The Smiley Smile Message Board

No matter what you think of the early politics of 'playing their own instruments' or writing their own songs, you have to admit that first Monkees about is fantastic! It's prolly one of the better first albums by my favorite artists. I recently downloaded their discography, I originally owned Head  (album and movie), but I'm loving their stuff, Birds Bees Monkees is really good...and Headquarters, to me is like their Rubber Soul, it's fantastic. Shame a lot of their later albums are by half of them.

They're great. And even if all they ever did was sing on their albums (which, much like the Beach Boys reputation, is not true), they'd still be no worse off than plenty of other well regarded pop stars.

The Monkees don't get the recognition they deserve. The Headquarters thru Head era is their best, although Instant Replay has some gems on it. I just listened to Porpoise Song  today, and still love it as much as I did when I first heard it. A few year ago Rhino put out a Headquarters sessions box set, and it's top notch.

Yeah, I got those, good stuff...I've came to love their version of Cuddly Toy, though I love Nilsson's, I just love me some Monkees vocals...

Circle Sky is really good, it's like a tour de force type of song

I love the Missing Links series!!!!

got that, good stuff....I was actually shocked to hear the original version of I Wanna Be Free, it's really good, why'd they slow it down?

That fast version of 'I Wanna Be Free' was actually used on the pilot version of the series.  And my favorite version of Circle Sky is the live one that was used in Head.

Love the Monkees, both the albums and the TV series. I appreciated their diversity, from pop to rock to country to psychedelia. I hope they get into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, while they're all still around. Of course, knowing them, somebody probably wouldn't show up, but let's not get into that. ;D Seriously, I think Peter Tork has had some recent  health concerns.

Mike does a great job on How Insensitive on that as well.

I was recently watching an episode that Mickey directed, they used Good Morning Good Morning on it, I thought that was a nice piece of trivia

I've recently been watching season one of The Monkees and whilst it's kinda lame and dated it's also very funny! I only have their first album which I really enjoy, especially Last Train To Clarksville. Is it worth getting the rest of their albums? And if so which ones would people recomend?

Later Monkees period isn't all that bad. Try getting Instant Replay. That is actually a very good album!

if you want to watch a mike nesmith involved film...  Timerider - The Adventure of Lyle Swann (1982).. here's your chance...  :)



link: http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2009/12/sunday-cinema-timerider---the-adventure-of-lyle-swann-1982/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sfsignal+%28SFSignal%29

Tapeheads is also amazing too!

My Baby Doll haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnTUSgHzZx0

It kind of varies as to whom you are talking to I guess. Me ? I'd go for their 4th album - the masterful 'Pisces Aquarius Capricorn & Jones Ltd" anyday, tho' "Headquarters" may come close. My suggestion would be to go for a decent 'hits' package to start off (pick one with at least 20 or so tracks on it) and then decide which 'style' you pick up on most - the early 'pop' stuff, the slightly wacky 'psych' stuff, the country stuff ... or Davy's Broadway-styled rehashes ... then again, the 4-CD set from Rhino is the obvious starter as its got a fantastic booklet to boot !
Good luck, persist with it ... you won't regret it I guarantee !!

I employ Davy Jones for personal use as my singing ottoman.

ZILCH

I got Headquarters (deluxe edition) a week or so ago and it is indeed a fine album, I have Zilch stuck in my head permanently now!

I never get tired of watching Head! The Coke machine in the desert scene is what sold me.

I picked up the Music Box boxset of theirs and that sucker is amazing!

I haven't dug as deeply into their must as most of you, just having the 25 songs on the Best of the Monkees, but I think it's a terrific collection. I would rate the Monkees vocalists as 1. Mickey, 2. Mike, 3. Davy, 4. Peter, but my favorite on song on Best of the Monkees is Shade of Gray, with Davy and Peter alternating verses and harmonizing on the chorus.

