Misunderstood Monkees

Recently, a petition to induct the Monkees into the Rock and Roll "Hall of Fame" has been making the rounds on the internet. Why is such a document necessary? Well, I would hazard to guess that pretentious, self-proclaimed arbiters of taste like Rolling Stone editor-in-chief and Hall co-founder Jann Wenner (who appears to have the Hall of Fame by the short hairs and who, I suspect, still listens to "Born to Run" alone in his living room with the lights off) have made it their life-long mission to keep Mike, Micky, Peter and Davy out.


As far as I can tell, members of the "rock intelligentsia" (snicker) have a mad-on for the Monkees because, oh, I don't know, they didn't wear enough denim. Or, who knows? Maybe it's because the Monkees were actually involved in the creation of some tuneful, catchy, well-loved music back in the 60's. (Gasp! Choke!) In light of all this, my brother and I just had an extended conversation about the Monkees, and together we arrived at a very simple, but profound, conclusion:


The Monkees were freakin' awesome.

"But," I already hear some of you sputtering in feeble protest, "The Monkees aren't COOL! They weren't even a REAL band maaaaan! They didn't play their own instruments or write their own songs, and they didn't sing about "real" things like Bob Dylan! Plus, they were just a watered-down version of the BEATLES!"


Sigh.


In my experience, the people who make these types of pronouncements are either a) self-important musicians or wanna-be musicians who take themselves WAY too seriously, b) rock snobs and "rock journalists" who buy into a dubious dichotomy of what constitutes "real" and "fake" music, or c) people who don't know much about music to begin with and just accept the received "wisdom" about the Monkees.


Well, I hate to break it to these people, but the truth is this: most secure, well-rounded musicians and music-lovers are neither threatened by nor upset at the existence of a band like the Monkees. On the contrary, many of these musicians actually LIKE them quite a bit. For example, it's well known that The Beatles took the Monkees in stride, and even claimed to be fans of the television show. The Beatles, of course, were so amazing that it makes sense that they wouldn't be threatened by the Monkees. However, I also suspect they were wise enough to appreciate the band members' respective talents for what they were and smart enough to appreciate the amazing confluence of quality singing, songwriting, musicianship and production on The Monkees' records.


Let's take look at the most common myths about the Monkees one-by-one.


*************************************************************


* Myth #1: The Monkees weren't talented (other than Mike Nesmith).


This one started with the initial backlash against the group, when it was first revealed they didn't play the instruments on their first two albums (and only played fitfully on albums thereafter). However, no one other than the most recalcitrant of individuals still clings to this myth. In fact, the individual Monkees brought a wide array of talents to the table, from acting to singing to songwriting and musicianship. In hindsight, it's clear that the show's producers considered these factors when the "band" was chosen, even if they wanted to wield ultimate control over how those talents would be utilized.


Mike was a talented songwriter and producer, as well as an idiosyncratic vocalist with a dry sense of humor. And yes, he did later sell the concept for a 24 hour video channel to Time Warner, thereby becoming instrumental in the genesis of MTV. Micky was a former child actor and a gifted singer (it runs in his family) with a unique voice that alternated between warm and raucous depending on the needs of the song. He was also an amateur guitar player (he only learned to play drums for the show) who showed occasional spurts of songwriting inspiration. Peter was an accomplished instrumentalist (he played eight instruments) who wrote, among other things, the closing theme for the show. Davy, like Micky, was also an experienced actor who brought a Broadway and music hall flavor to the proceedings.


Oddly, many detractors will concede some of the aforementioned talents to the Monkees while still slagging them for not being as talented as their albums would suggest. In their minds, since the Monkees weren't the genius masterminds who single-handedly brought all those wonderful pop confections to life, they should be regarded as no-talent hacks. Sorry, but it's not an either/or proposition.


* Myth #2: The Monkees weren't a band.


The original marketing of the Monkees, while I can find no instances of outright lying, did seem to blur the lines regarding who played what and just how "real" the band was. People like Micky Dolenz have always maintained that "The Monkees" was, first and foremost, a show ABOUT a band, but there are still some (shades of) gray areas surrounding the way the band was marketed initially. However, what IS clear is this: while the Monkees may not have totally been the band they represented, they WERE undeniably the lead vocalists on everything, and they eventually did become a fully functioning, touring band. People with lesser qualifications are dubbed "bands" every day of the week, and people who do nothing more than sing are often hailed as full-fledged "artists" (and rightfully so).


