gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
598266 Posts in 19736 Topics by 3422 Members - Latest Member: BenchmarkBusiness January 21, 2017, 11:32:41 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 11:20:58 AM 
Started by CenturyDeprived - Last post by guitarfool2002
It sounds like bandwagon jumping, desperation to be relevant too late to the game, and above all it couldn't even be an original song. It is easily one of my least favorites and least played in the entire BB's catalog, mostly because it's more or less a cover of Leiber and Stoller with ham-fisted and desperate for relevance lyrics. The only saving grace I listen for if I do give it a spin is the work Stephen Desper did in recording it.

 2 
 on: Today at 11:15:58 AM 
Started by Crow - Last post by guitarfool2002
Well, for one thing, the shows Mike did can be billed "non-partisan" all they want, but if the Texas ball had Trump's cabinet guys, then I would call that highly partisan. Hell, these are victory parties! I only mention the story about turning down the main ball because I didn't see it anywhere else.

I'm glad you posted it, for one it shows some of what info is being passed around in light of a blackout of anything close to an official explanation, comment, or even one word concerning Mike playing these inauguration shows. It's bizarre, but not unexpected. Even fans supportive of the whole thing had to wait until two regional Florida newspapers reported on the first event Mike played this week.

The arguing and parsing words trying to "explain" the event - It's also not unexpected. But arguing that these events are not only non-partisan but also not inaugural events in an attempt I guess to distance Mike from the whole thing is an insult to readers' intelligence. Of course they're partisan, of course they're victory celebrations, even Mike in his stage banter mentioned the celebration. The Florida event was full of high level GOP politicians, cabinet position nominees, lobbyists, and power brokers, and was paid for by Gov Rick Scott's PAC. Anyone who thinks a politician's PAC isn't partisan political in nature is either naive or an idiot. The Texas event, same deal. It was a room full of GOP power brokers, politicians, cabinet nominees, etc. And ultimately both events were inaugural events.

The video of the Florida gig came from a group calling itself "Florida For Trump". I guess that's a non-partisan group?

As far as the "insider" information, I think anyone with common sense and a low tolerance for bullshit has learned to take all this stuff with a grain of salt considering the sources. When all of the hub-bub around the Beach Boys considering playing the inauguration initially broke in the entertainment press, someone who had in the past claimed to be a direct phone call away from Mike told fans the gig wouldn't be possible since Mike had another show already booked for the date. That insider info came after the band's touring schedule had already been revised to free up the date(s) of the inaugural events and postponed the show in question to another night. So, once again, a mix of caveat emptor and taking things with a grain of salt is in order.

The silence via the social media and online blackout and lack of any official word or comment speaks volumes. It's just amazing how much legalese and parsing is going on in fan circles to try to tell what I can only assume are gullible fans that 2+2 does not equal 4 regarding this whole affair.

It is also amazing that a mostly heretofore unknown Bruce Springsteen cover/tribute band generated more press than The Beach Boys, not just that but a cover band who pulled out of the New Jersey version of the inaugural events Mike played for Florida and Texas in part because it was seen as a partisan event.


 3 
 on: Today at 10:58:02 AM 
Started by CenturyDeprived - Last post by GhostyTMRS
It tells quite a different story than "Revolution". I do believe Mike is saying "don't be a martyr". The Boys, and many of their audience, weren't really counterculture figures at all.

Right. And I guess I get that sentiment and can't exactly completely argue with it, but it's oddly the exact same sentiment I would expect being propagated from both law enforcement and this administration, just wrapped up in the context of a pop song.

Actually it's a near identical sentiment to "Revolution" which, at the time, was viewed as an anti-protest song. The Beatles caught a lot of flak for that and the counterculture embraced more committed material like "Street Fighting Man".

I always thought of the lyrics to SDT as a rip off of "Revolution" myself.

John wrote letters to underground papers denying that Revolution was pro- Establishment. He was in favor of the movement, but didn't know whether he was in favor of non-violent or violent protest (as noted by the constant change in the lyrics "when you talk about destruction don't you know that you can count me out, in").  The line about carrying pictures about Chairman Mao was a warning that that would actually harm and undermine the actual movement. This is all documented in Ian MacDonald's REVOLUTION IN THE HEAD and Jon Wiener's books about Lennon. Mike's lyrics say "stay home. Getting your head busted in is not worth it".

