"60s garage music" versus "pop culture"

[axel]

Hi everybody,
anyone afraid of analysis or "over-analysis", just close this right away.

I like to see things from a broader perspective. After all I'm a "homo sapiens", or more precisely a "homo sapiens sapiens". So gathering records is great. Dropping names of bands and labels is cool. Enjoying the music is wonderful. But not to be allowed to think about something as a certain cultural phenomenon, in a forum like this here, is devastating!

I like to think of 60s garage music as a cultural phenomenon, and I always wondered since being in this forum, that inspite of all the love for the genre, it is sometimes pretty easily dismissed as: "just a fad", "extinct", "huddled together by spotty kids" etc.
There are all kinds of dismissive language being expressed here when it comes to seeing the genre from a broader perspective. This always seemed highly contradictory to me.

The little discussion about "60s garage music" as "pop culture" with Mr.Taylor (that was ended by two comments, accusing me to suck the fun out of everything, and finally, more pleasantly, by a shower of garage band cards), left me puzzled as to how this discussion could arise in the first place.

A little research revealed that there are indeed rather differing definitions of the term "pop culture" in the US (and presumably Australia) on one side and in Europe (at least Germany) on the other.
I was never aware of this, and in fact, THAT is why I like to discuss things like that. Next time I come up with the term "pop culture" when talking to an American, I will be more careful, or not bring it up at all.

"Pop Culture"

In the US "pop culture" is fundamentally defined as being expressed by the "mainstream". That leads to the thought that something which is not "popular" is not "pop culture". It's a matter of "popularity" (= quantity of consumers).
Originally the term was meant as an opposite towards "classical" culture, or "aristocratical" culture. The term "popular" not meaning the measure of popularity, but "by/for the people" (=populus; lat. people). Of course aiming at popularity (sometimes not even that), but not necessarily gaining it.

The problem I see with the US American definition of the term, the close connection to the mainstream, is that a lot of things are thus not regarded as culture of any significance. The mainstream rules, so to speak.
This made terms like "counter-culture" necessary. Or "alternative". The problem with those terms is, and always has been, that something "counter-culture" can turn into mainstream in about an instant.
And, that is even more important, a lot of high quality pop culture, is clearly NOT intended as "counter-culture". It doesn't have any political connotation of that sort. It's not "counter" anything. Such is the case with 60s garage music, for example.

"60s Garage Bands"

So, "US American garage band music" (use a better term, if you want), is not just a copy of British bands, representing the mainstream of those days. Of course it is following it, but by this it's creating its very own distinct shape.

The garage band cards are a great example for that. Did you ever see a British band use those old English letters like "The Krispy Kritters", "The Barons" etc.? A lot of US bands (and not the popular ones!) are using those, probably to look more British. It gives them a certain shape that differs from the "original".
And this is just one example...

 

[mansson66]

You go Axel!

Anyhoo... I think a majority of the US garage bands really wanted to break into the mainstream, but few did. They never became part of what you call pop culture. They did try to sound like many who did (Stones, Yardbirds, Kinks, Animals and so on) but IMO only bands like ? & the Mysterians, who still get played on oldies radio, can be viewed as pop culture. To become a part of the mainstream you actually have to break through as a pop/rock star, have at least one huge hit and so on. It's not enough to almost sound like The Stones on one 45 that no one outside of a small circle of collectors and fans of the "genre" know anything about
This does not meant that garage music isn't a part of western culture - of course it is! It's just not popular to a wide audience. Even rock "journalists" (btw is someone really a 'journalist' if the job is to reproduce standard misunderstandings(like "Led Zeppelin invented hard rock" blabla) and generally just make s**t up? Oh well, anyway...) don't know anything about this music. I remember when the Nuggets box was released and in the few 'reviews' I saw the writers all stated that "this is ALL US garage that exist in one 4 cd box" - more or less. My old band(The Maggots) used to be reviewed as 'being influenced by the Nuggets box' and so on...

But - why the need to label? Isn't it enough with just the music? Why do you need a definition of how to label garage as 'pop culture' or simply 'western culture'? It's rock'n'roll. Back in the daze no one played 'garage' They played rock'n'roll, the new sound from England or such. All these definitions are made up later...
PS - in a capitalist society mainstream DOES rule - like it or not. It's about the green
...and 'culture of little or no significance' - hmm I don't think so. Most big acts are influenced in one way or another by more unknown acts that came before them. See again for example Led Zeppelin, who actually got the polar music prize, for a career of stealing from other artists. It's just that most people don't know, or care. But for example a guy like Jake Holmes have had a significiant role in popular culture. He just doesn't get the cred for it.
The Satans probably inspired Jagger to sing 'Can you guess my name?' and so on
Yadayadayada

 

[pfft]

Axel listening to Makin' Deals, contemplating its significance in the contemporary pop culture.