But these types of arguments are fruitless when wielded against the eternal guardians of the most holy rock canon. The bone of contention for people like Jann Wenner (I'm guessing) is the misrepresentation of the Monkees in the media, and an alleged attempt to dupe the music-buying public. Nevermind that people like me were able to recognize the Monkees weren't all they appeared to be when I was a wee lad of 8 years old. Maybe Jann's a little slower on the uptake.


Still, even if we allow that the Monkees weren't really a "band" in the normal sense of the word, I believe they represented (and represent) something much more important, which I will return to in a moment.


* Myth #3: The Monkees only sang bubble gum pop, or Beatles rip-offs.


Well, I don't really have a problem with (good) bubble gum pop, per se, but even if I did, the Monkees weren't really a bubble gum band. Unlike some bands, the songwriters, musicians and producers working on the Monkees' material were just too damn talented and diverse to be easily dismissed as "bubble gum." Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, Carole King, Harry Nilsson, Neil Diamond, Mike Nesmith, Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, John Stewart, Jeff Barry - all these writers and many others were arguably at the top of their game when they submitted songs for The Monkees, and the quality of songcraft on display is undeniable.


Any arguments based on the "cynical intentions" of Don Kirshner (or anyone else) is either trumped or deemed irrelevant when one looks at the sheer caliber of talent the Monkees had at their disposal. After all, who cares about the "co-opting" of rock and roll (which was seldom as pure as it seemed, anyway) when the songs are this damn good?


Likewise, the criticism that the Monkees were just a watered-down version of the Beatles holds very little banana puree upon closer inspection. Yes, "Hard Day's Night" was the original inspiration for the TV show. However, if you actually take the time to listen to the Monkees, you would have a tough time (for the most part) finding any direct similarities between the two bands, other than some superficial parallels that lots of 60's bands shared.


Ok, so maybe the riff on "Pleasant Valley Sunday" sounds like a distant cousin to "I Want to Tell You." And yeah, lots of Davy's tunes sound like they were cut from the same music-hall cloth Paul was using at the time. But overall, there is a lot of stylistic diversity in the Monkees music, and very little of it mirrors the Beatles, who were all over the map themselves by 1966. This makes complete sense when you consider the wide range of songwriters the Monkees employed. Not only were their songwriters inspired by The Beatles, but by lots of other 60's bands, such as The Rolling Stones, Love, and the Dave Clark 5. The Monkees' writers also brought unique styles of their own to the table, many of which pre-dated the Beatles.


By way of comparison, think about how much the average Nickelback song sounds like a watered-down version of Pearl Jam, Creed or Fuel. Now think about how much the "average" Monkees song sounds like the "average" Beatles track. When weighed against the blatant mimicking some bands do, the Monkees aren't even in the same universe as their mop-topped forefathers.


Sure, most of the Monkees' songs don't have the "artistic gravitas" or experimentation of the Beatles' best songs. However, keep in mind that the Monkees songs (at least in the beginning) were not meant to be profound statements of artistic intent. They were meant to be aural moments of pure rock/pop bliss. And to that extent, they succeeded. Not only that, but there really is something to be said for the "art" of crafting a perfect pop song.


*************************************************************


Okay, now that the most common arguments against the Monkees have been dispatched, let me return to my earlier point about what the Monkees represented to me, and probably to a lot of other people as well.


Beyond the superficial pleasure of just listening to a bunch of good songs, the Monkees were inspirational role models for many aspiring musicians. The way this worked was on two levels: On one level, you could relate to the fictional characters on TV because they were always struggling to make it "big" like the Beatles. Plus, if you knew the story of the real actors, you could identify with the struggle they felt to prove themselves creatively.


