|
Post by AGD on Sept 26, 2023 11:30:16 GMT -5
This is the first paragraph of Jules Seigel's legendary 1967 Goodbye Surfing, Hello God! article on Brian and Smile:
"It was just another day [November 28th 1966] of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g."
Has anyone ever found out - or even guessed - as to who the band might be? "In a few weeks" would seem to indicate mid/late December, and at first I thought it might be The Monkees and "I'm A Believer", but apparently they cut that at RCA in New York and also in LA. So... any ideas guys?
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Sept 26, 2023 11:44:34 GMT -5
Strikes me as an instance of some artistic license being taken? Some detail must be wrong, or his definition of "top of the charts" is very generous.
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 26, 2023 20:11:45 GMT -5
This is the first paragraph of Jules Seigel's legendary 1967 Goodbye Surfing, Hello God! article on Brian and Smile: "It was just another day [November 28th 1966] of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g." Has anyone ever found out - or even guessed - as to who the band might be? "In a few weeks" would seem to indicate mid/late December, and at first I thought it might be The Monkees and "I'm A Believer", but apparently they cut that at RCA in New York and also in LA. So... any ideas guys? This is all very approximate, but Buffalo Springfield (a quintet, not a quartet) and The Doors (who recorded at Sunset, not Gold Star) both seem like plausible candidates for being the subject of the anecdote.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Sept 27, 2023 0:17:31 GMT -5
Except that one is a five-piece, and the other recorded somewhere else. I'm more inclined to go with Joshilyn in that the "top of the charts" is something less than #1, or even the top ten. The rest of the piece is, as far as we know, pretty accurate.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Sept 27, 2023 8:40:37 GMT -5
Curious -- I've been through the US charts during the last couple of weeks of 1966 and the first two months of '67 and the only band that comes close to matching the description is The Monkees, and it clearly wasn't them. For starters, they'd already topped the charts earlier that month with their debut 45 "Last Train To Clarksville".
|
|
|
Post by John Manning on Sept 27, 2023 9:08:28 GMT -5
Is there no surviving record of who was booked to record at the studio during this period?
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 27, 2023 9:09:29 GMT -5
Curious -- I've been through the US charts during the last couple of weeks of 1966 and the first two months of '67 and the only band that comes close to matching the description is The Monkees, and it clearly wasn't them. For starters, they'd already topped the charts earlier that month with their debut 45 "Last Train To Clarksville". None of the story matches up with the Monkees. The latter had a TV show on the air nationally a month before they had a record out, so they obviously weren't dependent on any kind of help from record pluggers or DJs. I still think Buffalo Springfield are the likeliest candidates. 1> Their first album was otherwise recorded entirely at Gold Star (albeit July-September 1966, not November) 2> "For What It's Worth" was recorded Dec. 5th, 1966 (near enough to the date provided), albeit not at Gold Star, and was released as a single just five days later. 3> "For What It's Worth" was a grassroots/DJ-pushed local hit that started on KHJ in LA, then hit on KRLA in January, before becoming a national hit (#7) in the late winter. 4> "the kids would all be hailed as geniuses" lines up with the Springfield better than it does any other new major band in late 1966 besides, perhaps, the Doors. The only detail in the story that is really off is the reference to "four long-haired kids" considering there were five Buffalos. But that seems trivial and no other new band in late '66 that I could find on the Hot 100 for either '66 or '67 matches the anecdote anywhere near this well. A weaker case could be made for the Doors, and about the only other bands in LA that even remotely fit might include Love and the Mamas & the Papas, both of whom are too early and didn't record at Gold Star.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Sept 27, 2023 13:51:11 GMT -5
Curious -- I've been through the US charts during the last couple of weeks of 1966 and the first two months of '67 and the only band that comes close to matching the description is The Monkees, and it clearly wasn't them. For starters, they'd already topped the charts earlier that month with their debut 45 "Last Train To Clarksville". None of the story matches up with the Monkees. The latter had a TV show on the air nationally a month before they had a record out, so they obviously weren't dependent on any kind of help from record pluggers or DJs. I still think Buffalo Springfield are the likeliest candidates.1> Their first album was otherwise recorded entirely at Gold Star (albeit July-September 1966, not November) 2> "For What It's Worth" was recorded Dec. 5th, 1966 (near enough to the date provided), albeit not at Gold Star, and was released as a single just five days later. 3> "For What It's Worth" was a grassroots/DJ-pushed local hit that started on KHJ in LA, then hit on KRLA in January, before becoming a national hit (#7) in the late winter. 