Lennon knew very quickly which side of the argument he was going to be on. His fleeting indecision was captured on tape but it shouldn't be blown out of proportion. Lennon advocated non-violent protest.
Mike's lyrics reference the Kent State shooting but note that the guards came "battle-dressed" to a peace rally, essentially faulting them for the shooting. Mike is aligning himself with the counter-culture in the song. As these demonstrations continued to escalate into violence and in the climate of the times with cops looking to start riots, telling kids to stay away wasn't a bad idea. It was turning into a set-up. "The police will make sure there's a riot for them to contain,etc".

That said, I wish they had just covered "Riot..." instead. This song always sounds like bandwagon jumping to me.

 4 
 on: Today at 10:55:47 AM 
Started by Andy Botwin - Last post by Andy Botwin
I didn't know he was an "official" BB.

http://www.italiaguitarsusa.com/making-this-the-first-true-generator-on-the-internet-2/

 5 
 on: Today at 10:36:50 AM 
Started by pixletwin - Last post by Jay
What You're Doing and Every Little Thing have always been my favorite songs on that album, and it looks like both of them are going to get kicked out.

 6 
 on: Today at 10:21:26 AM 
Started by pixletwin - Last post by feelsflow
"I'll Follow the Sun"

 7 
 on: Today at 10:00:56 AM 
Started by Crow - Last post by Andy Botwin
Well, for one thing, the shows Mike did can be billed "non-partisan" all they want, but if the Texas ball had Trump's cabinet guys, then I would call that highly partisan. Hell, these are victory parties! I only mention the story about turning down the main ball because I didn't see it anywhere else.

 8 
 on: Today at 09:46:37 AM 
Started by CenturyDeprived - Last post by Andy Botwin
It tells quite a different story than "Revolution". I do believe Mike is saying "don't be a martyr". The Boys, and many of their audience, weren't really counterculture figures at all.

Right. And I guess I get that sentiment and can't exactly completely argue with it, but it's oddly the exact same sentiment I would expect being propagated from both law enforcement and this administration, just wrapped up in the context of a pop song.

Actually it's a near identical sentiment to "Revolution" which, at the time, was viewed as an anti-protest song. The Beatles caught a lot of flak for that and the counterculture embraced more committed material like "Street Fighting Man".

I always thought of the lyrics to SDT as a rip off of "Revolution" myself.

John wrote letters to underground papers denying that Revolution was pro- Establishment. He was in favor of the movement, but didn't know whether he was in favor of non-violent or violent protest (as noted by the constant change in the lyrics "when you talk about destruction don't you know that you can count me out, in").  The line about carrying pictures about Chairman Mao was a warning that that would actually harm and undermine the actual movement. This is all documented in Ian MacDonald's REVOLUTION IN THE HEAD and Jon Wiener's books about Lennon. Mike's lyrics say "stay home. Getting your head busted in is not worth it".

 9 
 on: Today at 09:31:57 AM 
Started by CenturyDeprived - Last post by GhostyTMRS
That's something that has fascinated me for the past few years: how that history is perceived now -vs- how it was perceived as it happened. You and I are (I think) around the same age so we read all about The Velvet Underground and The MC5, while those bands were a complete non-factor for Rock fans at the time. There's even a level of resentment toward later generations cherry-picking the "greats" -one of the reasons Pet Sounds was such a tough sell for my radio audience; who haven't read the history books, don't have the internet, etc.

 10 
 on: Today at 08:54:25 AM 
Started by CenturyDeprived - Last post by guitarfool2002
Lennon in his concept of Revolution is saying he's conflicted, he's sitting on the fence as to whether he goes all in or sits it out. There is an interview where he said the one line that is only on the "slow" version on the White Album crystallized it: "you can count me out...in". It was Lennon himself being indecisive, but then saying Ok, I'm in. Quite a few of Lennon's lyrics whether about revolution, or love, or anything else are along the same lines of "I'm not sure yet what to do...".