On another level, the Monkees (on the TV show) WERE the idealized band they longed to be, who just cranked out one great song after another. Yes, it was designed behind the scenes by expert songwriters, producers and sessionmen. But so what? That almost makes it better. All dreams are illusions or fantasies, so why wouldn't a budding musician watching the show want to hear and aspire to a great one? Who wouldn't want to sing/play/write something on par with Carole King (mainly because it IS Carole King) and then be able to switch gears and toss out 10 equally great, but diverse, follow up songs?


Not to get too philosophical about it, but the Monkees represented the tension between the artist who struggles to be more than he already is, and the idealized fantasy of what he hopes to become. And, from time to time, the Monkees actually DID become a great band, showing glimpses of genius and inspiration, even though the carefully constructed fantasy was (of course) always slightly out of reach. And that's not too far off from any of us, really. We all have an idea of how great we'd like to be, even if we seldom hit those heights.


So, you may ask, why not just induct the recognition-worthy individuals behind the scenes (like Boyce and Hart, for example) on a case-by-case basis, rather than induct "The Monkees" collectively? Simply put, the Monkees - Mike, Micky, Peter and David - were the living embodiment of the inspirational fantasy I described above, as well as the voices on some of the most well-crafted and enduring songs of the 60's. * If nothing else, the naysayers have to admit they were the stars of a beloved show that brought rock music into many children's lives for the first time, and into many people's living rooms week after week for two years.


If that alone doesn't qualify them for induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.




*For further listening, I recommend the following songs (beyond the obvious hits):
The Girl That I Knew Somewhere
Sometime in the Morning
She
While I Cry
Words
Shades of Gray
You Just May Be the One
Tapioca Tundra
Porpoise Song
Love Is Only Sleeping
You Told Me
Zor and Zam
Early Morning Blues and Greens
Daily Nightly
I'll Be Back Upon My Feet
The Door into Summer
Sweet Young Thing

*************************************************************

Like the author on facebook!  www.facebook.com/glennpagemusicofficial

Nothing Changes on New Year's Day: Bono Still Sucks

New Year’s Eve is upon us so here are 15 random musings and fun factoids (the curiously strong facts) for you to chew on. Dig in!


1) Do you ever wonder if people like your boss and George Bush make resolutions to be even BIGGER a-wipes in the coming year? History seems to support this theory.


2) It’s often said that on January 1st, one out of every four motorists on the road after midnight is legally drunk. What they never tell you is that the other three are high on crack.


3) I wish I had a time travel machine so I could travel to the year 2111 and see how the hell they make funny glasses out of THOSE numbers.


4) Speaking of the “New Year’s glasses,” wouldn’t it be great to actually get a prescription filled using the “2008” frame? Then you could wear it all year long, just in case anyone you know forgets what year it is. And you could say something witty like, “Why, it’s as plain as the nose on my face!” which I’m sure would leave everyone in stitches each time you uttered it. Not only that, it would come in handy whenever an alien from the future pops in unexpectedly and wants to know what year it is. It would save a lot of chit-chat, ya know?


5) Fun fact: They say the people standing in Times Square actually pee on the street sometimes because they can’t get to a rest room. And if you think that’s scary, it’s even worse on New Year’s Eve!


6) Interesting fact: Musicologists believe that several bars of actual rock and roll music were played on “Dick Clark’s Rockin’ New Year’s Eve” in the years 1987, 1990 AND 1994! (This was, of course, in between performances by Escape Club, Milli Vanilli, and The Gin Blossoms, respectively.)


7) I feel bad for Dick Clark, I really do, but aren’t you glad you don’t have to hear any more stupid broadcasters making tired jokes about how “ageless” he is?


8) On New Year’s Eve, I find it oddly poetic that the world is pitch black outside at the precise moment we raise our glasses and toast the future.


9) Fun fact: Contrary to popular belief, the year 2008 is technically part of the 90’s!


10) Don’t you hate when you invite someone over for New Year’s and the person won’t commit because he/she is clearly holding out for a better offer, but doesn’t want to tell you that? For example, last year I got this one: “Oh, I want to be there, but I have to see how I feel. My treatments tend to take a lot out of me, and sometimes I’m too weak to drive my car.” Hey, if you don’t wanna come to my party, just say so man. Don’t JERK ME AROUND!!!!


