Greatest Year In Rock & Roll : 1967 :]

[Ron]

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes

Are we just outright dismissing R&B/Soul music?

R&B/Soul wasn't album-orientated until a little while later - 'Hot Buttered Soul' and 'What's Going On' being pioneering. The first couple of Sly and The Family Stone albums aren't strong either - 'Stand' being the first coherant one.

You must have never heard of Mr. James Brown.  Hot Buttered Soul and What's Going On were certainly great albums, but the black community was well aware of albums full of themed music way before then.  There's nothing pioneering about What's going on other than how it crossed over into the White Pop mainstream.  James Brown and the Famous Flames were selling albums in the 50's that weren't driven by singles.  I'm not suggesting they're on the level of Hot Buttered Soul or What's Going On, but the whole discussion we're having is about "best year in music".  James Brown was making great songs and great music back in the 50's.  Ignoring R&B outright before 1971 because we've never heard the albums the singles were released on is just pedantic.  R&B was nearly as important as Rock (and certainly part of it's inception) well into the 70's. 

[hypehat]

Right on - ignoring R&B for not making 'album' albums would be like dismissing pop music for the same. Which you don't seem to be doing.

[the captain]

Giving albums priority over singles doesn't make sense, anyway, regardless of when this genre or that moved into and out of albums as the dominant format. It doesn't mean anything about the quality of music. You could just as easily say music got better in 198x (I have no idea what year) because people started making 74-minute (or however much it was) albums because that's how much space a CD could fit.

[I. Spaceman]

Giving albums priority over singles doesn't make sense, anyway, regardless of when this genre or that moved into and out of albums as the dominant format. It doesn't mean anything about the quality of music. You could just as easily say music got better in 198x (I have no idea what year) because people started making 74-minute (or however much it was) albums because that's how much space a CD could fit.

That's right, Captain.

[Cabinessenceking]

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes

1966 was prob better, PS was released, Revolver was better than Sgt Pepper which has very few strong indiviudal tracks and is not as grand as claimed as a whole piece either. Satanic Requests is a low point for the Stones in this period, just a cheap rip at doing something Beatles-like with not-great results. there is a reason why they abandoned this path. Piper at gates of dawn is ok, but would be considered mediocre if PF had not become famous a few years after.

[Newguy562]

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes

1966 was prob better, PS was released, Revolver was better than Sgt Pepper which has very few strong indiviudal tracks and is not as grand as claimed as a whole piece either. Satanic Requests is a low point for the Stones in this period, just a cheap rip at doing something Beatles-like with not-great results. there is a reason why they abandoned this path. Piper at gates of dawn is ok, but would be considered mediocre if PF had not become famous a few years after.

Satanic Majesties Request is definitely the most under-rated psychedelic album of all time and musically imo far more superior to Sgt. pepper.

[Newguy562]

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes

1966 was prob better, PS was released, Revolver was better than Sgt Pepper which has very few strong indiviudal tracks and is not as grand as claimed as a whole piece either. Satanic Requests is a low point for the Stones in this period, just a cheap rip at doing something Beatles-like with not-great results. there is a reason why they abandoned this path. Piper at gates of dawn is ok, but would be considered mediocre if PF had not become famous a few years after.

Satanic Majesties Request is definitely the most under-rated psychedelic album of all time and musically imo far more superior to Sgt. pepper.

Totally agree with you, Newguy! I can't stand most of Sgt. Pepper, except for WALHFMF, LR, title track (reprise) and GMGM.

They have some very ugly sounding songs on there Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! ,Within You Without You & When I'm Sixty-Four...I still feel like Smile tops it..though many people would disagree..

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Satanic Majesties Request is definitely the most under-rated psychedelic album of all time and musically imo far more superior to Sgt. pepper.

