The Monkeys NEW ALBUM

[rct]

Now just hold on there Bubba....

 

What you mean comparing Bieber to these others?

 

My response was to the idea that somehow the Monkees get some kind of dispensation because they learned and grew or something like that. Bieber, Swift, Perry, Timberlake, all mega Pop Stars, these kids all play multiple instruments, they all participate in writing and production, they all participate in creating Pop Hits. Just like Monkees, Beatles, Zeppelin, anyone else that does exactly that. There is no special pass for the Monkees or anyone else. There was just as much songwriting/production/creation machinery behind all of the earliest pop acts as there is today, they happened to have been first or early. It is all Pop.

 

I do not understand how people that are supposedly involved in the creation and production of music in some capacity do not understand or refuse to acknowledge that it is all the same. Covering Zepelin, Monkees, Backstreet, and Beatles in one night is no less or more difficult for one band or era than another, it's all music, all made to make the audience do something, drink more, smoke more, hopefully dance more, fukk more, whatever.

 

rct

[jaxson50]

The nucleus of The Beatles had been together since 1956, when Paul meet John. On that day John already had a band, Paul soon joined and the two began learning and writing together, George joined them within two years, many members came and went,mbut the nucleus was secured. They spent time and lots of it, polishing their skills. When they recorded their first album it was a mix of covers and original material. With each album they provided more opand more original materials until all their material was original.

The Monkees on the other hand were created by producers who ran ads in the LA newspapers for auditions for four "parts".The music was provided for the winners of the auditions, the studio work was done for them mostly by the Wrecking Crew, and they were guaranteed a contract if the first season of the TV show was successful. The script was based on four young musicians struggles to make it in the music industry, while they drove expensive custom built automobiles and lived a nice life on the beaches of Southern California. This is a far stretch from pounding out a living playing in rough bars in Hamburg and in the Caverns of Liverpool.But if you insist there is no difference between a band that assembled itself and played for 5 years before finally getting a audition and failing the first one, then finally succeeded with their second one and went on to be the most popular band in history with a catalogue of over 200 songs written by themselves and a group of guys who never knew each other until the casting call went out, and two of them has to be taught how to play their intrumnents, and had studio musicians lay down all the tracks for them, and never had to play anything but concerts that where part of a contract....You must be right......

[daveinspain]

The nucleus of The Beatles had been together since 1956, when Paul meet John. On that day John already had a band, Paul soon joined and the two began learning and writing together, George joined them within two years, many members came and went,mbut the nucleus was secured. They spent time and lots of it, polishing their skills. When they recorded their first album it was a mix of covers and original material. With each album they provided more opand more original materials until all their material was original.

The Monkees on the other hand were created by producers who ran ads in the LA newspapers for auditions for four "parts".The music was provided for the winners of the auditions, the studio work was done for them mostly by the Wrecking Crew, and they were guaranteed a contract if the first season of the TV show was successful. The script was based on four young musicians struggles to make it in the music industry, while they drove expensive custom built automobiles and lived a nice life on the beaches of Southern California. This is a far stretch from pounding out a living playing in rough bars in Hamburg and in the Caverns of Liverpool.But if you insist there is no difference between a band that assembled itself and played for 5 years before finally getting a audition and failing the first one, then finally succeeded with their second one and went on to be the most popular band in history with a catalogue of over 200 songs written by themselves and a group of guys who never knew each other until the casting call went out, and two of them has to be taught how to play their intrumnents, and had studio musicians lay down all the tracks for them, and never had to play anything but concerts that where part of a contract....You must be right......

 

Can't argue with that!

[Big Bill]

Am I hearing Auto Tune??

 

[LPS1976]

Who is playing their instruments now the Wrecking Crew is gone.

 

the album was produced by Adam Schlesinger from Fountains of Wayne. I read he used the other guys in FOW minus the singer/guitarist.

[kelly campbell]

The nucleus of The Beatles had been together since 1956, when Paul meet John. On that day John already had a band, Paul soon joined and the two began learning and writing together, George joined them within two years, many members came and went,mbut the nucleus was secured. They spent time and lots of it, polishing their skills. When they recorded their first album it was a mix of covers and original material. With each album they provided more opand more original materials until all their material was original.

The Monkees on the other hand were created by producers who ran ads in the LA newspapers for auditions for four "parts".The music was provided for the winners of the auditions, the studio work was done for them mostly by the Wrecking Crew, and they were guaranteed a contract if the first season of the TV show was successful. The script was based on four young musicians struggles to make it in the music industry, while they drove expensive custom built automobiles and lived a nice life on the beaches of Southern California. This is a far stretch from pounding out a living playing in rough bars in Hamburg and in the Caverns of Liverpool.But if you insist there is no difference between a band that assembled itself and played for 5 years before finally getting a audition and failing the first one, then finally succeeded with their second one and went on to be the most popular band in history with a catalogue of over 200 songs written by themselves and a group of guys who never knew each other until the casting call went out, and two of them has to be taught how to play their intrumnents, and had studio musicians lay down all the tracks for them, and never had to play anything but concerts that where part of a contract....You must be right......