4> "the kids would all be hailed as geniuses" lines up with the Springfield better than it does any other new major band in late 1966 besides, perhaps, the Doors. The only detail in the story that is really off is the reference to "four long-haired kids" considering there were five Buffalos. But that seems trivial and no other new band in late '66 that I could find on the Hot 100 for either '66 or '67 matches the anecdote anywhere near this well. A weaker case could be made for the Doors, and about the only other bands in LA that even remotely fit might include Love and the Mamas & the Papas, both of whom are too early and didn't record at Gold Star. I'm not convinced. There are too many deviations from the facts as Siegel presents them. Assuming he wasn't in some chemically altered state at the time... I don't know -- maybe he was just saying, "This is how it happens", and the "four long-haired kids" represent hundreds of four-piece groups springing up everywhere in those days.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Sept 27, 2023 14:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Sept 27, 2023 14:23:17 GMT -5
I still think Buffalo Springfield are the likeliest candidates. 1> Their first album was otherwise recorded entirely at Gold Star (albeit July-September 1966, not November) 2> "For What It's Worth" was recorded Dec. 5th, 1966 (near enough to the date provided), albeit not at Gold Star, and was released as a single just five days later. 3> "For What It's Worth" was a grassroots/DJ-pushed local hit that started on KHJ in LA, then hit on KRLA in January, before becoming a national hit (#7) in the late winter. 4> "the kids would all be hailed as geniuses" lines up with the Springfield better than it does any other new major band in late 1966 besides, perhaps, the Doors. The only detail in the story that is really off is the reference to "four long-haired kids" considering there were five Buffalos. But that seems trivial and no other new band in late '66 that I could find on the Hot 100 for either '66 or '67 matches the anecdote anywhere near this well. A weaker case could be made for the Doors, and about the only other bands in LA that even remotely fit might include Love and the Mamas & the Papas, both of whom are too early and didn't record at Gold Star. 1 - completely the wrong dates... 2 - again, wrong date and wrong studio... And yet you think this is the best fit (not even taking into account the minor fact that the Springfield were a five-piece, not a four...). I'd say you've a great future as a politician with logic like that.
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 27, 2023 16:32:08 GMT -5
I still think Buffalo Springfield are the likeliest candidates. 1> Their first album was otherwise recorded entirely at Gold Star (albeit July-September 1966, not November) 2> "For What It's Worth" was recorded Dec. 5th, 1966 (near enough to the date provided), albeit not at Gold Star, and was released as a single just five days later. 3> "For What It's Worth" was a grassroots/DJ-pushed local hit that started on KHJ in LA, then hit on KRLA in January, before becoming a national hit (#7) in the late winter. 4> "the kids would all be hailed as geniuses" lines up with the Springfield better than it does any other new major band in late 1966 besides, perhaps, the Doors. The only detail in the story that is really off is the reference to "four long-haired kids" considering there were five Buffalos. But that seems trivial and no other new band in late '66 that I could find on the Hot 100 for either '66 or '67 matches the anecdote anywhere near this well. A weaker case could be made for the Doors, and about the only other bands in LA that even remotely fit might include Love and the Mamas & the Papas, both of whom are too early and didn't record at Gold Star. 1 - completely the wrong dates... 2 - again, wrong date and wrong studio... And yet you think this is the best fit (not even taking into account the minor fact that the Springfield were a five-piece, not a four...). I'd say you've a great future as a politician with logic like that. Well, the choices are either "He meant Buffalo Springfield or the Doors and got some details wrong" or "it's completely hypothetical, he made it up and this discussion is a waste of time." So, take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by Will/P.P. on Sept 27, 2023 17:45:24 GMT -5
Buffalo Springfield love is just alright. They rocked 1967. nice post, Bessie.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 28, 2023 6:41:53 GMT -5
Of course another possibility is that it wasn’t an epic future Hall of Fame band but just one of the many rock bands of the day that scored a hit or two and then disappeared (possibly playing second on a bill with a band like the BBs)
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 28, 2023 8:24:07 GMT -5