I disagree. I do like TSMR a lot - some great songs including my favorite Stones song, She's A Rainbow. Nevertheless there are a few too many blank spots on the album for me to consider it excellent. That extended jam in the Sing This Altogether reprise is the most obvious example and really bores me. The same goes to the "tribal" jam that ruins Gomper. I also find the attempt at psychedelia in In Another Land is kind of lame, but overall that's not a bad song, just hampered by the vocal effect and the snoring at the end. Sgt. Pepper like just about every Beatle song is like a poem - no moment is wasted. The Beatles knew a thing or two about saying what they had to say with economy.

[Newguy562]

Satanic Majesties Request is definitely the most under-rated psychedelic album of all time and musically imo far more superior to Sgt. pepper.

I disagree. I do like TSMR a lot - some great songs including my favorite Stones song, She's A Rainbow. Nevertheless there are a few too many blank spots on the album for me to consider it excellent. That extended jam in the Sing This Altogether reprise is the most obvious example and really bores me. The same goes to the "tribal" jam that ruins Gomper. I also find the attempt at psychedelia in In Another Land is kind of lame, but overall that's not a bad song, just hampered by the vocal effect and the snoring at the end. Sgt. Pepper like just about every Beatle song is like a poem - no moment is wasted. The Beatles knew a thing or two about saying what they had to say with economy.

TSMR is totally under-rated maybe in a couple more decades everyone will catch up ...The Beatles were the biggest group so anything they did that was mediocre(for them) was blown up and praised...even revolver was better than Sgt pepper (musically) but Sgt pepper had an incredible impact on pop music..still Smile tops both of them put together..

[Chocolate Shake Man]

TSMR is totally under-rated

I don't understand. Explain.

maybe in a couple more decades everyone will catch up ...

To what? Your opinion? It must be lonely being so far ahead of the pack.

The Beatles were the biggest group so anything they did that was mediocre(for them) was blown up and praised...

At the time, The Beatles did receive positive criticism but there wasn't a lot of serious criticism being done on any pop music in the 60s, at least not until around 1967 and even then the serious criticism was scarce. So I'm not sure what you mean by this either. Essentially what you appear to be saying is that because so many people enjoyed The Beatles music, so many people said it was good. Seems to me that that would be the fairly obvious consequence.

even revolver was better than Sgt pepper (musically)

Again, not sure what you mean by "musically." Personally, I prefer Revolver more but I don't play the "better" game.

but Sgt pepper had an incredible impact on pop music..still Smile tops both of them put together..

What Smile are you talking about? Disc 1 of the boxset put out last year? Or the unfinished tapes from 1966/67?

[keysarsoze001]

1966>1967

Off the top of my head 66 has :

Revolver
Pet sounds
Blonde on blonde
Sounds of silence
A quick one

I second this.

[EgoHanger1966]

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes

I don't think any of those (with one or two questionable exceptions) are rock n roll albums.

[Rocker]

1966>1967

Off the top of my head 66 has :

Revolver
Pet sounds
Blonde on blonde
Sounds of silence
A quick one

I second this.

Add "How great thour art". Although Gospel is not everyone's thing, this album has great production and sound.

[MBE]

It was a great year but I would say any year from 1951-71 was pretty great.

[Melt Away]

This is easy. 1967 was the year of psychedelic rock and 1957 was the year of rock n roll.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

70s: Tom Waits, Slade, Wings, The Eagles, Paul McCartney, George Harrison (selectively), Frank Zappa (solo career), The Carpenters, The Quess Who, Queen (selectively), The Ramones, Funkadelic, Cyndi Lauper (selectively), Elton John etc + not mentioning the artists who started in the 60s. 

I add Television, Elvis Costello. the best of Bruce Springsteen, solo Lou Reed, Sex Pistols and the Clash, Al Green, Brian Eno....

[halblaineisgood]

Here's some from 1957.