11) You ever wonder why they’re called resolutions? It’s because it’s a problem you should have come up with a solution for last year, but you were too lazy or too stupid to do it, so now you have to try again.


12) I still haven’t gotten used to calling this decade the “naught-ies” or the “none-ties.” I don't think I ever will. And the "teens" or "the ten-sies" is gonna be even worse.


13) Fun fact: Auld Lang Syne roughly translates to: “Boy, I hope everyone around me is too drunk to realize how off-key I really am.”


14) Fun fact: There are 278 verses to Auld Lang Syne, but most people only know the first 108. Usually, they’re too drunk to remember singing anything other than the first one. Also, the song is really about the establishment of the first official Satanist Church in 1969.


15) If you wanted to shoot someone, I think New Year’s Eve would be a great time to do it, preferably right around midnight. Most people would think you were probably opening a loud bottle of champagne, or setting off a cherry bomb in your living room to entertain some guests. Plus, if a stranger caught you dragging the body to your car, you could always say, “WOW! My friend SURE overdid it tonight! WOOOO!” and make a drinking motion with your free hand.

The Rolling Stones Super Computer

Hey there rock and roll fans! It's the year 2007, and technology has come so far that computers can now accurately predict (or create) the content on the next Rolling Stones album, which we hope will materialize sometime in 2008. We have correlated all the available data and fed vinyl copies of every Stones album into the NITE OWLZ BLOG SPOT PATENTED ROLLING STONES TITLE GENERATOR, and the results are available below. Remember, the computer has an 87 percent accuracy rate, so these ARE the tunes you will be grooving to come next year, or whenever the Stones get off their saggy old asses and make a new CD! Enjoy!



Track One: "Brawl Until Dawn"

For the leadoff track on the new CD, our Rolling Stones supercomputer randomly combines a series of phrases with subtle and not-so-subtle references to violence, some intertwined with sex. The result is this hot new single, "Brawl Until Dawn," that also helps perpetuate the "street fighting" image of the Stones, even if Mick hasn't been in a real fight since 1971, unless you count all the times Jerry Hall beat his ass before he walked out on her. Note: This will be the album's token "feisty rocker."

Track Two: "Hit That!"

To generate the second single, "Hit That," the computer uses the same alogarithm as "Brawl," but also includes the obligatory attempt at aping recent urban trends and lingo, even ones that are falling out of favor as we speak. The song will contain a funky bass line, and possibly a "hip hop" section, which will come across as awkward and forced as Paula Abdul trying not to slur her words on "American Idol."

Track Three: "Stairwell of Good-byes"

The computer slows down the tempo a bit and spits out a "moody" ballad, based on some words Mick scribbled down on a cocktail napkin with four Brazilian model's phone numbers written on the back.

Track Four: "Roll It When U Rock"

This is the token "bluesy" Keith Richards number, that the computer predicts will somehow be indistinguishable from the LAST ten "Take It So Hard" clones. The title doesn't mean much, but still seems shockingly coherent when compared to Keith's usual booze-addled ramblings.

Track Five: "Vegas Virgins"

Despite the weak alliteration, our computer is predicting a Stones trifecta: money, sex, and a "hot" topical tourist attraction. This will be one of those Stones songs that seems to highlight Mick's social conscience, by focusing on runaways and prostitution in sin city. However, the computer wisely deletes any mention of how the Stones have blithely fostered a climate of misogyny, sexism, and moral decadence in American pop culture for five decades straight. The hypocrisy bar will be raised a little higher when the song blares prominently in a future "what happens in Vegas" ad that features a smiling Mick driving to a chicken ranch.

Track Six: "Devil's in the Details"

The computer foresees a mandatory "satanic" Stones song, trotted out once again in an effort to milk whatever stimulus-response reactionaryism remains in the three people whose sense of propriety was seriously imperiled by the unholy sight of the band wearing wizard costumes way back in 1967. Listen for the slinky rhythm track on this one, which is supposed to represent...er, something.

Track Seven: "Slutty Little Thang"

In the Stones catalog, "sluts" is one of the few heretofore infrequently used derogatory terms for women. Well, the computer definitely feels the need to remedy that situation pronto! Look for this toe-tapper on the new CD, but don't expect too much subsequent controversy, since worse language regularly appears at 7pm on ABC family channel these days.

