|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 5, 2013 21:20:49 GMT -5
Nice song. Never realized how much I do like this song. This morning I had the hallmark channel on in the background, and Happy Days was playing. I had to laugh, this must have been a show which aired later during their run.. Fonzie was upset over the onset of "Folk Music," it and wasn't Elvis.. this is what Fonzie was complaining about. So were the 50's rockers upset about the 60's music? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 5, 2013 21:54:21 GMT -5
I would have to say that some of them were troubled by 60s pop, but I don't think they really had much to worry about until the Beatles showed up in early 1964. Almost every 50s rocker and teen idol was all but shunted aside in popularity by the Fab Four. The only one who really survived largely intact was Elvis, and even he felt threatened by the Beatles. He still got his songs into the Top 40 at the rate of three to four a year between 1963 and 1968, but he only got one anywhere close to #1, and that was "Crying In The Chapel", which hit #3 in June 1965 (and that was a recording he had made back in 1960!). The problem: The Beatles made A HARD DAY'S NIGHT and HELP!, while Elvis did PARADISE HAWAIIAN STYLE and CLAMBAKE.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 21:57:57 GMT -5
That was a nice version.. the song, and the group for that matter were underrated, IMO...
This was possibly my favorite of theirs:
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 6, 2013 1:29:00 GMT -5
Nice song. Never realized how much I do like this song. This morning I had the hallmark channel on in the background, and Happy Days was playing. I had to laugh, this must have been a show which aired later during their run.. Fonzie was upset over the onset of "Folk Music," it and wasn't Elvis.. this is what Fonzie was complaining about. So were the 50's rockers upset about the 60's music? lol The rock and roll of the early 1960s was dominated by a lot of lightweights rather than the rock heavyweights of the 1950s. It wasn't really the British Invasion that had put the kabosh on the careers of the 50s artists, so much as it was a different audience and their tastes. Many of the careers of the artists of the 50s were over before the Beatles had even come along, many not for reasons associated with music: Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and the Big Bopper (J.P. Richardson) died in that plane crash in Iowa, Eddie Cochran died in an auto accident and Gene Vincent was injured in the same crash. Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis had legal troubles and scandals, Little Richard flirted with going into the ministry, Sam Cooke was murdered in 1964. Of the ones who were still around, Elvis and Rick Nelson continued to chart with their records even though both of them were also heavily involved in the movies (as well as tv for Nelson). Conway Twitty decided being a country artist was more appealing. Bobby Darin still charted, though he too had a movie career going but still suffered from severe health problems that would finally claim his life in 1973. And the Everly Brothers still maintained a presence on the charts although they had to deal with the pre-Beatle lightweights foisted on the teen market by the powers that be in New York. Even with all of that, it was the early 1960s audience in the four years before the Beatles and the British Invasion who made it all the more difficult for the earlier artists to keep getting hits. If one thinks about it, each generation chooses their own musical heroes, much to the regret and consternation of the previous generation. But, I do think those who came up in the mid-to-late 60s were a lot more fanatical about their heroes and intolerant of those who came along later, with certain rare exceptions, than those who came up in the 50s. But, I also think a lot of the 50s artists simply didn't bother with trying to keep the hits coming. Despite the Beatles and the British Invasion, Elvis never had a 45 or album in the 60s that didn't chart or sell. Even with the soundtrack albums and the many inferior songs on them, he still sold and still had million selling singles that didn't make the top of the charts. That was the difference: Elvis kept going in the wake of Beatlemania and the British Invasion. He didn't throw in the towel and surrender. How many others simply said, "No! I won't bother trying"? He may have regarded them as a threat but he also told his associates that there was room for everybody. The Beatles did their thing and he did his and it still worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 6, 2013 2:03:17 GMT -5