Jailhouse Rock   Elvis Presley
Whole Lot of Shakin' Going On  Jerry Lee Lewis
That'll Be The Day  Crickets
Bye Bye Love  Everly Brothers
Great Balls Of Fire  Jerry Lee Lewis
School Day  Chuck Berry
Rock And Roll Music  Chuck Berry
Peggy Sue  Buddy Holly
Lucille  Little Richard
Rocking Pneumonia  Huey "Piano" Smith & the Clowns
All Shook Up  Elvis Presley
Searchin'  Coasters
You Send Me  Sam Cooke
Wake Up Little Susie  Everly Brothers
Susie Q  Dale Hawkins
I'm Walkin'  Fats Domino
Keep A 'Knockin'  Little Richard
Matchbox  Carl Perkins
C.C. Rider  Chuck Willis
At The Hop  Danny & the Juniors
Little Darlin'  Diamonds
Oh Boy!  Crickets
Get A Job  Silhouettes
Book Of Love  Monotones
Maybe Baby  Crickets
Young Blood  Coasters
Not Fade Away  Crickets
Walking After Midnight  Patsy Cline
Got My Mojo Working  Muddy Waters
Too Much  Elvis Presley
Diana  Paul Anka
Silhouettes  Rays
Short Fat Fannie  Larry Williams
Hey Bo Diddley  Bo Diddley
Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby  Carl Perkins
Teddy Bear  Elvis Presley
It Hurts Me Too  Elmore James
Treat Me Nice  Elvis Presley
Honeycomb  Jimmie Rodgers
Mr. Lee  Bobbettes
We Belong Together  Robert & Johnny
Bony Moronie  Larry Williams
To The Aisle  Five Satins
A White Sport Coat  Marty Robbins
Everyday  Buddy Holly
Be-Bop Baby  Ricky Nelson
Stood Up  Ricky Nelson
Blue Christmas  Elvis Presley
Jenny, Jenny  Little Richard
Raunchy  Bill Justis / Ernie Freeman
Words Of Love  Buddy Holly
The Stroll  Diamonds
My Special Angel  Bobby Helms

What a year. Little Darlin. I can count on one hand the number of songs from that list, that I can bear the thought of ever doing without.
I think if you make the same size list, for all the top songs from subsequent years, more and more non-essentials
would be popping up. Not a huge , mind you, just an ever so slight increase. That's just me, though.

[Lonely Summer]

The only reason why I might separate 66-67-68 from any time in the 50's was the notion that kids could pick up their guitars, write their own songs, form a band in a garage, cut a 45rpm single, and become stars. The late 50's, apart from notables like Buddy Holly and Phil Spector with his Teddy Bears, were much more controlled in how the big show process worked. You wanted to be a star, the machine swallowed you up and you went along with it.

I don't know man.  It's easy to think that, but the notion that it was easier to be a start in the late 60's than the late 50's I don't believe is true.  I don't know why you'd only mention Buddy Holly or Phil Spector of all people, you realize there were tons upon tons of singers (virtually everybody you've heard of) who did just that, don't you?  Sure much of it was driven by the machine, but did the machine have anything to do with Chuck Berry?  Little Richard?  Jerry Lee Lewis?  Those are the founding fathers right there, and they all did things their way.  They went from nothing to everything on their own merits.

Hank Ballard and the Moonlighters.  Hank was a completely self-made man, he wrote and got famous on his own.  Elvis Presley literally worked his ass off to get famous.  Johnny Cash became famous by writing his own music and working from nothing to superstar.  Etc. Etc. list goes on and on.

I think there's nothing any more or less "big Show" about the late 50's and the late 60's.  Hell look at the Beach Boys.  They started the band in their living room.  It was completely possible to make yourself a star with your own music in the late 50's, just as much as it was in the late 60's. 

Now this is a great post - and only partly because I am sick of the Rolling Stone magazine mentality that acts like rock 'n' roll began with the Beatles. Oh, sure, they occasionally make a token reference to Little Richard or Chuck Berry, but all the real praise is heaped on the acts that came of age in the late 60's/early 70's and later. I'll take a stack of Elvis and Chuck Berry 45's anyday over those latter day oh-so-serious bands of the hippie era.

