of it is outdated.  Of course there were some good performances too, but it's not like the whole festival is this legendary stuff.  Sha-Na-Na?

Speaking of The Who, I just watched the Isle of Wight performance today for the first time at a friend's house, and it re-confirmed that The Who were probably the best live band ever.

[metaldams]

For your daily shits and giggles.  The first Deep Purple line-up (pre Ian Gillan and Roger Glover), appearing on Playboy's After Dark.  Ritchie Blackmore teaches Hef to play the guitar.  Deep Purple a little before their prime, but this gave me a laugh.


[youtube=425,350]qOrUR54HKwA[/youtube]


 

[Giff me dat fill-em!]

(Crimson and Clover) That was actually from my daughter, who I got the "long" version from. I edited out the blank myself, I just posted the wrong one!

[garystooge]

several people, including one of my best friends, equate relevance and success with top 40 radio success, and those people are missing out on so much great music

Unfortunately, when I was growing up in the early/mid-1960s, that's all there was to listen to, top-40 singles.  All the British Invasion groups and early rockers started out as singles groups.  An album typically started off with the hit single and was followed by 11 other assorted B-sides and covers....No track exceeded about 3 minutes, most were closer to 2 minutes. Most important feature in a song was dance-ability (when the kids rated records on "American Bandstand" that's all that mattered).
 
If it weren't for the advent of stereo in the mid-1960s, things might still be the same. But stereo led to the growth of FM radio which totally transformed music. By 1968 you could now hear tracks that AM radio couldn't/wouldn't play, that exceeded 3 minutes and that actually sounded good.  Lyrics became more important and freedom from the formulaic 2-minute verse/chorus/verse song format ushered in an unbelievable new era for creative and progressive songwriters and before long, hit singles became way less important.  Now all of a sudden there were "concept" albums, rock operas, live albums recorded with symphony orchestras (Procol Harum, cough, cough).  So while a handful of singles groups remained after 1968 (CCR is one that comes to mind), bottom line is that to judge the post -1968 rock groups by hit singles is unfair as most groups had gone off in a completely new direction. 

 

[garystooge]

And by the way, if you could have attended just one, would you have rather went to Woodstock or Monterey?

As great as those 2 events were, how about this line-up from the 1970 Isle of Wight concert:

Hendrix
The Who
The Doors
Jethro Tull
Chicago
Procol Harum
Ten Years After
Emerson Lake & Palmer
Sly & the Family Stone
Moody Blues
Free
Donovan
Tony Joe White
and many others

Would have liked to have seen that in person

[metaldams]

As great as those 2 events were, how about this line-up from the 1970 Isle of Wight concert:

Hendrix
The Who
The Doors
Jethro Tull
Chicago
Procol Harum
Ten Years After
Emerson Lake & Palmer
Sly & the Family Stone
Moody Blues
Free
Donovan
Tony Joe White
and many others

Would have liked to have seen that in person

Like I said, I just watched The Who's performance from that show and it was excellent.  I've seen a few songs from Tull's performance, but nothing else.  Looking at that list, that destroys Woodstock.

[metaldams]

Unfortunately, when I was growing up in the early/mid-1960s, that's all there was to listen to, top-40 singles.  All the British Invasion groups and early rockers started out as singles groups.  An album typically started off with the hit single and was followed by 11 other assorted B-sides and covers....No track exceeded about 3 minutes, most were closer to 2 minutes. Most important feature in a song was dance-ability (when the kids rated records on "American Bandstand" that's all that mattered).
 
If it weren't for the advent of stereo in the mid-1960s, things might still be the same. But stereo led to the growth of FM radio which totally transformed music. By 1968 you could now hear tracks that AM radio couldn't/wouldn't play, that exceeded 3 minutes and that actually sounded good.  Lyrics became more important and freedom from the formulaic 2-minute verse/chorus/verse song format ushered in an unbelievable new era for creative and progressive songwriters and before long, hit singles became way less important.  Now all of a sudden there were "concept" albums, rock operas, live albums recorded with symphony orchestras (Procol Harum, cough, cough).  So while a handful of singles groups remained after 1968 (CCR is one that comes to mind), bottom line is that to judge the post -1968 rock groups by hit singles is unfair as most groups had gone off in a completely new direction. 

