Monkees Appreciation thread

[Mike's Beard]

Davy had beefs with all of them at one time or another.

[SMiLE-addict]

Been listening to both Headquarters and Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, and while both are good albums, I think I like the 2nd one better.

[EgoHanger1966]

Been listening to both Headquarters and Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones, and while both are good albums, I think I like the 2nd one better.

Agreed.

[SMiLE-addict]

Listening to The Birds, The Bees and The Monkees now ... and it's almost frustrating listening to Magnolia Simms. It's actually a pretty interesting song musically, but they didn't take it seriously. I can imagine doing things to it and make it a big hit. Seriously.

[I. Spaceman]

Mike was all about the art at the time. His way of taking a song like Simms seriously is to not take it seriously. Make a thing out of it.

[SMiLE-addict]

What would have been more interesting would to have made it into a modern song. It's a recognizably old, 20's flapper-style song, and what he did was to sort-of make a caricature of it. It's definitely humorous that way, but if he had taken that same melody and stuck it into a modern arrangement, with electric guitars, throw in some harmonies and the whole bit, and the listener, instead of being merely amused, would be thinking, "Hey cool! A flapper song, done 60's psychedelic!" Now THAT would have been interesting!

Really great key change whenever he hits the word "Walking." Sends a shiver up my spine.

Missed opportunity IMO.

[SMiLE-addict]

I just discovered a version with Mike doing a more straightforward acoustic version, no other instruments. I can imagine this song being turned into everything from something like "I'd like to teach the world to sing" to a slower, heavy-melodies CSN song. Could easily have been a hit.

I wonder if anyone has ever covered it?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't understand - the song was written to sound like a 1920s/30s style song. Why would you write a song in that style and then modernize it after that?

[SMiLE-addict]

^
Because no one would be expecting it.

EDIT: Here's a version without the "special effects." Sounds much better this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4h5nLjukG0

BTW, Mike sometimes sounds like Stephen Stills on this song. Which is funny, because Stills auditioned to be a Monkee!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

^
Because no one would be expecting it.

Expecting what? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

[I. Spaceman]

Smile-Addict, lots of other folks were doing stuff like that at the time, updating the 20's sound with modern instrumentation. Check out any Mama Cass Elliot record, or Nilsson's first two. Or even The Monkees' version of Daddy's Song.

[SMiLE-addict]

Actually it's funny you should mention Mamma Cass Elliot, because turning it into a Mama's and Pappa's-style song was one thing I was thinking of. Sort of.

At the risk of getting off-topic, kinda-sorta, one possible concept I had in mind was to maybe "hide" the "root" or "essence" of the song and disguise it as something else. Then leave it to the clever to discover what the song really is.

A recent musical discovery I made illustrates this concept. I discovered this (very good!) acoustic rendition of California Dreaming here, and even though I've heard this song a gazillion times, this particular rendition made me realize, "Hey, y'know what? This is actually sort-of a blues song!" Whenever I've listened to this song before, I always spent so much time paying attention to the interplay between the melody and counter-melody, I never really paid attention to the melody itself. Only when I hear a bare, stripped-down version do I finally realize the "essence" of the song.

So back on topic, the melody of this Monkees song is so nifty, you could do it as something else - maybe a psychedelic rock song, or a ballad with harmonies, or ... something - and because it's got such an catchy, Cabaret-style melody, people would listen to it and would think it's a really great song ... without being able to pinpoint exactly why. Only if they heard a stripped down version a la my California Dreaming experience above, would they be able to figure out what makes the song click.

Though no doubt some astute listeners would "get it" right away and react how I described above: "Hey cool! A flapper song, done 60's psychedelic!" Or whatever genre they disguised it in.

Sometimes a song is more interesting if it's disguised as something other than what it really is.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Actually it's funny you should mention Mamma Cass Elliot, because turning it into a Mama's and Pappa's-style song was one thing I was thinking of. Sort of.

At the risk of getting off-topic, kinda-sorta, one possible concept I had in mind was to maybe "hide" the "root" or "essence" of the song and disguise it as something else. Then leave it to the clever to discover what the song really is.