[halblaineisgood]

right on, lonely summer!

[guitarfool2002]

The only reason why I might separate 66-67-68 from any time in the 50's was the notion that kids could pick up their guitars, write their own songs, form a band in a garage, cut a 45rpm single, and become stars. The late 50's, apart from notables like Buddy Holly and Phil Spector with his Teddy Bears, were much more controlled in how the big show process worked. You wanted to be a star, the machine swallowed you up and you went along with it.

I don't know man.  It's easy to think that, but the notion that it was easier to be a start in the late 60's than the late 50's I don't believe is true.  I don't know why you'd only mention Buddy Holly or Phil Spector of all people, you realize there were tons upon tons of singers (virtually everybody you've heard of) who did just that, don't you?  Sure much of it was driven by the machine, but did the machine have anything to do with Chuck Berry?  Little Richard?  Jerry Lee Lewis?  Those are the founding fathers right there, and they all did things their way.  They went from nothing to everything on their own merits.

Hank Ballard and the Moonlighters.  Hank was a completely self-made man, he wrote and got famous on his own.  Elvis Presley literally worked his ass off to get famous.  Johnny Cash became famous by writing his own music and working from nothing to superstar.  Etc. Etc. list goes on and on.

I think there's nothing any more or less "big Show" about the late 50's and the late 60's.  Hell look at the Beach Boys.  They started the band in their living room.  It was completely possible to make yourself a star with your own music in the late 50's, just as much as it was in the late 60's.  

Now this is a great post - and only partly because I am sick of the Rolling Stone magazine mentality that acts like rock 'n' roll began with the Beatles. Oh, sure, they occasionally make a token reference to Little Richard or Chuck Berry, but all the real praise is heaped on the acts that came of age in the late 60's/early 70's and later. I'll take a stack of Elvis and Chuck Berry 45's anyday over those latter day oh-so-serious bands of the hippie era.

Tell me how Rolling Stone magazine enters this picture when the years I'm describing were mostly before they even existed and the garage bands I'm talking about were not featured in their pages, and far from hippies. At least get the facts straight before going on a tangent about hippies and Rolling Stone.

A few listens to Nuggets and a few episodes of "Little Steven's Underground Garage" might help fill in some of the missing parts of the story. There may even be a few classic Roland Janes guitar licks turning up on some of those garage records from 1966...those kids in the 60's had great taste.

Garage bands...hippies...Rolling Stone...?  

Since we're heaping praise on posts from February, I'll say the sentiments are nice but they're also just a bit too naive and getting into rose-colored-glasses territory about how terrific the "Fabulous 50's" really were. As the years go by it's easy to forget or whitewash entirely the Payola affair, the Morris Levy business deals (Google him), and the overall corruption, graft, and outright theft that ran rampant during this time. Not to mention the hundreds of artists who got snookered out of future royalties for their songs and records by certain figures who could steal royalties with one hand and get your record on the national charts in a matter of days and plenty of cash-stuffed envelopes (and other vices promised to DJ's and programmers) with the other.

Fun stuff. The machine.

And see how it was almost a systematic way in which the bigger stars of rock and roll seemed to disappear around 1958-59-60 through various reasons, to be replaced by strictly formula, assembly-line pop stars, similar to what the Disney enterprise churns out today for the youngsters. It's cliche but true.

Mind you, I'm talking about *national* hits: Regional and local hits like the original "Surfin" single for one example were what was keeping the flame going in the early 60's for guitar-driven rock until the Beatles blew the doors off and opened it up for guitar bands to once again get signed and get promoted on a national level. That is a fact. If the Beach Boys in 1962-63 did not have a surf or car angle to work in other parts of the country and just had a stash of songs about girls, there may not have been something as easy for the machine to latch on to and promote them nationally rather than staying content as a local California success.

