I get why people like The Byrds. I also get why they’re credited with bringing a fresh synthesis of already established and important sounds to rock that would be perfected about 25 years later with a few great, late-70s power pop singles and a run of solid Tom Petty records. What I don’t get is why they’re considered a major player in rock history. The best example, and this has bugged me since I first spent my hard-earned money on a Byrds’ “twofer” in 1980, is The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, which dedicates an entire chapter to The Byrds! Right between Dylan and Folk Rock is an entire chapter dedicated to a band with few more than a dozen great songs, probably eight of which are essentially the same reworking of a verse from a Dylan song. I don’t get it.
Oh, I get the super-cool Roger McGuinn specs. I get the Rickenbackers and the perfect combination of lean legs and well-cut trousers. I get the pretty cool hair and the American Beatles appeal. I even get the dozen jangly songs with Dylan-lite delivery and mid-period Beatles harmonies. The Byrds are one of those bands for which Greatest Hits albums were made, but even then the dozen greatest hits pretty much hit exactly the same mark. Take away their couple of psychedelic hits, in which McGuinn played some cool guitar solos, and you’ve got a bunch of songs that would be George Harrison‘s contributions to mid-60s Beatles albums. Without being a member of The Beatles, would George Harrison’s 8 variations on “If I Needed Someone” and his best late-Beatles songs have been worthy of a full chapter in any rock history book? I think not.
I could, but I won’t rest my case!
I’m not going to consider the value of Sweethearts of the Rodeo, which was spearheaded by short-time newcomer Gram Parsons and which, with the rice paper-thin vocals of McGuinn and company tacked on after Parsons’ quick departure pales in comparison to the first two Flying Burrito Brothers. By this point in their history, in fact, the band had splintered to the point where they might as well have been renamed Roger McGuinn’s Cry for Help. Once McGuinn moved past the safety net of granny glasses, Rickenbackers, and partial Dylan covers into acid and passages from John Coltrane’s “India”, it was a short ride to “Jesus Is Just Alright” and “Chestnut Mare”, the latter, incidentally, being among the dozen Byrds songs I’m not completely bored by hearing now and then. Help! There’s something called The Best of the Byrds: Greatest Hits, Vol. II. Bet you haven’t spun that album in some time, have you? Nevertheless, there are plenty of fine bands that were contemporaries of The Byrds who never got to release a pointless Greatest Hits, Vol. II.
Anyone here remember the old Dean Martin Celebrity Roast show? Red Skelton‘s stock bit was to come out and lament that no one’s ever had a dinner in his honor? Well, think of all the contemporaries of The Byrds who don’t rate a chapter or individual segment in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll or just about any other rock history book or program. The Turtles, a bunch of chubby Jewish and Italian guys in paisley shirts, horn-rimmed glasses, and Beatles-bob-resistant curly hair never had a chapter. The Four Seasons, more ethnic guys unable to get cool Beatles hairdos, now have a Broadway play, but they never had a chapter. The Rascals, a tight little band of real musical talent never had a chapter. The Hollies and Buffalo Springfield, two supremely talented bands that gave CSNY its most worthwhile members, never had a chapter. Even The Monkees, who had a tv show and a movie as well as entire books on their general showbiz career – with their stronger output of hits never had a chapter dedicated to their music. The Mamas and the Papas, maybe the most underrated among LA folk-rock bands never had a chapter, unless you count a chapter’s worth of material in John Phillips’ autobiography that focused on his band and didn’t recount all the times Lennon, McCartney, Jagger, et al confessed to him that they were jealous of how cool he was. It can be argued that The Beau Brummels, The Association, and other folk-rock bands didn’t deserve a chapter, and my point is not necessarily that the chapter on The Byrds should be retracted, but I would like to know what exactly they brought to the table that George Harrison didn’t bring in his 2 songs per Beatles album. (By the way, I’m making no case whatsoever for Love, a band whose critical acclaim is MUCH more baffling to me than possibly any other critically acclaimed band in rock history.)