A recent musical discovery I made illustrates this concept. I discovered this (very good!) acoustic rendition of California Dreaming here, and even though I've heard this song a gazillion times, this particular rendition made me realize, "Hey, y'know what? This is actually sort-of a blues song!" Whenever I've listened to this song before, I always spent so much time paying attention to the interplay between the melody and counter-melody, I never really paid attention to the melody itself. Only when I hear a bare, stripped-down version do I finally realize the "essence" of the song.

So back on topic, the melody of this Monkees song is so nifty, you could do it as something else - maybe a psychedelic rock song, or a ballad with harmonies, or ... something - and because it's got such an catchy, Cabaret-style melody, people would listen to it and would think it's a really great song ... without being able to pinpoint exactly why. Only if they heard a stripped down version a la my California Dreaming experience above, would they be able to figure out what makes the song click.

Though no doubt some astute listeners would "get it" right away and react how I described above: "Hey cool! A flapper song, done 60's psychedelic!" Or whatever genre they disguised it in.

Sometimes a song is more interesting if it's disguised as something other than what it really is.

Oh, well, then I guess what I would say as a response is that I don't think what you're talking about is a thing. I don't think that songs have an "essence" in the way that you are describing them. Songs, can have a particular structure, like, say, a conventional blues structure, which California Dreaming does not have but songs even when played simply are being arranged - a simple arrangement is just another arrangement and not the essence of the song. The reason, I think, that you think that California Dreaming is "sort-of a blues song" is because you are listening to a group that have arranged the song that way for you (though when I listen to the link it doesn't scream "the blues" to me).

It is interesting that you had to hear this other arrangement of California Dreaming to come to this conclusion - that it didn't come from listening to the original version. In other words, the original version never made it clear to you what you felt the song "really is" - only a re-arranged cover version made you aware of it. My point here is that no one could tell that a song written in a 20s style but arranged to sound psychedelic was originally a song written in a 20s style. After all, so much of rock and roll music was already variations on music written in the 20s and 30s.

And even if you could detect this "essence", what would be the point exactly in hiding it? As far as I can tell the only advantage would be that it allows people to manufacture some line that separates "astute listeners" from non-astute listeners. Hardly seems worthwhile. But I also hardly think it's even possible in the first place. Songs don't have an essence.

[SMiLE-addict]

I'm going to have to disagree.

First of all, yes, I would claim that California Dreaming is a blues(ey) song, disguised as folk-rock. Maybe "essence" wasn't the right word. Whatever. Anyway, here's why.

Listen to a classic blues song such as this.

You've got something like ...

My mama left me when I was young [insert bluesy guitar response]
My daddy he done got hung [insert bluesy guitar response]

... and so on. Now look at California Dreaming.

All the leaves are brown [insert vocal response]
And the sky is gray [insert vocal response]

.. and so on. Similar structure to the blues guy above. It's definitely not a pure blues song, but at least in part, that's because they decided to dress it up as a folk-rock song. They could have left it as a plain blues song, and sung it something like the blues guy in my link, and done a guitar response instead of a vocal response/counter-melody ... but if they had done that, it probably would have gone into the dustbins of musical history as just another of a zillion blues songs and remained in obscurity. In other words, the fact they dressed it up as something other than what a stripped-down melody would suggest it was, was what made the song so good, interesting and popular.

Now back to the Monkees song. I had never heard it until today. There's probably a good reason for that. Let's face it: As entertaining as they can be, 20's Cabaret-style songs just haven't been very popular since ... oh, probably the 30's. Which is a shame, because they can be very good songs. What to do? Write a 20's song, but cloak it in some other style, like psychedelic rock. Some people may figure out it's really a 20's song, some may not. It probably doesn't matter, as long as they like it. But it would be original because most psychedelic rock songs were written with more contemporary style melodies, whereas this one would really be a throwback to a definitive earlier style.

Another way of putting it: You can dress up Greensleeves in whatever style you want - hard rock, or whatever suits your fancy - but it's still an English Renaissance song. Likewise, Mike Nesmith could have dressed up this song into some other style like psychedelic rock, but it would still be a 20's style song. And because it's such a catchy tune, doing so probably would have made it a big hit, rather than being a humorous but otherwise obscure Monkees song.