I would have to say that some of them were troubled by 60s pop, but I don't think they really had much to worry about until the Beatles showed up in early 1964. Almost every 50s rocker and teen idol was all but shunted aside in popularity by the Fab Four. The only one who really survived largely intact was Elvis, and even he felt threatened by the Beatles. He still got his songs into the Top 40 at the rate of three to four a year between 1963 and 1968, but he only got one anywhere close to #1, and that was "Crying In The Chapel", which hit #3 in June 1965 (and that was a recording he had made back in 1960!). The problem: The Beatles made A HARD DAY'S NIGHT and HELP!, while Elvis did PARADISE HAWAIIAN STYLE and CLAMBAKE. Another difference was Brian Epstein didn't lock the Beatles into a long term disastrous movie career the way Col. Parker tied Elvis's creative energies to making four to five movies per year. Even some of the people who worked at Hill and Range, the publishing company that administered Elvis's publishing companies and supplied songs to him, felt that Parker had overreached in committing Elvis's time and energies to the movies, and in the process, placed a great strain on the songwriters to come up with songs rather quickly. They knew some of the songs weren't any good but they also knew the reason was having to write 10 to 20 songs for each and every movie Elvis made. Had the Beatles been locked into that kind of deal, the quality of their songs might have suffered as well. Elvis didn't have a lot of free time in the 60s when he was making those movies. He'd be pulling triple duty: filming a movie during the day, working on songs for the next movie at night, and then listening to demos for the next soundtrack session on any spare time he had for that. The miracle was he had any time at all for himself and for non-soundtrack musical interests, which clearly he wanted to make recordings not associated with the movies. He held it together better than what any others could've done under similar circumstances. The Beatles however made clear they didn't want to be making movies, although they did make the rather lousy "Magical Mystery Tour," and the songs for that tv special seemed to below their own standards. They didn't even want to do "Yellow Submarine" and regarded the original songs heard in the movie as throwaways. And in doing that, they perhaps avoided a situation that could've broken them up much earlier. John was by 1967 already stressed out by Paul because Paul had written ten to twenty songs and was keen on calling a recording session. John was quoted as saying it bugged him because he and George hadn't even written any songs, and Paul didn't want to give them the time to write songs. He had his songs and that was all that mattered. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 6, 2013 12:29:22 GMT -5
Thanks guys. appreciate it. I always thought people were more accepting of the beatles.. I know the big band era people had a problem with onset of rock.. and elvis.. many hated it.. I kind of lumped the 50's and 60's together.. another major shift was during the 70's and disco, which got a lot of resenment too. Nowadays it's rap music..
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 6, 2013 15:33:43 GMT -5
Thanks guys. appreciate it. I always thought people were more accepting of the beatles.. I know the big band era people had a problem with onset of rock.. and elvis.. many hated it.. I kind of lumped the 50's and 60's together.. another major shift was during the 70's and disco, which got a lot of resenment too. Nowadays it's rap music.. With regards to disco, I always thought the reaction it got from the old guard rock crowd of the 60s was very strange. Disco was never anything more than dance music, which was what rock music started out as, but which had morphed in the mid-60s to the rather stupid idea that a rock song's lyrics had to have a serious message (usually political) to pass along to the fans, telling them what to think. I thought using rock music as a medium to pass along messages was a good idea at first but then thought it wasn't a very good idea after a while. Considering that Charles Manson took his cue to murder from the nonsensical lyrics of "Helter Skelter," the idea of using a song to pass along a more serious message was one idea that musicians should've scrapped altogether, lest another Charles Manson type come along and take his cue to order mass killings. But, there were some rock fans who hated disco with a passion that was so intense, it was kind of surprising someone didn't end up doing something stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 6, 2013 15:40:21 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
Wouldn't burning disco records in the middle of a Chicago White Sox baseball game count as something stupid? Just that very thing happened in '79.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 6, 2013 16:29:22 GMT -5
I think they left a lot of important artists out.. but some are spot on to represent the evolution of popular music.. did I hear what seems to be a snippet of rock n roll during the 30's? No Linda in the 70's but the Eagles are there to represent.. IMO with the exception of nirvana and even eminem it went downhill in the 90's.. could be my age..
