Don, so sorry to hear about your bass player. That's tough. It's a sad fact we'll all have to contend with. We have been fortunate so far... knock on wood. I  don't disagree with you in general as to moving into other careers, etc, and leaving the old band behind, but there is a lot of validity to those who regroup. It's about the music, not the money, age irrelevant, and if the spirit moves you, why not? There are countless such examples of careers going in very different directions, including members of my own band. And yet, here we are. I'd bet there is an audience out there who would dearly LOVE to see your band. And I'd bet that after you did it once, you'd be quite pleased to do it again...  You might see something in your music and your band that you hadn't noticed before or forgot about, coming back at you from the audience. It's infectious. Anyway, comment threads can get out of control & get all misconstrued, so I'll bow out here.  All the best !!!

matthew rosedon said:

You talk more sense than the rest of us put together, my friend.

 

Don said:

MzA, I think that if a group (or an individual musician for that matter) has stayed with it, growing together, then going back over their older material could be seen as relaying their foundation stones -- a means of keeping creativity alive.

In the case of The Abstracts all the living members (Roger Ponzi, our extraordinary bass player, sadly died at a fairly young age) went on to other careers -- in some cases quite notable ones in fact. Thus the connection to what the band created in the sixties only exists in our memories and in those of our fans.

But in rereading the initial post that started his thread I realize that the focus was much broader. Can an older person still "rock" -- that is keep the qualities that are at the heart of rock and roll. And to that I have to answer "yes!"  Love of life and living. Openness to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world. These are qualities that to my way of thinking are as basic to living as taking breath. 

Indeed, if I have any concerns about the interest being shown in `60s rock it is just that the sixties are over. The experiments that made up the sixties social questions now have been answered. (And some of the answers -- achh! -- are closer to what the old folks said they'd be then what we young people wished and argued for)  So yes, make the music live. Make the spirit behind the music live. But please, please don't get caught up in imitating the style of those times. To do that is akin to high school students doing a science class "experiment" that in fact is no experiment at all. How can it be? The answer is already known. And so too with the "experiments" of the sixties. The anti authority pose while eating the spoils of that society. The communitarian-ism in place of real individuality. Etc. Etc. No! Instead rock on. TRULY rock on! :)

-don

Craig, all the power to you for finding joy in the continuity of your life. You found your space and love it. I have nothing to say to that but "good for you! Go for it!"

But to reach the conclusion you reached about the choices the members of The Abstracts have made while knowing so little about our lives is, well, to put it kindly, unwise. Let me explain...

One of the band members went on to a life that including producing several motion pictures, one of which is already considered a cult classic. He also managed the film and TV career of one of Motown's greatest stars, was Director of MultiMedia Productions for Sony, and today is the CEO of a world music company.  He still writes music and regularly records with big names in both his home city -- L.A. -- and in Nashville.

Another band member went on to compose music for film and then turned his attention to his second major interest - imaging - and spent many fruitful years developing specialized photographic techniques for medicine and science. His name appears on literally hundreds of scientific papers and several books. There are more than a few people walking this earth because of diagnostic tools that he gave the medical profession.

Yet another band member continued on his course as an aviation artist and historian. His works are on display in such places as The Smithsonian Institute. He is the author of several books the latest of which is of interest enough to have landed him a recent guest spot with Jay Leno. And he is currently occupied as a consultant with NASA for the designs for the display of the recently retired Space Shuttles.

Yup, sounds like guys who have gotten "really old inside."  What a shame they "let go" to do this stuff instead of continuing to play their `60s semi-hits.

But for all that I do rejoice for you in the joy your own choices obviously continue to bring you.

-don

CRAIG MOORE said:

Hi ya Don - wellllll different strokes for different folks. "not who you were" misses the point altogether.(snip)... Don bless you but to me it sounds like The Abstracts have gotten truly old on the inside, it's sad to lose touch with your younger self since there is no societal reason to let go of it or be so dismissive of it. God bless the audience and all of the still active groups & perfomers from all eras & all fields - pop, the teen idols, blues, jazz, classical, dixieland, big bands, folk, punk, metal, and ROCK 'N ROLL! Go down swingin', literally.