Track Eight: "She Knox Me Out"

This one's bound to sound bluesy. And violent. And sexy. Whatever. It's gonna be a filler track anyway, probably using yet another watered-down version of the "Brown Sugar" riff, so don't sweat it. Lord knows they won't.

Track Nine: "Dancin' Down on South Street"

While running a systems scan, the computer spews out the requisite "dance" reference that appears on every other Stones album. As a double bonus, the title generator alludes to a "gritty" well-known city (in this case, Philadelphia) that also has a long-standing connection to music or the music industry. This will help reestablish the band's "street cred" for the 459th time (on this album alone). Of course, there will be no lyrics that address getting shot because you're dancing like a damn fool in the middle of a city street at four in the morning.

Track Ten: "My Bad"

A couple of minutes have gone by without The Stones reminding us they're the "bad boys" of rock, even though Mick and Keith are old enough now to actually play "The Sunshine Boys" without stretching credibility. As a result, the computer tosses out this little nugget consisting primarily of Mick mumbling in his "evil but seductive" voice while Keith plunders a couple of dead blues guys' riffs in the background. Sadly, Mick's "seductive" voice sounds really creepy at this stage of the game, sounding like an unholy hybrid of your drunk uncle talking up your new girlfriend and a Star Trek ensign possessed by the Lights of Zatar. The song runs upwards of 7 minutes in an effort to make us think we're getting a lot of value for our money, since the CD's total running time reads 74 minutes when we plop it in the player. However, this glosses over the fact that at least 30 minutes of this disc, including this track, is grade-z padding and will ultimately be programmed right out of existence on future listens by everyone. Everyone, that is, except for that one mustachioed fat guy who shows up for every Stones concert wearing his "emotional rescue" t-shirt, even though it faded from black to slate gray about 15 years ago and fits so tightly he looks like one of those impossibly red holiday gift basket sausages.



Track Eleven: "Blood Brothers"

More social consciousness, this time focusing on issues such as war and homelessness. The Rolling Stones super computer tells us this song will be a hodgepodge of half-formed political observations and leftover 60's Utopianism designed to convince the average listener that Mick thinks about something other than champagne and women's body parts from time to time. Basically, "Blood Brothers" is an attempt to maintain the Stones "everyman" appeal by giving off the impression that Mick and Keith can "relate" to and "care" about what happens to the average joe on the streets, even though Mick spends more in one night tipping strippers than the average worker makes in two years at Walmart. If the average fan had to confront this reality on a regular basis, his head might explode. Among the more affluent Stones fans, the Wall Street demi-demons and corporate whores will spend 2000 dollars for front row seats on opening night, and then sing along with this anthemic song of solidarity and humanism louder than anyone, pumping their drunken fists in the air. Afterwards, they'll call the cops on the Vietnam vet who asks them for some spare change as they run to their rented limo's outside MSG.


Track Twelve: "Into the Fading Twilight"

Our computer anticipates there will be one, last "heartfelt" opus on the new Rolling Stones album. This is somehow intended to deflect attention from the fact that Mick and Keith's emotional growth has been stunted since 1963 or so. Despite that, the computer effectively draws upon the rich reservoir of philosophical insights that can only be gleaned from a lifetime of self-indulgent behavior and reckless substance abuse. The result is a beautiful tapestry of musical self-reflection which weaves together sentimental and novel rhymes like "real/feel," "fears/tears," "long/strong," and "bitch/scratch this itch." Guaranteed to be a real tear-jerker and a future "classic," the Stones will be signing a 5 million dollar endorsement with BIC in an effort to cash in on all the lighters which are sure to go off during this song's live performance. For added measure, the lighters will have the Stones "lips and tongue" logo emblazoned on them. However, in a conscious effort to remain hip and edgy in the year 2008, a machine gun will protrude from the Rolling Stones "lips" and point directly at a nun's groin.



There you have it... 12 tracks coming soon from the Rolling Stones. Now, be honest. Would it REALLY surprise you if the computer got these right???