Of course another possibility is that it wasn’t an epic future Hall of Fame band but just one of the many rock bands of the day that scored a hit or two and then disappeared (possibly playing second on a bill with a band like the BBs) One of the things that is hard to compute in retrospect is that the LA/Sunset Strip rock band scene in the mid-1960s seems to have been much smaller than we now imagine it. A disproportionate number of the hitmaking US rock bands in the 1966-67 period were regional acts from the midwest, New England, and other such places who very briefly managed to score a national hit or two. And of course a lot of rock bands were based in or around New York. But when the Byrds emerged at Ciro's in early 1965, they are reported to have pretty much had the scene to themselves. A lot of the surf/hot-rod "bands" that charted in 1963 and 1964 had ceased to exist by 1965, or were basically studio concoctions in the first place. While it is a total myth that the British Invasion killed off a generation of US rock acts (the Surfaris' "Wipe Out" still made the year-end Hot 100 chart for 1966!), there seems to have been some truth to it in and around LA. While there were other gigging and, eventually, charting bands elsewhere in California (e.g. the Beau Brummels), that seems not to have been the case in LA when the Byrds appeared. Eventually other bands emerged that had been influenced by the Byrds (e.g. The Leaves, Love, Buffalo Springfield, The Doors, and the ill-fated Rising Sons) but one still does not get the impression that the LA scene was overrun with rock bands in 1966 or 1967. Instead, the proximity to Hollywood seems to have encouraged the kind of individual performer deal that Davy Jones had (a joint contract with Screen Gems for TV and Columbia for records) which indirectly led to the formation of the Monkees. LA studios were extremely busy in 1966, but relatively little of the business they were doing was with rock bands. All this is not greatly material to the topic of this thread, but it does mean that when somebody says something about a young rock band in LA in 1966 that had some success, but doesn't specify which one they mean, there really aren't that many candidates.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Sept 28, 2023 9:14:40 GMT -5
Also... "top of the charts" might not refer to Billboard or Cashbox. Might be a local/radio chart.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 28, 2023 11:22:45 GMT -5
Well...for example The Grassroots spring to mind...
|
|
|
Post by jk on Sept 28, 2023 17:09:03 GMT -5
I've scoured months of old charts and lists of mid-sixties bands and found absolutely nothing that fits. I refuse to believe it's that obscure!
Clutching at straws here but leave out the date added by AGD (no offence meant) and the tone changes slightly:
"It was just another day of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g."
A lot of clichés in there. It could have been just another day with just another long-haired four-piece band that briefly got lucky -- any day, and no particular band.
|
|
Moon Dawg Vol II
Grommet
Formerly known as "Moon Dawg"
Posts: 49
Likes: 61
Favorite Album: Surf's Up
|
Post by Moon Dawg Vol II on Sept 28, 2023 21:07:27 GMT -5
I've scoured months of old charts and lists of mid-sixties bands and found absolutely nothing that fits. I refuse to believe it's that obscure! Clutching at straws here but leave out the date added by AGD (no offence meant) and the tone changes slightly: "It was just another day of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g." A lot of clichés in there. It could have been just another day with just another long-haired four-piece band that briefly got lucky -- any day, and no particular band. I was going to say The Byrds as they were a quartet by this time. Unlikely though as they were not a new band and their biggest hits were in the past. Per wikipedia, YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY was recorded Nov 1966, albeit at Columbia Studios.
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 29, 2023 7:59:05 GMT -5
I've scoured months of old charts and lists of mid-sixties bands and found absolutely nothing that fits. I refuse to believe it's that obscure! Clutching at straws here but leave out the date added by AGD (no offence meant) and the tone changes slightly: "It was just another day of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g." A lot of clichés in there. It could have been just another day with just another long-haired four-piece band that briefly got lucky -- any day, and no particular band. I was going to say The Byrds as they were a quartet by this time. Unlikely though as they were not a new band and their biggest hits were in the past. Per wikipedia, YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY was recorded Nov 1966, albeit at Columbia Studios. Like the vast majority of other Columbia artists, the Byrds were required to record at Columbia. This is the reason why the original (RCA Studios) versions of "Eight Miles High" and "Why" were shelved and they were forced to re-record them. It's kind of funny that you mention Younger than Yesterday being recorded in late 1966, considering that it starts with a song ("So You Want to Be a Rock & Roll Star") that is specifically about the "prefab rock band" phenomenon at the time which Siegel is also describing, and which was directly inspired by the Monkees although to a limited extent it describes the Byrds themselves too.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Sept 30, 2023 4:54:11 GMT -5
I've scoured months of old charts and lists of mid-sixties bands and found absolutely nothing that fits. I refuse to believe it's that obscure! Clutching at straws here but leave out the date added by AGD (no offence meant) and the tone changes slightly: "It was just another day of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g." This subject is addictive! That last remark is not exactly complimentary, if a real band is being referred to. All four kids hailed as geniuses? In that respect, and that respect only, it does sound like The Monkees, as all four were touted as being of equal importance, particularly in the series. Of what other charting mid-sixties US band can you say that? It sounds to me like a general swipe at fly-by-night hit-makers, as opposed to what Brian was doing.