While I won’t (yet) debate the merits of Forever Changes and what not in this thread, I will say that Love’s critical appeal has as much to do with Arthur Lee’s reclusiveness and bizarre behavior (which ultimately led to their relative obscurity as opposed to say, The Byrds, The Doors or Buffalo Springfield) as it does with their music. Of course, this isn’t to say that, at least by my standards, they didn’t produce one truly great album and two very good ones (the rest of their catalog is a mixed bag though each album had its gems). However, I think these factors should be considered when assessing a band’s “critical appeal”. Another factor is their status as a seminal influence on bands ranging from Aztec Camera to more modern psych bands like Baby Lemonade, who ended up backing him after he got out of prison.
Furthermore, Forever Changes and Love in general are regarded with much more reverence in the UK (where a member of Parliament actually presented Arthur Lee with a certificate and declared it “Arthur Lee day”, commenting that he thought Forever Changes is the best album ever made; he’s not that far off IMO) than here in the U.S. and thus I think that critics are likely to respond to that as well in much the same way that Pet Sounds is universally regarded.
Again, this isn’t to take anything away from either album as I love them both, but I’m just sayin’.
P.S. I actually think Four Sail is a way better album than either of their first two, so don’t automatically assume I’m talking about the first 2 albums as the “very good” ones.
Scuffy Shew and The Byrds?
Is it Wuss Week at RTH? Do we have an exclusive interview with Kevin Cronin looming over our heads for Friday?
Truth be told, The Byrds make your stomach turn because every time you hear those jangly guitars it reminds you of Chalfen and his Greek Fisherman’s cap.
End of Story.
E. Pluribus
(Byrds fan club member)
It is funny. I think the original Byrds line-up had a good balance of talent that was somewhat offset by it’s rhythm section problems. But it wasn’t long before it’s primary songwriter not named Dylan, Gene Clark, and the guy that put the fabric backing on the rug harmonies, David Crosby were gone. McGuinn actually played an interesting sleight of hand, being the only consistent member but not seeming to ever bring much to the table.
I think the Byrds actually get a pass because they seemed to hang around and be cool forever, without raising their profile to the point that anyone would question their bona-fides. The Mamas and the Papas got enormously famous and consequently were perceived as an easy-listening group because of their mass appeal. The Turtles, excellent though they may be were always clearly somewhat goofy top-40 fodder.
On the other hand, The Byrds first record was their biggest hit. Then they eased into cult status, keeping the stew on simmer and in no way risking a burn-out. They managed to be seen in cool places like the Easy Rider soundtrack and as pioneers of the country rock phenomenon which probably made them seem more essential than they were.
I don’t think I’ve ever pulled out the pince nez here, but I believe you are thinking of Red BUTTONS. I fear the rest of your argument is as mistaken. See, Red Skelton is actually a clown in a vaudeville sense who did some mediocre movies before being pretty good on TV basically doing physical comedy and corny G-rated jokes.
If you didn’t laugh, he did for you.
Red Buttons is a rat pack stooge who adds up to Joey Bishop with red hair. Red Buttons wishes he was Don Rickles! To liken the Byrds to Red Skelton is not much of an insult. Sure, he’s not as good as Chaplin and Keaton. Who is? He’s a TV version really, so I guess the comparsion would be that he’s not creating new material, just taking the stock characters and modernizing them somewhat – as the Byrds did with Dylan and folk material using a Beatley guitar sound. But I feel like Gene Clark is a better writer than George in this period, Taxman notwithstanding. Feel A Whole Lot Better’s riff may be as plagiarized. At a certain point, are you going to compare Mike Nesmith to Harrison too? If he wrote better lyrics, he’d be right there.
I’d have a lot easier time listening to any album cut from Turn Turn Turn or More of the Monkees, than I would Cut the Crap or Sandinista! and I’m perfecly happy that Harrison’s I Need You doesn’t appear anywhere on those first four Byrds albums I enjoy. It’s likely your history book’s edition was in the 80s when in addition to Petty, the Smithereens, REM, Let’s Active, and the varioius 80s Paisley folks took up the Ricks. We’re really just talking about If I Needed Someone sounding Byrdsy, right? Get over it. The very good songs pull the so-so ones along on those albums just like pretty much every album that’s been disected here for organ parts.
Great post, Mockcarr!
