I'm sure Andrew Sandoval knows what I'm talking about even if you don't. These details matter if you're trying to capture the correct tone.
Great track but it sounds nothing like The Monkees. The 2 new tracks sound more Monkees, so I'm still trying to follow your point.
My apologies, I can get unreasonably passionate about that stuff. I played in '60s-style bands for a long time, and I got frustrated when other players didn't make the effort to do it correctly.
Do you know the Candy Butchers, Fountains of Wayne? The style this album is taking is the Power Pop genre since the mid 90's. Fountains of Wayne in particular has a unique clever style, of which I'm already hearing on these 2 tracks. Anyone who's heard a Not Lame release from 95-2006 will hear it.
I gotcha. Personally, the bassline on "You and I", the nice harmonies and the beautiful 12-string guitar all make it feel pretty classic to me. Also, I was used to the DJBH version (which I know some people prefer) but I never thought that arrangement captured the essence of the song. Having the more uptempo pop version was a major hit with me! Also all good points. You hit the nail on the head with the economy and tone on the solos! I was really impressed with a lot of that album when it came out. And still am. I do love the idea of Davy singing a Peter song, I just felt like it didn't work quite right. Well... let me rephrase that, I'm personally totally fine with it, but I feel that from an artistic point, it didn't work for the general population. Everytime someone who isn't familiar with that album here's that track they seem a little disturbed by it! It certainly isn't a "mainstream" song anyway you look at it. Speaking of "Unlucky Stars", there is a youtube video out there of Micky performing it solo on acoustic guitar from a couple years back (sorry I can't post it while I'm at work) and I absolutely love it!
I'm sure it does but it still seems odd to me that the "one" Jones track didn't include vocals by all members regardless of historically how backing vocals occurred. Given this project and the unfortunate passing of Davy 4 years ago... you'd think that on this track more than on any other that all Monkees would be represented. No one else feel that way?
I see what you're saying but I don't see it as a slight. The background vocals aren't a huge part of the song so maybe they just didn't feel the need for Mike to sing as well. Who knows? I don't think that The Monkees view this as sentimentally as fans do. I mean I think they certainly respect each other but I don't think they think in terms of being tight knit like the characters on the show. Peter said in my interview he wasn't there for Mike's vocals but was very complimentary about them and said he sings better then he has in a long time and he was pleased by the results. He also said he'd do more recording in the future but that he didn't know if that would ever happen.
I like both new tracks but neither really capture the sixties Monkees sound. Too much power pop and not enough pop. I'm sick of power pop, it's become so derivative that everything sounds the same. The original bands that got labeled as power pop like Shoes, Emitt Rhodes, Dwight Twilley Band, Big Star, Flamin Groovies, etc each had their own unique take on the sixties music. Now we're getting a copy of a copy of copy. The same predictable production, guitar sounds and harmonies. If they really wanted to recapture The Monkees sound they should have went into Toe Rag studios with a batch of vintage unreleased or obscure songs from the classic songwriters like Carole King, Neil Diamond, Gene Clark, etc. with a few new originals thrown in.
I too had hoped to hear ( even if Michael's role was say, an acoustic 12 string overdub as opposed to a backing vocal) all FOUR guys somehow represented on the one "Good Times!" track where this was possible. It is what it is though, bring on the "Good Times!"
I know exactly what you're talking about. BTW, I slept on David Bash's couch once, and my band played at the very first International Pop Overthrow in Hollywood.
I had wondered how much they actually interacted in the studio, both vocally and instrumentally. It would seem that most of it was done separately, which, if the results we've heard are any indication, are even further testament to Adam Schlesinger's production skills. Both released songs sound like "live band" efforts. As others have pointed out upthread, it is far more common nowadays for songs to be built track-by-track and isolated rather than as full group participation. Again, this may fall into the realm of "can't disclose," but were the Nesmith sons in the studio strictly supporting their dad or did any of them contribute musically? EDIT: For my part, I hasten to add that any seeming "picking of nits" is not going to materially diminish my enjoyment of this album. I'm grateful that they did anything at all, let alone with the high-quality results we've heard thus far.
I get what you're saying. A good question next time John Hughes guests on the Zilch pod cast. For me, it's OK. I'm sure I won't miss Nez on the track.
I'm actually not sure as to if they did much together or all separate. I'm guessing that they probably did do some parts together but it sounds like not all three at once. I'm not really bothered by that as the results are so good that I'm fine with it. Maybe Peter still has some slight issues with Mike but it must not be huge as he was very complementary about his involvement.
Yes but even on HQ, you can hear on the HQ Sessions box Chip Douglas telling Micky when he's goofing around asking for food to add harmony to one of Mike's songs so even there they did some pieces separately.
