I don't know about Richard Hell's background that well but Jim Morrison and Patti Smith were poets and scholars (well Jim was a drop out but smart) before they were musicians and it'd be more believable coming from a band like the Doors to say "hey, let's base this album on this idea" plus it would be probably 1968 when they thought of it. OK, the only way for me to believe that a truly weird album would be made in 1963 (and there are but they aren't by rock bands) would be for 3 jazz musicians to get together with a string quartet and some opera singers plus a beatnik poet who has indeed read everything, not a bunch of bar band greasers, but who'd go see that movie? And even the stuff on the "first album", On the Darkside, that song I don't think would exist before Motown started getting a little more sophisticated or before Neil Diamond came on the scene. It's a cross between "Ain't That Peculiar" by Marvin Gaye and "Cherry Cherry". Even if Phil Spector stuck to a more conventional type of song, you have to admit it was pretty sophisticated for its time. The stuff Leiber and Stoller did with the Drifters and Ben E King was pretty sophisticated. Even Jackie DeShannon's When You Walk in the Room was sophisticated. and I don't know if anyone read about the review that WITH THE BEATLES got in 1963 but one of the songs, "Not a Second Time", got compared to Mahler or someone like that. But to say that a bar band like Eddie and the Cruisers could write more sophisticated tunes than the above mentioned is kind of ridiculous. THAT THING YOU DO is a very believable movie when I stop and think about it. LOL. I'm taking this way to seriously but I like my rock pics to be believable (unless they take place in the future. That's different).

MikeL said:

LOL, Rod:) Well, I think basing an album on Rimbaud's "A Season in Hell" was ahead of it's time, before Jim Morrison and punk icons like Richard Hell and Patti Smith started citing Rimbaud as an influence. Lets keep in mind that lyrically, Wilson and Spector still stuck to conventional love songs at that time.

However, now that you mentioned this, it does remind me of "Listen to the Flower Children" by Spinal Tap, which was supposedly released before "Sgt. Pepper." Yeah, that whole "album before its time" has become a very silly cliche.



Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I didn't buy that whole "album SOoooooo ahead of its time" thing, especially if it's still only 1962 or '63. Phil Spector and Brian Wilson were ahead of the times during those same years and yet they still fit into THOSE years. Maybe if Eddie and the Cruisers was set in 1966 or '67. But then nobody would have got to look like the Outsiders (movie). I think Little Steven will get a better hold of what sounds authentic (or close).

MikeL said:

Sorry to hear you feel that way, Rod, because I liked "Eddie and the Cruisers," and I liked the influence of those Springsteen albums on the soundtrack. I will admit that "The Runaways" didn't do a very good job of telling the story, but I liked it visually, and Michael Shannon's portrayal of Kim Fowley made it all worthwhile for me.

However, I thought that was interesting what you said about documentaries as opposed dramatizations. That's why I don't want to see a movie made about the Ramones, because I felt the documentary, "End of the Century," did a good enough job of telling the story.



Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I personally like documentaries better than docu-dramas about bands I like. If they serialized their stories on HBO or something, that'd be something. But to put someone's career in a two hour bubble never seems to work. I love the exposure that the Runaways got but I had a tough time with the movie.

But if they were going to make a picture of a sixties band, The Misunderstood would work (thanks to the band and Ugly Things) as would the Thirteenth Floor Elevators. And so would the Monks. Not so much the Sonics. They really don't have a story.

One thing I can say about Steven's picture is I don't think it will be cruddy as Eddie and the Cruisers. The music might sound slick but I'm sure it'll be closer to That Thing You Do rather than Darkness on the Edge of Town or the River.

A movie about The Clash would be great! or a big budget Stones film with a cool Director. They are working a Ramones movie based on the book "I slept with Joey Ramone" written by his brother. If anyone knows anything more about the Ramones film, I would be interested. By the way, I enjoyed the book, read it in two nights.