I love a lot of The Monkees' stuff with Headquarters being my favourite album. Mike's songs are always interesting though and a lot of his solo albums are genuinely superb.

Btw if people think that Mike is arrogant, then that is nothing compared with the opinion that Davy Jones has of himself.

I'm really into the Monkees too, I've made myself a three disc compilation of their stuff. I especially like You Just May Be the One, Tapioca Tundra, Porpoise Song, As We Go Along, I Won't Be the Same Without Her and While I Cried.

HEAD is my favorite movie of all time and has been since I first saw it in 1985.

That being said, it's amazing how much Monkees I have (deluxe sets, concert recordings, etc.). Nowhere near as large as my Beatles collection for instance but very large nonetheless.

For a really good "later" Monkees album, check out JUSTUS (1996) for Nesmith's and Tork's song in particular. Also I love almost all of PRESENT (1969). Also I am a huge fan of solo Nesmith!

I find the Monkees' Head film a lot better than Magical Mystery Tour, the only thing I dig about MMT is the 'music videos' to the songs.

I love their cut of Cuddly Toy, I'm so used to the Harry Nilsson cut that I love this version even more.

My fav cut on Headquarters is Randy Scouse Git...I'm tryin to decide what album to compare Headquaters to in the Beach Boys/Beatles world...I was thinkin: Summer Days/Rubber Soul-esc

Not too sure about Today. I'd probably go with Wild Honey. It's the first album where the whole band has a complete democracy. Smiley Smile still seems too Brian oriented for that to be the one. Look at the singles on Smiley and notice the fact that Bri played virtually every instruments on all of the other tracks.

Still, Justus is probably the only "real" Monkees album.

http://www.rhino.com/shop/product/the-monkees-the-birds-the-bees-the-monkees-boxed-set


Drooling over as we speak....

Anyone think it's a crock that the only way to buy the Criterion cut of the Monkees' film Head is to buy the whole box set?
http://www.criterion.com/films/27527-head

I would buy that box set with Easy Rider and such, but I don't have the money, I just want the disc of Head with all the features sold separate.
Has anyone bought that box?

I have the box and it is a must for anyone interested in great films of that era. If it wasn't sold as a box, none of those films would have come out on Criterion at all. Also, it won't be in print for that long as it is.

yeh, that America Lost & Found box is super great. buy it

I'd like to hear the Coasters version of D.W. Washburn.

Big fan.  My favorite song is "Pleasant Valley Sunday".

I love how they beat the Beatles at being the first to use a Moog on a rock record.

Monkees weren't the first. The Doors had it on Strange Days two months earlier. And two months before that, it was on the Supremes single Reflections.

rehearsal upcoming tour......


 (http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k154/dorphas/monkeesrehearsal.jpg)

I can't believe this is actually happening. Seeing them in late November. Hope Nez doesn't bow out.

Hell has officially frozen over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptbTGuMvot8&feature=autoplay&list=ULp77YVQux0xY&playnext=1

Daily Nightly live with Mike...never thought I'd see that happen! Check "You Told Me" as well, great to see Micky behind the kit like that.

And take special note of Mike's 12-string Gretsch electric...the original was stolen, I believe the one he's playing and shown in the photo above was a custom order and custom build which the Gretsch people did for him, I think specifically for these reunion shows.

As someone who was inspired to play guitar in large part due to seeing Mike playing that original Gretsch on reruns of the Monkees show, this is all pretty cool. :)

This from the Rolling Stone review of the live show:

When it came time to play "Daydream Believer," the Monkees had their adoring audience in mind. Onstage, Dolenz explained that the band had discussed who should sing the song, only to conclude that it should be the fans.

"It doesn't belong to us anymore," he told the audience. "It belongs to you."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/monkees-delight-believers-in-reunion-tour-kickoff-20121109#ixzz2BkfIyh7T


That was a nice touch, and showed a lot of class and respect.

