This is a topic I'm always torn on. When I started my band the Strychnines in the late 80s, we did almost all originals with the occasional cover. I wrote at least 3 or 4 albums worth of material but I had trouble getting passed my first 20 or so songs because I didn't want to let them go until I got a release out of them (which never happened) and it didn't matter to the rest of the group cuz they never cared to learn new songs anyway. So we played the same 15-20 songs for 8 years until we got bored of them. I didn't want to waste my time playing the next set of songs I wrote seeing the same thing happen (no record) so I just started dipping into Nuggets and Pebbles and having the band play those. And we learned a lot of Sonics songs. It was just more fun and less discouraging. We never toured anyway so it really didn't matter.

One thing I find discouraging though, John, is that you played on one of the few original Fuzztones albums and you ripped on those because they lacked originality. I think In Heat was a great record considering that the previous version of the band mostly did covers and saved their originals for 7 inches. I wrote songs pretty much the same way. I agree with you that he should have given his band more credit instead of claiming all ideas as his own but for being in that same songwriting school as Lux and Ivy, Billy Childish, and Paula Pierce, I think you guys did a really great job.

But you're right, those bands who claim they love the Mummies really should have taken a harder look at that band and saw what really made them special instead of relying on image and gimmicks.

LOL, that reminds me of what so many people thought of KISS, i.e. all image but no substance.

John Carlucci said:

I agree with him regarding the craft of songwriting. It's not easy. In this day and age, everyone wants instant gratification. It takes time to develop talent. In the case of the Beatles & Stones they learned from the covers they did & they grew into something unique. That's what I do not see enough of these days. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to "grow up in public" in other words, just getting out there & doing & learn as you go. However I don't see a lot of growing going on these days. I see image & gimmicks. There are plenty of bands with Monster head masks out there & I've seen most of them play on multiple occassions & can't remember one of their songs!

I agree with him regarding the craft of songwriting. It's not easy. In this day and age, everyone wants instant gratification. It takes time to develop talent. In the case of the Beatles & Stones they learned from the covers they did & they grew into something unique. That's what I do not see enough of these days. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fine to "grow up in public" in other words, just getting out there & doing & learn as you go. However I don't see a lot of growing going on these days. I see image & gimmicks. There are plenty of bands with Monster head masks out there & I've seen most of them play on multiple occassions & can't remember one of their songs!

Considering how many bands have such crappy songwriters, maybe it's just as well that they only do covers.

BTW, I'm exaggerating a wee bit. Yes, I have seen some great bands over the years that had great original material. Unfortunately, I've also seen a lot of bands who went for a rather generic sound because they could not do any better in terms of songwriting. Maybe for some bands, playing nothing but covers isn't such a bad thing. Keep in mind that the Beatles and Stones started as cover bands, and take a look at what they grew into. Not that I really think this sort of thing always happens.

BTW, Little Steven said something about this in a speech he delivered at SXSW, in which he stressed the importance of studying the songwriting of great bands so you'll become a better songwriter. Yes, I know some of you think LS is full of shit, and that's fine, but I just thought I'd bring that up.

Just my two cents.

 I have noticed lately that more and more bands, even touring bands that I like, are really nothing more than cover bands. Doesn't anyone write their own songs anymore? I find it odd, having come from the original 77 NY Punk Rock scene. One of the reasons that whole movement happened was as a rebellion to the fact that there were very few venues where an original band could play. Cover bands could gig anywhere. Okay, back then the cover bands did top 40. Now the cover bands are smarter, opting to do more obscure songs, but they are still cover bands. There's nothing wrong with doing a few covers in your set, but to base your whole thing on covers to me is just taking the easy route.

Actually, Springsteen can still easily sell out arenas, so Little Steven is still reaping the benefits from that.

Dana V. Hatch said:

Dirty Ugly Records said:

I completely disagree with what you have to say on this John.

1st, if it's "cool and retro" to do lo-fi recordings, it's news to me. Maybe it is, I'm pretty out of the loop on what's cool..except for what I think is cool.

This isn't some new development, people have always been doing this since home recording was an option. If it's bigger now, it's just a healthy reaction towards everything being super slick and shitty. Many people want and need a rawness in their music.

I've been playing lo-fi music and helping other people record it since the mid 90s, and have never met one person who was doing it to be hip or whatever. They were either doing it because they had no money, or they plain liked the sound.

You're talking about bands being popular on the club circuit, but can't get their music played on the radio. Frankly there are a LOT of people out there who don't give a shit about being popular or getting played on the radio. Getting big isn't on their agenda. They are doing what is fun for them, and making the sound they want to make.

You're talking about future income, and generating royalties. This is so meaningless to me. I think most people playing lo-fi music don't care about this crap. Again, they do it because they like it.

Really it's just embarrassing to mention you're getting royalties from being on Jay Leno and commercials, or that you were on a major. To a lot of people into raw and lo-fi music, this leaves us scratching our heads...I don't think you get that these are BAD things to most of us into lo-fi..really lame things we would never want to do. Making money is the last thing most of us care about.

Your advice at the end is kind of insulting. "Don't sell yourself short. If a record is un- listenable why even bother?"
Nobody is doing that. Franklly you're just being a snob, and saying this stuff is un-listenable to YOU.

Also how the hell do you know what will stand the test of time?? And why should people care if it does? Some do, some don't. And you can't predict what people will look back on in 20, 50 or 100 years as being good.

If you don't like it, just don't listen to it. Seriously, you're kind of coming off as a cranky old guy who doesn't like what "the kids" are doing today because it isn't what you were into doing.

