"60s garage music" versus "pop culture"

[wildpaws]

Actually, there are a lot of really good thoughts from a lot of people on all sides of this discussion. As someone that happens to collect a few records from the '60s, that is not my real passion, my real passion was and is playing music, which I did with a number of bands in the '60s/'70s (and we did often have band practice in a garage). Certainly it was not called garage band music back in the day, most of the bands I played in thought of ourselves as rock and roll musicians. And yes, we did aspire to breaking into the mainstream getting that elusive recording contract, and making a career out of playing music. I don't think any of us ever thought "man I just want to keep playing for sock hops after the football game for the next 40 years". I think most of the musicians from that era had the same goals and dreams, some with little talent, some with a lot of talent, and the majority falling between those two points, just most of them never got very far. I feel very lucky to have been a part of a band that was able to record a 45 and got some regional radio airplay, I feel greatful to have met the many musicians over the years who shared knowledge with me, I've been excited to see a few local musicians break out into the big time after watching them in local clubs. The wonderful thing for today's up and coming musicians is that with the equipment and technology currently available, they are able to easily record their music for posterity and future generations. I'm also deeply appreciative of all you collectors and your appreciation of music from those times. Call it what you will, it was all music and still is.
Clyde

 

[Frantic]

"fuck Art, let's dance!"

Becca says it best. Anything beyond that falls under the WHO GIVES A SHIT category:confused:

 

[wildpaws]

Well

Becca says it best. Anything beyond that falls under the WHO GIVES A SHIT category:confused:

Well excuse the hell out of me and anybody else that replied!
Clyde

 

[Don Julio]

Is/was there a difference between "pop culture" in the USA and Germany or continental Europe? What specifically is that difference?

Pop music post-rock and roll was a free for all. You had very accomplished musicians making ultra-professional records (Motown, Spector, LA studio habitues) but then something would always come rudely crashing in like "Louie, Louie" and "Surfin' Bird" to remind the pros that there were no safe bets 100% of the time. The industry finally got things under control in the early '70s and after that, there were no more "Louie, Louies" to come along and embarrass the pros. All of that was safely corralled well offstage in "punk" and "hardcore," whose practitioners (echoing the hippies they proclaimed to hate) made being uncommercial a virtue instead of a defect. This kind of bifurcation never occurred to the '60s garage bands.

 

[bosshoss]

...let's dance!

You mean here, now...on the forum?

 

[axel]

Is/was there a difference between "pop culture" in the USA and Germany or continental Europe? What specifically is that difference?

Pop music post-rock and roll was a free for all. You had very accomplished musicians making ultra-professional records (Motown, Spector, LA studio habitues) but then something would always come rudely crashing in like "Louie, Louie" and "Surfin' Bird" to remind the pros that there were no safe bets 100% of the time. The industry finally got things under control in the early '70s and after that, there were no more "Louie, Louies" to come along and embarrass the pros. All of that was safely corralled well offstage in "punk" and "hardcore," whose practitioners (echoing the hippies they proclaimed to hate) made being uncommercial a virtue instead of a defect. This kind of bifurcation never occurred to the '60s garage bands.

Where have you been all the time? I really miss your well reflected input. Please keep on posting more.

I don't want to use your point for my argument. I easily could, but I'm not sure if you'd want that. Maybe I come back to it later. Let's see if someone else has something to say to it.

Yes, there seems to be a difference between the definitions of "pop culture" in the USA and Germany (or continental Europe). I tried to explain it, but maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I'll try to translate from German wikipedia as accurately as I can:

"(...) In the modern sense, in sociology and cultural studies for instance, "popular culture" describes the whole of social phenomenons, which comprise nearly all cultural sectors. "Popular culture" differs from "high culture" because of its "popular", in the sense of "folksy" or "proletarian", character. Examples of pop culture are sports, mass media, easy literature or pop music. Popular culture can often grow out of subculture, that differs from the mainstream or the elite. Often subculture becomes a trend and thus mainstream."

Whereas in American wikipedia it states:

"Popular culture (commonly known as pop culture) is the totality of ideas, perspectives, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture (...)."

 

[tom kirby]

Actually, there are a lot of really good thoughts from a lot of people on all sides of this discussion. As someone that happens to collect a few records from the '60s, that is not my real passion, my real passion was and is playing music, which I did with a number of bands in the '60s/'70s (and we did often have band practice in a garage). Certainly it was not called garage band music back in the day, most of the bands I played in thought of ourselves as rock and roll musicians. And yes, we did aspire to breaking into the mainstream getting that elusive recording contract, and making a career out of playing music. I don't think any of us ever thought "man I just want to keep playing for sock hops after the football game for the next 40 years". I think most of the musicians from that era had the same goals and dreams, some with little talent, some with a lot of talent, and the majority falling between those two points, just most of them never got very far. I feel very lucky to have been a part of a band that was able to record a 45 and got some regional radio airplay, I feel greatful to have met the many musicians over the years who shared knowledge with me, I've been excited to see a few local musicians break out into the big time after watching them in local clubs. The wonderful thing for today's up and coming musicians is that with the equipment and technology currently available, they are able to easily record their music for posterity and future generations. I'm also deeply appreciative of all you collectors and your appreciation of music from those times. Call it what you will, it was all music and still is.
Clyde

I could have written this, or something close to it, but I learned not to buck the "pop culture" here. Ha, that reminds me of the 60's when it was Rock and Roll.