I saw them in Cupertino, CA last night. They played a place called Flint Center which has to be one of the worst venues I've ever been to. I wish I'd spent a little extra money and got seats on the bottom level instead of the balcony (could not see video screen even though we were in the front of the very-distant balcony). It wasn't a sell out I"m sure because of the theater they played. You either never heard of it or know how crappy it is. In any case, it was a great and memorable show. Mike is back where he belongs. I also enjoyed Mick and Pete. And Coco (how nice that Micky is still close to his sister) and Mike's son Christian and the rest of the band. I won't give too many details but I think people who have tix for the upcoming shows will be happy with it.

oh dang, I haven't seen M. Nesmith in years...he's looking a bit like Emperor Palpitine.

This is great news.  I've seen the Dolenz/Jones/Tork lineup three times and Micky+Coco once, but it would be amazing to see Nez.

They had some really good stuff.  I could listen to Instant Replay for days.

I was rather hesitant at first, but yesterday I caved and bought Headquarters and Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. and I LOVED them, particularly the latter.

Review from Cleveland:
http://www.cleveland.com/music/index.ssf/2012/11/the_monkees_play_for_the_true.html#incart_river (http://www.cleveland.com/music/index.ssf/2012/11/the_monkees_play_for_the_true.html#incart_river)

Via a Monkees group on Facebook I came across a recording of the complete Escondido Show. Very nice!

Check out the setlist:

        Last Train to Clarksville
        Papa Gene's Blues
        Your Auntie Grizelda
        She
        Sweet Young Thing
        I'm a Believer
        (I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone
        *I Wanna Be Free
        You Told Me
        Sunny Girlfriend
        You Just May Be the One
        Mary, Mary
        The Girl I Knew Somewhere
        For Pete's Sake
        Early Morning Blues and Greens
        Randy Scouse Git
        Daily Nightly
        Tapioca Tundra
        Goin' Down
        Porpoise Song (Theme From "Head")
        *Daddy's Song
        Can You Dig It?
        As We Go Along
        Circle Sky (it RAWKS btw...)
        Long Title: Do I Have to Do This All Over Again?
        Daydream Believer
        (Vocals sung by audience)
        What Am I Doing Hangin' 'Round?
        Encore:
        Listen to the Band
        Pleasant Valley Sunday

* Davy vocal recording with live accompaniment.

Via Sunday's Cleveland Plain Dealer:

(http://i49.tinypic.com/vqqv6f.jpg)
(http://i47.tinypic.com/14y0j12.jpg)
(http://i49.tinypic.com/mr7nmu.jpg)
(http://i45.tinypic.com/axea6x.jpg)

I'm so psyched. Look like they are really having a good time, and I'll be able to say I've seen Michael Nesmith live. Unreal.

Saw the show last night. One of the best things I've ever seen, actually. The Youtube vids don't do it justice. I came in expecting it to be good, mainly for the fact that I would be seeing Mike Nesmith on stage with the Monkees, actually singing his Monkees songs....but they just blew the place away. Nesmith's vocals were off the charts good, sometimes just like the record, and he was funny! Still has that dry humor. Also, it helped that all three of them looked to be enjoying themselves. Always makes for a better show when the performers are digging it as much as the audience.

And, if it means anything to you, Penn Jillette is a Monkees fan. He flew from Las Vegas just to see them and was sitting near me ;D

I think it took the death of Davy to make Mike realise what The Monkees ment to him.

Not a full clip, but easily one of the highlights of the night:

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

Did Mike have the biggest beef with Davy?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

^
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!

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

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.

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqm_4ru5Stk), 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.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A).

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.

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.

Sorry I missed this one before.
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4)

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 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?

^
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. :D

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.

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

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.


Perhaps you can explain exactly how the melodies are different?


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?

Ignore my California Dreaming example if you like. The Jethro Tull song is probably a better example anyway.

A disco song is largely defined by a particular beat. There's no particular melodic structure that defines a disco song, at least not that I'm aware of. The Monkees song (and Spaceman's other examples) on the other hand, do have melodies that are identifiable as Cabaret-style songs. I'm not even sure why this is in dispute.