|
|
|
Post by bessieboporbach on Sept 30, 2023 6:31:50 GMT -5
I've scoured months of old charts and lists of mid-sixties bands and found absolutely nothing that fits. I refuse to believe it's that obscure! Clutching at straws here but leave out the date added by AGD (no offence meant) and the tone changes slightly: "It was just another day of greatness at Gold Star Recording Studios on Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood. In the morning four long-haired kids had knocked out two hours of sound for a record plugger who was trying to curry favor with a disc jockey friend of theirs in San Jose. Nobody knew it at the moment, but out of that two hours there were about three minutes that would hit the top of the charts in a few weeks, and the record plugger, the disc jockey and the kids would all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g." This subject is addictive! That last remark is not exactly complimentary, if a real band is being referred to. All four kids hailed as geniuses? In that respect, and that respect only, it does sound like The Monkees, as all four were touted as being of equal importance, particularly in the series. Of what other charting mid-sixties US band can you say that? It sounds to me like a general swipe at fly-by-night hit-makers, as opposed to what Brian was doing. It was actually fairly common at the time, due to the influence of the Beatles, to promote each of the individual members of a band, even the relatively faceless ones. The liner notes to albums often included laudatory full profiles of even the less integral members, such as Billy James' note to the first Byrds album that highlights Chris Hillman "play[ing] Coltrane solos on the mandolin." Of course Hillman became important to the band later on, but at that point he was quite replaceable! The Springfield are good candidates for the "four geniuses" thing because four of them sang. This is one criterion where the Doors are almost certainly excluded, since no one cared about anyone except Jim.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 30, 2023 21:10:36 GMT -5
Well in the Springfield Stephen Stills and Ritchie Furay were the main singers -indeed tension in that band started early because the managers did not think Neil Young was a good singer and they encouraged him to let the other two sing his songs (for example Nowadays Clancy Can’t Even Sing)-though occasionally he got the chance-such as Out of My Mind. Dewey Martin only sang one song onstage (like Ringo in the Beatles and Dennis in the 60s BBs) and Bruce Palmer was not a singer.
|
|
|
Post by Custom Machine on Oct 1, 2023 1:17:53 GMT -5
The introductory paragraph to Jules Siegel's Goodbye Surfing Hello God strikes me as being apocryphal. In his article Siegel wants to contrast Brian Wilson's level of genius to that of a more typical rock group with a top of the charts hit, so the group as well as a record plugger who promoted the song and a disc jockey who first played it will "all be hailed as geniuses, but geniuses with a very small g," whereas Brain Wilson is "a Genius with a with a very large capital G."
And conveniently for Siegel's story, the "small g" genius group just happens to record their hit earlier on the same day in the same studio the subject of Siegel's article, Brain Wilson, records Fire. Presumably the "small g" group had not yet had a hit, so rather than hanging out at a recording session, typically a record plugger would wait to hear the finished tracks and then select a song to promote. And Siegel tells us it will be plugged to a DJ at a radio station in San Jose (presumably KLIV 1590 AM) since the DJ is a friend of the band. Although at the time in most cases a record plugger would promote the song not just to a DJ but to the station's music director or program director, although it's quite possible the MD or PD could have also been an on-air DJ.
So while Siegel's description of the morning recording session is plausible, given that it doesn't seem to match any soon to be hits by "four long-haired kids" recorded at Gold Star on Nov 28, 1966, the date must be fictionalized, and good chance the other details as well - the paragraph just provides the author with a good compare and contrast intro.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Oct 1, 2023 9:33:33 GMT -5
Excellent summary. And I'm beginning to think that too.
|
|
|
Post by Malc on Oct 1, 2023 15:45:45 GMT -5
I was going to say The Byrds as they were a quartet by this time. Unlikely though as they were not a new band and their biggest hits were in the past. Per wikipedia, YOUNGER THAN YESTERDAY was recorded Nov 1966, albeit at Columbia Studios. Like the vast majority of other Columbia artists, the Byrds were required to record at Columbia. This is the reason why the original (RCA Studios) versions of "Eight Miles High" and "Why" were shelved and they were forced to re-record them. It's kind of funny that you mention Younger than Yesterday being recorded in late 1966, considering that it starts with a song ("So You Want to Be a Rock & Roll Star") that is specifically about the "prefab rock band" phenomenon at the time which Siegel is also describing, and which was directly inspired by the Monkees although to a limited extent it describes the Byrds themselves too. Which is all kinda coincidental as 'So You Want To Be...' was actually cut on the 28th November '66
|
|