LOL, Rod:) Well, I think basing an album on Rimbaud's "A Season in Hell" was ahead of it's time, before Jim Morrison and punk icons like Richard Hell and Patti Smith started citing Rimbaud as an influence. Lets keep in mind that lyrically, Wilson and Spector still stuck to conventional love songs at that time. However, now that you mentioned this, it does remind me of "Listen to the Flower Children" by Spinal Tap, which was supposedly released before "Sgt. Pepper." Yeah, that whole "album before its time" has become a very silly cliche.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I didn't buy that whole "album SOoooooo ahead of its time" thing, especially if it's still only 1962 or '63. Phil Spector and Brian Wilson were ahead of the times during those same years and yet they still fit into THOSE years. Maybe if Eddie and the Cruisers was set in 1966 or '67. But then nobody would have got to look like the Outsiders (movie). I think Little Steven will get a better hold of what sounds authentic (or close).

MikeL said:

Sorry to hear you feel that way, Rod, because I liked "Eddie and the Cruisers," and I liked the influence of those Springsteen albums on the soundtrack. I will admit that "The Runaways" didn't do a very good job of telling the story, but I liked it visually, and Michael Shannon's portrayal of Kim Fowley made it all worthwhile for me.

However, I thought that was interesting what you said about documentaries as opposed dramatizations. That's why I don't want to see a movie made about the Ramones, because I felt the documentary, "End of the Century," did a good enough job of telling the story.



Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I personally like documentaries better than docu-dramas about bands I like. If they serialized their stories on HBO or something, that'd be something. But to put someone's career in a two hour bubble never seems to work. I love the exposure that the Runaways got but I had a tough time with the movie.

But if they were going to make a picture of a sixties band, The Misunderstood would work (thanks to the band and Ugly Things) as would the Thirteenth Floor Elevators. And so would the Monks. Not so much the Sonics. They really don't have a story.

One thing I can say about Steven's picture is I don't think it will be cruddy as Eddie and the Cruisers. The music might sound slick but I'm sure it'll be closer to That Thing You Do rather than Darkness on the Edge of Town or the River.

Hey Rod, I played with The Fuzztones at Cavestomp 97. It was part of a short lived re-union of the In Heat era line-up, except Jake from The Bomboras/Lords of Altamont played organ cause Jason could not make the trip. Yes, Bruce wrote Fire for Robert Gordon. I knew Robert personally back then. He was going out with Snooky from Manic Panic. Snooky & I had a band together at the time. Robert was the person that introduced me to Rockabilly. Link Wray was in his band. It was pretty awesome to see Link Wray play with him at CBGB's!

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

John, what band did you play with at Cavestomp 97?

Did Bruce Springsteen actually write "Fire" for Robert Gordon? That'd be interesting to know. It fits him better than the Pointer Sisters.
>

John, what band did you play with at Cavestomp 97? Did Bruce Springsteen actually write "Fire" for Robert Gordon? That'd be interesting to know. It fits him better than the Pointer Sisters.

John Carlucci said:

In my opinion, Little Steven's heart is in the right place. Yes he calls the show "Underground Garage" and it's not always playing Garage Punk, but he is playing stuff on the radio that you do not hear otherwise.

I played at the very first Cavestomp in NYC in 97. I understand after that, the promoter, John Weiss from the Vipers held more Cavestomp shows on a regular basis, and that is how Little Steven became affiliated with the Garage scene.

I think it's great that someone in the position he is in has helped some of these bands get heard, and make a little money. Before his show, I never heard The Chesterfield Kings, Woggles, Swingin Neckbreakers ,the Dictators or even my own former band, The Fuzztones on the radio. He's helped the careers of bands line King Kahn, Nick Curran, & Prima Donna.

I remember back in 77 when Bruce Springsteen took an interest in the NYC Punk movement, writing songs for Patti Smith, Robert Gordon & even the Ramones. (Hungry Heart was written for the Ramones but The Boss's Mgr convinced him to put it out himself). There were a lot of people in the scene back then who were against Bruce's involvement with the scene then too. I admired him for his support, and I applaud Little Steven for his support as well. Anything that might help keep the spirit of Rock N Roll alive is okay with me. A movie, a radio show, whatever. Seeing younger musician's like Nick Curran & Prima Donna carry the torch for Rock N Roll in the 21st Century is comforting. If I see any more kids embracing hip hop, it will make me sick.




MikeL said:

Surprise, surprise. When I saw this article, I thought for certain somebody here would get angry about it, if for no other reason than Little Steven's involvement.

