The Byrds - if they reunited

Fair enough, Mike, Regarding York & Parsons, who have made some very good solo records. History, unfortunately , cannot be changed regarding McGuinn having used the name. I personally don't care for the post Sweetheart stuff at all. As you said, sporadic tracks, and that's about it for me.

 

This.

 

Any thoughts on the banjo driven Monkees version .. Byrds rendition imo is perhaps one of my favorite songs

 

The Byrds version will always be the definitive one, but this Monkees version is lovely.

The music was recorded in 1968, with Peter Tork on the banjo, but it was left in the can for almost 50 years. It was finally finished, with Peter’s vocal, in 2016 for the remarkably good Monkees album “Good Times!”

Peter was never a good singer, and by 2016 his battles with cancer had ravaged his voice but it works here. Fitting, somehow.

 

I like this track and nice one for Pete to go out on.
He'd wanted to do it for years and finally gets its
shot on a Monkees LP. Again, strange he didn't
handle lead duties but I like that performance too.

 

I actually think Peter's voice sounds better on this cut than it ever did back in the day.

This is indeed a nice rendition, but it follows the chord pattern of most other versions. The Byrds made the crucial decision to change to the fifth of the root after the first four lines of the verse rather than continuing to hang on the root chord. To me, this makes all the difference in putting the song across.

There's no question that their version of "Wasn't Born to Follow" is the definitive one.

 

Byrdessence

 

No Mike, no Gene, no Byrds. You are completely correct about today's kick-drum sound. Awful !

Great analogy ! Spencer was as important to the Airplane sound as Mike was to the Byrds. As with Aronoff in 89, Steve Duncan didn't have the sound when MHC did those shows in 89. On top of that, they were missing Gene's vocals. Leave it be....

 

Crosby doesn't need McGuinn. Crosby is looking forward, not backward,
making some of the best music of his life.

 

You're right, he doesn't need McGuinn. But the fact that he wanted to make music with him again just the same is telling.

I'm not sure what the most recent occasion was upon which he expressed the desire to play with him (does anybody know?), but he did so for several years.

It's possible he has given up the idea by now, and who could blame him?

 

Mike, I think I read an interview recently where David said he'd pretty much given up on the idea. It was good to hear him sing with Chris on his latest album.

 

Here we are .. cusp of Summer 2019.. Personally I would take any configuration of the Byrd's.

Any thoughts on band(s) that would possibly tour with the Byrd's 2019.
(Insert what if)

(I'm dating myself.. being a teen in the 70's when you had bunch of sometimes diverse groups on the bill !)

Any thoughts ..

 

Just on this hired hand malarkey... I look at it like this - when R.E.M replaced Bill Berry with Joey Waronker and later Bill Rieflin on drums, they were not members of R.E.M.

Whereas each time Pearl Jam replaced a drummer, that new drummer was considered a fully fledged band member, despite short tenures.

I'd say the members of the later Byrds were all considered members whilst in the band, with the exception of John Guerin.

 

This was also true when Peter Holsapple toured with them as a second guitarist and keyboardist.

 

Yep - I recall he was most upset not to have been invited to the Automatic for the People sessions having assumed he was now part of the furniture!

 

It's worth noting that in terms of financial arrangements, all the members of the Dave Clark Five except Dave Clark were hired hands. Does that mean they were not a "real band" or that they were a real band but Dave was the only actual member? As I noted earlier, judging a creative endeavor based entirely on its financial structure seems to be a very limited and narrow way of looking at things.

 

They always needed a different drummer anyway... Michael Clarke couldn't swing a bag of s**t. Even McGuinn admitted that they kept him on because of his resemblance to Brian Jones.

 

I've even read rumours spread by Joel Larson (Gene Clark Group and Grass Roots drummer) he was called to overdub drums into some Fifth Dimension tracks, after they were recorded and without the knowledge of the band. Any truth to that?

 

I believe the haircut factored into his initial hiring. He was kept on because he learned quickly, added power to their live performances, and was a funny, cool guy to have around.
And while facts will never quell the traditional forum pastime of bashing him, he built up a fairly formidable resume, playing on a string of influential albums and hit songs right up until the end of the 1970s.