Agreed!

matthew rosedon said:

You talk more sense than the rest of us put together, my friend.

 

Don said:

MzA, I think that if a group (or an individual musician for that matter) has stayed with it, growing together, then going back over their older material could be seen as relaying their foundation stones -- a means of keeping creativity alive.

In the case of The Abstracts all the living members (Roger Ponzi, our extraordinary bass player, sadly died at a fairly young age) went on to other careers -- in some cases quite notable ones in fact. Thus the connection to what the band created in the sixties only exists in our memories and in those of our fans.

But in rereading the initial post that started his thread I realize that the focus was much broader. Can an older person still "rock" -- that is keep the qualities that are at the heart of rock and roll. And to that I have to answer "yes!"  Love of life and living. Openness to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world. These are qualities that to my way of thinking are as basic to living as taking breath. 

Indeed, if I have any concerns about the interest being shown in `60s rock it is just that the sixties are over. The experiments that made up the sixties social questions now have been answered. (And some of the answers -- achh! -- are closer to what the old folks said they'd be then what we young people wished and argued for)  So yes, make the music live. Make the spirit behind the music live. But please, please don't get caught up in imitating the style of those times. To do that is akin to high school students doing a science class "experiment" that in fact is no experiment at all. How can it be? The answer is already known. And so too with the "experiments" of the sixties. The anti authority pose while eating the spoils of that society. The communitarian-ism in place of real individuality. Etc. Etc. No! Instead rock on. TRULY rock on! :)

-don

You talk more sense than the rest of us put together, my friend.

Don said:

MzA, I think that if a group (or an individual musician for that matter) has stayed with it, growing together, then going back over their older material could be seen as relaying their foundation stones -- a means of keeping creativity alive.

In the case of The Abstracts all the living members (Roger Ponzi, our extraordinary bass player, sadly died at a fairly young age) went on to other careers -- in some cases quite notable ones in fact. Thus the connection to what the band created in the sixties only exists in our memories and in those of our fans.

But in rereading the initial post that started his thread I realize that the focus was much broader. Can an older person still "rock" -- that is keep the qualities that are at the heart of rock and roll. And to that I have to answer "yes!"  Love of life and living. Openness to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world. These are qualities that to my way of thinking are as basic to living as taking breath. 

Indeed, if I have any concerns about the interest being shown in `60s rock it is just that the sixties are over. The experiments that made up the sixties social questions now have been answered. (And some of the answers -- achh! -- are closer to what the old folks said they'd be then what we young people wished and argued for)  So yes, make the music live. Make the spirit behind the music live. But please, please don't get caught up in imitating the style of those times. To do that is akin to high school students doing a science class "experiment" that in fact is no experiment at all. How can it be? The answer is already known. And so too with the "experiments" of the sixties. The anti authority pose while eating the spoils of that society. The communitarian-ism in place of real individuality. Etc. Etc. No! Instead rock on. TRULY rock on! :)

-don

MzA, I think that if a group (or an individual musician for that matter) has stayed with it, growing together, then going back over their older material could be seen as relaying their foundation stones -- a means of keeping creativity alive.

In the case of The Abstracts all the living members (Roger Ponzi, our extraordinary bass player, sadly died at a fairly young age) went on to other careers -- in some cases quite notable ones in fact. Thus the connection to what the band created in the sixties only exists in our memories and in those of our fans.

But in rereading the initial post that started his thread I realize that the focus was much broader. Can an older person still "rock" -- that is keep the qualities that are at the heart of rock and roll. And to that I have to answer "yes!"  Love of life and living. Openness to new ideas and new ways of seeing the world. These are qualities that to my way of thinking are as basic to living as taking breath. 