I think I have figured it out – Jim’s never liked the Byrds because of the Jim to Roger Mcguinn name change
hmmm….
what can i say? i really like the byrds.
i love their sound…always have.
they’re emuch more than just dylan interpreters. a smoldering deep cut like “without you” (from ‘turn turn turn’) is damn near as good as it gets in the 60s. this is a beautiful song, givena performance that is really felt, and in a way that no other band could ever replicate.
their early albums are teeming with good stuff.
i like every tune on their albums through “younger than yesterday”…
there’s a bit of a dropoff in ’68 (‘notorious byrd bros?” not very good), before they hooked up w/ parsons. but i find their gram years to be quite strong. “sweetheart” is a bit overrated, but “hyde”, its followup, is underrated.
they lose steam after that, but so did all of their early to mid 60s contemporaries except the stones and the who.
i don’t know, i’ve always felt like the mod’s dismissal of the byrds was because of an unwillingness to really dig in, due to a visceral dislike for their sound. fair enough (i have another good friend who claims that the sound of their voices depresses him for some reason he can’t explain). but to argue that these guys didn’t do much besides a few dylan covers is taking it too far.
and yeah, crosby’s a prick, and mcguinn’s a bit transparent. but fuck all that. just listen to the tunes. what…are we talkin’ about tatoos and beehive hairdos AGAIN? the tunes, man…the tunes!!!
oh….”here without you” is from “mr. tambourine man”. i’ve had those first two in a double album set since 8th grade, and will forever mix them up.
Geo wrote:
Or what Spinal Tap referred to as gaining a “more selective audience.”
Mockcarr wrote:
The Monkees had Mickey Dolenz, who was a better singer than Harrison, so Nesmith doesn’t really factor into the equation. Thank you, by the way, for calling BS on my mistaken Reds. I’ll see that my original post is corrected.
My thirst for the depths of your fandom remains unquenched.
Stay tuned for that Kevin Cronin interview. Thanks for your understanding, 2000 Man.
Here’s a question to ponder: What’s your favorite Byrds lyric – lyrics they wrote? I love “Feel A Whole Lot Better” but other than that song, I don’t know that I get goosebumps from any of their own lyrics. Am I missing another song they wrote with lyrics that might hit home? In this area, I do George Harrison a disservice to make the comparison I’ve made.
Well, I’m working too hard during the days right now to make a whole case here. Still:
What the Byrds brought: folk rock hipster pop.
Folk: socially committed lyrics, written by yourself or others (the folk tradition doesn’t care that much but hey, I’ve stopped trying to pretend that anything can change the anti-American music prejudice around here); an understated, cautious intensity that rejects macho antics; soulful, anti-virtuoistic singing and playing; and a a belief that the group context of bringing the tune matters more than individual star power intensity.
Rock and roll: a certain kind of amazing beat and melody that brings the me-first space age in a way that folk doesn’t do, but also brings in every consumerist make-them-dance problem that’s going to lead to the demise of the concept of rock and roll within a very few years.
Hipster: a certain standard of cool that refuses to get all cheerful and loving with “the people” in the name of selling them records.
Pop: a certain kind of pleasant melodicism that really brings in the middle class white administrators who want to believe that it’s “going to be all right” despite the fact that it’s their job to make sure that it isn’t.
Beatles: can do rock and pop, but not hipster folk.
Dylan: can do hipster folk and rock, but not pop.
The Byrds: not as great as Dylan or the Beatles, obviously, but bridging the differences between them for 7-8 very solid albums and a number of memorable, moving songs. And then along with Parsons they invent country rock too. Not a bad resume.
Harrison: excellent session guitarist who when he grew up wished very badly to be a leading light in a band like The Byrds.
But I’m overworked and tired, and maybe it really is the Turtles who brought all this together. After all, their melodies were really very polished.
gotta go with geo and mwall on this.
The Byrds were BRILLIANT SCENESTERS.
Right places, right times.
Like, be just cool enough, but not so cool that anyone notices you aren’t as talented as all the other cats at the ASHRAM.
David Crosby is a creepy EGOMANIAC, I can just picture him sitting there in the booth while the BEATLES are recording REVOLVER, saying, “aw man John that sounds great man, this is a lot like what I’m tryin to do in the BYRDS man, but Roger keeps bummin me out…
The Byrds were at Altamont and didn’t get punched in the eye.
Were they at Woodstock? If they were I’m sure they passed on the BROWN ACID.
They were probably at Monterey too…Went on early, got to watch THE WHO and JIMI.
Got laid alot.
Like THE EAGLES…but without all those HITS
and that shit about Chalfen’s hat was SOOOO uncalled for.
