Longtime friend of the blog “Barry” emails in regard to my muted rip on the Monkees last week (which, in my defense, was less a rip on the Monkees than an example of how pop culture likes to follow up success with as many copies of the successful as they can paste together):
In defense of the Monkees I offer the following article from CNN, a source I know you regard as unimpeachable:
My opinion that the Monkees are underrated is suspect, however, because when you go to the dictionary and look up “nerd” you find my picture. FWIW.barry
Barry and the CNN piece are right, of course – and there’s a big potential series of music posts in the whole story. The Beatles were among the first superstars to write their own music; the Monkees were among the later products of an entertainment industry that had specialized trades to do that sort of thing.
Anyway, read the whole thing…
It’s a good article and makes a very valid point. I tend to put the Monkees in the same bucket with Johnny Rivers and Tommy James and Shondells — they were pros and most of what they produced was schlock, but well-produced shlock has value.
The band that really took the formula to the bank later on was Three Dog Night; they ended up charting big hits from a variety of songwriters, including Randy Newman, Hoyt Axton, Laura Nyro and John Hiatt.
Well stated Mr. D … I really like the Monkees. It started way back when they first started recording when I was in 6th grade and was (and still am) an aspiring guitar player. I used to drool over Nesmith’s big old Gretsch hollow-body. They provided some great practice music and I had all their albums. I still have a couple along with a “Best of” CD which I occasionally and unashamedly put in my player’s shuffle line up. Thanks for the article.
First 45 that I ever bought was Monkees Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You/A Girl I Knew Somewhere.
The Monkees are rather like a lot of what Disney puts out as bands and singers today. Sure, they’re highly calibrated to target certain demographics, they’re carefully calibrated to avoid offending consumers, and they’re tuned to produce the tones to sell in largest numbers, but what part of making the largest number of consumers happy is so offensive?
The critics running down the Monkees are much like NYT book reviewers running down Tom Clancy’s books: they’re not the target demographic, so who cares? That’s the beauty of a free market: if there’s demand out there, someone will come up with the stuff you like.
Personally, I can take or leave the Monkees overall, but they did have quite a number of tunes that are listenable. And I really don’t care if they’re a “plastic” or “manufactured” band, I apply the engineer’s test and look at the results that made it out. Much the same as I feel about Boston, sure it’s “corporate crap”, but it’s good corporate crap.
(Don’t remember where I ripped this off from) “The Sex Pistols were the Monkees of Punk”
Actually, all music is contrived, unless you consider the sounds of nature to be music. I guess after that, it’s a matter of how much credibility you care to give to those who make music.
Maybe the singer-songwriter sitting on a sidewalk playing self-taught on a one-of-a-kind instrument s/he developed would pass most purity tests. However, once s/he became good enough to play indoors for a pre-set amount of money, the purity would then likely start dissolving.