Lost Sounds Montana, Vol. 1

I just found a copy of the 1965 Portland state university yearbook that has a couple of pictures of a band called the Del Rays playing at a dance, which I just figured out is the first name of PAUL BEARER AND THE HEARSEMEN! Now THAT`s a good book!
sweet:wtf:
 
Captain Obvious to the rescue.
No, it doesn't have to be boring just because it's structured like a thesis. But, when it's structured like a thesis (citations, bibliography) AND it's boring, then we have a boring university thesis. Understand?
Yep. Your statement sounded as if you were thinking that a thesis is a boring affair in general. Of course if it's boring it's just that.
 
I had another look into that Milwaukee Garage book on Amazon. It's not just one or two, but ten pages on which the author lays down his method. Interestingly he anticipates almost every single point of Joey's criticism.
The book is not about the whole band scene of Milwaukee in the 60s (the title is definitely misleading). It's not even about bands who put out records. It's a case study about how and why young people get together to play in a band.

The two main points of his theory are:
1. Young people playing in bands are not necessarily eager to make a hit record and become the second Beatles or Stones; on the contrary the joy of playing and getting together itself is a major motive.
Hence it is not important to talk about well-known bands or bands that put out any records. It's enough to pick out a certain number of random bands (which fall under the definition of "garage band") and see what they have in common.
2. This phenomenon, while being extremely widespread in the 1960s, is not confined to the 60s, but has started earlier on and has been vital up to the present. Hence the jumping back and forth in time.

If you're not interested in a view like that, or if you think the book is boring, that is one thing. But to take the subject up in this specific way is legitimate.
Playing music myself I totally agree with those two main points of the author's proposition. It's NOT about making hit records. "A nostalgic sentimentality of subjectivity" serving "as a basis for constructed individualism" is a very strange and pretentious way of putting it, but there is some truth in that.

Why does a band go into the studio and record "Thoughts Of A Madman"? And hundreds of other hardcore rock'n'roll tunes? To have a hit? To make it big? To become the next Beatles? Fuck, no! It's the punk spirit that some of you guys try to deny. It's the reason why this music has the spirit and the power that we love about it!
 
I had another look into that Milwaukee Garage book on Amazon. It's not just one or two, but ten pages on which the author lays down his method. Interestingly he anticipates almost every single point of Joey's criticism.
The book is not about the whole band scene of Milwaukee in the 60s (the title is definitely misleading). It's not even about bands who put out records. It's a case study about how and why young people get together to play in a band.

The two main points of his theory are:
1. Young people playing in bands are not necessarily eager to make a hit record and become the second Beatles or Stones; on the contrary the joy of playing and getting together itself is a major motive.
Hence it is not important to talk about well-known bands or bands that put out any records. It's enough to pick out a certain number of random bands (which fall under the definition of "garage band") and see what they have in common.
2. This phenomenon, while being extremely widespread in the 1960s, is not confined to the 60s, but has started earlier on and has been vital up to the present. Hence the jumping back and forth in time.

If you're not interested in a view like that, or if you think the book is boring, that is one thing. But to take the subject up in this specific way is legitimate.
Playing music myself I totally agree with those two main points of the author's proposition. It's NOT about making hit records. "A nostalgic sentimentality of subjectivity" serving "as a basis for constructed individualism" is a very strange and pretentious way of putting it, but there is some truth in that.

Why does a band go into the studio and record "Thoughts Of A Madman"? And hundreds of other hardcore rock'n'roll tunes? To have a hit? To make it big? To become the next Beatles? Fuck, no! It's the punk spirit that some of you guys try to deny. It's the reason why this music has the spirit and the power that we love about it!
dude....One main reason back then to be in a band was to meet girls. He mentions it once...in passing. ONCE!!! I'm 3 Margs in...don't get me started. Damn 1966 Loretta Lynn sure sound good when you're blottoed!!!
 
I had another look into that Milwaukee Garage book on Amazon. It's not just one or two, but ten pages on which the author lays down his method. Interestingly he anticipates almost every single point of Joey's criticism.
The book is not about the whole band scene of Milwaukee in the 60s (the title is definitely misleading). It's not even about bands who put out records. It's a case study about how and why young people get together to play in a band.

The two main points of his theory are:
1. Young people playing in bands are not necessarily eager to make a hit record and become the second Beatles or Stones; on the contrary the joy of playing and getting together itself is a major motive.
Hence it is not important to talk about well-known bands or bands that put out any records. It's enough to pick out a certain number of random bands (which fall under the definition of "garage band") and see what they have in common.
2. This phenomenon, while being extremely widespread in the 1960s, is not confined to the 60s, but has started earlier on and has been vital up to the present. Hence the jumping back and forth in time.

If you're not interested in a view like that, or if you think the book is boring, that is one thing. But to take the subject up in this specific way is legitimate.
Playing music myself I totally agree with those two main points of the author's proposition. It's NOT about making hit records. "A nostalgic sentimentality of subjectivity" serving "as a basis for constructed individualism" is a very strange and pretentious way of putting it, but there is some truth in that.

Why does a band go into the studio and record "Thoughts Of A Madman"? And hundreds of other hardcore rock'n'roll tunes? To have a hit? To make it big? To become the next Beatles? Fuck, no! It's the punk spirit that some of you guys try to deny. It's the reason why this music has the spirit and the power that we love about it!
Let's face facts AX my man...You and I will always be on the wrong page:tiphat:
 
Getting back to Montana. Did you guys know that 2 of the best songs ever recorded at Valtron In Helena were from a little band from Idaho named William Penn & the Quakers. Both songs went unreleased but can be heard on the HUSH RECORD STORY on Big Beat. Track 5 & 6. Insane stuff really. Better than anything ever released in Montana. Anyone agree?
 
That's playing hard to get (part of the rebel thing).
And when that doesn't work, that's when you start making records with songs about how no-good all those girls are.
Boys playing hard to get...? Come on! You're mixing up something here. When has "playing hard to get" ever been part of the "rebel thing"?!!! It's part of the princess thing.
Those lyrics are despising. Full of disgust. Hate. Anger. And it's not just about the girls. It's about "Everybody Else". Never felt that way in your life?
 
The old double down....

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lost-sounds-montana-volume-one

images
feature.jpg
panhandler.png