axel
Tennalaga Class
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say. And I haven't got the slightest doubt about your competence. But for one thing, playing live is the only way to become a good live band, and a lot of those bands did play a lot of gigs. I'd say that you can hear to a certain extent from the record if the band hastily cobbled together something for a recording session, or if they have the backbone for being a good live act. If the band doesn't have real drive, they cannot just do it in the studio. It just can't be done. But a lot of garage records do have a lot of drive. I mean that's one important reason why we love them."Murphy's Law" of '60s garage-dom: bands that made the best records probably sucked live, and those who made the worst records (or just average) were outstanding live. Unscientific, but that's the impression I've gotten from my years of research and observation. It doesn't make sense, but the alchemy of the universe works in ways only Quetzalcoatl understands.
There's a reason why so many bands mentioned so far have never had panegyrics dedicated to their awesomeness written by contemporaries. They made no lasting impression on anybody. They were semi-competent, generic cover bands...
I was somewhat playing safe with the Remains, because I heard many times that they were extremely tight and powerful. And also with the Swamp Rats, because they had certainly left a strong impression on this guy I talked to, and I was the first to ever mention them to him in 30 years or so. He was a Pittsburgh native.
The fact that they didn't get the attention as did other bands, doesn't necessarily mean that those typical garage bands couldn't rock.