I didn't buy that whole "album SOoooooo ahead of its time" thing, especially if it's still only 1962 or '63. Phil Spector and Brian Wilson were ahead of the times during those same years and yet they still fit into THOSE years. Maybe if Eddie and the Cruisers was set in 1966 or '67. But then nobody would have got to look like the Outsiders (movie). I think Little Steven will get a better hold of what sounds authentic (or close).

MikeL said:

Sorry to hear you feel that way, Rod, because I liked "Eddie and the Cruisers," and I liked the influence of those Springsteen albums on the soundtrack. I will admit that "The Runaways" didn't do a very good job of telling the story, but I liked it visually, and Michael Shannon's portrayal of Kim Fowley made it all worthwhile for me.

However, I thought that was interesting what you said about documentaries as opposed dramatizations. That's why I don't want to see a movie made about the Ramones, because I felt the documentary, "End of the Century," did a good enough job of telling the story.



Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I personally like documentaries better than docu-dramas about bands I like. If they serialized their stories on HBO or something, that'd be something. But to put someone's career in a two hour bubble never seems to work. I love the exposure that the Runaways got but I had a tough time with the movie.

But if they were going to make a picture of a sixties band, The Misunderstood would work (thanks to the band and Ugly Things) as would the Thirteenth Floor Elevators. And so would the Monks. Not so much the Sonics. They really don't have a story.

One thing I can say about Steven's picture is I don't think it will be cruddy as Eddie and the Cruisers. The music might sound slick but I'm sure it'll be closer to That Thing You Do rather than Darkness on the Edge of Town or the River.

Thanks Mikel. I appreciate your comments.

MikeL said:

You are the coolest person at this forum, John Carlucci:)

You are the coolest person at this forum, John Carlucci:)

John Carlucci said:

In my opinion, Little Steven's heart is in the right place. Yes he calls the show "Underground Garage" and it's not always playing Garage Punk, but he is playing stuff on the radio that you do not hear otherwise.

I played at the very first Cavestomp in NYC in 97. I understand after that, the promoter, John Weiss from the Vipers held more Cavestomp shows on a regular basis, and that is how Little Steven became affiliated with the Garage scene.

I think it's great that someone in the position he is in has helped some of these bands get heard, and make a little money. Before his show, I never heard The Chesterfield Kings, Woggles, Swingin Neckbreakers ,the Dictators or even my own former band, The Fuzztones on the radio. He's helped the careers of bands line King Kahn, Nick Curran, & Prima Donna.

I remember back in 77 when Bruce Springsteen took an interest in the NYC Punk movement, writing songs for Patti Smith, Robert Gordon & even the Ramones. (Hungry Heart was written for the Ramones but The Boss's Mgr convinced him to put it out himself). There were a lot of people in the scene back then who were against Bruce's involvement with the scene then too. I admired him for his support, and I applaud Little Steven for his support as well. Anything that might help keep the spirit of Rock N Roll alive is okay with me. A movie, a radio show, whatever. Seeing younger musician's like Nick Curran & Prima Donna carry the torch for Rock N Roll in the 21st Century is comforting. If I see any more kids embracing hip hop, it will make me sick.




MikeL said:

Surprise, surprise. When I saw this article, I thought for certain somebody here would get angry about it, if for no other reason than Little Steven's involvement.

In my opinion, Little Steven's heart is in the right place. Yes he calls the show "Underground Garage" and it's not always playing Garage Punk, but he is playing stuff on the radio that you do not hear otherwise. I played at the very first Cavestomp in NYC in 97. I understand after that, the promoter, John Weiss from the Vipers held more Cavestomp shows on a regular basis, and that is how Little Steven became affiliated with the Garage scene. I think it's great that someone in the position he is in has helped some of these bands get heard, and make a little money. Before his show, I never heard The Chesterfield Kings, Woggles, Swingin Neckbreakers ,the Dictators or even my own former band, The Fuzztones on the radio. He's helped the careers of bands line King Kahn, Nick Curran, & Prima Donna. I remember back in 77 when Bruce Springsteen took an interest in the NYC Punk movement, writing songs for Patti Smith, Robert Gordon & even the Ramones. (Hungry Heart was written for the Ramones but The Boss's Mgr convinced him to put it out himself). There were a lot of people in the scene back then who were against Bruce's involvement with the scene then too. I admired him for his support, and I applaud Little Steven for his support as well. Anything that might help keep the spirit of Rock N Roll alive is okay with me. A movie, a radio show, whatever. Seeing younger musician's like Nick Curran & Prima Donna carry the torch for Rock N Roll in the 21st Century is comforting. If I see any more kids embracing hip hop, it will make me sick.