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 6, 2013 23:35:10 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker: Wouldn't burning disco records in the middle of a Chicago White Sox baseball game count as something stupid? Just that very thing happened in '79. Definitely counts as something stupid in my book. I thought Steve Dahl should've been sacked as a dj for putting that whole idea together. But, there were some loose screws out there who were threatening to do far more than burn records, like killing certain disco artists. I don't know if the law took those threats seriously or if they were even aware of them. Remember, this was before John Lennon was murdered by Chapman. That raises an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of before: what if Chapman was one of the loose screws? If he was, his killing of Lennon could've been prevented if someone was paying attention. But, if the law blew off the threats...which I find hard to believe, given the FBI took a death threat on Elvis's life in 1970 very seriously. But, I always wondered why the FBI got involved in the threat on Elvis's life but the Las Vegas police did not, even though the threat was made in their jurisdiction? There was a lot of intense hatred for disco that just seemed way out there. It was just music after all, and there was no excuse one could make as justification for threatening another person's life. Strange times! |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 6, 2013 23:54:39 GMT -5
I think they left a lot of important artists out.. but some are spot on to represent the evolution of popular music.. did I hear what seems to be a snippet of rock n roll during the 30's? No Linda in the 70's but the Eagles are there to represent.. IMO with the exception of nirvana and even eminem it went downhill in the 90's.. could be my age.. I think there was music from the 30s which could've been given a rock treatment. After all, the song "Baby Face," a disco hit in the 70s was actually a tune from the 1930s. And I think another song, "I'll Be Seeing You" (which Linda covered) was another song from the 190s or 1940s, which was given a somewhat rockish treatment in the 60s by Joey Heatherton, no less. Joey's 1960s recordings were closer to pop-rock-soul recordings than the album she would record in 1972 that would produce her hit remake on Ferlin Husky's "Gone." Curiously, I did think, and still think to this day, that a lot of the songs of the 1960s and 1970s could've been done just as easily in the 1930s and 1940s, especially some of the disco stuff. As for music going downhill in the 90s and it being an age issue, no, I don't think so. For me, the music started going downhill in the 80s. A lot of the music just sounded sterile to my ears. The 90s definitely became worse as the record companies didn't spend any good amount of time on the artists developing them for lasting success. Many of the 90s artists were what used to be called one hit wonders but in their cases, they were one year hit wonders who you heard for a year (or the better part of a year) before they disappeared, never to be heard from again. Much of the oblivion was deserved. Some of it though was not. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 7, 2013 10:06:46 GMT -5
We did mention Rick Nelson a little earlier here vis-a-vis his TV career. I think it behooves us to mention that, on the suggestion of his former guitarist James Burton, RN did make a pair of C&W-style albums in 1966-67 (Country Fever; Bright Lights And Country Music) that, while not necessarily successful at that time, did give him a new artistic lease on life (Burton worked with him on both albums, as did such session players of the time as Clarence White, Glen Campbell [yes, that Glen Campbell], Glen Hardin, and Bob Warford). This led him into the emerging Los Angeles country-rock movement of the time; and in 1969, he formed the Stone Canyon Band, which had Randy Meisner on bass (more or less) and Tom Brumley (of Buck Owens' Buckaroos) on steel, resulting in a minor #33 hit in January 1970 with a version of Bob Dylan's "She Belongs To Me" that Dylan himself approved of mightily.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2013 11:03:01 GMT -5
1965-1975 had the best music with 1970-73 the best of that ten years. Lots of magic and memories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2013 11:08:16 GMT -5
1965-1975 had the best music with 1970-73 the best of that ten years. Lots of magic and memories. I have to demur, and vote for 1964-1969 perhaps |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2013 11:18:27 GMT -5
1965-1975 had the best music with 1970-73 the best of that ten years. Lots of magic and memories. I have to demur, and vote for 1964-1969 perhaps At least you are within range. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 8, 2013 11:41:51 GMT -5
As far as the best years of popular music.. It just depends on who you ask..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 8, 2013 12:02:55 GMT -5
Didn't Linda comment on this guy once... that she had listened to him. must have made an impact if she commented.. she said he was talented but had issues with his lyrics(he was bashing mother in a song) and told him to shut up. lol I personally think he is very talented and the video imo is funny.
and this one is brillant imo. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 8, 2013 13:18:10 GMT -5
As far as music from the 21st century. I like this one too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 8, 2013 14:55:29 GMT -5
1965-1975 had the best music with 1970-73 the best of that ten years. Lots of magic and memories. I'd put the best years as ranging from 1964 to 1979, with 1954 to 1959 (when rock got its start) being a close second. Rock went through a dull period from 1960 through 1963 (in the US; Beatlemania and what would be the British Invasion were just getting underway in Europe) and then with the 80s, a blah period (with exceptions) and with the 90s, a mostly forgettable period (again, with exceptions). But, my yardstick for all those judgments is the period of time from 1964 through 1979. Rock began to lose something, starting in 1980, and has continued to lose ever since. Part of the problem is that no one has come along to fill the shoes of the giants. Where's the next Elvis or Beatles? The next Linda? Beach Boys? And all the other giants who were part of our lives. That's not to belittle those who are out there trying but it seems like the days of musical giants are long over. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 8, 2013 15:35:35 GMT -5
Slide, I think the musical giants are there right now it's just I don't recogize another Linda ect because I'm not into today's music..just some of it I can recognize as good and can see why people like it.. . but the kids nowadays and they're gonna be saying the same thing we do (in 20 yrs) about eminem.. lady gaga.. rhianna adele ect.. .. those are their giants. My era was more Michael Jackson and Madonna.. and both are considered icons.. so, whether we don't like their music or feel them unworthy.. many others do.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Mar 8, 2013 15:50:53 GMT -5
Quote by dianna re. "another Linda":
It takes something other than Top 40 radio to find another Linda, if that's even possible--and to be honest, I don't think it is. For this, you kind of have to resort to Internet surfing.