Why on earth would anybody care about being on Little Steven's show? There are tons of radio shows that play lo-fi music, just not mainstream ones. Frankly, Little Steven and his DJs can go fuck themselves for all I care. There are plenty of podcasts available right on this site that put on way better shows than him. Again, you look at this from the perspective of every band wanting to get big and make money.

What I hear over and over from your two posts, is that it seems you think there is one right way to do things, YOUR way. And you assume that everybody wants what you wanted. You kind of assume everybody wants a big record deal, to make money, to do this and that. Well almost everything you named is completely meaningless to us.

Anyway you have the right to your opinions, but I just think you're dead wrong on this and looking at it in a really weird way.



I don't tell people they suck for recording in a studio, and I don't really appreciate people telling me I suck for being involved in home recording.

i completely agree with your post especially what you say about Little Steven. Mr. Arena Rock douchebag suddenly fancies himself an expert on garage rock. "No bass, no band" he insists, invalidating the Seeds, the Cramps, Hound Dog Taylor & the Houserockers and countless other worthy bands. Someone asked him "What about the Gories?" and HE'D NEVER HEARD OF THEM. Garage rock expert, my dick. What really frosts my ass is in the 70's all the money gigs went to bands playing Springsteen and Zep type crap while rockabilly, garage, and punk bands played in toilets for spare change. But soon as the big money stopped rolling in for fucks like Little Skeevie and Bob Plant they acted like they were into real rock & roll all along.

That's also a good way to sum it all up.

The Foreign Characters said:

I like plenty of lo-fi bands and to me both those albums are unlistenable... I agree unlistenable is in the ear of the beholder :)

I like plenty of lo-fi bands and to me both those albums are unlistenable... I agree unlistenable is in the ear of the beholder :)

BTW, I share both impulses on this subject. Sometimes I do like stuff that's really raw, and other times I like it more produced. Usually, when it's rootsy, I like it raw, and when it's poppy, I like it produced. However, this is not an ironclad rule for me. I've heard rootsy bands that put out well produced albums, and poppy bands that sound a little bit more raw than usual. Then again, it all boils down to one question for me..does it sound good? If it does, then that's all that matters.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Kurt Cobain said the same thing about Nirvana's major label debut (or at least unlistenable to people use to the sound of Aerosmith and Guns N Roses albums).

Well it sure is a good thing that Johnny never sold out!! (see link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mSE-Iy_tFY

I understand everything ever. Unlistenable is in the ear of the behearer. There are some things from the 80's (due to production style) that I can't hardly stand to listen to anymore even though they were good songs, well played, and had hi fi recording. Stuff like some (not all) of the Lime Spiders, Smitherines, Hoodoo Gurus, Jason and the Scorchers just make me wince. The arena rock drums and Marshall stacks drive me crazy but not in a good way. I realize I am a weirdo and would rather have heard these guys play in a small club or basement with cheap amps and cobbled together drum kit but this is my personal preference and everyone is entitled to theirs.

Kurt Cobain said the same thing about Nirvana's major label debut (or at least unlistenable to people use to the sound of Aerosmith and Guns N Roses albums).

That reminds me of what Johnny Rotten said about the one and only Sex Pistols' album, that if it had been up to him, it would have been unlistenable. Some people just think anything more than that is selling out.

Ryan = Funny.

Ryan Katastrophe said:

I hate lo-fi recordings. Eric Clapton over Robert Johnson all day.

I hate lo-fi recordings. Eric Clapton over Robert Johnson all day.

I still think Little Richard is the best screamer of them all.

It's the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental. Hey, that's a great name for a band; One-Off Man-Mental & The Twisted Brain-Wrongs.

Alex said:

I fucking love that song! So demented!

electrocute your cock said:

Hasil Adkins laughing and screaming and everything in We Got A Date is just plain fucking terrifying.

Actually, Keith said something like this before, except he was more diplomatic. I read an interview he did with Rolling Stone back in the late 80s, and he admitted that he didn't like Springsteen's music, because he thought it was just too overblown. However, he did say that he hated to admit this, because he considers Springsteen a friend, and he also said he's a really nice guy too. I'm sure Little Steven already knows about this, so I don't think it's going to be too much of a shock to him.

BTW, in David Marsh's Springsteen biography, he wrote that Keith did like Little Steven's work with Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, so maybe that's a consolation prize for LS.

I think Steven's going to ignore it.

And those 2 LP's are still around...Star Records in Oshawa Ontario Canada (just outside Toronto) put out those 2 LP's and still has them listed in their current email catalogue, here's an email for Star Records: starrecordscanada@netzero.net

stoneageromeo said:

Downloading's alright but, concerning the Purple Toads, they put out two albums that are absolutely fantastic so I suggest you buy them instead ...

Downloading's alright but, concerning the Purple Toads, they put out two albums that are absolutely fantastic so I suggest you buy them instead ...

If you need the Irish folk, there's always The Pogues!

Not sure if they're the same as the above types of bands, but there's a lot of good newer folk punk bands I'm into. Mischief Brew, Saw Wheel, Evan Greer, Andrew Jackson Jihad, Johnny Hobo and the Freight Trains to name a few...there are lots of different styles and types of folk punk, but hopefully you'll like some of them.

I can't believe I hadn't seen this post yet. Anyway....Satisfaction, I Wanna Be Your Man, and Around and Around are my top 3 Stones recordings. It's the sound.

I usually only get stuck in this conversation if I'm dumb enough to mention what kind of band I played in. I try to mention Dirty Water (as opposed to actually naming the Standells) and You Really Got Me (I make sure to mention the Kinks in this case) and My Generation and I hope they get it.