Indeed, if I have any concerns about the interest being shown in `60s rock it is just that the sixties are over. The experiments that made up the sixties social questions now have been answered. (And some of the answers -- achh! -- are closer to what the old folks said they'd be then what we young people wished and argued for)  So yes, make the music live. Make the spirit behind the music live. But please, please don't get caught up in imitating the style of those times. To do that is akin to high school students doing a science class "experiment" that in fact is no experiment at all. How can it be? The answer is already known. And so too with the "experiments" of the sixties. The anti authority pose while eating the spoils of that society. The communitarian-ism in place of real individuality. Etc. Etc. No! Instead rock on. TRULY rock on! :)

-don

Don said:

I do not think one has to be too old to rock, but one can be.  Rock comes from within.
And by that I do not mean it as condescension. A person can still be a creative musician but no longer be a rock and roller.  Life has simply led them to other things. To me there is nothing wrong with that. Others, however, take their life experience and use it to make better RnR. Nothing wrong with that either! :)

What is to me sad, however, is someone who has grown past their rockin' years who feels the need to pretend that they've not.  And it is especially sad (to me) if they are forced to play the same old song(s) that they played in their younger days if/when they no longer feel them.

When my `60s group The Abstracts recently had an album released of material we had recorded back in the `60s we had some interest shown in out doing a European tour. But in the final analysis we realized that while all of the living members of the band still "rocked" we had individually moved on style-wise.  Me to naked acoustic rock and blues.  To redo our old songs once or twice would be a hoot. But to be forced to do it night after night would not.  No, I'd rather be in the audience then that!

As one member of the band put it. `Can you imagine playing one of out more popular songs for the twelve millionth time, for instance on a cruise ship for wishing-they-were-young retirees?'  Ach! 

But the odd thing is that this person still regularly plays with a band for the pure pleasure of it, doing much of the general `60s repertoire. And I dig back deeper -- often into the Chess catalog from the fifties.

I say: Be who you are, not who you were. And enjoy it! :D

-don

I completely dig what you're saying Don.  Nobody should feel compelled to relive their youth unless you're really feeling it.  It's why nostalgia acts can be so depressing, but people who continue along same path of music into adulthood inspiring.  Certainly nobody can throw stones at recent releases by Mission of Burma or an array of other people who keep putting out new stuff.  I guess you have to get the sense that the music still really means something to the performer.  

I saw Sparks a few years back in London when they were doing their 21 records in 21 nights thing, I was there for "Indiscreet".  That record that came out in 1975 and there were fans around me who obviously had been waiting since then to hear these songs live again.  But the crowd also had kids in their 20's, probably hearing some of these songs live for the first time.  It gave one a warm rock feeling inside seeing all of them in one place, united in loving that record.  

PS Thanks for the kind words URGENT FURY

Don said:

To redo our old songs once or twice would be a hoot. But to be forced to do it night after night would not.  No, I'd rather be in the audience then that!

I say: Be who you are, not who you were. And enjoy it! :D

man ..My bro is 70 and substantially older than me and has played in rock surf punk and cowpunk bands since 1958 ......too old to rock will be the day they nail him in his box

Apologies about misattribution of Back Door Man - we all have something to learn (although I could have sworn Hooker recorded it at some point even if he didn't write it).

I wasn't disagreeing with you about black music.  In fact, I totally agree - it's just that many white people have given credit where credit is due and that Lennon's quote about Elvis was a typical Lennon soundbite.  However, there are plenty of examples of him giving credit to black artists.

As for the Beatles, well, of course anyone can like or dislike their music as they see fit.  What I was trying to say that it is much harder to deny their cultural significance and their impact.

  
Thane Cesar said:

I think some one missed the point about the EMI thing. Yes the Beatles were turned down, but when finally sign to a big corp, you do get those benefits.

Doesn't mean thatb they weren't talented, it just means they have an advantage over other bands.

But I do think people tend to forget that they were technically a boy band, the way they were promoted (not the way that they were fairly bright and could ad lib or could write their own stuff).

However Roseden, you attribute "What the men don't know..." to JLH, that's not right, the song is Back Door Man, written by the Blues himself W Dixon.