 

What's your opinion on the whole Mono Vs. Stereo thing, then?  You obviously view stereo as a major progression (I agree it was eventually), but how do you feel about listening to say, a 1965 recording in mono vs. stereo?  Some of those early stereo mixes were quite crude.  Even later on in the sixties, I'm not too crazy about, say, the stereo mixes in "I Feel Free" or "Purple Haze."  WAY too much separation.

[stooged and confused]

What's your opinion on the whole Mono Vs. Stereo thing, then?  You obviously view stereo as a major progression (I agree it was eventually), but how do you feel about listening to say, a 1965 recording in mono vs. stereo?  Some of those early stereo mixes were quite crude.  Even later on in the sixties, I'm not too crazy about, say, the stereo mixes in "I Feel Free" or "Purple Haze."  WAY too much separation.

Most of that "stereo" back then wasn't really stereo, it was duophonic sound, evident on so many of the early Beatles songs. Their songs were always recorded in mono and remixed with duophonic (or fake stereo), with those mixes being done by tech guys at the record company rather than with producer George Martin, any of the Beatles or their engineers. The duophonic mixes were afterthoughts, for the most part.

[stooged and confused]

I always thought "Yummy Yummy Yummy" was a good to start a killing spree too. Pure dreck.

Of course it was crap, but unlike today, they didn't pretend it wasn't. The whole bubblegum thing was basically FM album rock counter programming for young kids. Actually, if you listen to the words to "Yummy Yummy", "Chewy Chewy"(also by Ohio Express) or "1-2-3 Red Light" by the 1910 Fruitgum Company, they are quite explicit for the type of material it actually is. Lots of sexual double en tendres were obscured by the cotton candy production of these songs. Some of them are more suggestive lyrically than their FM rock neighbors.

[garystooge]

What's your opinion on the whole Mono Vs. Stereo thing, then?  You obviously view stereo as a major progression (I agree it was eventually), but how do you feel about listening to say, a 1965 recording in mono vs. stereo?  Some of those early stereo mixes were quite crude.  Even later on in the sixties, I'm not too crazy about, say, the stereo mixes in "I Feel Free" or "Purple Haze."  WAY too much separation.

I grew up on mono because that's all there was in those days....tinny-sounding transistor AM-radios. and mono records.   I never knew what a bass guitar was because I never really heard one as a kid. Even after we got a stereo system I continued to buy mono records because they were cheaper. I think that stereo was a major progression because it hastened the growth of FM radio, but you're right, there are some horrible mixes that take 2 steps backwards. It's especially disconcerting to hear a singer's voice coming from the left channel and his instrument from the right channel.  Excessive separation was definitely an issue in the early days but somewhat understandable because sound engineers had a new toy to play with. Sort of like in "Spooks" where they obviously went out of their way to try and utilize the new 3-D effects.  But generally speaking, the combination of stereo recordings along with the increased availability of headphones and recreational drugs made music sound much better by 1975 than it had in 1965.  I still listen to some of the early Kinks stuff in mono, but that's about it.

[metaldams]

Most of that "stereo" back then wasn't really stereo, it was duophonic sound, evident on so many of the early Beatles songs. Their songs were always recorded in mono and remixed with duophonic (or fake stereo), with those mixes being done by tech guys at the record company rather than with producer George Martin, any of the Beatles or their engineers. The duophonic mixes were afterthoughts, for the most part.

I know the Beatles were about mono, and that's always the example I hear.  Did every other rock act in 1967 truly not care about the stereo mix?  You'd think some rock act in this experimental era would be able to see this new format coming along and want to try revolutionary things with it.  The first act I know of that blatantly dismissed mono was Led Zeppelin, but their debut came out in 1969 and by that time mono was dead, even in England.

By '67, while mono may have still been preferred, stereo mixes were definitely improving.  Perhaps the mono version of DISRAELI GEARS is the "correct" version (I'm not sure how Cream felt about this), for example, but it's not like the stereo version is all that bad.  Certainly compared to early - mid 60's stereo like PLEASE PLEASE ME, which is bloody awful.

Oh, and Gary, as I'm sure you know, the Kinks are one of the few bands, if you own the Sanctuary re-issues, whose 60's material is released strictly in Mono until '68.  I've never even heard FACE TO FACE in stereo.  You also mention not being able to hear bass in mono, but I think it's sometimes the opposite.  Maybe it was the actual system you were using and not the mix, but I can think of several mono mixes where the bass and drums are a lot punchier than stereo.