 

[axel]

I think a majority of the US garage bands really wanted to break into the mainstream, but few did. They never became part of what you call pop culture.

You missed my point, sorry. (Did you even read it...?)
"Pop Culture" = "mainstream"? Not in my perspective.

Most big acts are influenced in one way or another by more unknown acts that came before them.

Exactly!

 

[axel]

Axel listening to Makin' Deals, contemplating its significance in the contemporary pop culture.

Too sad I can't see it. Is it very offensive?

 

[axel]

Axel listening to Makin' Deals, contemplating its significance in the contemporary pop culture.

What's the point? Who is that?
Should I look for some arbitrary picture and write "Bard" under it? I'm surprised at your lack of decency.

 

[mansson66]

Not offensive; just a picture of a man looking very serious.
And of course I read your thread.
Thing is - when it comes to semantics, linguistics, theoretical perspectives and so on you just CAN'T make up your own 'perspective'... at least not without getting misunderstood. Which you surely must have noticed by now

 

[axel]

Thing is - when it comes to semantics, linguistics, theoretical perspectives and so on you just CAN'T make up your own 'perspective'... at least not without getting misunderstood. Which you surely must have noticed by now

It's not my "own" perspective. It's how "pop culture" is generally defined in Germany (don't know about the rest of Europe). And how it was originally used in the US as well. "Popular music" was the common term as opposed to "classical music" and "jazz". Which of course doesn't mean that classical music or jazz can't be popular.
If you have read my thread, you surely didn't read very attentively.

 

[pfft]

You should lighten up a bit, Axel.

What's the point? Who is that?
Should I look for some arbitrary picture and write "Bard" under it? I'm surprised at your lack of decency.

 

[axel]

You should lighten up a bit, Axel.

I can be very good-humored and light-hearted. If I WANT to, and certainly not if someone TELLS ME to.
I'm trying to discuss something seriously here. You made me shut up the last time. Now you're making fun of me. Do you really think that's approriate?

 

[pfft]

Please accept my sincere apologies. I didn't realise I was interrupting a serious discussion here.
As you were.

 

[mansson66]

I did read thoroughly Axel. I just don't really understand. It IS hard to understand when we use the same terms but with different meanings. In Sweden 'pop culture' means 'popular culture' i.e. mainstream. Sixties garage, for example, would fall under the category 'under growth' / 'obscurities' or something like that. It's not alternative per se as the bands didn't wanna be alternative - they wanted to be part of whatever Jagger & co were part of. But most of them never were so in my mind it's not "popular culture" either. Personally I've never thought about it - I just love the music and because of that I know a lot about it aswell. I don't understand why it's important with labels though. After all it's just semantics. If someone tells me this or that song is 'great folk punk' it doesn't really mean anything to me until I hear it for myself anyway.

 

[Frantic]

I can be very good-humored and light-hearted. If I WANT to, and certainly not if someone TELLS ME to.
I'm trying to discuss something seriously here. You made me shut up the last time. Now you're making fun of me. Do you really think that's approriate?

Ax....Surely you reside on a planet occupied by one.:confused:

 

[bosshoss]

I possibly did sound a little jaded with one or two of my comments. But only with the (absurd for me) idea that our collective enthusiasm for '60s garage music might perhaps trigger a surge of mass popularity or influence at the level of a cultural phenomenon.
I'm sure I misunderstood Axel in any case.

 

[MopTopMike]

Mark has the key phrase in his post: "60s garage MUSIC".

Here is the difficulty in trying to place this topic (and no, I'm not dismissing Axel's point of view automatically): most people who understand what we are talking about (60s garage MUSIC) automatically validate the term as a true historical result of what happened 45 years ago, give or take X number of years from the date of this posted commentary. It is not
60s garage MUSIC is record collector created, and oriented from a distant/later time frame, to categorize the sound of certain recordings by generally agreed upon standards. If one cannot accept that axiom, then he/she won't be able to process a deeper / refined understanding of the subject.

Teenagers playing rock & roll music was indeed a fad, which also means it was a part of popular culture for that time period - the "thing to do". That does not mean it is a negative comment, or observation - any such opinion is the result of the person who wants to believe otherwise. It WAS a popular form of fun, and lucky were those who got to record in addition to playing in front of a crowd. If someone had come up with the term "garage band" in 1966, all of this discussion would be moot. But no one did, despite what some elders might think in retrospect (the truth is often boring, so one will go to great lengths to add subjective flavorings). I would argue that the "strata" people like Axel look at under a thought-microscope is comparable to, let's say, a competitive sport. One starts out in the sport at a young age, or with lack of ability that is then developed and refined over time. That in turn brings the player upward through various "levels". The same thing with regard to playing music.