Hey Kilroy,
In the words of Buttermaker: “I don’t know who the hell you are, but sit down and shut up!”
I wasn’t busting on Chalfen. I had one of those Greek fisherman’s hats as well, during my high school days. I couldn’t track down that leather thing Lennon wore in “A Hard Day’s Night” so I too settled for the ersatz version. That kinda stuff was always hard to find in central PA. Whatever.
Anybody who went to a Wishniaks show knew there was gonna be plenty of hot hipster girls to check out. Those beauties LOVED the Wishniaks, and THAT always stuck in the Moderator’s craw. And therefore, anything reminiscent of jangle is gonna send the Moderator into a tizzy. The Moderator’s band never got that crowd. They got people like me, rock historian doofuses who appreciated any band that tipped their musical hats to the past.
All the disecting of the Byrds’ lyrics, what they meant to “the scene”, their trousers, etc. . . .is a complete waste of time. Next time the Moderator posts one of his diatribes on any given group, read between the lines. There’s always something else going on -usually something to do with fame, money, and/or women. Women are definitely the issue here.
Sorry for causing a disturbance,
E. Pluribus
Was that before or after Dave Frank was in the band?
School me.
Dave Frank was the drummer -one hell of a good guy, by the way.
Sincerely,
E. Pluribus
Gergley, that’s a great line. Another good one can be applied to the Mod regarding the Bryrds, Buttermaker sez reassuringly “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and Oglivie responds, “Yeah, it took several hundred years.”
Saturn, Here Without You gets me too, and a lot of it is the performance. No way a Monkee could handle that one and a lot of it is the mournful tone of Gene’s voice. As usual, his words are simple, but evocotive.
Daytime just makes me feel lonely
At night I can only dream about you
Girl you’re on my mind
nearly all of the time
It’s so hard being here without you
Words in my head keep repeating
things that you said when I was with you
And I wonder is it true
do you feel the same way too
It’s so hard being here without you –
being here without you
Though I know it won’t last
I’ll see you some day
It seems as though that the day will come never
But there’s one thing I’ll swear
though you’re far away
I’ll be thinking about you forever
The streets that I walk on depress me
The ones that were happy when I was with you
Still with all the friends I know
and with all the things I do
It’s so hard being here without you
being here without you
Yeah, I was gonna mention “Here without You” too. I can’t help but think Mr. Mod is judging the Byrds by their greatest hits album(s), which feature a lot of overplayed stuff.
Sure a lot of Monkees songs match up to the Byrds, but I’ll say this: No one is the Byrds was as annoying a vocal/musical presence as Davy Jones.
And, apart from “California Dreaming,” I hate, hate, The Mamas and the Papas.
kil, there was no before or after. DF was the drummer the whole time. he plays on one of the tracks on the photon band’s full length. did a great job laying down an ‘al green’ type soul beat for me.
charlie, oats, glad to hear that others dig “here without you”!
speaking of other good byrds lyrics…
“everybody….has been burned…before…everybody knooooows…..thepain…”.
that song’s a timeless classic that could sound at home in a number of different musical contexts, from a sinatra-like slow swing, to shoegazer introspection.
we could go on in this vein for awhile…there are any number of great byrds songs from the early years.
Keep piling on with the insults, Townspeople. Mr. Mod needs a little extra room in his trousers. Mr. Mod only knows the hits. Mr. Mod doesn’t read lyrics and doesn’t really tune into sad-sack laments about lost loves. Mr. Mod’s not hip and folky. Keep it coming. I’ll keep an eye open for musical proof of The Byrds’ deserving a whole friggin’ chapter in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll. Meanwhile I’ll listen to my favorite Byrds album: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers’ Damn the Torpedoes. The waiting is the hardest part.
so sensitive.
i don’t give a shit about teh hipster folky angle, but as far as you only knowing the hits and not reading the lyrics are concerned, there’s nothing in your commentary (or in your previous digs of the byrds over the years) to suggest anything to the contrary. it’s not a sin, especially if your visceral reaction is to not like hearing. but to translate your own hangups with the byrds into a downgrade is going a bit too far. i think that’s all any of us who have gotten alot out of the band mean to suggest.
but hey, are we debating their merit in general, or whether or not the editors of the rolling stone coffee table book made a bad decision?
they’re two different things. if i had to construct such a book, i’d have a chapter on elvis, and then the sun stable, chuck berry, then a chapter on the pre-beatles crooners, the beatles, a chapter on dylan, and then a chapter on the whole mid 60s california folk rock phenomenon, with the byrds at the forefront, right where they belong.
there’d be a chapter about the stones, and then one about british r and b, that would include the who, the animals the yardbirds and the kinks.
then british heavy rock, with cream and hendrix as the main characters, but leading into zeppelin.
then we could get into 70s folk rock…
then a chapter on the Velvets and NYC.
then punkity punk punk PUNK, etc.