The line "out...in" was cut out when the decision was made, in some ways according to Lennon against his wishes, to speed it up and make it more of a "single" with a harder beat and more rocking sound, and that was the more familiar version that got used as the B-side of Hey Jude. So on the version that was designated as more likely to be a single, Lennon only says "count me out". But that wasn't where he was at or what he was thinking when he wrote the song, if anything it felt like Lennon thought he compromised the lyric for commercial reasons of getting a more single-friendly tune.

He said in reference to how it was perceived at the time, prefacing that with "There were two versions but the underground left only picked up on the one."

He said in the same 69 interview that he said "out" on the single because "he didn't want to get killed".

The point is, the Stones seemingly had no such misgivings or second thoughts and as many have said, with the release of Street Fighting Man they became the counterculture band.

Lennon specifically said he wasn't sure, hence the "count me out...in" lyric.

The Stones were both conceived and perceived as the "bad boys" of the teen rock scene going back to when they first hit the bigger circuits. They were the band whose members your parents wouldn't want you to hang out with, so they always had the aura of that around them, whether sexual or political in later years. In the early days, it was 100% by design of their management too. Street Fighting Man was as much an update of Dancin In The Streets with current lyrics as it was a counterculture anthem.

If any song that cracked the mainstream was a "counterculture" song if not an outright anthem, it was Stills' "For What It's Worth". That came from one of the epicenters of the youth movement before the mainstream press even picked up on it, home to various Be-Ins and the Sunset Strip "riots" and the like. Street Fighting Man was in the counterculture lexicon, for sure, but nowhere near what bands like the MC5 were doing...I'd even go as far as to include the Dead and Country Joe and a number of others before the Stones in that regard.

While I agree with all that (and considering Lennon spent the next 4 years screaming into a megaphone "Get it together! Violence is not the answer" so his indecision lasted about all of a week) you have to look at the literature of the times. The Stones' "Street Fighting Man", whatever its merits in retrospect, was taken very seriously and was definitely a counterculture anthem (naive as it may seem).

As for SDT...like much of the Jack Reilly era it seems contrived and plastic. Sort of like "Yeah, we'll book you to play the peace festivals, we'll chuck in a reference to Kent State..the college kids will eat it up!"
It's a credit to the group's talent that they managed to musically rise above the cynical gameplan at work.

Yeah, I'm not diminishing Street Fighting Man at all, or its impact at the time, but for me it feels like a "Lite" version of some of the really hardcore music that was going on, and not just the MC5 but the bands and music that truly was under the radar because it didn't sell.

I mean, look at the Woodstock film almost 50 years after the event. Country Joe and Country Joe and The Fish are given some of the biggest applause and attention, they were a huge deal at the festival. But - Outside of that, where are they? They got dropped from almost all playlists, and are virtually unknown unless someone under 40 somehow watches the Woodstock film. Yet, at that time, Fixin To Die Rag in many, many circles was an anthem.

Before I started digging into the history, I didn't think Stills' For What It's Worth was as important as it really was, but consider that was 1966/early 67 in the timeline. That was before a lot of the lines Stills wrote were starting to get reported widely. I think that song encapsulated what created it more than Eve Of Destruction - Not as much from PF Sloan's side of the coin, but after hearing Barry McGuire read the lyrics off cue cards because he was disinterested in it. That changed the song's impact for me, it was a guy reciting lyrics off cue cards that made the record. Sloan was feeling the song...the singer wasn't. Game changer. Stills for the win.

Consider even Street Fighting Man has lyrics that suggest the same indecision as Lennon's Revolution. yeah, Mick sings all this is going on, it's a revolution, yeah...but what's a poor boy to do but sing in a rock and roll band? There's just no place for a street fighting man.

Even Mick as narrator is torn between being counted in or saying count me out. He's more of a reporter as narrator, injecting some commentary, but erasing any commitment by saying 'what am I to do, I sing rock and roll'.

It's along the same lines as Lennon's non-commitment on Revolution. But for me, the year 1968 puts both of them a little bit late to the game. Stills nailed it, the CBS news crew that filmed Inside Pop in late 1966 nailed it with David Oppenheim. That was one of the epicenters, and that was some of what cracked the mainstream over a year before the Stones or Lennon reached the airwaves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
gfx gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!