I submit that Tift Merritt is probably the closest we have to someone of Linda's caliber, at least when it comes to the most successful aspect of Linda's career, which was the country-rock genre. And right behind her, for me anyway, is Caitlin Rose, who's only 25 but has a really good knowledge of music in general, and of Linda in particular.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 8, 2013 17:05:55 GMT -5
Slide, I think the musical giants are there right now it's just I don't recogize another Linda ect because I'm not into today's music..just some of it I can recognize as good and can see why people like it.. . but the kids nowadays and they're gonna be saying the same thing we do (in 20 yrs) about eminem.. lady gaga.. rhianna adele ect.. .. those are their giants. My era was more Michael Jackson and Madonna.. and both are considered icons.. so, whether we don't like their music or feel them unworthy.. many others do. I think there could be potential giants out there but the music business has gotten all about getting what money they can from the artists, and then forget them and move on to the next moneymaker. I think there is also a fear within the record business, that they don't want to find more giants because they are attached to the giants of the past. As said, there are always exceptions like Madonna, who came along in the 80s. Jackson, I consider him to have been part of the 60s, since that is when he debuted with his brothers. Although granted, his debut was at the tail end of the 60s. But, he was already having a lot of solo success in the 70s before "Thriller" came along, though that album was his high mark (and the start of his subsequent downfall). I think kids today could be talking about Eminem and Lady Gaga and Adele 25 years from now, but there's also the possibility they could be long forgotten by that time. Lady Gaga has been accused of doing Madonna's act and doing someone else's act is almost always a dangerous path. You have to be as good or better than the original as otherwise, an act will find themselves playing in relative oblivion to very few people. Look at Marilyn Manson, who was a cross rip of Alice Cooper (in his shock days) and KISS. He's still around but you don't hear a lot on him, certainly not on the radio. But, I don't think it's possible there will ever be another Elvis or Beatles. For one thing, their sales are practically too far out of reach for anyone else to even try and come close. Not with the way the music business is today, and not with the way artists release albums today. |
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 8, 2013 17:27:15 GMT -5
As faar as record sales near Elvis or The Beatles..and I don't look at numbers..just assuming.. I would wager.. Micheal and Madonna would come close or in more years would get to that status . Don't know about 20 years from now.. Marilyn Manson never really had a crossover pop hit.. not that I can recall.. I remember one song.. about the dope show??? he performed it at some award show.. Yes, the only thing that does bother me about ga ga, is that she basically ripped off Madonna's entire act, but she's weirder than Madonna but it still seems like a put on and not genuine to me. I don't think Mathers (eminem) will be not be forgotten, he's already been around for 17 years and still going strong.. and I read eligible for rrhof iin 2021, that's only 8 years.. And for the record, Nirvan is eligible for 2013, this year. bets they'll get it this year... hopefully, Linda will be in by then.(8 years). geez
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2013 17:27:28 GMT -5
Quote by dianna re. "another Linda": I submit that Tift Merritt is probably the closest we have to someone of Linda's caliber, at least when it comes to the most successful aspect of Linda's career, which was the country-rock genre.. Erik and I have long touted Tift as an artist of talent and integrity; in fact I look forward to seeing her in concert this Sunday. Another recent artist who combines talent and a unique vision: |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 8, 2013 17:43:03 GMT -5
As faar as record sales near Elvis or The Beatles..and I don't look at numbers..just assuming.. I would wager.. Micheal and Madonna would come close or in more years would get to that status . Don't know about 20 years from now.. Marilyn Manson never really had a crossover pop hit.. not that I can recall.. I remember one song.. about the dope show??? he performed it at some award show.. Yes, the only thing that does bother me about ga ga, is that she basically ripped off Madonna's entire act, but she's weirder than Madonna but it still seems like a put on and not genuine to me. I don't think Mathers (eminem) will be not be forgotten, he's already been around for 17 years and still going strong.. and I read eligible for rrhof iin 2021, that's only 8 years.. And for the record, Nirvan is eligible for 2013, this year. bets they'll get it this year... hopefully, Linda will be in by then.