(all ideas © 2007, Art Di Furia).
Hey Saturn and Mockcarr,
I can’t believe the two of you singled out “Here Without You”! That’s ALWAYS been one of my favorite Byrds numbers. And I know I’m gonna get slammed by some RAWK dude for this, but “Here Without You” has gotta be one of the all time greatest make-out records.
Hallelujah someone else out there sees the magic of that track!
Kudos to the two of you! And shame on me for not bringing it up earlier.
Sincerely,
E. Pluribus
P.S. There’s a ton of great Buttermaker lines. What’s the one about “Why don’t you take your (insert object here), shove it up your right nostril. . . ” free beat to death Brubeck LP for anyone who can complete the line.
P.S.S. what’s your take on “Time Between”? That’s another one of my favorites. Great, great pot smokin’ number!
It’s too late to turn back the clock on the editors of Rolling Stone, but I’m curious to know what it is that keeps the critical acclaim of The Byrds so high. It’s not for me to conduct the Critical Downgrade, because that may be too late to do, but help me understand how they’re significant beyond launching a watered-down meeting ground of mid-60s Beatles and Dylan. Tell me how they’re anything more than George Harrison’s early-to-mid-Beatles contributions before George got really good for a few years.
I’ve heard full albums. I simply don’t get hooked by the album cuts. “Feel a Whole Lot Better” is tremendous. “Eight Miles High” and “So You Wanna Be a Rock ‘n Roll Star” are cool. The rest of their hits are pleasant and, in small doses, slightly transcendent. But I’d rather listen to Ringo’s greatest hits. Why?
Hey Moderator,
Some food for thought. To make a magic record you need more than just a toolbox.
Talk to ya soon,
E. Pluribus
P.S. Hey, and how about posting that link, the one I asked you to post three or four times already?
Hey Gergs,
To make a sound argument you need more than just a catchy line or a funny accusation. Let me know when you’ve got the goods.
If it’s the link you’ve now asked me to post two times, hold your horses. It’s coming. If it’s the link to that Bobby Keys performance with The Charlie Watts Big Band that you’ve asked me to post a half dozen times, no idce!
Jim
bad news bears is the huck finn of 70s cinema.
it goes well with ‘over the edge’ and ‘rivers edge’ as a trio of flicks about late 70s / early 80s california alienation. in fact, the firstpost-dissertation order of business is an article about that.
hands down, my favorite bad news bears moment is when buttercrud lays down a bunt in practice and engleberg won’t field it because he’s too lazy.
mod, my comment in my chapter breakdown that a chapter on the mid 60s cali scene would have to have “the byrds at the forefront” hints at an answer to your question.
i think the byrds changed the tone of things in one of the most important musical centers in all the world with their sound.
once they hit on that formula “beatle-izing” dylan tunes, a mantle of importance was thrust upon them, a responsibility that i wouldn’t wish on any band. it’s not disputed that the other bands you name (and their producers / managers / handlers), m’s and p’s, turtles, even the association, looked to the byrds before making their own moves. all of these acts have acknowledged the byrds in this way at various points.
and listening to their early output, all the way up through “sweetheart” and the album after it, reveals that the byrds bore up quite well under the weight of those expectations, as the deep cuts on all those albums as well as their legacy, suggest.
Saturnismine, I’m with you on that chapter with The Byrds at the forefront. That’s really all I ask. Is it too late to put them in perspective and all for the appreciation of their contemporaries? I mean, is it possible that slavish devotion to The Byrds is part of the reason that Scuffy Shew record was all but forgotten?
speaking of scuffy, there goes that guy in a thong again. this italian hotel pool is filled them. damn european men. i’ll bet they dig travis bean guitars and the “sam ashe” sound.
i think it IS possible that slavish devotion to the byrds left other, more novel acts in the dust. but i’m not sure. by the early 70s, any feeling people had for the byrds was at one remove, and regarded their legacy instead. is this what you’re getting at?
jetlag is catching up with me…. can’t wait to get back home.
