Dec 042010
 

[audio:https://www.rocktownhall.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/03-Peppermint-Lump1.mp3|titles=Angie, “Peppermint Lump”]

Here’s a thought I had while walking the dog this morning:  the Internet, as wonderful as it is, has really fucked up the process of loving rock and roll. Like some gloriously bad drug, it’s made the process of finding stuff so easy and instantly rewarding that it’s put another important human experience — the process of seeking — to sleep. And that process of seeking was one of the things that put the world of recorded music up on a pedestal; that gave rock its mystery — its Godhood.

Please recognize that I was only walking my dog five minutes ago, so I can’t claim to have properly beard-stroked and pipe-tamped my way through this one. That’s your cue to chime in and help me.

The genesis of this thought-bomb occurred last night, as I was driving home. I had the wonderfully eclectic and entertaining Stiff Generation CD in the stereo, and was bouncing about between tracks, when the player alighted on “Peppermint Lump,” as performed by Frisbie. (I found this out later; I’d long since lost the CD cover — another side effect of the digital age that’s demythologized rock and roll.)  Anyhow, as I tooled down the byways of northern Virginia, I thought to myself: “Man, that sure sounds like a Pete Townshend song. But what on Earth would he have been doing on the Stiff label?”

I got home, and popped open the laptop. About 60 seconds later, I had my answer — and a YouTube “audio” of the original track in question. This was satisfying at a certain level, but at another, it really bugged me. It was so easy!

About 10 years ago, I found out that Harry Vanda and George Young (of Easybeats and AC/DC producers fame) were very briefly involved in a studio lark they called the Marcus Hook Roll Band. I think I learned about the MHRB in the liner notes of an obscure Australian Easybeats greatest hits album — and the story excited me. Supposedly, in 1972 or thereabouts, Harry and George — on a legendary studio Lost Weekend — had gotten drunk and thrown together some simple, balls-out rock and roll for fun, involving George’s younger brothers Angus and Malcolm. Then they sobered up and largely forgot about what they’d done. Somehow, some way, a record exec heard these tracks and flipped out, thinking they were huge hits in the making. Back in the studio they went, and cranked out a whole album’s worth of this cock-rock stuff, laughing and winking at the silliness of it all.

Anyhow, 30 years later — but before the internet really gained the ability to help — I began my quest to find some Marcus Hook Roll Band. The long and short of it is that I had to enlist the services of a friend who lived in Holland, who scoured local record stores and online used/bootleg CD outlets until she finally found one. Which she then mailed to me. Turned out it sucked. But it was like buying a lottery ticket — half the fun was waiting to find out if you’d won, and imagining how much better your life would be if you did. That’s what you spent your money and time on — and now that pleasure is largely gone.

The end of the Rock Holy Grail doesn’t necessarily mean that the God who once supped from that chalice is dead. But he’s been demystified in a critically important way. And that’s a bad thing. You may discuss when ready — I look forward to your responses.

HVB

Share
Nov 022010
 

Off-mic, rockers are probably just as foul-mouthed as the average person, if not more so, but for various reasons expletives are not used in recorded rock all that often. If nothing else, it hinders the likelihood of a song getting airplay. Still, there are plenty of notable exceptions, good and bad, of rock expletives that made it onto the record. What are your favorite examples?

I’ll start things off with these two. First: I am curious if anyone knows whether Roger Daltrey‘s “who the fuck are you?” was part of the penned Pete Townshend lyric for “Who Are You” or just ad-libbed at the mic.

Second: Warren Zevon‘s “My Shit’s Fucked Up.” Zevon gets extra credit for using two high-scoring expletives, putting them right there in the song title, and not using them just for a joke, but also for something serious. It’s all the more poignant to watch this video now, given his untimely death just 3 years later, when his shit got incurably fucked up.

Related.

Share
Oct 072010
 


First, what must have been the commercially released video to accompany this star-studded cover of The Buzzcocks’ most-successful song. A list of the contributing artists appears toward the end.