And my point about black folk doing it before, is more a comment on Lennons quote "Before Elvis", which maybe his opinion, but isn't mine. Remember the Comets?

If you really believe that the Beatles changed everything, well, it's your opinion and I'm not going to try and change that, but think about that statement.

A few years after the Beatles split Lennon was getting called an "Asshole with a tampax on his head".

I think some one missed the point about the EMI thing. Yes the Beatles were turned down, but when finally sign to a big corp, you do get those benefits.

Doesn't mean thatb they weren't talented, it just means they have an advantage over other bands.

But I do think people tend to forget that they were technically a boy band, the way they were promoted (not the way that they were fairly bright and could ad lib or could write their own stuff).

However Roseden, you attribute "What the men don't know..." to JLH, that's not right, the song is Back Door Man, written by the Blues himself W Dixon.

And my point about black folk doing it before, is more a comment on Lennons quote "Before Elvis", which maybe his opinion, but isn't mine. Remember the Comets?

If you really believe that the Beatles changed everything, well, it's your opinion and I'm not going to try and change that, but think about that statement.

A few years after the Beatles split Lennon was getting called an "Asshole with a tampax on his head".

Thanks Don - I couldn't agree more.  It's about trying to embrace rathing than rushing to reject.  I've never understood the argument that says you have to choose between Martha & the Vandellas or Mozart.  It's all there for all of us to enjoy.  In the end disputes over whether the Seeds were better than the Beatles are just playground squabbles.  Let's all just keep our ears open

 
Don said:

I highly value that comment Matthew.  Fact is people need to make a distinction even when there is little difference, and disagreeing with popular opinion is one way for us to set ourselves apart.  That's human nature. If loving humanity is a worthwhile thing (and we're repeatedly told that it is) then we need to love people as they are not as we wish they were.

I could easily get into a discussion of current music and that of the baroque, classical and romantic composers. Hell, we could include jazz, big band, and pre-rock pop too!

Knowledge to me means expanding ones horizons not shrinking them.  But as P.D. James once pointed out shrinking one's world somehow makes people feel safer. There it is again: Human nature. Bless the little children! :)

-don

matthew rosedon said:

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly... (little snip) ;-)

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.  

 

I highly value that comment Matthew.  Fact is people need to make a distinction even when there is little difference, and disagreeing with popular opinion is one way for us to set ourselves apart.  That's human nature. If loving humanity is a worthwhile thing (and we're repeatedly told that it is) then we need to love people as they are not as we wish they were.

I could easily get into a discussion of current music and that of the baroque, classical and romantic composers. Hell, we could include jazz, big band, and pre-rock pop too!

Knowledge to me means expanding ones horizons not shrinking them.  But as P.D. James once pointed out shrinking one's world somehow makes people feel safer. There it is again: Human nature. Bless the little children! :)

-don

matthew rosedon said:

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly... (little snip) ;-)

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.  

 

As my original post has been swept up in recent comments I thought I'd respond:

Firstly, the suggestion that EMI throwing money at the Beatles was responsible for their success.  As anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Beatles knows, Brian Epstein was rejected by every major London record label.  In desperation, and as a last chance, he turned to an EMI subsidiary called Parlophone who were known solely, if at all, for producing comedy albums.  The producer of those said comedy albums was, by happy accident, one Mr George Martin - the rest is history.  Similarly, as others have pointed out, Capitol was not interested hence the releases on VJ and Swan before their hand was forced by 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'.  I'm not sure how that constitutes 'buying' success.

One of the posts politely accuses me of ignoring the point that black musicians were doing it first.  Again, anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of popular music knows this to be correct.  The hardline argument tends to say that 'white' music is stolen from 'black' music.  I don't want to get into that here but it is of course true to say that 'white' music is massively indebted to 'black' music.  In all their early interviews, the Beatles acknowledged that debt; they refused to play to segregated audiences.  The Stones were allowed to choose a guest on 'Shindig' (I think); they chose Howlin' Wolf (imagine the shock of that on mainstream US TV at the time); here in the UK Dusty Springfield used her influence to promote a Motown TV special at a time when Motown was barely established here.  It was the first time that a programme consisting of so many black artists had been shown on UK TV.  Now only a fool would say that makes amends for hundreds of years of slavery/imperialist oppression (UK) or slavery/racial segregation (US) but it's a step, an important step, a step in the right direction and a journey of 1000 miles etc. etc.