If this is your question, then it’s not surprising that people have suggested that it’s not the music you’re talking about at all, but your feelings about the music. If you’re trying to make a case about why you feel like you feel, then it’s not surprising that others would take you up on it.
What some of us like about the band: well-crafted lyrics (whoever wrote them, covers or not) with genuine emotional and political insights, intriguingly original tones to the voices of the main singers, the interestingly ragged way they have of singing together and apart, and of course that unforgettable and often borrowed guitar sound along with a steadily propulsive if understated beat. It’s a very rich sound overall, with nice surprises at moments, although at times it’s all a little thinner than it should be.
Ringo is pleasingly light, with a good beat, but not much more.
Petty is more rock, less folk, obviously, and I continue to be convinced that it’s the looser, not always polished folky elements of their music that you don’t like. I don’t think it’s surprising that your Ringo and Petty counterexamples remove the folk elements of The Byrds.
Saturn, are you saying that you’re at a hotel pool in Italy and can’t wait to get back to Philly, where it’s been 95 degrees for most of the last week?
Good to see you’re over your technical difficulties, Townsman Mwall. I’m curious to learn more about the political insights of Byrds songs. If you must include their covers of other artists’ compositions, as they are wont to do in that folk tradition that Americans are biased toward, feel free to do so.
How about “Draft Morning”?
Well, I'[ll step back a bit and say that in the early music, it may not be best to call it “insight.” But yeah, the tunes they take from both Dylan and Pete Seeger and other traditional sources have a very strong sense of careful understatement; well chosen images and metaphors that suggest long-running struggles for freedom. They’re as good as some of the best Woody Guthrie songs, but then linked to that that soaring rock sound. The Byrds are good at cutting out the excess and using the backdrop of the songs mainly to deliver the emotion of the tune. The combination of current sound with classic protest folk poetry is a keen and original updating of folk music, as well as being rock music that had deeper historical underpinnings than rock usually did at that time.
EPG, I love Time Between too. Supposedly it was the first song Hillman ever wrote. Not bad for a first timer. And he also came up with Have You Seen Her Face? on the same album (Younger Than Yesterday) and cowrote So You Wanna Be a Rock and Roll star as well.
This brings up what may be part of the problem for Byrdsophobes – the lack of a center. From this perspective, we think of McGuinn as Mr. Byrd, but that’s only because he ended up surviving the various personnel changes. When you look at their albums, there’s Dylan songs, traditional folk material, songs by McGuinn, Clark, Hillman, Crosby, and then Parsons, all in a variety of styles. These styles are filtered through a very flexible sound and sensibility, and the band identity that presents itself is a bit fuzzy.
You can’t convince someone to like something they don’t like. God knows The Byrds are pretty much ground zero for rug harmonies, and we know how Mr. Mod feels about those. I bought the original Byrds boxset, and then I happily bought the expanded editions of the individual albums through The Ballad of Easy Rider, so I don’t need convincing. I love the sound of McGuinn’s voice, and his first solo album is a lost gem. I often find myself defending California rock in this forum, despite the fact that I’ve hated the place on my many visits there.
I think The Byrds’ place in history is secure – if they didn’t invent jangle pop they certainly developed and possibly codified it. One of the things I like is the way their music looks backwards and forwards: they’re thoroughly grounded in the folk tradition but they were also early advocates of psychedelia and technology. It’s amazing they made as much good music as they did with a sucky drummer that everyone else in the band despised.
Mr. Mod wrote:
“The Monkees had Mickey Dolenz, who was a better singer than Harrison”
I dunno, man. I wake up every day thanking the gods that Dolenz did not sing lead on Within You and Without You.
Mwall wrote:
They did this with Dylan, for instance. If you call all the words they chopped out excess then we may have trouble bridging this gap. Are you also a fan of Muzak?
You know I’m kidding to some extent, so don’t go messing up your account again:)
BigSteve wrote:
BINGO! This gets to my problem with a lot of bands. I’m a fan of hierarchy and order. The Byrds always sound like they were just formed last week. For some of you this is a strength, I know.