(8 years). geez Elvis was reported as having exceeded two billion in album sales a few years ago; the Beatles's sales was reported as 1.5 billion. The key word here though is reported. No one knows the exact sales figures. Their record companies keeps the exact figures a closely guarded secret. Michael Jackson is supposed to have sold 750 million but just before his death that figure was actually 250 million. When he died, he was quoted as having sold $750 million in the newspaper accounts of his death. Somehow, that dollar sign got removed and it became 750 million album sales. There's some claim for Madonna of 800 million, although here again, only her record company knows the true total. I wouldn't make book on it. She's never been in the list of the top five sellers. But, even if they or are others make the billion club, there still remains a question of whether they could catch up to Elvis or the Beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by jhar26 on Mar 9, 2013 7:41:22 GMT -5
It's impossible for anyone contemporary to get anywhere close to the sales figures of Elvis Presley or the Beatles. First of all 'nobody' buys records anymore. Second, Elvis' output was much bigger. He had a new album seemingly every couple of months plus almost as many, if not more compilation albums plus tons of singles and ep's. These days it takes years for most artists to come up with a new album and if you're a fan you only need to buy a handfull of their records and you have everything. With Elvis you can keep buying your whole life because everytime they find an alternative take of no matter what song they build a whole 'new' album around it. I'm exaggerating, but not much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 7:52:14 GMT -5
I agree with Gaston, and might add that the market is now too compartmentalized with different genres... the days when 'everybody' liked artists such as the Beatles and Elvis are long gone... for better or for worse..
|
|
|
|
Post by Dianna on Mar 9, 2013 14:16:25 GMT -5
True, we're in the age of digital and copying music so we can't take that in to consideration. Plus Elvis and the Beatles have 20 and 30 years of more records albums then any icons from the 80's and people are still either purchasing or downloading their music. The name Gaston sounds familar!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Mar 9, 2013 14:52:20 GMT -5
It's impossible for anyone contemporary to get anywhere close to the sales figures of Elvis Presley or the Beatles. First of all 'nobody' buys records anymore. Second, Elvis' output was much bigger. He had a new album seemingly every couple of months plus almost as many, if not more compilation albums plus tons of singles and ep's. These days it takes years for most artists to come up with a new album and if you're a fan you only need to buy a handfull of their records and you have everything. With Elvis you can keep buying your whole life because everytime they find an alternative take of no matter what song they build a whole 'new' album around it. I'm exaggerating, but not much. It should be impossible but impossible doesn't ever stop record companies, artists and/or managers from making any claims. It may seem that "nobody" buys records anymore but cds are still available, and not everyone is on board with downloading tunes. And it's true what you say about Elvis; his record company has released numerous alternate takes of his recordings, and seems to have no trouble finding something new. It's hard to believe his record company was once very uptight about releasing any alternate takes or unreleased outtakes. The curious thing about all of the reissues and alternate takes is that there is a lot of albums that is just barely under the RIAA's gold record award status, sales of which if they could be added to Elvis's RIAA sales total would take his official US sales total to somewhere between 225 and 250 million. But, the RIAA does not have an award for album sales under 500,000, although I think they should have something that recognizes sales between 100,000 and 500,000. That would benefit some artists who never got much recognition for their efforts but who did better sales wise than other artists, but who still somehow came up short in making gold. |
|
|
|
Post by musicaamator on Jun 17, 2013 6:30:30 GMT -5
Count me in as one who is a big fan of 60's pop--not only from the well established bands/artists but the one-hit (or two-hits) wonders as well. Attribute it to being a big Beatles fan and hearing all the great stuff that came after/during their wake. I particularly have been digging some obscure ones (to me at least), like The Castaways Liar, Liar:
Or this one:
I remember that one when I was growing up and just discovering music.
And one of my all-time favourites:
Thanks to The Flintstones episode where I first heard of them and this song, although they were called The Beau Brummelstones on that one.
So much great stuff came from that decade!
|
|