Spector was an anomaly. He had his finger on the pulse of what a different kind of teenage listener would want to hear. Fortunately though learning the inner workings from his pseudo-apprenticeship with Leiber and Stoller he was able to use orchestration and large ensemble sounds to hammer home the point of his records - teenage symphonies. In lesser hands it would have been a disaster.

"The Machine" as Ron calls it may not have given birth to Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, or Little Richard, but the machine sure had a big f***ing hand in getting these artists on television, in the movies, and on the right radio stations so Jerry Lee wasn't only considered a "country" act and Chuck and Little Richard could play venues other than the Chitlin' Circuit, and be featured in motion pictures.

A lot of times the artists themselves had to feed the machine by doing foolish things like signing over future rights and royalty payments to someone other than themselves who wrote the song. Or sometimes the machine hired very nice managers who had very smart lawyers who could drop a 300 page contract on the big desk in front of the artist, tell that artist "This is the best thing for you, you'll be on the big screen, radio, and television in a few months after signing this...I looked it over, it's good...", then have that artist proceed to sign away a ton of money to someone who didn't earn it. Or worse, have those signing ceremonies take place with a gun involved somehow, no choice in the matter.

So do I think a record like "Little Girl" or "Liar Liar" from '66 or thereabouts was as Earth-shattering as Little Richard? Of course not. Never said anything of the sort. But I do think there was something very powerful and culturally significant  about a group of kids banging out a three-chord song in a garage in the mid 60's then seeing it go national against all odds and against the accepted practices of "The Machine" and how a hit record was supposed to be made...for those 60's kids who were just a bit too young to have really *felt* that initial influence of Elvis, and Little Richard, and Chuck Berry, and Eddie Cochran, and all of their peers...for those kids who saved their money or convinced the parents to buy them a cheap guitar and amp after seeing the Beatles on Sullivan in Feb. 64...it was pretty amazing for the times. And it defined a lot of the attitude which would resurface in future decades and proceed to destroy the Machine's way of making a hit record.

Rolling Stone had nothing to do with it.

[halblaineisgood]

 Interesting, guitarfool. You like your garage rock. 

I suppose it's possible, that there might be a garage-
rock shaped hole in my heart, that I don't even know is there.
I guess it's time to purchase a compilation.

[Lonely Summer]

The only reason why I might separate 66-67-68 from any time in the 50's was the notion that kids could pick up their guitars, write their own songs, form a band in a garage, cut a 45rpm single, and become stars. The late 50's, apart from notables like Buddy Holly and Phil Spector with his Teddy Bears, were much more controlled in how the big show process worked. You wanted to be a star, the machine swallowed you up and you went along with it.

I don't know man.  It's easy to think that, but the notion that it was easier to be a start in the late 60's than the late 50's I don't believe is true.  I don't know why you'd only mention Buddy Holly or Phil Spector of all people, you realize there were tons upon tons of singers (virtually everybody you've heard of) who did just that, don't you?  Sure much of it was driven by the machine, but did the machine have anything to do with Chuck Berry?  Little Richard?  Jerry Lee Lewis?  Those are the founding fathers right there, and they all did things their way.  They went from nothing to everything on their own merits.

Hank Ballard and the Moonlighters.  Hank was a completely self-made man, he wrote and got famous on his own.  Elvis Presley literally worked his ass off to get famous.  Johnny Cash became famous by writing his own music and working from nothing to superstar.  Etc. Etc. list goes on and on.

I think there's nothing any more or less "big Show" about the late 50's and the late 60's.  Hell look at the Beach Boys.  They started the band in their living room.  It was completely possible to make yourself a star with your own music in the late 50's, just as much as it was in the late 60's.  

Now this is a great post - and only partly because I am sick of the Rolling Stone magazine mentality that acts like rock 'n' roll began with the Beatles. Oh, sure, they occasionally make a token reference to Little Richard or Chuck Berry, but all the real praise is heaped on the acts that came of age in the late 60's/early 70's and later. I'll take a stack of Elvis and Chuck Berry 45's anyday over those latter day oh-so-serious bands of the hippie era.

