Daydream Believers: The Monkees Story how did I miss this?

One of the inaccuracies in the movie that they perpetuate is the urban legend that ‘Sugar, Sugar’ was being considered as a single for The Monkees in 1967. The song wasn’t written until 1969 and was being aimed for The Archies, which became their biggest hit and was considered the record of the year in 1969.

The song that was offered and refused by The Monkees in 1967 was ‘Sugar Man’. As can be heard in the demo the song reflected the early Monkees style at the time.

 

@FredV: wasn't it Kirshner himself that (mistakenly) started that urban legend?

 

Yes, Kirshner also tried insinuating that HE created The Monkees, when in fact it was Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider, which pissed them off, and in actuality he was hired to provide the music for the project. I think he started the Sugar, Sugar story to make it seem that he knew more about picking hits than the Monkees did, the 1969 timeline destroys that fallacy. And even though they may not have had many top 10 hits afterwards, the group's music did improve after he was removed from the project. And they still had some hit singles after Kirshner with Pleasant Valley Sunday, Daydream Believer and Valleri, plus a lot of classic album tracks and singles like Porpoise Song, Someday Man and Listen To The Band.

 

... And Micky didn't help things by including "Sugar, Sugar" on his album 'Remember', further perpetuating the urban legend...

 

They had the same amount of Top 10 hits after they ousted Donnie than what they had with him... And the flip of "PVS" came darn close to making Top 10 itself... They were still doing alright...

 

The way I see it, Micky’s cover is okay, he puts a lot of humor into it, especially during the fade out with the many adjectives he uses for sugar.

 

My comment wasn't a swipe at the quality of Micky's cover: I was just saying that by including "Sugar, Sugar" on the 'Remember' album, that he kept the myth of "Sugar, Sugar" being offered to The Monkees alive...

 

I think that The Monkees developed into a very talented band in a relatively short period of time, and what they accomplished was pretty remarkable. I think history has shown that they were a very legit musical act and not just posers. I think they built an impressive legacy in a very short period of time. In the 90s I was dating a 21 year old while I was in my thirties, and she had become a huge Monkees fan back in the 80s when they had their comeback and created an entirely new generation of fans.

 

Just watched this on Amazon Prime. There was a scene I don’t remember from the DVD.
During the scene in the restaurant at the beginning when the 4 Monkees hide under a table…
The Michael Nesmith character says wanna hit (as he holds out a joint).
Also the scene in the club with the Beatles…
I remember John & George, but don’t remember Paul. Were scenes cut out when it was put onto DVD?

Darryl

 

I can't say it with absolute certainty, but I seem to remember that some of the 'drug scenes' were cut out when it was put out on DVD. I found that rather weird, since home video releases of movies usually include *more* footage, rather than cutting stuff out...

 

I happened to be reading the book The Heart of Rock & Soul by Dave Marsh, and the only reference to the Monkees is the following:
"For instance, in 1966, everyone including their fans understood that the Monkees were a cheap televised substitute for the Beatles, and while there could be legitimate differences of opinion about how charming or entertaining they or any of their records might be, there was certainly no chance that the Monkees were going to be mistaken for musical artists in the same sense as a real band-by which I mean anything on the scale from the Rolling Stones to ? and the Mysterians."

Marsh clearly hates the Monkees. What evidence does he have that ? and the Mysterians were a "more legitimate band" than the Monkees? Didn't Marsh read the Headquarters liner notes? Rock critics like Marsh are the reason the Monkees aren't in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

 

So, were ? and the Mysterians the lowest end? Is that what he was saying and if so why? Seems like and odd reference as they had the major hit (it was pretty great) and one minor hit. More importantly they usually are described as an early punk-rock band. Again, not a good reference for comparison to The Monkees. Nothing against ? but they did nothing "on the scale" of even one of the Monkees members during and after. Did he forget Nesmith wrote, produced, arranged, sang and ultimately played on hundreds of songs including hits and Americana standards? 1/4 of the Monkees alone ended up on a completely different scale then ? and the Mysterians.

 

At least by the 90s most of this ongoing severe dislike for the Monkees burned out. Too bad it had not in the 80s.

I'd say the 90s-00s were more kind to the guys. At least they got a made for TV movie. It's passable for what it is to tell their story in my opinion book, so to speak.