The Beatles picked up guitars because of Elvis.  Thousands of US garage bands picked up guitars because of the Beatles/Stones/British Invasion and those artists that had already picked up their guitars upped their game e.g. Beach Boys, Dylan, McGuinn etc.  The Beatles didn't block anybodies career, they were, like all great artists, about possibility and hope and about the excitement that lies behind all great art.  Don't be dismissive of teenage girls screaming because they were helping to tilt the word on its axis - John Lee Hooker got it right - 'the men don't know but the little girls understand'. 

I was accused of hyperbole by saying the Beatles changed everything.  I stand by that statement.  In fact, I will go further and say that their artistic achievement is on a par with Shakespeare or Dickens or Picasso or Rembrandt or Mozart.  There I've said it.  Great art does change everything and does make the world a better place.

As an Englishman I am immensely proud that this small island was responsible for The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Yardbirds etc (not so proud of Herman's Hermits however)  The downside of that is I get a bit defensive when people attack 'our' music.  I am also a firm believer that people are entitled to their own opinion.  However, I draw the line when words like gutless, mediocre, and Backstreet Boys of their day are used in conjuction with the Fab Four or, even worse, when they're patronisingly dismissed as being an insignificant pop combo who created, by some fluke, the odd hummable ditty.  That I'm afraid can only be answered by meeting said proponents of such nonsense on the field of honour at dawn with the weapon of your choice - swords, pistols, or Phil Collins CDs used like Oddjob in 'Goldfinger'.

But you know this is what I love about this site - the breadth of opinion and the passion shown.  You even get shout outs for Haydn and Bach on here.  Now if someone can start a Beethoven v Shadows of Knight thread we'll really see some sparks fly.

Stay cool everybody.  

Once we settle this can we move on another equally important, but never quite resolved issue... Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

:D~

-don

Plus I've read countless 60's Garage band interviews...I read it time and time again ''We saw the Beatles on television and we just knew we had to start a band.''

A whole lotta stuff would have been different but the sixties scene would have been made up of more bands like the Fugs and the Holy Modal Rounders and a lot more folk groups.  Other bands would have been going for a more rootsier blues sound than comercializing it.  Bands like the Bobby Fuller Four would have been bigger and Paul Revere and the Raiders would have stayed true to their New Orleans meets Jerry Lee Lewis sound.  Link Wray would be getting more credit instead of Dave Davies for a dirty sound.  You can deny the Beatles and the rest of the "Invasion" all you want but facts are facts and a lot of the scenes wouldn't exist the way we know them if certain circumstances didn't happen.

In Montréal there is a 'production' company called 'Turbo productions. DO NOT EVER DEAL WITH these creeps. It's a pure scam. They charge the bands for everything and keep all of the money. Just a warning.

Good to hear! Thanks for the update, been thinking about what became of all that.

The "pre-sale ticket" scam is pay-to-play. This totally ties in with the whole Gorilla Productions vs. Girl Trouble lawsuit. Have you read over that? You should. Links with all the details are in the thread (I just updated the topic last night, in fact):

http://garagepunk.ning.com/forum/topics/gorilla-productions-vs-girl...

Bottom line is bands should NEVER fall for this pre-selling tickets bullshit or ANY kind of pay-to-play scam that creeps like this "talent agent" or Gorilla Productions try to pull.