MikeL said:

Surprise, surprise. When I saw this article, I thought for certain somebody here would get angry about it, if for no other reason than Little Steven's involvement.

Wait, I almost forgot...I'd also like to see movies made about Lester Bangs and Kim Fowley. I already know of a couple of good actors who could play those parts.

MikeL said:

Since everyone else here has made suggestions for band movies, here are a few of my own.

I would like to see a movie about the New York Dolls, or perhaps one about Johnny Thunders in particular. I would also like to see movies made about the Stooges and the Clash.

I would also like to see movies made about particular scenes, such as the early days of CBGBs, or perhaps the story of Max's Kansas City. Another good one would be Rodney Bingenheimer's English Disco.

Since everyone else here has made suggestions for band movies, here are a few of my own.

I would like to see a movie about the New York Dolls, or perhaps one about Johnny Thunders in particular. I would also like to see movies made about the Stooges and the Clash.

I would also like to see movies made about particular scenes, such as the early days of CBGBs, or perhaps the story of Max's Kansas City. Another good one would be Rodney Bingenheimer's English Disco.

fuck you !

That sounds kick ass. I've never seen the Fleashtones and it's been years since I saw the Cynics last (they do not disappoint). The Cynics won't be there but I'm looking forward to the Fleshtones plus a lot more at the Beat-N-Soul Fest in a couple of weeks: http://garagepunk.ning.com/events/beat-n-soul-festival-st-louis

I will upload pictures from the show at this site. However, I'm going to take more pictures of the Fleshtones, since I've only taken a few pictures of them before.

Should be a good night for real rock'n'roll...whatever that is.

I'm there too, but I don't know that my account's terribly interesting, so follow at your own risk: http://twitter.com/tobilynne

Hi everybody, http://twitter.com/gosoundinvasion

I like plugging my bass strait into the board, always seems to get the best sound. That way you have all those EQ's at your disposal or just use your tone control on the bass. If you want to dirty it up you can also use a foot pedal. Check out Soundblox for bass, they have a great video ad on Youtube.

Awesome thread! I kinda agree on all sides. I'm thinking of Teengenerate and Guitar Wolf alot reading all of you guys arguments. Plus, the bar I'm in right now is playing some great mongoose! I remember when I first heard Get action! by Teengenerate. It blew me away and I used to be a metalhead and like produced recordings. Teengenerate made me understand that even though something: If you record lo-fi, you'd better know what you are doing... and you'd better have alot of energy to give away. It's actually not that simple to record in lo-fi.

Guitar wolf is just pure raw energy! It's a deliberate choice to be super No-fi and it's fine for them. I wouldn't dig the New bomb turks if they sounded as no-fi as Guitar Wolf. It's part of a certain esthetic and has to 'fit', to be calculated.

Bands who just want to sound like will sound like shit. Bands who 'get it' will think about what they're doing and work on it.

The raw urgency of Rock N Roll comes from within. You either have it or you don't. If you feel that your band sound is best captured by lo-fi recording & you are happy with that, then all power to you. I have a different point of view. It takes many years of practice & experience to learn recording techniques that capture the quality of tone that I seek when I'm recording. It also takes many years of musicianship, for the art and attack of recording is quite different than playing live. Especially for bass. The bass sound wave is a very wide frequency, If you do not know proper mic usage, you will end up with a pretty distorted bass signal. If you record with the same attack that you play with live, it will work against you. The bass will end up peaking out the VU meter and will need to be brought way down in the mix, unless you are fine with hearing the metallic noise of strings clacking against the bridge & the pickups.

- you need to get a little more inside the raw urgency that is Rock n Roll.