Larson made those claims to me, personally, in a 2010 interview, as well as to, I believe, John Einarson. But he also said that he witnessed Gene Clark leaving the stage (mid song) to climb the rafters at the Whisky a Go-Go, leaving him and the rest of the Gene Clark Group to fend for themselves. Neither Bill Rinehart nor Chip Douglas (the other two members of the GC Group) could corroborate this story—which, had it happened to me, would be forever emblazoned in my memory. So I don't think it's always helpful to take these guys at their word.

 

In addition to what Tom said above, it's worth noting that Allan Stanton (who produced Fifth Dimension) was described by the band as an extremely passive, hands-off producer, who was basically there just to fill the seat and make sure the band didn't break anything in the studio. It seems unlikely to me that a guy with this attitude would bother taking the initiative to secretly overdub new drum tracks. It sounds like he wouldn't have cared enough to go to the trouble. It also seems unlikely that not one of the Byrds would notice the drumming was different if overdubbing had been done.

We have outtakes or alternate takes available of 5D, Eight Miles High, and Why, and Mike's drumming on those tracks matches the released versions, so there couldn't be any overdubbing on them. The playing on the album all seems consistent with Mike's style. I think Larson's claim goes into the same category as Nigel Olsson's claim that he played on part of The Who By Numbers.

 

I've mentioned this in a couple of other threads, I'll chime in on this one. My son and I saw Roger in solo concert three years ago. We got to the venue early and spent about 20 minutes talking to his wife Camilla. (Roger doesn't come out and meet with fans anymore because it's taxing, he's no spring chicken and needs to preserve his strength.)

She told us some enlightening things, like ... and I swear on a stack of Bibles she said this ... he's tired of the Rickenbacker, she actually used the word "hates," but drags it out because the fans expect it although that night he used it on just eight of the 28 songs he played, and two of those were snippets at the start of each set, "My Back Pages" and "Lover of the Bayou."

But this is the thing that is probably most afoot here, along with the religious/political stuff (Roger is a right-winger now, for better or worse, just like Richie Furay, it is what it is). Mrs. McGuinn told us that while Roger doesn't run from The Byrds' legacy, he sees himself today as a folk musician, not a rock musician. That's his passion, not revisiting what he did with The Byrds. His last few albums are all old folk songs. During the break between sets, they played stuff from Roger's most recent albums and it wasn't jangly Byrds, it was stuff like "Waltzing Matilda." That night, he played twice as many folk songs as he did Byrds songs ... he even left out the lead break to "Turn Turn Turn" ... and it absolutely was an enjoyable experience and I'd go see him do the same set again and again.

He played his 7-string Martin on 19 of the songs he played (played banjo on the other two) and he wore that thing slap out, I never realized he was such a monster straight guitar player.

Some people just don't want to revisit previously plowed ground.

And you know what? We fans aren't entitled to anything he's not willing to give.

 

This probably is a big part of why he was more willing to do the Sweetheart of the Rodeo tour but not a full Byrds reunion. The focus of the Sweetheart tour was not jangly Byrds-style rock, it was more country and folk, and involved songs he hasn't played to death for the past 30 years. I can see why that would have been more appealing to him, though I do suspect he also viewed it as a clever way to freeze Crosby out of a pseudo-Byrds reunion.

But your final point is the most salient one. If he's not at all into the idea of a Byrds reunion, I sure wouldn't want to see him do it. Who wants to see a performer do something they have no enthusiasm about doing?

 

I get the impression that Roger does what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, how he wants to do it, where he wants to do it.

He'll soon be 77 years old. He's earned that right.

And the thing about being passionate about straight, authentic folk music ... that was his deal before he saw "Hard Day's Night," he's just going back to his roots.

 

Fair enough! I saw that and really didn't know what to think, and if he was reliable or not, so thanks for the clarifications!

As a drummer, however, was Larson any good? Haven't listened that closely, but compared to Clarke, who was the better drummer back in '66?

 

Stanton “passed” on the Doors after my pop had already signed them to the label. All ANY of them had to do was go “downstairs” and roll tape. Whatever.