 

[Don Julio]

Yes, there seems to be a difference between the definitions of "pop culture" in the USA and Germany (or continental Europe). I tried to explain it, but maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I'll try to translate from German wikipedia as accurately as I can:

"(...) In the modern sense, in sociology and cultural studies for instance, "popular culture" describes the whole of social phenomenons, which comprise nearly all cultural sectors. "Popular culture" differs from "high culture" because of its "popular", in the sense of "folksy" or "proletarian", character. Examples of pop culture are sports, mass media, easy literature or pop music. Popular culture can often grow out of subculture, that differs from the mainstream or the elite. Often subculture becomes a trend and thus mainstream."

Whereas in American wikipedia it states:

"Popular culture (commonly known as pop culture) is the totality of ideas, perspectives, memes, images and other phenomena that are deemed preferred per an informal consensus within the mainstream of a given culture (...)."

Well, the difference is quite simply that there is too little "high culture" in America to contrast with "popular culture." America did not produce a Beethoven or a Leonardo da Vinci. What little "high culture" there is in America is in fact mostly imitations of European high culture. So basically "popular culture" in America is the culture. As Oscar Wilde observed, America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in-between.

 

[ian]

what allows you to think that Ludwig van Beethoven is part of some sort of elitism?

 

[axel]

Well, the difference is quite simply that there is too little "high culture" in America to contrast with "popular culture." America did not produce a Beethoven or a Leonardo da Vinci. What little "high culture" there is in America is in fact mostly imitations of European high culture. So basically "popular culture" in America is the culture. As Oscar Wilde observed, America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in-between.

I actually thought this might be the reason. Not so much the lack of high culture (I think Poe, Steinbeck and Pynchon would be considered high culture; John Cage, Aaron Copeland, John Coltrane and Thelonius Monk as well). But more the lack of an aristocracy or an elitist bourgeoisie, for which it was produced (well, of course there always was a high-class bourgeoisie, but I guess they were never considered as the preferred consumers of a certain art form...).

Still both definitions have a completely different angle. And very different consequences in validating small niches of culture.

 

[paul messis]

I've felt this topic to be pretty interesting.... if anything, it's intriguing how shit today actually is in comparison to then.

Give me a time machine now, i'd love to go back to all that innocence.

Paul

 

[beccabear67]

You mean here, now...on the forum?

It's never the wrong time or place to do The Frug is it? (although sometimes I'm more inclined toward Bert Williams' 'dance of indifference').

It always has amazed me how money goes to studying, labelling and promoting things as cultures, but to me that kind of approach is sterile as if dissecting something on a slide and apt to kill any real culture happening without subsidy. I guess Universities now award degrees in studies of popular culture, but do those thesis end up in Ugly Things? Old comic strips become literature, silent film actors are icons, and old rock music becomes indicitive of the socio-political milleau of proletariat anti-authoritarianism... 'twas ever thus?

 

[axel]

It always has amazed me how money goes to studying, labelling and promoting things as cultures...

May I ask what exactly it is that you're talking about? Are you really talking about "money"?
It always amazes me how much money goes into ultimate bullshit that's being called "popular culture" (US definition).

 

[Don Julio]

I actually thought this might be the reason. Not so much the lack of high culture (I think Poe, Steinbeck and Pynchon would be considered high culture; John Cage, Aaron Copeland, John Coltrane and Thelonius Monk as well). But more the lack of an aristocracy or an elitist bourgeoisie, for which it was produced (well, of course there always was a high-class bourgeoisie, but I guess they were never considered as the preferred consumers of a certain art form...).

Still both definitions have a completely different angle. And very different consequences in validating small niches of culture.

Edgar A. Poe was/is definitely pop culture!

Basically I know nothing about Germany in the '60s. Were there Top 40 radio stations? Local labels and studios? These were the major factors driving rock and roll in America in the '60s.

 

[beccabear67]

May I ask what exactly it is that you're talking about?