 

 

Well Said!

[vangoghsear]

The Beatles had three of the world's greatest songwriters (let's not forget that "Pop" is short for "Popular" music). The Beatles made music; the Monkees performed music.

[stein]

I kinda feel like a troll here, but what does the Beatles success and talents take away from the Monkees?

 

There ARE some things, and talents, the Monkees did that the Beatles did not, or didn't do as well.

 

The Beatles aren't the only band, and not everything they did was the best, and comparing every other band to the Beatles and saying they aren't as good or viable because they didn't do what they Beatles did every time is not a viable argument.

 

Did the Beatles stay together or reunite? No. Did they have to learn how to play in a matter of weeks? could they have? Could they dance?

 

Here is a genuine, "musician" question: Are they all or collectively as good as vocalist as the Monkees? If this is a competition, do the Monkees get a fair shot?

 

Just because the Monkees were PRODUCED, or even FORMED by production, that doesn't or shouldn't make any abilities or "musical achievements" automatically not exist.

 

A good point might be, you take ANY band that became as commercially successful, including the Beatles, the Stones, any of them, and compare what they were to what they were "produced" into on their first records, and you will see production.

 

So there!!!

 

Why don't we see what the album sounds like...or wait until they do some live shows here coming up before we say they can'r play, or aren't a REAL BAND.

[brad1]

I kinda feel like a troll here, but what does the Beatles success and talents take away from the Monkees?

 

There ARE some things, and talents, the Monkees did that the Beatles did not, or didn't do as well.

 

The Beatles aren't the only band, and not everything they did was the best, and comparing every other band to the Beatles and saying they aren't as good or viable because they didn't do what they Beatles did every time is not a viable argument.

 

Did the Beatles stay together or reunite? No. Did they have to learn how to play in a matter of weeks? could they have? Could they dance?

 

Here is a genuine, "musician" question: Are they all or collectively as good as vocalist as the Monkees? If this is a competition, do the Monkees get a fair shot?

 

Just because the Monkees were PRODUCED, or even FORMED by production, that doesn't or shouldn't make any abilities or "musical achievements" automatically not exist.

 

A good point might be, you take ANY band that became as commercially successful, including the Beatles, the Stones, any of them, and compare what they were to what they were "produced" into on their first records, and you will see production.

 

So there!!!

 

Why don't we see what the album sounds like...or wait until they do some live shows here coming up before we say they can'r play, or aren't a REAL BAND.

Here, Here.

I never understood why people always compare every band to the Beatles either.

You made some great points.

[cookieman15061]

I loved em both, have everything they ever recorded and consider them a major part of my youth.

Sinatra is a music legend but never wrote or played on his greatest recording so why should the monkees get all the flak?

[vangoghsear]

I'll go with 2. George was a fine songwriter once he got going, but L and M were leaps and bounds above George.

 

I'll concede this per my wording, mostly due to the fact that he did not produce as many good songs as L&M, and some of his songs are meh, but I like "Something" and "While my Guitar Gently Weeps" as much or more than any other Beatles' songs.

 

Back on topic, I am glad to see the Monkees put out another album. They are good entertainers. They or their producers picked great songwriters to work with them and the results were pleasant and highly listenable IMO.

[jaxson50]

1464216694[/url]' post='1772622']

I kinda feel like a troll here, but what does the Beatles success and talents take away from the Monkees?

 

There ARE some things, and talents, the Monkees did that the Beatles did not, or didn't do as well.

 

The Beatles aren't the only band, and not everything they did was the best, and comparing every other band to the Beatles and saying they aren't as good or viable because they didn't do what they Beatles did every time is not a viable argument.

 

Did the Beatles stay together or reunite? No. Did they have to learn how to play in a matter of weeks? could they have? Could they dance?

 

Here is a genuine, "musician" question: Are they all or collectively as good as vocalist as the Monkees? If this is a competition, do the Monkees get a fair shot?

 

Just because the Monkees were PRODUCED, or even FORMED by production, that doesn't or shouldn't make any abilities or "musical achievements" automatically not exist.

 

A good point might be, you take ANY band that became as commercially successful, including the Beatles, the Stones, any of them, and compare what they were to what they were "produced" into on their first records, and you will see production.

 

So there!!!

 

Why don't we see what the album sounds like...or wait until they do some live shows here coming up before we say they can'r play, or aren't a REAL BAND.

 

Two questions,

1. Who brought up The Beatles? It is ain't me, I responded,

 

2. What specifically did the Monkees do that the Beatles didn't ? I'm very curious...

 

[rct]

I brought up the Beatles, and here is why:

 

Have to agree with that.

They may have not started as musicians, but they DID learn how to play "instruments" (at least 2 of the 4 could sing REALLY well), and that there, takes talent to do it so quickly.

And yes, they do music as well as lots of bands. They deserve all the credit they get for their recordings and performances.

Might add, top notch entertainers they are, which a lot of bands lack in. Which also, is a genuine part of being a musician.