You're actually starting to get it now, though maybe you don't realize it. *Some* people recognize those songs as older-style songs, some don't. Obviously you did, since you just listed them above! And *some* people will recognize Mother Goose as a Renaissance-style or Renaissance-inspired song, dressed up in modern clothes. As I said, it ultimately doesn't matter if people recognize them as such, as long as they like the song. But the fact is, these songs had greater appeal in large part because they were dressed up in modern clothes than they would have if the artists had used period instruments, period arrangements, etc. What I'm saying is, if Mike Nesmith had dressed up Magnolia Simms in modern clothes instead of doing a literal interpretation of a Cabaret-style song, it probably would have been a lot more popular song than it turned out to be.

However, if, as Spaceman noted, Nesmith didn't care about the song's popularity, it's probably a moot point.

I'm not ignoring it. Your characterization of it as a blues song is simply false.


Not really. Those songs are not Renaissance songs that are disguised. Rather, Tull took elements of those Renaissance-era songs and placed them in their own songs. If anything, they are overtly in that style.


Because what you are saying is false. There is no definitive Cabaret-style melody. The melodic patterns you could find in Cabaret songs you could also find in blues, jazz, folk, and, yes, rock and roll. So if you change the arrangement of Magnolia Simms, maybe someone could say that "underneath it all" you have a Cabaret song that has been modernized but it is equally likely that someone could say that you have a blues song that has been modernized or that you have a country song that has been modernized. Part of what allows you to identify Magnolia Simms as a Cabaret-style song in the first place is not simply the melody but the arrangement of the song.


Trust me, I "get" what you are saying. I just don't think it makes sense.

I can identify those songs as having an earlier origin because they are actually covers. Magnolia Simms is not a cover. It's a song designed to sound like a song from the 20s.

But, do you agree that Magnolia Simms might have been a better song given a more modernized, if still old-timey-tinged arrangement, instead of the novelty Winchester Cathedral trip? That is where I find myself agreeing with the addict.

Would have been at least better had Nesmith not limited the sound to one channel of the stereo soundstage and added vinyl noise.

I disagree. If the original writers and performers of "Those Were the Days My Friend" put it in a heavy metal arrangement instead, it would still obviously be a Cabaret-style melody. I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious.

To take an even more extreme example, if someone took an Indian or Middle Eastern-style melody, and put it in a hard rock song, would it cease to be an Indian or Middle Eastern-style melody? No.

"I see a red door and I want to paint it black ..."
^
Is that not a recognizably Middle Eastern-style melody? Of course it is. The fact that it's put into a hard rock arrangement does not mean the melody has ceased to be a Middle Eastern-style melody. Some genres are simply identifiable by their melodies. Cabaret songs are one of those, IMO.

Personally, I do like the arrangement though I can understand your reservations. Nevertheless, I find it pretty interesting to hear a guy like Nesmith who at that time was perfecting his country sound to dabble in this other sound. He contributes some pretty heavy psych numbers to that album, so it's a nice little break from all that.

The difference is that rock and roll in the 60s was not a direct descendent from Middle Eastern music in the way that it was a direct descendent from the tradition of cabaret, jazz, blues, folk, and country, all of which had very similar roots.

Yeah, I dig. My favorite bit of experimentation with this style in the Nesmith canon is his original production/vocal for Daddy's Song (tho I still would ultimately go with the released Jones version).

Oh yeah, forgot another hit song in the old-timey bag from this time period: The Monkees' own (awful) D.W. Washburn.

The only rock movement that really used Middle Eastern music directly was surf music with Dick Dale.