Then, if the notion of the UK as a small, close-knit music community unlike anything we could imagine in the United States still hasn’t hit you, there’s the following, more mind-blowing homemade video: Continue reading »

Share
Apr 052010
 

As uncool as it now seems for knowledgeable, passionate music lovers like ourselves, I think we can all agree that The Who produced one masterpiece of an album, Who’s Next. After that, I don’t know that they produced a second great album. Some of us Who fans will go to the mats for Sell Out, but in all fairness it does get bogged down in gimmickry for a so-called great album and contains more delicate Townshend lead vocals than some Who fans prefer to hear on one album.

What else comes close to Who’s Next? I love Quadrophenia for its epic celebration of The Power and Glory of Rock, but at this stage in my life can I listen to it more than once every couple of years? No.

We’re all too in the know to claim Tommy is a great album. The first two Who albums, which I bought in high school as a twofer, have their obvious high points but they’ve also got a ton of filler. Then there are long stretches in the band’s prime years that are devoid of a contender. Someone’s likely to suggest that Live at Leeds is the band’s second great album, but we’re not about to reach consensus on that one.

Among bands who blossomed during the album era, is The Who the most highly regarded band that lacks a second great album?

Share
Oct 052009
 

In a recent thread, Townsman jungleland2 raised an interesting point that I’ve heard raised many times over the years:

Just got the 2-disc The Who Sell Out. I know this is their “great” record of the 60’s but I am not connecting to it so far

Have you had this feeling? Have you heard this feeling expressed by other rock-loving, Who-loving friends when they finally get around to checking out this critically acclaimed Who album?

I love the album, myself, and I’ve recommended it to aspiring rock nerds through the years. However, there must be a half dozen friends who love The Who, whom I thought would surely love Sell Out, but who felt the same way jungleland2 does. It’s made me wonder what we talk about when we talk about The Who.

We don’t ask this question about The Beatles or The Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan, do we? Factoring in all artistic progressions, we still seem to find a common thread through their music, despite the fact that some of us prefer early Beatles or pot-smoking Beatles or Exile-era Stones or feel comfortable writing off the last 30+ years of Dylan’s output.

With The Who, however, an acknowledged titan of rock and contender for the Mount Rushmore of Rock, fans of the band seem to have more wildly varying notions of the band’s essence. Some fans feel the band is best defined by the early singles. Some feel it’s the epic stuff from the early ’70s. Most seem to be uncomfortable with the legacy of one of the band’s best-known works, Tommy, and all seem split on Sell Out and Live at Leeds. The funny thing is, I don’t think their music changed that much over the years, just the parts they emphasized at any given era.

What do we talk about when we talk about The Who?

Share
Jul 172009
 

I gotta thank you, E. Pluribus Gergley. I’d been meaning to post this video for months, and kept falling down on the job. Your recent comments (and those of Townsman Mockcarr), however, have finally spurred me into action.

I recently found a beat-up old single of the first of the two tunes featured in this clip, namely, “Ooh Poo Pah Do,” and it was pretty good. (Ike and Tina Turner, maybe? I forget.) But — MAN — there’s just something about seeing the schoolyard bully version of the Who belting it out in a sweaty nightclub somewhere in London town in 1964. I mean, shit — you can see just about everything that would make the Who such a great band, at least in terms of their superb Mach Schau factor… and they’re just pimply faced punks!

I just love this clip. Love, love, LOVE it. Hope you and Mockcarr do, too.

Your pal,

FS

p.s.: send me an e-mail about this jazz collection. I have no interest myself, but if you need a favor, maybe we could work something out in terms of me picking them up for you. You got any cool old music gear you don’t want?

Share
Jul 172009
 

Excluding Keith Moon, who lost control of his life, let his drumming magic slip, and then died prematurely, although not necessarily before the band’s greatness was well on the decline, which member of The Who did the most to damage the band’s run of powerful music making? Furthermore, without getting into a “jump the shark”-style discussion, when did this band member’s harmful influence on the band’s direction first lead to a turn for the worse?

Share

Lost Password?

 
twitter facebook youtube