Good work, all. I’m still curious to hear more points of view. As usual, I’m surprised no one simply agrees with me.
I’ve been leary of getting any of the Byrds stuff on cd after hearing the remastered Younger Than Yesterday and 5th Dimension and finding that the cool oomph of the production found on my vinyl copies had mysteriously vanished and become a delicate thin thing. Usually remastering helps a bunch (see the Yellow Submarine stuff), but not with the Byrds tracks I heard.
Well, it’s not excess when Dylan does it, because with the exception of a few songs, part of the appeal with Dylan is always over-the-top verbiage. But the same verbiage would be out of place in a Byrds musical setting, which emphasizes a certain degree of rock simplicity and directness.
Of course, I’m not concerned that we bridge any gaps here. To me, for instance, hierarchy and order is hardly an absolute necessity, although some degree of structure is important.
It’s taken me a bit to sit down and digest everything. I love the Byrds – their jangly pop, that 12-string guitar (full) sound, harmonies, their country periods, the folk-rock – there’s a lot to appreciate, even in Michael Clarke’s drumming however ramshackle. I actually just recently picked up Dr. Byrds and Mr. Hyde and that has to push the letter for what was my favourite – Fifth Dimension – and is now taken it’s place (besides Sweetheart).
I also just finished reading that Ric Menck number on 33 1/3 and although he was very appreciative of Notorious… that one still doesn’t make my list, although I’ve come to appreciate it maybe a lot more than I did – I’ve always loved Draft Morning – and a few other numbers, but on a whole, it’s kinda too split up as far as their influences go on that one – country, spacey, poppy, strange- it just seems like a messy album to me with not enough really happening tracks to make it *sound* like it constituted a full album of A-side material. I’ve never really loved the track Artificial Energy. That song gives me a headache. I can deal with Goin’ Back (Gerry Goffin/Carole King number), Natural Harmony (spacey), and even the huffing and puffing on Get To You, but after a while that one wears on me. Supposedly they multi-tracked that album out the wazoo (to use all the effects they did, as hard as that was then) which is another thing which they were really known for pioneering as well – using the Firesign Theatre group to come in to do sound effects on Draft Morning to lear jet sounds, or electronic effects.
For a band that might seem as though a person’s heard all their “greatest” hits, they had a massive amount of ideas when it came to their music and where they wanted it to go – they were dreamers moreso than maybe full on achievers (in the end) as far as striving to get their band’s sound to the next level or keeping it together, maybe I say this because not everything that they may have been documented as saying they wanted to accomplish was accomplished while they were in the band.
Classic girl songs I like: She Has a Way and I Knew I’d Want You both written by Clark off of Mr. Tambourine!
Also, when I think of The Byrds, it’s hard not to put them in the same bowl as Teenage Fanclub as well because of how much I love them both and the way the songwriters are laid out for each band, Norman songs or Gerard Love – McGuinn songs or Clark songs? McGinley or Crosby? 😉 Beachwood Sparks is another Byrds-ian inspired band…
I’m at the North Star tonight, but I’ll check back in later – great posts everyone, I’ve really enjoyed reading this one.
Sally, it took me a long time to get past that trumpet on Artificial Energy, the opening track of Notorious. Now I love it, but I have a feeling it would go into Mr. Mod’s trumpet hall of fame, along with Love’s Alone Again Or.
I love their version of Goin’ Back, but I love Dusty Springfield’s and Nils Lofgren’s too.
Sally C, great defense. Sadly, I don’t know many of the songs you refer to, but I get the gist of what you’re saying, and I get that you’re making MUSICAL points, not calling me names or otherwise insulting my intelligence and general coolness.
For my part, I think it’s important I revisit these highly touted album cuts. If anyone would like to compile some Byrds “deep cuts” for me, I’d welcome the chance to hear them with fresh ears. Feel free to mix in some hits as well, if you’d like. I’ll report back after I have some time to listen. Meanwhile, I’ll pull out my copy of The Notorious Byrd Brothers and see what that’s got. Thanks.
I always thought the secret to the Byrds’ appeal was their radical embrace of all of the contradictions inherent in their position as being a popular yet artistically ambitious band.
They played old folk tunes with a space age sound. They could long for a spiritual transcendence while eyeing the cute girls in the front row. Even the shallowest of them, Crosby, could write a searing tune like “Everybody’s been burned before.”