Tell me how Rolling Stone magazine enters this picture when the years I'm describing were mostly before they even existed and the garage bands I'm talking about were not featured in their pages, and far from hippies. At least get the facts straight before going on a tangent about hippies and Rolling Stone.

A few listens to Nuggets and a few episodes of "Little Steven's Underground Garage" might help fill in some of the missing parts of the story. There may even be a few classic Roland Janes guitar licks turning up on some of those garage records from 1966...those kids in the 60's had great taste.

Garage bands...hippies...Rolling Stone...?  

Since we're heaping praise on posts from February, I'll say the sentiments are nice but they're also just a bit too naive and getting into rose-colored-glasses territory about how terrific the "Fabulous 50's" really were. As the years go by it's easy to forget or whitewash entirely the Payola affair, the Morris Levy business deals (Google him), and the overall corruption, graft, and outright theft that ran rampant during this time. Not to mention the hundreds of artists who got snookered out of future royalties for their songs and records by certain figures who could steal royalties with one hand and get your record on the national charts in a matter of days and plenty of cash-stuffed envelopes (and other vices promised to DJ's and programmers) with the other.

Fun stuff. The machine.

And see how it was almost a systematic way in which the bigger stars of rock and roll seemed to disappear around 1958-59-60 through various reasons, to be replaced by strictly formula, assembly-line pop stars, similar to what the Disney enterprise churns out today for the youngsters. It's cliche but true.

Mind you, I'm talking about *national* hits: Regional and local hits like the original "Surfin" single for one example were what was keeping the flame going in the early 60's for guitar-driven rock until the Beatles blew the doors off and opened it up for guitar bands to once again get signed and get promoted on a national level. That is a fact. If the Beach Boys in 1962-63 did not have a surf or car angle to work in other parts of the country and just had a stash of songs about girls, there may not have been something as easy for the machine to latch on to and promote them nationally rather than staying content as a local California success.

Spector was an anomaly. He had his finger on the pulse of what a different kind of teenage listener would want to hear. Fortunately though learning the inner workings from his pseudo-apprenticeship with Leiber and Stoller he was able to use orchestration and large ensemble sounds to hammer home the point of his records - teenage symphonies. In lesser hands it would have been a disaster.

"The Machine" as Ron calls it may not have given birth to Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, or Little Richard, but the machine sure had a big f***ing hand in getting these artists on television, in the movies, and on the right radio stations so Jerry Lee wasn't only considered a "country" act and Chuck and Little Richard could play venues other than the Chitlin' Circuit, and be featured in motion pictures.

A lot of times the artists themselves had to feed the machine by doing foolish things like signing over future rights and royalty payments to someone other than themselves who wrote the song. Or sometimes the machine hired very nice managers who had very smart lawyers who could drop a 300 page contract on the big desk in front of the artist, tell that artist "This is the best thing for you, you'll be on the big screen, radio, and television in a few months after signing this...I looked it over, it's good...", then have that artist proceed to sign away a ton of money to someone who didn't earn it. Or worse, have those signing ceremonies take place with a gun involved somehow, no choice in the matter.

So do I think a record like "Little Girl" or "Liar Liar" from '66 or thereabouts was as Earth-shattering as Little Richard? Of course not. Never said anything of the sort. But I do think there was something very powerful and culturally significant  about a group of kids banging out a three-chord song in a garage in the mid 60's then seeing it go national against all odds and against the accepted practices of "The Machine" and how a hit record was supposed to be made...for those 60's kids who were just a bit too young to have really *felt* that initial influence of Elvis, and Little Richard, and Chuck Berry, and Eddie Cochran, and all of their peers...for those kids who saved their money or convinced the parents to buy them a cheap guitar and amp after seeing the Beatles on Sullivan in Feb. 64...it was pretty amazing for the times. And it defined a lot of the attitude which would resurface in future decades and proceed to destroy the Machine's way of making a hit record.

