Here's 40 Pounder Blues by The Purple Toads....plus a bunch of other songs that were on a cassette comp called Wave From The Grave that we gave away with What Wave zine back in 1986... http://chrwradio.com/lma/1986/What%20Wave%20-%20Wave%20From%20The%20Grave/ww3.htm There's other cool stuff on that site as well. It's run by local university radio station CHRW and the site is called The London Music Archives (referring to London Ontario Canada)...and i have a radio show on CHRW called Radio What Wave (every thursday 7 to 8:30PM plug plug...). And Rob Toad (guitarist vocalist of Purple Toads) has a new band called Crummy Stuff which will be playing in London Ontario on 11/5/10 with Gord Lewis of Teenage Head for an evening of Teenage Head tunes.

I'm looking to download songs that can't be found in the itunes store. Songs like "40 Pounder Blues" by the Purple Toads or "Refrigerator Door" by the Human Switchboard. What sites would have obscure tracks like those?

Lucky you...

I am so envious! I did see the Fleshtones in Detroit a few months ago but I haven't seen the Cynics in years. I can't remember the last time they played the Motor City.

Lucky You. Wish I was there!

Sorry if I've made you a little jealous.

JY CHIE SUR TA TERRASSE said:

fuck you !

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.

we had a great metal scene for a while...I have to mention Shadows Fall cause I grew up with those guys..I would never even know metal exisisted if I didn't see it with my own eyes...those shows were awesome!!

Hey John.

I have the Bassman TV Duo 10, I like it, but I wish I would have waited for the Rumble 350, it's half the price. I feel like I paid an extra $500.00 for the "retro" look. Your the second person that recommends the Sans Amp, I'm going to look into one of those.

Hey John W. I do as well. I usually go that route with a Sans Amp Bass driver. I have a stock 72 P Bass with flatwound strings that I only use to record with. It gets the fattest sound you can imagine. Even when recording live basic tracks, I prefer to sit in the booth with the engineer & hear the bass through the big overhead speakers rather than use headphones, unless I have my own separate mix for the bass. If I don't hear myself loud enough, I tend to hit the strings too hard, then I need to compress the shit out of it to get it from peaking in the hot zone. On occassion I will do both, direct & through an Amp, however it has to be the right amp. I recorded tracks with my new band through a Tube Compressor on one track and through a mint condition Beautiful Vintage 1960's Ampeg B-15 that my buddy has at his studio. I have a pretty cool Fender Bassman TV15 that I might try on anothe occassion, It's got a tube pre-amp that sounds pretty awesome. When I played with Sylvain I used a 1970's Fender Bassman 135 which was an awesome amp, but I eventually had to sell it because it it became unreliable & it hummed too much record with.

John White said:

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.

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.

Hmmm, movies about futuristic rock bands...that sounds like a new genre. You might want to talk to a Hollywood producer before someone else steals it.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

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.

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'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