In a sense, they picked up the ball while Brian Wilson was playing in the sandbox and pushed that ball a bit further sonically.
You know I’d be happy to make a comp, but I don’t want to jump all over it if someone else would like to. Any takers on the job? If not, I’m in.
Thanks for the confessional BigSteve. I like to keep an open mind, so I won’t say that I hate it, but it does grate. Maybe one day I’ll come around to the other side…
Dr. John, I don’t know if your explanation will help me like their music any better, but I like the way you express it. It’s in line with some stuff Mwall and others have said. Interesting.
mod writes to sally: ” I get that you’re making MUSICAL points, not calling me names or otherwise insulting my intelligence and general coolness.”
shall we get out the vio-ma-lins for your, sulky boy?
for my part, all i’ve DONE is talk about specific aspects of the tunes. i HAVE suggested that you haven’t given these songs a close listen. But that’s because your commentary suggests as much.
NEWS FLASH: Byrds Release Sucky Dylan Covers
This thread has sent me back to my Byrds’ albums and I was struck by the utter wrongheadedness of some of the Dylan covers on the Mr. Tambourine Man record. Yes, the title cut was a brilliant piece of alchemy, taking the wonderfulness at the core of Dylan’s song and laying it out in a fashion that could be appreciated by an audience that would be put off by Dylan’s willful idiosyncrasy. Chimes of Freedom is also quite nice, adding a stately musicality to Dylan’s lyrics and somehow avoiding the potential pretentiousness.
The other two songs, like Chimes, are from “Another Side of…”. I’ve lately been into this record, enjoying the incredibly casual tossed-off nature of both the songs and especially Dylan’s performances. The bulk of the songs have a self deprecating humor that he exploits with arch phrasing atop take one, spontaneous, clam-laden performances. The first Byrds’ misstep I noticed was on Spanish Harlem Incident. While this song has elements of the classic Dylan ballad concerning a lost love, say Girl from the North Country or Ballad in Plain D, there is a off-kilter humor and lilt to many of the lines that make the focus of the song the unmasking of the silly narrator. The Byrds’ take is completely tone-deaf in this regard. Compare their delivery of one of my favorite punch lines in the song, “I’ve been wonderin’ all about me.” When Dylan sings it, it sounds so clumsy and wrong; you’re expecting something else and you get this narcissistic twit. McGuinn sings it as if its a placeholder stinky line in an unfinished song. At least this song is subtle and the straight misinterpretation is understandable. On the other hand, the version of All I Really Want to Do is really lame. This song is a mess, ridiculous melody, goofy words, really Dylan’s first attempt at throwing off the mantle of spokesman for a generation. Not a hint of Dylan’s over the top humor is diplayed in the cover version. They try to get a handle on the song by converting one of the verses into a cheesey, anthemic bridge. They fail miserably.
Long story short, two of the four Dylan covers on the first album by the Byrds, the “Premier Interpreters of the Dylan Canon” are blown out of the water by the Turtles It Ain’t Me Babe debut.
I dunno, Geo. The Byrds always seemed to me to be the white boys that were covering the songs by the white boys covering the songs by the black boys. Sometimes that works great for me, but just not with The Byrds. I can give them credit for making records that sounded great, but there’s people that made great sounding records with really great songs on them, too.
Geo wrote:
He also called bullshit on The Byrds’ version of “All I Really Want to Do”.
I say:
Listen, man. I think I just gave you a hard time for calling my opinion on that stupid Avril song “wrong.” A man’s got to pick his battles as well as his allies. It’s more important we stick together on this Byrds issue. You cool with that?
2000 Man is TOTALLY down with what I’ve been trying to get at as well. I knew I could count on him.
I can assure you all, I will sleep soundly tonight: The Sleep of the Just.
But, but… but! You guys are talking about covers! And although this comprises early material, some of their best songs – and maybe not most well known – are NOT covers. Their first/former manager wanted them to do Dylan songs, they actually didn’t want to do them at all – so maybe that’s why it sounds like their heart isn’t into them – because in actuality – their hearts weren’t, even though they eventually came warmed to the idea and were impressed in meeting Dylan, they also wanted to get away from it.
sorry that should have said “came around to the idea”… hasty reply.