The Monkees

Hold on Forum Monkees, the other Monkees are back.
 
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4915738219001/the-monkees-are-back/?intcmp=hpffo&intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
 
 

They only have 50% of their original mebers.
 
We have 33.33% of our original mebers.

IMHO, The Monkees got an undeservedly bad reputation at no real fault of their own. For the most part, others were writing their music but that is not uncommon. They were fighting with the producers about performing on screen and for control of the recordings but were overruled so that aspect was not really their fault either. If nothing else, they were doing the singing in the recordings and backing tracks.
 
I think the real issue is that the public was not aware of all the things when the curtain was pulled back to reveal the people behind the curtain. Most all of what was controversial then happens every day now but is not an issue. Does anyone believe George Clooney wrote and sang "Man of Constant Sorrow"? Same difference in my opinion...

slartabartfast
... 
And we old codgers make fun of  the young.
 ...

It's not as bad as the clown outfits at YES concerts!

Mickey Dolenz - one of the most individual and recognisable voices in pop.
 
I enjoyed their TV show when I was a wee lad, and collected bubblegum cards that made up a big picture of them, but even at about 8 years old I knew they weren't a real group. Who cares, it was all good fun.

And if you watch the vid, what DAW are they using? It's all kind of grey.

Apparently, people have focused on my criticism of the Monkees, as the focus of my earlier post. While the Monkeys were indeed the invention of a promotion machine, as were the early Beatles, I admit that point has been overdone. They were in fact purveyors of largely insipid pablum, as were the early Beatles, for which they deserve no more credit.
 
That said, my criticism was largely pointed at the aging, in some cases still pre-senile,  fans who would support the reanimation of a bloated corpse in order to re-kindle their mis-remeberd enthusiasm for a musical performance installation that died with their now clearly faded (decomposed?) youth. I too watched the show, over my older sister's shoulder, and without much enthusiasm, but I have no wish to try to recreate the experience with a trio of doddering relics and their minions. This is not just a Monkees issue, it is the same opinion I held of my parents' fascination with hearing the croaks of an aged Frank Sinatra doing the standards that they swooned to in the days of their courtship. If the music means anything, and if you respected their accomplishment, then listen to contemporary recordings. Thomas Edison gave us the opportunity to preserve that long after the vocal cords were blown and arthritis froze the hands to the fretboard. And the talkies and YouTube preserved much of the visual excitement of fifty year old concerts, without the memories of the drunk vomiting on your shoes at the live event. Not all of contemporary music is great, but there are many many contemporary artists at the peak of their power,  who are producing great music, and it is possible to find them with unprecedented ease. Digging up old people and dressing them up in your memories, in an attempt to recover your youth, is a moribund ritual, suitable only for the old at heart. 

slartabartfast
Apparently, people have focused on my criticism of the Monkees, as the focus of my earlier post. While the Monkeys were indeed the invention of a promotion machine, as were the early Beatles, I admit that point has been overdone. They were in fact purveyors of largely insipid pablum, as were the early Beatles, for which they deserve no more credit.
 
That said, my criticism was largely pointed at the aging, in some cases still pre-senile,  fans who would support the reanimation of a bloated corpse in order to re-kindle their mis-remeberd enthusiasm for a musical performance installation that died with their now clearly faded (decomposed?) youth. I too watched the show, over my older sister's shoulder, and without much enthusiasm, but I have no wish to try to recreate the experience with a trio of doddering relics and their minions. This is not just a Monkees issue, it is the same opinion I held of my parents' fascination with hearing the croaks of an aged Frank Sinatra doing the standards that they swooned to in the days of their courtship. If the music means anything, and if you respected their accomplishment, then listen to contemporary recordings. Thomas Edison gave us the opportunity to preserve that long after the vocal cords were blown and arthritis froze the hands to the fretboard. And the talkies and YouTube preserved much of the visual excitement of fifty year old concerts, without the memories of the drunk vomiting on your shoes at the live event. Not all of contemporary music is great, but there are many many contemporary artists at the peak of their power,  who are producing great music, and it is possible to find them with unprecedented ease. Digging up old people and dressing them up in your memories, in an attempt to recover your youth, is a moribund ritual, suitable only for the old at heart. 

