Jump to content

Davy Jones RIP


Snake Plissken

Recommended Posts

Nothing reeks about the good parts of the sixties for me like The Monkees.

 

Yes, a band manufactured by a record label at an open casting call, singing songs that they mostly had no hand in writing with the actual music played by session musicians. Yes, a real representation of 'the good parts ofd the sixties'.

 

I like them, but come on, they were about as culturally relevant to the 60s as One Direction are to this decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Nothing reeks about the good parts of the sixties for me like The Monkees.

 

Yes, a band manufactured by a record label at an open casting call, singing songs that they mostly had no hand in writing with the actual music played by session musicians. Yes, a real representation of 'the good parts ofd the sixties'.

 

I like them, but come on, they were about as culturally relevant to the 60s as One Direction are to this decade.

 

Happy sort of soul aren't you?

 

The Monkee's were great, the TV series was a staple of school holiday's growing up and they had some cracking tunes.

 

Clearly too much for some

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, Spack Kerouac.

 

Why not argue the point, instead of just throwing out an insult? Because you're wrong, probably.

 

Happy sort of soul aren't you?

 

As I mentioned in the post, I like The Monkees, and enjoy a lot of their music. I merely wished to refute the suggestion that they in some way defined the sixties or were a representation of the 'good times' in the decade, when they were just the precursor to the modern boyband. They were critically savaged at the time for not playing any of the instruments, not writing any of the songs and basically being a knock off Beatles.

 

Their legacy is no more than that of New Kids On The Block ore the Backstreet Boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Why not argue the point, instead of just throwing out an insult? Because you're wrong, probably.

 

Because you popped in to drop your typical contrary troll statement, like you've done in every thread you've posted in since the whole service station debacle, at which point you figured you'd just play up to that pretentious contrary sixth-form poet tosser persona. No bites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pretty sad news, he seemed like a nice bloke :(

 

This

is one of my favourite things Davy Jones ever did. The movie was abysmal but the look on his face when they start jamming and when the guitar solo kicks in makes me smile every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Is going to a casting call from a record company really that much worse than attending an audition arranged by a bands management?

 

Okay, I'll bite.

not playing any of the instruments, not writing any of the songs

You know that's not entirely true, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, Spack Kerouac.

 

Why not argue the point, instead of just throwing out an insult? Because you're wrong, probably.

 

Happy sort of soul aren't you?

 

As I mentioned in the post, I like The Monkees, and enjoy a lot of their music. I merely wished to refute the suggestion that they in some way defined the sixties or were a representation of the 'good times' in the decade, when they were just the precursor to the modern boyband. They were critically savaged at the time for not playing any of the instruments, not writing any of the songs and basically being a knock off Beatles.

 

Their legacy is no more than that of New Kids On The Block ore the Backstreet Boys.

 

You're wrong, of course, as ever. Like many bands of the era, they used different session musicians in the studio, and like other bands they didn't write all their own stuff either, but they were all good musicians, excellent in the case of Nesmith and Tork, and they all played their parts live on tour. It's a very short-sighted, early 90s view of bands that they have to write/record all their own stuff to be a "pwoper band".

 

To give you an example from the same era, I've been reading Keith Richard's autobiography and they didn't record a self-penned song for a number of years after they became famous; prior to that all their act was covers of Chuck Berry and the like, or compositions bought in for them. And quite a few of their most famous recordings don't feature all the members of the band, usually due to one or more of them being off their fucking head on heroin.

 

You probably still think Take That are "just some boyband" despite the fact they wrote almost all of their hits and have been one of the most successful British acts of all time, as well. You really are a walking clich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in the post, I like The Monkees, and enjoy a lot of their music. I merely wished to refute the suggestion that they in some way defined the sixties or were a representation of the 'good times' in the decade, when they were just the precursor to the modern boyband. They were critically savaged at the time for not playing any of the instruments, not writing any of the songs and basically being a knock off Beatles.

 

Their legacy is no more than that of New Kids On The Block ore the Backstreet Boys.

 

Oh no, a pre cursor to a modern boyband, what a insult, sigh. People can and have argued that the same could be applied to the Beatles, and already mentioned The Stones, did some covers and were too spaced to play on records, heck even Hendrix was doing covers, god forbid, what a disaster that is? :D

 

Basically, It doesnt matter, so they were critically savaged for not playing their instruments, so what? People went mental for a 'cartoon band' in the late sixties as well. '

, sold over 2 million records or something daft, the point is that they were both of their time and captured, whatever zeitgeist was about, which wasnt bad given counter culture movements, Vietnam and a load of other stuff going on at the time to make a success of it.

 

The Monkees clearly have a legacy, and a place in culture, being remembered for a bunch of lads having a good time, even if it was manufactured. Their songs, whether not written by them or so on still get regular airings. Daydream Believer has been bastardised at sports grounds for decades, Sad [insert nationality of opposition manager, usually Scottish] and a Shit Football Team, which would suggest that it has some cultural value, still because it's still being riffed upon

 

Many people know at least one song, and have an idea of who they are and what they did and look back with fond memories of them

 

Clearly, this goes against your sacrosanct view of, whatever lame ass troll, you are trying today, must try harder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Nothing reeks about the good parts of the sixties for me like The Monkees.

 

Yes, a band manufactured by a record label at an open casting call, singing songs that they mostly had no hand in writing with the actual music played by session musicians. Yes, a real representation of 'the good parts ofd the sixties'.

 

I like them, but come on, they were about as culturally relevant to the 60s as One Direction are to this decade.

 

What the fuck does that even mean, anyway? I mean, I dread the thought of debating anything with you, as it always turns out painfully, but come on. Explain to us all why a cultural product, manufactured to appeal to that culture, has no relevance to that very same culture, and fails to tell us anything about it. Please, tell up, fuckface. Clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The Monkees were created in the sixties, for the people of the sixties, and they were highly popular with the people of the sixties, in the sixties. I don't think their relevance to the sixties could be any clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The last 2 posts were spot on but I can see where June is coming from, the Monkees were what Surf and Rosey said but I think June was trying to say they didn't have anything to do with the youth movement of freedom and anti establishment that was more important to the 60s than anything.

 

 

Their legacy is no more than that of New Kids On The Block ore the Backstreet Boys.

 

As far as I'm aware no one's saying that it is but in 45 years when the Backstreet Boys die people will say their music was a big part of the feel of the 90s and it will be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...