[I. Spaceman]

Actually, there was a big renaissance of Cabaret/Music Hall-styled tunes in the mid-late 60's, and several songs in that style became big hits, such as Winchester Cathedral, Those Were The Days, Dream A Little Dream Of Me, Is That All There Is, What Have They Done To My Song Ma, among others. Not to mention the film and soundtrack of Cabaret. The reason you haven't heard Magnolia Simms is likely the same reason you may not have heard any other song from that album besides Daydream Believer and Valleri till today: it is an obscure Monkees album track.

[SMiLE-addict]

Sorry I missed this one before.

^
Because no one would be expecting it.

Expecting what? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Expecting a 20's-style melody to be in a song which is clearly not a 20's-style song. When Nesmith took a 20's-style melody, and put it in a literal interpretation of a 20's style song, he gave the listener exactly what they were expecting. It's nice, and in this case he did a good job of making it amusing, but it's still exactly what the listener expects.

If you took the same melody - and let's face it, anyone familiar with 20's style music would recognize the melody as a 20's-style melody, in much the same way you can tell a lot of Jethro Tull songs are really Renaissance music and English folk tunes - but put that melody in a more modern context, then that would be unexpected to the listener and make it more interesting.

[the professor]

Since the Professor has found these youtube Monkeeys clips, he has been listening non stop--actually taking a break from our BB. This is a dream come true. I found this Justus session video; do we know this already? Love these Monkees!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhQ0FcXJahk

[SMiLE-addict]

Actually, there was a big renaissance of Cabaret/Music Hall-styled tunes in the mid-late 60's, and several songs in that style became big hits, such as Winchester Cathedral, Those Were The Days, Dream A Little Dream Of Me, Is That All There Is, What Have They Done To My Song Ma, among others. Not to mention the film and soundtrack of Cabaret. The reason you haven't heard Magnolia Simms is likely the same reason you may not have heard any other song from that album besides Daydream Believer and Valleri till today: it is an obscure Monkees album track.

Some of those are actually good examples. Look What They've Done To My Song Ma was a big hit. I'm suggesting if the Monkees did something similar to Magnolia Simms, it too, would have been a hit. After all, there was at least one other hit on that album (Valleri), no reason why there couldn't have been another one.

[I. Spaceman]

They're all good examples, mate. Daydream Believer was also a hit on that album. Really though, I would recommend listening to more of Mike Nesmith's material and get into the artifice of his work. The guy wasn't about hits, even though he was in the most commercially concepted group. The guy hardly ever put the titles of his songs into the lyrics, he composed lyrics that were free-verse and no-chorus, some were elongated, he was mixing Latin percussion and Nashville countrypolitan, etc. etc. The guy is an artist, not a hitmaker. He should be thought of in the Dylan/Gram Parsons bag way more than a typical 60's pop musician.
But despite all that, I've never thought Magnolia Simms was that great of a track, and maybe if it sounded more like a St. Matthew type of trip, as I think you're suggesting, maybe I would like it more. Really, it should have just been discarded in favor of a better composition entirely. Such as another Nilsson cover maybe, as he was the master of that neo-oldtimey bag.

[SMiLE-addict]

The guy is an artist, not a hitmaker.

Perhaps. But as a listener, it makes it a bit frustrating. Like, "Ahhh! This song coulda been a hit if he had just done [insert something here]!!" As I said earlier today, it comes across as a wasted opportunity. But I guess if you're not really interested in hits, maybe it doesn't matter.

[SMiLE-addict]

If you took the same melody - and let's face it, anyone familiar with 20's style music would recognize the melody as a 20's-style melody, in much the same way you can tell a lot of Jethro Tull songs are really Renaissance music and English folk tunes - but put that melody in a more modern context, then that would be unexpected to the listener and make it more interesting.

Here's my classic example. Renaissance tune at heart + Modern interpretation = Jethro Tull. You get a Renaissance song, without getting a Renaissance song.

Mother Goose

Now, do that to a catchy 20's Cabaret-style melody, and you've got a hit. You get a Cabaret song, without getting a Cabaret song.

