The question you pose in b) is answered by your point made in a). I'm certain of it.

And I get what you're saying. But I'm not saying that I care about Blues JUST because of subject. I'm saying that it doesn't move me, at all, emotionally, *unless* I believe in where it comes from. It's called *the blues*. If there are no genuine blues behind its composition, it's not going to impress me. Sorry. It's not about needing it to be attached to history, but I *do* need to believe in its message. That's true of *any* music. No, you don't need to know a girl's history to find her hot, but you're going to have to know her before you fall in love with her. Regardless of that, the fact that she turns you on makes you find her hot. Blues music, itself, doesn't turn me on. I find the twelve bar blues incredibly boring, musically, UNLESS I'm being played the blues by someone who can dramatically express all of the pain, loss and sheer defeat which typified original blues. Some artists do that, but it is *never* middle-class white guys. This isn't an anti-middle class statement as much as it is a plea for someone to gimme some truth, EVEN if that truth is just an emotional one (delivered in an otherwise fake act). The crux: I just don't BELIEVE Eric Clapton. If it's any consolation, I believe BB King. I don't *love* Lead Belly's music either, but I believe it comes from an authentic place. I believe that it oozes with the Blues.

It's interesting, but hearing him turn a visceral rock tune about real, personal, unrequited love into a middle age lounge tune, just kills me.

Still a great guitarist, but a miserable singer (never was "great" here) and has nothing interesting to say musically...unlike Bob Dylan, who is an even worse singer, but at least still puts out interesting music.

You said originally, response was correct. And the Pistols were as manufactured as the Backstreet Boys...not that their message wasn't sincere (perhaps) or that they didn't put out a killer record (they did).

Not really relevant, seeing as 'manufactured bands' were more the norm. The Beatles were also manufactured but it doesn't mean they didn't change the course of musical history (arguably). It's a bit like saying that Frank Sinatra, or other vocal jazz singers, were less valid because other people wrote their tunes. It's not a done thing now, was then.

And then there's The Monkeys. Who's going to argue with The Monkeys?

I'm pretty sure my original premise stands: original punk was heavy with anti-establishment, political ideas. I think of The Ramones more as pop punk. But what do I know. (Answer: not much, never was much into punk anyway.)

Were The Ramones not manufactured?

No, they weren't. Certainly not in the way the Sex Pistols or the Monkees etc. were.

I was joking about The Monkees

Give or take The Sex Pistols, I think that punk (particularly British punk) had that anti-monarchy / anarchistic bent. Hard to argue with that, I would've thought. The Ramones changed the game somewhat.

I wasn't, I was only disputing your statement about The Beatles. They were certainly marketed quite heavily, but they were formed as organically as any band.

The Ramones (and The Saints in Australia) pre-date the Sex Pistols or any other UK punk acts of a similar vintage - they were one of the biggest influences on those bands.

Ah, fair enough.

Maybe that's the bent punk took when it hit these shores then. To be honest, although I've known about the "Is punk British or American?" debate, I've never been interested in fighting it. What's your take?

A lot more than you think.

Simon Frith has a great chapter in one of his recent books, where he writes in detail about the similarities and differences in how The Beatles and Monkees formed, and were marketed and managed. Surprisingly, the overlap is considerable.

This is what I thought.

Marketed, sure - but The Beatles formed reasonably organically (which is what we were arguing, I thought).

You forgot 'formed' and 'managed'.

I don't see your point - the issue at hand was your statement that The Beatles were a manufactured band. I take that to mean their formation was somehow artificial, that some kind of svengali ("svenjolly") was creating a band-to-order.

That's clearly not the case with The Beatles, who formed in the way that most bands do: friends and friends-of-friends getting together and playing some tunes without management or some other overriding influence dictating their direction.

I don't see how that's invalidated by the way they were marketed later by their management once they were pop stars.

iceagecoming used the words 'marketed', 'formed' AND 'managed'. You only used one of them in your reply, as if you were avoiding the others. This book (which I haven't read) seems to suggest that there was a lot more intervention in their career than some think. I was merely saying that you'd missed out iceage's use of those two other words, because 'manufactured band' does not simply mean they were organised initially. It also relates to how much record company intervention there is throughout their career. That's why you can validly call Kings Of Leon a boyband now.

Not at all, I just thought were either irrelevant to our discussion or answered by way of the other points I was making - eg. 'formed', which I dealt with already. They weren't formed by any outside influence, which is how I was defining 'manufactured', I didn't think there was much point dwelling on it merely for the sake of it.


Hmm, I'm doubtful about that.

When you talk about a 'manufactured band', I'd guess most people would think of someone like The Backstreet Boys or N'Sync: a pro-forma band that aren't the ultimate masters of their own career and don't write their own material, almost like characters in a TV show.

I think it's shifting the goalposts to back away from that and broaden it considerably to bands that have a lot of 'record company intervention' in their career. What major musical artist didn't have a level of intervention in their career in the 1960s, either by management or a record company? Unless that extends to the kind of things I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I don't think that's a persuasive case for being a 'manufactured' act.

The Beatles formed of their own volition, wrote (or chose) all of their own material and had strong influence over the sound of their records. Though they were marketed in a cartoonish way, that hardly establishes them as a "manufactured band", which is the only thing I was interested in disproving.

(Not that any of this really matters, of course.)

its funny you mention dylan, b/c dylan was part of clapton's inspiration to rework "layla". i like the original better, but i heard the reworked version before the original, so hearing the original after hearing the unplugged version kinda blew me away. granted, i was like 9 or 10 years old. either way, completely respect his ability to rework a song like that. the unplugged version has a more mellow, jazzy feel. the original is just a straight up blues rocker. i love both versions really.

I quote everything spenno has said in the last page or so and then say, "THIS."

The Beatles were definitely organic up to the point of signing with Brian. Cutting their teeth in Hamburg, popping preludins like candy and tearing up the joint, coming back home with black leather jackets and long hair and swagger. But at a time when rock music was an offshore entity and Judy Garland was still a major singing star (music was still directly linked to "show business" in England, even moreso than the US), Epstein knew that a change in presentation was a requirement for success. It just comes down to, someone had to get the door open before youth culture could really become an impactful force. Even the Stones wear suits and tone down their punch, in their earliest days.

It didn't take long to change, really, either. In early 63 you've got moptops and skinny ties and Please Please Me, and two years later you've got Rubber Soul. Regardless, it's a big difference from what the Monkees and the Pistols were. It's also not surprising that the marketing of the Monkees would mirror the way the label initially handled the Beatles, since all they really were was an attempt to capitalize on that success.

anyway, Ed's voice is really nice

Yeah. I don't really give a shit about much else. I don't even like The Beatles or punk. Sounds like you can argue anything you fucking like about musical history and as long as you've got enough bros to back you up, it's fine.