Rolling Stone had nothing to do with it.

You misunderstood my post, please re-read it. And I'd take 1966 over 1967 anyday.

[guitarfool2002]

Interesting, guitarfool. You like your garage rock. 

I suppose it's possible, that there might be a garage-
rock shaped hole in my heart, that I don't even know is there.
I guess it's time to purchase a compilation.

I would highly recommend whatever version of the original "Nuggets" compilation is available - I know there is a version featuring British bands too, but the one featuring mostly American garage bands that added onto Lenny Kaye's original tracklist is essential. It's nowhere near complete but it is a great overview of the scene. Also, if it's available anywhere online, look for Little Steven's "Underground Garage". He mixed in the classics with some kitsch, and added the current bands who are still playing that style of rock.

It never fails to get me excited about basic rock and roll, the sheer joy of playing rock music without too many complications.

See if this one moves you: "Don't Look Back" by The Remains, 1966
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8bG6o0VKDc

For my money, the music heard from 1:06 to 1:54 on this tune is one of the most joyous blasts of pure, rock and roll fun from the 60's. That is one of the many treats found on comps like Nuggets.

[guitarfool2002]

The only reason why I might separate 66-67-68 from any time in the 50's was the notion that kids could pick up their guitars, write their own songs, form a band in a garage, cut a 45rpm single, and become stars. The late 50's, apart from notables like Buddy Holly and Phil Spector with his Teddy Bears, were much more controlled in how the big show process worked. You wanted to be a star, the machine swallowed you up and you went along with it.

I don't know man.  It's easy to think that, but the notion that it was easier to be a start in the late 60's than the late 50's I don't believe is true.  I don't know why you'd only mention Buddy Holly or Phil Spector of all people, you realize there were tons upon tons of singers (virtually everybody you've heard of) who did just that, don't you?  Sure much of it was driven by the machine, but did the machine have anything to do with Chuck Berry?  Little Richard?  Jerry Lee Lewis?  Those are the founding fathers right there, and they all did things their way.  They went from nothing to everything on their own merits.

Hank Ballard and the Moonlighters.  Hank was a completely self-made man, he wrote and got famous on his own.  Elvis Presley literally worked his ass off to get famous.  Johnny Cash became famous by writing his own music and working from nothing to superstar.  Etc. Etc. list goes on and on.

I think there's nothing any more or less "big Show" about the late 50's and the late 60's.  Hell look at the Beach Boys.  They started the band in their living room.  It was completely possible to make yourself a star with your own music in the late 50's, just as much as it was in the late 60's.  

Now this is a great post - and only partly because I am sick of the Rolling Stone magazine mentality that acts like rock 'n' roll began with the Beatles. Oh, sure, they occasionally make a token reference to Little Richard or Chuck Berry, but all the real praise is heaped on the acts that came of age in the late 60's/early 70's and later. I'll take a stack of Elvis and Chuck Berry 45's anyday over those latter day oh-so-serious bands of the hippie era.

Tell me how Rolling Stone magazine enters this picture when the years I'm describing were mostly before they even existed and the garage bands I'm talking about were not featured in their pages, and far from hippies. At least get the facts straight before going on a tangent about hippies and Rolling Stone.

A few listens to Nuggets and a few episodes of "Little Steven's Underground Garage" might help fill in some of the missing parts of the story. There may even be a few classic Roland Janes guitar licks turning up on some of those garage records from 1966...those kids in the 60's had great taste.

Garage bands...hippies...Rolling Stone...?  

Since we're heaping praise on posts from February, I'll say the sentiments are nice but they're also just a bit too naive and getting into rose-colored-glasses territory about how terrific the "Fabulous 50's" really were. As the years go by it's easy to forget or whitewash entirely the Payola affair, the Morris Levy business deals (Google him), and the overall corruption, graft, and outright theft that ran rampant during this time. Not to mention the hundreds of artists who got snookered out of future royalties for their songs and records by certain figures who could steal royalties with one hand and get your record on the national charts in a matter of days and plenty of cash-stuffed envelopes (and other vices promised to DJ's and programmers) with the other.