[I. Spaceman]

The guy is an artist, not a hitmaker.

Perhaps. But as a listener, it makes it a bit frustrating. Like, "Ahhh! This song coulda been a hit if he had just done [insert something here]!!" As I said earlier today, it comes across as a wasted opportunity. But I guess if you're not really interested in hits, maybe it doesn't matter.

I dig hits as much as the next radio listener. But I don't expect them all to be. You're a Smile addict, and none of those ones really sound like hits, ya know what I mean?

[SMiLE-addict]

^
True, but this is one case where I thought the melody was so good, it's a shame he didn't try to make it into a hit. It's like ... a great melody, but "wasted" on a song which was never intended to be a hit.

If you're going to write a song which you don't really want or care to be a hit, you could at least make it a really mediocre song. That way the masses who will never hear it aren't missing anything.

BTW I suspect a lot of the songs on Smile would have grown into, if not hits, then well-regarded songs, after some while, so even if it had been released in '67 they ultimately wouldn't have been "wasted." But that's off-topic.

[I. Spaceman]

So.............good melodies shouldn't be wasted on album tracks. Interesting theory you got there.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm going to have to disagree.

First of all, yes, I would claim that California Dreaming is a blues(ey) song, disguised as folk-rock.

Well, in that case, we definitely disagree. I mean, yes, you could make a case for just about every rock and roll song from the 60s that it "is a blues(ey) song" given that the roots of rock and roll are blues. And, in fact, both blues and folk come from very similar traditions and similar backgrounds so the fact that you are hearing some blues in a folk-rock song should not be surprising since the two have a lot in common from the get-go. There is no "disguising" going on - they are just somewhat similar genres.

That being said, there are differences. So take your example: Robert Johnson's Crossroads. That song quite conventionally does follow a blues structure. Namely an AAB structure:

I went down to the crossroad fell down on my knees
I went down to the crossroad fell down on my knees
Asked the lord above "Have mercy now save poor Bob if you please"

This is the classic blues structure - a verse where the first two lines repeat and are followed by a third, usually rhyming line, which is different. You'll find this structure in a large amount of blues songs, it was the structure that was evoked by the Harlem Renaissance poets when they wanted to evoke a blues rhythm in their poems, and it continues to be considered the most conventional blues form.

Does California Dreaming follow this structure? No. Why? It's not a blues song nor was it written as one. It is ludicrous that your example to prove that it's a blues song is that both contain some kind of filler after the verse lyrics. Yes, that's true just as it's probably true of nearly every genre of music you could find.

Hopefully this likewise takes care of the other claims you make about how "they could have just left it as a blues song" since it was never a blues song in the first place.

This is however a sidebar because the whole premise makes no sense to me. Suppose someone comes up to you and says they want you to write a Disco song but then arrange it as a folk song and then when you play it as a folk song, see how many people can tell that "underneath it all" it's really a Disco song. The fact is nobody could tell. As far as I'm concerned the very premise that you are suggesting fundamentally makes no sense.

Now back to the Monkees song. I had never heard it until today. There's probably a good reason for that. Let's face it: As entertaining as they can be, 20's Cabaret-style songs just haven't been very popular since ... oh, probably the 30's. Which is a shame, because they can be very good songs. What to do? Write a 20's song, but cloak it in some other style, like psychedelic rock. Some people may figure out it's really a 20's song, some may not. It probably doesn't matter, as long as they like it. But it would be original because most psychedelic rock songs were written with more contemporary style melodies, whereas this one would really be a throwback to a definitive earlier style.

Perhaps you can explain exactly how the melodies are different?

Another way of putting it: You can dress up Greensleeves in whatever style you want - hard rock, or whatever suits your fancy - but it's still an English Renaissance song. Likewise, Mike Nesmith could have dressed up this song into some other style like psychedelic rock, but it would still be a 20's style song.

No it wouldn't. Do people listen to "Matchbox" by The Beatles or "Baby Please Don't Go" by Them or "The House of The Rising Sun" by the Animals and say, "these are great 20s and 30s style songs"? Are they even aware of that?