I don't know about the shows on Sirius XM but I still feel that the Milkshakes and Billy's other bands should have gotten a spot on Little Steven's syndicated show. I would agree that a lot of bands who record in "white noise" style shouldn't be played on radio.

The Hives' album that got them noticed was kind of low-fi and still gets more airplay than their more polished follow ups.

Hey Rod,

There are exceptions to every rule. Regarding The Mummies getting airplay on The Underground Garage. They are an exceptional band. They have something that transcends the quality of their recordings.

I don't want to name names, but I know for a fact that some bands have been rejected because of the low quality of their recordings.

The 50's bands had limited technology available. Yet they still sound better than a lot of today's Lo-fi recordings. I'm not saying something needs to be sparkly clean, digital or over produced. I just prefer to hear all the instruments with good sonic quality and as little bleed & white noise as possible. Another poster said it best. The recording should sound like the band.

To Mr. Dirty Ugly & friends, You totally missed so many of my points in my post. I made my statements based on my own experience. If you enjoy lo-fi recordings, great. To me, in most cases it sounds like the musician's can barely play & the engineer's know nothing about acoustics or microphone placement. There are exceptions. Because I choose another route does not make me a snob. I'm entitled to my opinions as much as you are to yours. Making money with my music has never been my agenda. I have another career in which I make a living, I too play for fun. Since 1972 I have been in one band after another. That's 32 years straight of playing Rock N Roll. There has never been a time during that span that I have not been in a band. In fact there were times when I had 5 bands going at once. I've played in front of 50,000 people, I've played in front of 5 people. It does not matter to me. On the occasion that I have made some cash from my music, you think I should be embarrassed? Now I'm the one scratching his head. It costs money to have a band. Gear is not free, rehearsals are not free, gas to drive to gigs is not free, recordings are not free, food & lodging on the road is not free & manufacturing CD's or vinyl is not free. If a band gets a little airplay whether it be on XM, College Radio or Podcasts, which brings more people to their gigs, or earns some royalties that can help them survive, what's wrong with that? I have funneled my royalties back into my musical projects. You missed my point entirely regarding having been on a major label. My point was that even then it was hard to survive. Throughout my years playing in bands, I have found that it's always the musician's on the edge, the one's who say they are not in it for the money, that quit music because they can not cope with the reality of what it takes to actually be in a band. Long drives, crappy food & hotels,sitting around for hours to sound-check and little or no pay can very quickly take the "fun" out of being in a band. I do agree that most pod-casts are playing some interesting music. I subscribe to a few myself. The reason why I support XM is because they in turn support the musician's. They pay royalties through sound exchange that go right back to the artists. So since you & your peers are not into making money, I assume you are giving away the records & CD's you make & you are not charging bands for your recording services? If you are, kudo's to you, however if you are charging money, well then you are in the same boat as I & your argument is fruitless. Regarding which music can stand the test of time, while I can not predict the future, I can look back. I was referring to the fact that a recording I made 31 years ago is still being used on TV, has been re-issued & commands high prices on the collectors market. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact. I was offering my advice to younger musician's based on that fact & my own experience. There were plenty of bands back then amongst my peers that had better songs & were better musician's. My feeling is that since we took the time to record that single at the highest quality available, it stood out & got noticed. That's the reason we were asked to open for the Jam & The Undertones, and many other well respected bands of the day. Our recording opened doors for us. What it all boils down to is this. The recordings live on. Long after the bands are dead and buried that will be all that is left.

Dirty Ugly Records said:

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

Very nice, thank you. In Memphis she was using a Fender amp with some kind of fuzz pedal that was really wicked. She was playing barre chords and the fuzz was very full but didn't get all crowded like alot of pedals can.

I've played their instruments & they are pretty nice, especially for the price. I was using the Club Bass when I played with Truly Lover Trio, which was a Rockabilly/Early 60's Beat group. It was perfect in that band. The band I had after was way more aggressive so I went back to Fender's, but the Eastwood is a nice bass.

When I played in The Hexxers, our guitarist, Rip Carson often played an Eastwood Hi- Flyer. He loved it, and it sounded awesome. I'd have to say the Eastwood Hi-fliers are at least as good as the Univox.

Here's a cool story about the book in the New York Times... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/arts/music/24richards.html