I think I've found the ultimate Monkees guy on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MisterMusicMan382/videos?view=0

Mike was a big fan of roaring 20's style dancehall 78's, and around 1967-68-69 it became somewhat of a retro trend to replicate that sound and style. Mike went all out, going as far as to make it sound like a scratchy 78rpm disc, which at that time was the only source for some of those recordings. The Beatles did it too, with Honey Pie. So it wasn't out of the ordinary or necessarily out of what was then something of a retro fad to have those kinds of sounds on a song.

One thing The Monkees had visually to further capture that was Davy Jones, who put on one hell of a show when given the straw hat, cane, and soft-shoe dance beat! Honestly, apart from the bridge and the Hell's Angels lyrical theme, "Cuddly Toy" being aired on TV as a Davy dance vehicle was a pretty early example of the band doing this sound...not to forget "I Can't Get Her Off My Mind" from HQ earlier in '67.

I'd compare it to the retro 80's thing which was raging in some mainstream pop and rock circles a few years ago...still bubbling under...where artists deliberately produced and wrote songs to sound like you'd hear them on FM top 40 radio in 1983.

I discovered a version of it without any of the scratchy-record effects here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ig07YvMQs) (one of the videos from the guy I linked above).

I've listened to it a bunch more times and have gotten used to the retro sound. It has its own appeal, I suppose.

I also noticed nowhere online anywhere does anyone have guitar tabs for that song, so I started figuring it out myself last night. The verses were easy, but there's some hard-to-discern stuff going on in the refrain (the part that starts with "Walking ..."). Will post my thoughts on that later.

I've finally gotten around to figuring out the rest of the chords for Magnolia Simms. Here goes...

The chords in the verses are actually just straightforward C-Dm-F-G-C (though I'm tempted to think there's an Am7 between the C and the Dm on the words "me," "pie," etc.). However, if you're playing guitar, it sounds a little more "right" if you capo up 3 and play it as A-Bm-D-E-A. Also, it's a bit easier to reach the 2 "end notes" in the refrain that way (those 2 "end notes" are C and G played on the 2 high strings on the 5th fret up from the capo). So I'll write the chords in "Capo up 3" mode.

A____________Bm________________
Love to me is blue-eyed and blonde
D_________E_________A___
Oh, that's sweet Magnolia
A_______________Bm_____________
Apple pie on the window still warm
D_________E________A____
That's my sweet Magnolia

Refrain
Am_____________A_____(hold chord + 2 end notes)
Walking under a sky that's so blue
Am___________A___(hold chord + 2 end notes)
After rain has fallen
Am___________________A___(hold chord + 2 end notes)
When she's walking so close by my side
Am_________F#m____Bm________E7__(hold chord)
My troubles seem to just run and hide

(repeat verse chords)
(la-dee, da-dum, etc.)

Refrain
Am__________________A_____(hold chord + 2 end notes)
Well, walking under a sky that's so blue
Am___________A___(hold chord + 2 end notes)
After rain has fallen
Am___________________A___(hold chord + 2 end notes)
When she's walking so close by my side
Am_________F#m____Bm________E7__(hold chord)
My troubles seem to just run and hide

A________________Bm__________
Magnolia Simms is my little doll
D______E_______A_____
I can't live without her
A_________________Bm_____________
For if she goes my world will just fall
D_________E_______A____
Stay with me, Magnolia

The nifty feature of the song are the first words of each (odd numbered) line of both the verses and the refrain ("Love," "App-," in the verses; "Walk-" and "Aft-" in the refrain): They're actually all the same notes, but just listening to it, the notes in the refrain *sound* like a different note because the underlying chord is the relative minor. Nice little trick which sets the listener on edge a bit.

Fun song to play on the guitar, too!

The hits that the Monkees produced (or moreso their songwriters wrote for them) were great.  I've listened to some of their "album cuts" and I have to say...they're sh*t.  Not that impressive and the hoardes of bootlegs and what not dedicated to this band is redundant. 

Sorry you feel that way. I love nearly everything that Nez wrote and sang; my all-time fav Monkees song is "For Pete's Sake" written by Mr. Tork.