Hey all, this is some weird stuff. I got an email from an 'agent' asking me to play a couple bands that he 'represents' on my radio show. First off, a minimal amount of research would have turned up that my station is pretty new and my audience is about 7 listeners - me, 4 people in Germany, one in Japan and my niece who thinks I'm cool for some reason. Second, 10 minutes of listening (probably 5) and it would be clear that I do not run a "prog metal" station. I very politely (yes, very politely) told him I didn't play that style of music. He wrote me back asking if I knew who did. Yes, I'm serious. I thought, maybe I should look at this guy's website. An agent who has no clue what genre his clients play and does zero research for marketing them has got to be good for shits and giggles, right? You've really got to read this blog on his site: http://monolithmanagement.com/pre-sale-tickets/ then come back to this. I've been playing music a long time, and believe me when I tell you, musically, I'm the worst. I truly suck! But, there has never been a time when I couldn't get a gig opening for a friends band until my band got a bit of notice and and I could start getting my own shows. If your band (not yours, the people who pay this 'agent') is so bad that you can't piggyback a gig on a friend's bill, you have no business owning an instrument. Seriously, I've never been anywhere where musicians don't have friends who are musicians in other bands playing the same general genre and getting gigs. If any of you have fallen for this 'pre-sale ticket' scam, I apologize if I've offended you, but I really don't get it. I had to double check to see that I hadn't made a horrible mistake and this guy's actually a real estate or insurance agent and I hadn't gotten it all wrong. No, he claims to be a talent agent.

Excellent story - you really nailed that one! I had a similar experience with the Fabs back in 1978 or so cruising in a friend's Mercury Bobcat loaded with dateless losers (not nearly as nice an environment as you were in, I'm sure!). He popped in the cassette tape of their live show at the Hollywood Bowl, turned up the volume and I'll never forget how completely the music took hold. My brother thought I was nuts, but I've been a rabid fan ever since!

 

Don said:

To write the Beatles's success off as depending on corporate marketing is to not have been there.  Today one cannot imagine the effect their music had on the minds, souls and loins of a teenager back when they first appeared on the airwaves.

I was such a teenager.  Already a working musician. Not into TV at all. Not into hype.  But let me tell you the effect that hearing She Loves You had on me...

I was with my girlfriend in her bedroom. Her parents were out. We were doing the stuff that curious teenagers do at such times.

This girl was a gorgeous blue-eyed Swedish blond.  My attention was not easily distracted.

Suddenly this sound came on the radio. I simply sat up, frozen in time and space, completely and totally mesmerized. I had never heard such a thing. Never been effected like that by any music. Electrified. I at that time had no idea of who the group was.

Today there is no way to simulate that effect. That of something totally fresh and new. Something that entered one's very soul and spirit.

Others may have been effected by other music like that. Perhaps some reacted that way when they first heard Elvis. That I cannot say.  But never to my knowledge has it happened since. And if you grew up with Beatle influenced RnR as the soundtrack of your life you truly cannot even imagine what it was like to hear that music for the first time.

-Don

PS - Lynn - if perchance you are reading this - I really do apologize! :D~

BOTH! Don't get this one or the other hoo ha. Two massive ground breaking bands that influenced music in all four corners of the globe. It's easy to LOVE both you know!

That's definitely a fact.  Chances are "I Want To Hold your Hand" could have died down before it ever took off simply because Capitol refused to get behind it.  DJs were playing imported Parlophone (EMI) copies at the request of a few fans. So they might have gone bust by 1965 or even a little earlier.

RJFait said:

Not to start another argument, I really don't want that, but when you say what you said out loud, it really sounds like The Beatles weren't going anywhere until the money came into play.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

"the only reason the DJs started playing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was because of a few people who accidently heard it and thought the tune was catchy.  Nobody remembers but Dick Clark actually put out a Beatles record (She Loves You) in the summer of 1963 and debuted it on Bandstand and it flopped amongst the kids.  He even showed their photo and the kids laughed"

And then, a couple months later (when the record companies finally started throwing money at them), everyone who had never heard of The Beatles all fell madly in love.

Alright, thanks for that! Dorky it is ;)

dave said:

Def. one of the best rock books in the past decade, best in 2 yrs.Here's that short interview- it's dorky!