I'm typing about the waste of time it is subjecting anything to a serious study as a culture I suppose. I saw what happened to the lowly comic book once it became the focus of pretentious types wanting to elevate it as an indicator of the place of mythological archetypes in youth culture to the point where basically you have a lot of fussily drawn vintage superdudes supposedly 'dealing' with the concerns of adult literature and existing as an adult collectible where they had been a mass medium of cheap entertainment. Usually the sole point of intellectualizing about these lowbrow artforms, be they cartoons, street fashions, or '60s 45 records is for someone to get credentials or money from some bureaucratic institution. Talk of cultures is usually the first step to really killing something and many peoples' genuine enthusiasm for it. I have a grade 10 education so if I'm off base maybe that's why, but I don't think I am, I think I understand where you're heading with this approach and it won't do anything to show up what synthesized junk some billion-dollar corporation or two are successfully marketing. To sum up: believe me, you do not ever want rock & roll music to get complete credibility as a significant cultural expression alongside fine art however defined... it will absolutely kill it whatever is left of it, I doubt even Lou Reed would disagree. Remember what happened to serious show-gazer jazz music circa 1957 or earnest American folk music circa 1964.

If I come across as being 'as mad as a balloon' here that will make two of us I think. :)

 

[MopTopMike]

It's one thing, by engaging in research and discussion among peers, to place obscure '60s 45 records within a proper, accurate historical perspective.

wanting to elevate it [obscure '60s 45 records] as an indicator of the place of mythological archetypes in youth culture

is something else entirely.

 

[beccabear67]

I like to think of 60s garage music as a cultural phenomenon

There are all kinds of dismissive language being expressed here when it comes to seeing the genre from a broader perspective.

I like to think of '60s garage music as a result of kids having both more leisure time and more spending money as well as wanting to make cool music they could dance to. From a broader perspective it was a time that benefited from people not having to show degrees in things to be able or allowed to do something.

 

[beccabear67]

I wouldn't say "wanting to elevate it [obscure '60s 45 records] as an indicator of the place of mythological archetypes in youth culture", but I would say "wanting to elevate it [obscure '60s 45 records] through latter day academic theoretical posturing".

P.S.: I'm not saying there aren't cultural forces involved that may effect creations, but I am saying that recognition and appraisal of those forces in relation to the music does not make the music more exciting or enjoyable. You will enjoy it knowing nothing about it's makers and contemporaries as knowing every detail about them. It may be interesting to know but not necessary. I think it can and does turn people off of certain works when the admirers/collectors of the works become toffee-nosed and anal-retentive about it, as in the case of say Prog rock (which I like just fine myself), or adult superhero comic books to reuse my earlier reference.

 

[MopTopMike]

The penchant toward "Elevating" the music made by '60s teenaged rock & roll groups as something above and beyond what it was originally intended for is often a trait of a majority of fans who were not alive at that time. It seems to have run rampant with the advent of the internet, and the endless array of blogs, erroneously annotated Youtube clips and over-hyped ebay auction listings. It's one thing to recognize the efforts of the folks involved (our forum members Clyde and Tom K) and place the era via a proper historical context, devoid of subjective "fiction" and revisionism, without sounding like a Berkley Music School professor. Joe Rock & Roller might get all pissed off and spill his beer in frustration with all of the terms, categories and minutiae, but there are people who do want to know a little bit about the who, what, where, when, and why. Is it necessary to know such detail when listening to the music? Maybe not, but why does everyone get all riled up and annoyed whenever a '60s garage compilation has no liner notes?

The reason most of us enjoy listening to this type of music (it is closer to that of an ethnic style of music) is for the candid / in-the-moment spontaneity, regardless of musical aptitude and ability of the group/band. Candid photographs are just as, if not more interesting to look at than professionally posed photographs, so why wouldn't candid in-the moment recordings be any different?

 

[axel]

I wouldn't say "wanting to elevate it [obscure '60s 45 records] as an indicator of the place of mythological archetypes in youth culture", but I would say "wanting to elevate it [obscure '60s 45 records] through latter day academic theoretical posturing".

I must confess I didn't even know where I was heading, when starting this thread. Most of all I wanted to get a clearer perspective on a rather basic level. Different perceptions of culture.
I was hesitant to talk about "garage music" in this context, because I was not sure where this would lead to. I was actually aware that I might fall into the pit you are describing above.
Of course I would do anything to "elevate" obscure '60s 45 records to whatever heights of culture, but you are right when saying that this wouldn't add anything to the fun of the music.

As you noticed I like theoretical thinking. I can even say I enjoy it. Not as much as listening to or playing music, but pretty much. There's nothing I want to gain with it, certainly not money. To me it's fun.
I'm sorry if I happen to make your beloved kind of music subject to some sort of theoretical thinking. I'm not doing it anyway. As I said I'm hesitant about it. I found interesting what others had to say about it.
But may I say: it's a bit like if you learn more about the mechanisms of our solar system, you can't enjoy the sunset anymore. Personally I have no problem with being romantic and theoretical at the same time.