|
|
Post by dana on Apr 4, 2005 17:16:56 GMT -5
I did this in YL,and got a pretty good discussion on this. I think the Monkees wasn't bubblegum, they were a true life band, while bubblegum music groups, were just an assorted bunch of musicians and singers. Laying more heavy on orgens, where the Monkees were more toward to guitars.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ken on Apr 4, 2005 17:19:50 GMT -5
I think the Monkees were more pop than bubbblegum - although their songs are usually included on bubblegum compilations. I have to admit that when I made my own homemade comp - I included them.
|
|
|
|
Post by beatles4ever on Apr 6, 2005 11:31:44 GMT -5
Pop,in my opinion.They did some music that was lighter,especially Davy Jones,but I could not call it true bubblegum.
|
|
|
|
Post by lora on Apr 6, 2005 14:23:06 GMT -5
The Monkees were definitely not bubblegum. Although their sound swayed that way from time to time, the lyrics of some of their music tended to be quite heavy.
Besides, Davy was the only member that made them even look bubblegum at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Railyn on Apr 6, 2005 14:28:18 GMT -5
Ditto. They had a few bubblegummy songs, but mostly before they got any kind of control over their songs. Remember that Don Kirschner had control - the king of bubblegum. However, most groups, even well respected ones have at least one song that's kind of bubblegummy. It was kind of like Disco. Even KISS had a disco-y song.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete70s on Sept 12, 2005 14:39:28 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I thought bubblegum WAS pop!
Either way, I think they were a lot more diverse than groups like The Cowsills or Partridge Family. They did mostly bubblegummy stuff during the Kirshner years, but as they gained musical control, you had four very different personalities contributing to the mix. Nes brought in country ("Nine Times Blue", "Listen To The Band" among others), Mickey a strong R&B influence (as well as the first use of a Moog synthesizer on a rock album), Davy brought a Broadway/Show Tune style ("Someday Man", with its terrific Bones Howe production), and Peter was folk/rock ("Long Title: Do I Have To Do This All Over Again" is heavily Zappa influenced).
To sum it up, I can't categorize The Monkees. They were just GREAT. One of the most underrated bands ever!
|
|
|
|
Post by beatles4ever on Sept 14, 2005 15:05:45 GMT -5
To sum it up, I can't categorize The Monkees. They were just GREAT. One of the most underrated bands ever! Absolutely,Pete!  |
|
|
|
Post by mary on Oct 6, 2005 12:17:00 GMT -5
The Monkees were a manufactured group that turned out to be better than they were supposed to be. They had talent--especially Michael--and, with some of the best song writers in the business writing a lot of their music, it would be my opinion they were definitely NOT bubblegum rock. They had more depth than fluff.
|
|
|
|
Post by m c dornan on Oct 6, 2005 18:54:37 GMT -5
Well, they certanly started off bubblegummy, and they were meant to be when they were created. But I think of them as a 60s story in that they rebelled against that program for them & actually set out to do their own stuff. Nesmith in particular, showed in his post-Monkees days that he was extremely talented. (some credit him with being one of the inventors of music videos)
"Head" is about them putting down their manufactured bubblegum roots.
|
|
|
|
Post by H2IZCOOL on Oct 14, 2005 10:09:49 GMT -5
I never really thought of the Monkees as bubblegum. True, they were contrived at first, but I don't think of bubblegum music as contrived music - merely as simple, fun music. Now it's true that it turned out that a bunch of bubblegum groups (those on the Buddah label as well as The Archies) turned out to be contrived, but I never considered that to be a DEFINITION of bubblegum music.
In fact, the Monkees are a prime example of a contrived band that is NOT bubblegum. Most of their songs, even their earliest, were not even in bubblegum style.
|
|