Couldn't get tickets eh?

The new Monkees album is getting great reviews and appears to be selling well.  It's been the #1 Music purchase at Amazon (covering all categories) for days.  They wrote a few songs themselves and they got some big names in the indie music scene to write some songs.  It works for me.
 
I honestly don't get the critcism about not playing their own instruments on the records back in the day.  Pet Sounds?Not played by the rest of the Beach Boys.  Mr. Tambourine Man? Not played by the Byrds.  Mamas and Papas?  Didn't play on their big hits.  Age of Aquarius?  Not played by the Fifth Dimension.  The Turtles? Nope, they didn't play on their records either.  And on and on.
 
If the songs are good, then enjoy them.  

completely agree with smokeyJ628 here.
 
Listen to the music for what it's worth today, regardless of past associations with "studio trickery" or even past success.
 
If their new album sounds good...listen to it.  
 
I have absolutely no enmity towards any musician who wants to create music and get it out to others.  why would any of us harbor animosity toward musicians trying to continue "being musicians?"

I was of age when the Monkees came out. Not necessarily a fan. I knew what they were and accepted it and actually appreciated it. Probably my fondest memory of them is for their song hit "(I'm Not Your) Stepping Stone". I recall this because my brother (keyboards) and myself (guitar) got hooked up with some other bandmates, and this song was the first one where I felt we actually sounded pretty okay for a young garage band. Yes, the song is simple, but that was just what we needed at the time. I still can remember playing it (actually in front of the garage) for a free neighborhood concert, of which my mother received anonymous phone calls to turn it off. Oh well. I still think it sounded pretty good.

Beagle
completely agree with smokeyJ628 here.
 
Listen to the music for what it's worth today, regardless of past associations with "studio trickery" or even past success.
 
If their new album sounds good...listen to it.  
 
I have absolutely no enmity towards any musician who wants to create music and get it out to others.  why would any of us harbor animosity toward musicians trying to continue "being musicians?"

Well said.
 
I too watched the show as a kid with my sisters. I also remember the backlash. Either way, there were some good songs regardless of the source and staged performances.
 
Perhaps The Monkees would have had less problems if they had been on TV after The Archies... ;)

Beagle
Listen to the music for what it's worth today, regardless of past associations with "studio trickery" or even past success.
 
If their new album sounds good...listen to it.  
 
I have absolutely no enmity towards any musician who wants to create music and get it out to others.  why would any of us harbor animosity toward musicians trying to continue "being musicians?"

I can't disagree with that, and I am not in any way criticizing old people who are making new and interesting music, even those who have lost some of their original sharpness. Willie Nelson, BB King, Aretha Franklin, Cher and the late David Bowie  are favorites of mine who all produced high quality work well past their physical prime. But I have to disagree about the tribute bands and Elvis impersonators. If doing covers of dead musicians has to involve mimicking the style and appearance of the departed in order to get a gig, it says something sad about the paying audience, if not the musicians. Sure, its all just show business. Sure a guy's got to make a living. Sure every circus needs a clown. But the old musicians who I admire are not playing that role. We would have better support for inventive musicians if we had fewer resources going to the resurrection section on memory lane. 
 
My view is probably highly colored by the fact that I do not like concerts, the natural habitat of the tribute groups, anywhere near as much as I like music. I would far rather hear a recording, with good sound and studio musicians subbing for the guitar smashers, than join the expectant throng for a sweaty live venue ear pounding. I am a genetically hobbled introvert, who finds the spectacle distracting and the elbow rubbing with my fellow primates unappealing. Color me curmudgeon, and let's leave it at that. 

When I was young I was much more like Slart, I would save my money and buy the records instead of going to concerts (therefore I didn't go to that many).  I think it was the better choice because I don't remember much from a couple of the concerts! LOL.
 
That said, I've actually done a little roadie-ing for a couple of tribute bands and it was a lot of fun.  The crowd realizes they aren't the real thing, but they look good, sound good and, for some, it gets close to what they missed while, for others, it reminds them of what they saw.  Plus live gigs can generally be much louder than what you can get away with at home!