 

That is virtually every pop band one can think of. People our age like to slag and beat on the kids today, so I lumped up some modern day pop stars along with the Beatles and Zeppelin as examples that are and were exactly like the Monkees: Pop bands.

 

Call it whatever anyone wants, it's all Pop music. Worship the Beatles all anyone wants, they were just the first Pop band. I like the Beatles too, but if they hadn't done what they did someone else, Kinks maybe, woulda been first and we'd be having a whole different discussion.

 

So that's how the Beatles got in this, you can't really talk about Pop music without them.

 

rct

[quapman]

I gotta say. I truly believe the Beatles happened because of timing. Nothing else.

The time was ready for them. They filled a void that was waiting to be filled.

 

In fact I'm pretty sure that when they first went to the U.S. they thought they were going to have to

"make it" there all over again. They had no idea what was waiting for them at the airport.

The phenom had already started.

 

They are part of what created the "formula" for creating a pop band.

 

Let's face it. The Monkees were created using a formula the Beatles either directly or indirectly created.

 

Pretty white boys playing blues inspired rock and roll. The marketing writes itself.

[kelly campbell]

So Chuck Berry, Haley and the Comets and bands from the 50's like them were not Pop bands?? I dont buy that the Beatles just took it to another level and I agree timing played a part but there had to be exceptional talent there or it would not have happened for them. The Beatles were not the first just the best. Maybe not in the beginning but they evolved into the best.

[Tman]

So Chuck Berry, Haley and the Comets and bands from the 50's like them were not Pop bands?? I dont buy that the Beatles just took it to another level and I agree timing played a part but there had to be exceptional talent there or it would not have happened for them. The Beatles were not the first just the best. Maybe not in the beginning but they evolved into the best.

 

Yep

[kelly campbell]

We can label any genre of music, but for me there are 2 types of music. Music I like and music I don't. Call it jazz, rock, pop, country ect.

 

 

I like that !

[RowdyMoon]

Yes the Monkees were fabricated to be a U.S version of the Beatles, Yes 2 out 4 of the Monkees could play thier own instruments from day one.......I like them, and I like the righting styles of Boyce / Hart as well.......The Monkees weren't the only fabricated band in history.....don't forget about The Sex Pistols or Bow wow wow ( oddly enough both Malcolm McLaren projects) and I know there are lots more.

 

 

Folkie Mike.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NafcKTbl8io

[Retired]

1464223417[/url]' post='1772641']

I loved em both, have everything they ever recorded and consider them a major part of my youth.

Sinatra is a music legend but never wrote or played on his greatest recording so why should the monkees get all the flak?

 

I know much of the Monkeys music was written for them for TV but didn't they get tired of that and want some of their own written music to be performed live on TV? I thought I recalled they wrote and sang some of their stuff too and had to fight with producers to get it allowed for their show. Anyway, I enjoyed them both too.

[daveinspain]

Always loved the Monkees......

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVy3OTBogP8

 

Is it me or does Peter Tork Look Like Kevin Spacey with long hair in this video

[surfpup]

I know much of the Monkeys music was written for them for TV but didn't they get tired of that and want some of their own written music to be performed live on TV? I thought I recalled they wrote and sang some of their stuff too and had to fight with producers to get it allowed for their show. Anyway, I enjoyed them both too.

 

Michael Nesmith had some songs on every Monkees album. Other Monkees had a few writing credits here and there as well. The band began to play their own instruments after the first album also - not saying there wasn't still some studio guys around but that still happens every day in places like Nashville.

 

Nesmith's solo stuff was decent too, btw if you like that 70s Laurel Canyon, folky, twangy thing. Here's a YouTube playlist.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSnXc4Phrg&list=PLhOeYZdQ56QTXU_O0oLxH6wr-7_hSZvmE

 

And Michael Martin Murphy had a bit of a hit with this Nesmith gem - a song I always liked

 

[jaxson50]

The best cover of Monkees hit, (written by Gofgin and King)

[jaxson50]

1464227577[/url]' post='1772656']

I brought up the Beatles, and here is why:

 

 

 

That is virtually every pop band one can think of. People our age like to slag and beat on the kids today, so I lumped up some modern day pop stars along with the Beatles and Zeppelin as examples that are and were exactly like the Monkees: Pop bands.

 

Call it whatever anyone wants, it's all Pop music. Worship the Beatles all anyone wants, they were just the first Pop band. I like the Beatles too, but if they hadn't done what they did someone else, Kinks maybe, woulda been first and we'd be having a whole different discussion.

 

So that's how the Beatles got in this, you can't really talk about Pop music without them.

 

rct

 

That is a interesting take, so basically there is no such thing as rock, just pop.

[kelly campbell]

That is a interesting take, so basically there is no such thing as rock, just pop.

 

 

That is kinda what I got from it which does not make sense to me but what do I know.

[quapman]

That is a interesting take, so basically there is no such thing as rock, just pop.

 

 

Nope, it's all pop.

All the way back to Bach,, pop.