Here in the US, (I'll use baseball as my example), there is a league for young, inexperienced kids (Buddy league), a league where players are better (Little League) a league where older teens and very good players compete (has different names, around here it's called American Legion) , then the typical high school, college levels, then the next step is the professional level (minor leagues, to major league). Kids (pre-teens, teens and young adults) playing rock & roll music in the '60s fall into different "strata", which comes across via the sound of their performances recorded for posterity. you have your "buddy league" music makers, your Little Leaguers, and so on. It was all about age and ability / aptitude (the social differences between a 13 yr old and a 16 year old in the 60s was quite vast, unlike today, due to the fact that everyone is hard-wired socially via technology).
I think THAT is something which needs to be understood by current-day fanatics and the general (read:lazy) populace who defer to wiki-whatever for their "facts" and arguments.

When analyzing a specific sub-genre of "60's rock & roll music", one needs to understand that the resulting sound can't be pigeon-holed under a general category, as if it existed unto itself. While I admire the work of people like Lenny Kaye and Greg Shaw for bringing awareness of these obscure or unhearladed at that time recordings to a wider conciousness, they often are guilty of "subjective flavorings" with regard to what really happened. That's why you get an 18 year old kid who hears "Sweet Young Thing" for the first time, who then goes hog-wild for "garage sounds" thinking everybody ran around with long hair, playing Vox musical equipment, with an attitude of "wanting to change the world thru music".

It's easy to understand why these esteemed critics like Shaw and Kaye did so, via the pages of fanzines - you don't need me to tell you if you have any knowledge of what happened in response to mainstream music circa 1972. The problem comes when reading their words and ideas, and then attempting to impart the sources of their arguments as part of actual history. As I, and others who are old enough to have "been there", yet understand the passion we all have, will agree - not everything from the past fits nice and neat into a box, concisely labeled and filed away as an accurate parcel of historical validity.

 

[Willem]

@Mike: You nailed it :)
"US garage" was a fad, but that doesn't make it less interesting. I also see it as music that could only have been made in the 60s. Not just because of what they call 'Zeitgeist' (British Invasion, ...), but also because of the available studio technology. That's why (almost) none of the garage revival bands from later decades got the 60s sound right.

 

[MopTopMike]

@Willem

Yes, it is the same as a period photograph, except one can listen to the sound as it was being performed.

 

[paul messis]

Axel listening to Makin' Deals, contemplating its significance in the contemporary pop culture.

Actually it was 'Lines and Squares'

 

[bosshoss]

I like MTM's post. Also I think Axel comes up with a lot of interesting thoughts and takes a fair bit of abuse for them without losing his cool. Admirable.

Mans made a good point about the quality of each individual piece of music being important for him. I agree with that. '60s garage music is only bunched together in compilations because collectors wanted to present it that way. How come for example, there are no horns on tracks included in '60s garage compilations, when the music and lyrics are otherwise identical? Why is '60s surf music not considered '60s garage, merely because it mentions the word "surf'" in the lyrics? Why are the early Kinks, Yardbirds and Pretty Things generally classified as "British Invasion" and not '60s garage, when those groups helped defined the '60s garage sound? Is "Undecided" by the Masters Apprentices '60s garage music? I remember it shooting straight to the top of the charts when released here in 1966. It was pop music then.

Later, collectors and rock historians wanted a category for ease of classification of the exciting, but generally less popular '60s sounds that appealed to them. It never was that way at the time.

"'60s garage" is an unusual music classification, as it never existed at the time. Unlike "grunge", "surf", "punk", "disco", "progressive", "heavy metal", or even "rock n roll".

 

[beccabear67]

Maybe 'garage' is just a simple tag to put on all the pre-ART rock music made by people who just wanted to get on with it? You know, "fuck Art, let's dance!" Modern day 'garage' rockers are the equivalent of the Pre-Raphaelite painters of the mid 19th Century? Nah, I think I'll just stick to low-fi do-it-yourself noise initiated in any humble garage-like space as my definition which starts at Link Wray's 'Rumble' of the chicken coop and continues through to the The New York Dolls at the Mercer Arts Center and into whatever somebody is putting down on an experienced Mosrite knock-off and mis-matched Kustom amp this past Saturday in the church basement. It`s as important as Brian Jones`sideburns, that`s all I really need to know! Less talk (talk), more listen, more do.

Oh, and I hope I`m allowed to type fuck here, unlike the ebay discussion area.