Ah, childhood memories. We Dutchies tend to call this Bubblegum Rock. The Osmonds had a huge hit with Crazy Horses, a song that actually manages to kick ass. I guess that's Bubblegum Metal then. It was a big hit in France and when they had a gig there the audience expected much more stuff like that.
Don't forget Mud! Titles like Dyna-mite, Lala Lucy and Tigerfeet say it all. And their gitarist, Rob Davis, wore a dress and earrings. No way that I'll ever dive into their catalogue, thank you very much, my love for the early 70's ain't nearly enough.
But Kiss playing Wagner, that would spark my interest. After all their only good song, Detroit Rock City, tells the tragic tale of a Kiss fan who loved his band too much and died for it.
I've always thought it remarkable you didn't even mention it in your reviews on the old site.
"Herman’s Hermits were actually the first successful act to intentionally launch the process of dumbing down the entire movement"
Well yeah, the movement called Britbeat or British R & B. But to 50's rock'n'roll exactly the same happened. Big part of Elvis' career is dumbed down r&r. A song like Return to Sender is only saved by his voice.
As Ringo used to sing, "love is a many-splendored thing". I just hope that your love for the Archies is not the same kind of love as your love for "Volunteers". As long as that's true, there's nothing wrong with the world.
Indeed, my love for the Archies is of a fundamentally different character from my love for Volunteers; the former are giddy, sweet, and frivolous, while the latter scratches my itch for the angry, angular, and experimental. I’m really more troubled by the suggestion of a line of continuity that would include Archies-brand pop with that of Imagine Dragons. Perhaps there’s some case to be made about a material-ideological connection (both basically cooked up in corporate offices to sell to bougie youngsters) but stylistically they’re poles apart. Whatever descriptors one might apply to the Archies and other classic 60’s bubblegum acts, they would not include “sterile,” “overproduced,” “bombastic,” “empty,” and “ear-splitting.”
"Sterile" and "empty" work for me just fine. Old school bubblegum-rock and new school pseudo-rock logically inherit each other; it's just that Sixties' crap is imminently more listenable than 2000's crap - because humanity had not yet invented so many technical gadgets with which it could eviscerate good music.
Count on you, George, to cover in such loving detail music of the 60's which, in the context of the decade as a whole, can only be described as "filler". As you say, it's easy to dismiss their music, but hey, at the time, the two songs you single out did indeed serve a feelgood function and should not be sneered at. No obvious indication, either, that Peter Noone and Co. ever took themselves too seriously. A sign of the times, I daresay they knew their humble place in the never-to-be-surpassed hierarchy.
Oh, I don't have any beef with Peter Noone. I only wonder at the motivation of the people who actually bought all those records. Then again, why do I wonder?..
On reflection, I'd venture that there were, are, people who prefer their pop music "lite", without the musical complexity or what one might call "weight" of The Rolling Stones, say, or even the Beatles. The heavyweight groups of the early-mid 60's allowed others of less talent or ambition to ride on their proverbial coat tails, and have their day in the sun. The phenomenon is rife today, except of a completely different, not say dismal, order.
This is certainly true; my surprise rather comes at the willingness of people to actually spend money on this stuff back in the day, instead of just listening to it casually on the radio. The desire to physically own a Beatles or a Stones single is comprehensible to me; the desire to store 'Mrs. Brown, You've Got A Lovely Daughter' in your record collection, not so much.
"..... the Osmonds, the Bay City Rollers ....."
Ah, childhood memories. We Dutchies tend to call this Bubblegum Rock. The Osmonds had a huge hit with Crazy Horses, a song that actually manages to kick ass. I guess that's Bubblegum Metal then. It was a big hit in France and when they had a gig there the audience expected much more stuff like that.
Don't forget Mud! Titles like Dyna-mite, Lala Lucy and Tigerfeet say it all. And their gitarist, Rob Davis, wore a dress and earrings. No way that I'll ever dive into their catalogue, thank you very much, my love for the early 70's ain't nearly enough.
But Kiss playing Wagner, that would spark my interest. After all their only good song, Detroit Rock City, tells the tragic tale of a Kiss fan who loved his band too much and died for it.
https://www.last.fm/music/Kiss/_/Detroit+Rock+City/+wiki
I've always thought it remarkable you didn't even mention it in your reviews on the old site.
"Herman’s Hermits were actually the first successful act to intentionally launch the process of dumbing down the entire movement"
Well yeah, the movement called Britbeat or British R & B. But to 50's rock'n'roll exactly the same happened. Big part of Elvis' career is dumbed down r&r. A song like Return to Sender is only saved by his voice.
I love the Archies. 😢. Why you gotta do them dirty like that, George?
As Ringo used to sing, "love is a many-splendored thing". I just hope that your love for the Archies is not the same kind of love as your love for "Volunteers". As long as that's true, there's nothing wrong with the world.
Indeed, my love for the Archies is of a fundamentally different character from my love for Volunteers; the former are giddy, sweet, and frivolous, while the latter scratches my itch for the angry, angular, and experimental. I’m really more troubled by the suggestion of a line of continuity that would include Archies-brand pop with that of Imagine Dragons. Perhaps there’s some case to be made about a material-ideological connection (both basically cooked up in corporate offices to sell to bougie youngsters) but stylistically they’re poles apart. Whatever descriptors one might apply to the Archies and other classic 60’s bubblegum acts, they would not include “sterile,” “overproduced,” “bombastic,” “empty,” and “ear-splitting.”
"Sterile" and "empty" work for me just fine. Old school bubblegum-rock and new school pseudo-rock logically inherit each other; it's just that Sixties' crap is imminently more listenable than 2000's crap - because humanity had not yet invented so many technical gadgets with which it could eviscerate good music.
The Archies managed more aesthetic richness than Arcade Fire ever did, buddy.
Oh William. Don't ever change from the way that you are now. If you ever change, I would be sad 'cause I wanted you just as you are.
Count on you, George, to cover in such loving detail music of the 60's which, in the context of the decade as a whole, can only be described as "filler". As you say, it's easy to dismiss their music, but hey, at the time, the two songs you single out did indeed serve a feelgood function and should not be sneered at. No obvious indication, either, that Peter Noone and Co. ever took themselves too seriously. A sign of the times, I daresay they knew their humble place in the never-to-be-surpassed hierarchy.
Oh, I don't have any beef with Peter Noone. I only wonder at the motivation of the people who actually bought all those records. Then again, why do I wonder?..
On reflection, I'd venture that there were, are, people who prefer their pop music "lite", without the musical complexity or what one might call "weight" of The Rolling Stones, say, or even the Beatles. The heavyweight groups of the early-mid 60's allowed others of less talent or ambition to ride on their proverbial coat tails, and have their day in the sun. The phenomenon is rife today, except of a completely different, not say dismal, order.
This is certainly true; my surprise rather comes at the willingness of people to actually spend money on this stuff back in the day, instead of just listening to it casually on the radio. The desire to physically own a Beatles or a Stones single is comprehensible to me; the desire to store 'Mrs. Brown, You've Got A Lovely Daughter' in your record collection, not so much.