Fun stuff. The machine.

And see how it was almost a systematic way in which the bigger stars of rock and roll seemed to disappear around 1958-59-60 through various reasons, to be replaced by strictly formula, assembly-line pop stars, similar to what the Disney enterprise churns out today for the youngsters. It's cliche but true.

Mind you, I'm talking about *national* hits: Regional and local hits like the original "Surfin" single for one example were what was keeping the flame going in the early 60's for guitar-driven rock until the Beatles blew the doors off and opened it up for guitar bands to once again get signed and get promoted on a national level. That is a fact. If the Beach Boys in 1962-63 did not have a surf or car angle to work in other parts of the country and just had a stash of songs about girls, there may not have been something as easy for the machine to latch on to and promote them nationally rather than staying content as a local California success.

Spector was an anomaly. He had his finger on the pulse of what a different kind of teenage listener would want to hear. Fortunately though learning the inner workings from his pseudo-apprenticeship with Leiber and Stoller he was able to use orchestration and large ensemble sounds to hammer home the point of his records - teenage symphonies. In lesser hands it would have been a disaster.

"The Machine" as Ron calls it may not have given birth to Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, or Little Richard, but the machine sure had a big f***ing hand in getting these artists on television, in the movies, and on the right radio stations so Jerry Lee wasn't only considered a "country" act and Chuck and Little Richard could play venues other than the Chitlin' Circuit, and be featured in motion pictures.

A lot of times the artists themselves had to feed the machine by doing foolish things like signing over future rights and royalty payments to someone other than themselves who wrote the song. Or sometimes the machine hired very nice managers who had very smart lawyers who could drop a 300 page contract on the big desk in front of the artist, tell that artist "This is the best thing for you, you'll be on the big screen, radio, and television in a few months after signing this...I looked it over, it's good...", then have that artist proceed to sign away a ton of money to someone who didn't earn it. Or worse, have those signing ceremonies take place with a gun involved somehow, no choice in the matter.

So do I think a record like "Little Girl" or "Liar Liar" from '66 or thereabouts was as Earth-shattering as Little Richard? Of course not. Never said anything of the sort. But I do think there was something very powerful and culturally significant  about a group of kids banging out a three-chord song in a garage in the mid 60's then seeing it go national against all odds and against the accepted practices of "The Machine" and how a hit record was supposed to be made...for those 60's kids who were just a bit too young to have really *felt* that initial influence of Elvis, and Little Richard, and Chuck Berry, and Eddie Cochran, and all of their peers...for those kids who saved their money or convinced the parents to buy them a cheap guitar and amp after seeing the Beatles on Sullivan in Feb. 64...it was pretty amazing for the times. And it defined a lot of the attitude which would resurface in future decades and proceed to destroy the Machine's way of making a hit record.

Rolling Stone had nothing to do with it.

You misunderstood my post, please re-read it. And I'd take 1966 over 1967 anyday.

Me too. 1966 was the year.

But it is hard to separate the two because so much of what was really happening in '66 naturally bled over into '67, then when Pepper hit it was almost like every record label in the country going to Seattle to sign the next Nirvana in the early 90's. The icing on the cake looked great but the cake itself was stale. They missed the best part of what made an album like Pepper...an album like Pepper!

I didn't agree with the original post/reply from February, or the way it was slanted, suggesting there was something not correct about only mentioning Buddy and Spector...in a thread about 66-67, was it necessary to go down the full list of all great, unique rockers from the 50's in order to make it complete? The 50's were not exactly what the legend would now suggest, though the cream of the crop as far as music people still find appealing is still a part of the popular culture. Then again, not all that much has changed as far as "The Machine" in the years since, either.

[Lonely Summer]

Okay, I had a nice long response typed out, and the board froze up on me.....not typing all that again.