The Byrds - if they reunited

Well said. Remembering the music so many made 50+ years ago and expecting those that made it to share the enthusiasm of re-playing it, in deference to “our” memories of it - is both unrealistic and even unfair.

A Byrd’s “reunion” when those remaining are pushing 80 years old, is something I personally don’t need ( want ) tickets to.

Recordings are what we’ve got. I’m good with that.

 

Yeah, I just bought the Japanese mono singles collection. Good stuff.

 

I will do a correction, Roger has up for sale on CD Baby a new album he did last year where he revisits some Byrd hits and also plays some new songs, and it's an electric jangly album. So his most recent music wasn't folk, but his Mrs. was adamant that folk music is his real passion, and I doubt she'd lie about something like that. (FYI, the conversation about the Rickenbacker came when I pointed to a poster she had for sale, which was Roger and the Rick in a promo for "Back to Rio," and pointed out to her that I used to have a 360-12 RM like that. Which I traded away without a second thought, just hated that guitar, hated it, hated it, hated it, LOL! It was the crankiest guitar I ever dealt with and the active electronics just sucked batteries and it was a PITA to take the panel off to change them.)

 

it may well be ( not getting into the previous circular *argument* ) ...

and i think it's fair to say.. that we all know what is a "band" relative to its formation and inception VS what is a "band" with a front person/leader etc that is the primary royalty participant ( this back when there were such things ) and then juxtaposed to those that simply fill available "slots" often populated by a revolving door of wonderfully talented but not "original" members.

so DC 5 was a band in "name" only. given your example. while the byrds were a "band" on stage in whatever iteration, but not necessarily in the way i've attempted to delineate vis a vis the semantical differences between the two ( examples ).

it's a semantical "argument" to be sure. yet, mcguinn/clark/crosby/hillman/clarke were the "band" known as the "byrds".

every subsequent iteration, lineup was the "byrds" as a "brand". less so a "band". just my "take".

 

The Roger McGuinn album Back From Rio has many of the musicians mentioned in this thread on it. Not a bad album.

 

the rafters in the whisky were only eight feet high.

 

and when you touch down...

 

Be that as it may, I haven’t been able to find anyone that could verify his account.

 

gene clark was a mensch and an amazing talent. i've probably shared this but.. whatever..this matters to me.

my pop had loaned him some money at one point during his up and down career.. he never remembered the loan. gene shortly before he passed, repaid the "loan".

god bless 'im.

 

yeah, i call FOLKROCK lore.

 

1. Four or five musicians record albums released under a band name (oh, let's say "The Byrds" or "The Dave Clark Five").
2. These same four or five musicians sing and play nearly every note on those albums — normally the only exception being instruments such as strings or horns that these musicians don't know how to play.
3. Most or all of these same four or five musicians also participate in writing songs that appear on those albums.
4. These same four or five musicians make countless in-concert appearances under that band name, playing the songs that appear on those albums (and associated singles).

What kind of mental contortions do you have go through before you declare that these four or five musicians somehow aren't really "a band"?

 

me? or you. or either or. i say none.

 

Well this is interesting. The Rick thing is hard to believe, he may just enjoy the Martin 7 string more but I don't think he hates it, he probably just would rather be playing the Martin these days. I understand he is a Folkie at heart and his passion is the Folk Den project and really carrying on the Pete Seeger thing, just as Ricky Skaggs carries on the Bill Monroe thing. I completely respect that and honestly he is probably the one musician other than may Mccartney who I would go see in concert simply to enjoy what he does even if he did not play one song I recognized, as long as it was him and his guitar. He certainly has grown old gracefully in this business.

 

I appreciate Roger’s skills and talents way more after attending that concert. The man is an absolute heavyweight, IMO horribly underrated other than in the context of The Byrds.

 

Yes, most have no idea who he really is a musician. I hope to see him again before he is done touring for good.

 

Agreed!

 

Nothing personal against him, but Michael was pretty God awful, though by the 73 record he got much better.

 

FF to the 1 min mark .. it appears that Frank and Nez are considering joining the Byrds

 

i appreciate your interest. any point i wanted to make i have. forgive me if there is any remaining confusion, but your question read like a riddle from critical thinking 101 and the examples you cited isn't ( for me ) worthy of "debate"... it would i fear, become circular. cheers though!

 

Talk about Roger doing what he wants to ... on the album he released last year he has a cover of Rebecca Black’s Friday. I promise I’m not making that up. Apparently he and Camilla saw a parody on YouTube where someone did it in Byrds style, and thought it was hilarious, and decided to do a cover straight from the chief Byrd’s beak.

 

Perhaps I can rephrase the question to make it clearer. I'll try to simplify and limit things to just one example rather than two or more.

1. Roger McGuinn, Clarence White, Skip Battin and Gene Parsons released five albums under the name "The Byrds." (John York was on the first two rather than Battin.)
2. These same four individuals sang and played nearly every note on those albums — the only exception being instruments such as strings or horns that they don't know how to play.
3. All of these same four individuals also participated in writing songs that appear on those albums.
4. All of these same four individuals made countless in-concert appearances under the name "The Byrds."

Simple question: WHY are the latter-day Byrds not "a band"?

 

Honestly, the "extended Byrds family" is so huge and has so many members/bands (The Flying Burrito Brothers, Gene Clark Group, Dillard & Clark...) that there are endless possibilities of lineups one could create.

You could even make it into a game! Create your custom Byrds lineup! Requirements: all members have to be featured in a Byrds spin-off group, and has to feature McGuinn. I'll raise you:

Gene Clark - vocals, guitar, harmonica
Roger McGuinn - vocals, 12-string guitar
Bernie Leadon - vocals, lead guitar, b-bender
Chris Hillman - vocals, bass, mandolin
Eddie Hoh - drums, percussion

 

I agree they were a band, moreover Clarence was instrumental in getting rid of Kevin Kelly and hiring Gene Parsons so they also appeared to have a lot of say in membership as well as musical direction. McGuinn even joked at the end that he and Clarence fired each other. Its easy to dismiss this lineup as hired hands because they were on salary but my understanding is they also had some type of profit sharing.

 

simple answer. they are a band if you want them to be because they "banded" together to "play". fine. but, i'll even put it another way for you.

"the byrds than banded together never stayed together".

again, this is nothing more than a "semantical" debate. one not even worthy of my unlimited amount of "free" time and i tire easily of this type of futility.

but i do hope you now have what you seek from me. that is my "answer". please savor it, as it will be my last on "this" particular boondoggle lol.

 

I've enjoyed reading the thread! I do these little "art projects" sometimes as I read along..