What is Sixties Garage?

Outside_Lookin_in

G45 Legend
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
If this topic has been posted before, just point me in the right direction and I'll move it.

As the very existence of G45central is based on the notion of "garage", I thought it might be appropriate to consider what that means.

The question of what defines garage is an interesting one. Obviously there has to be something objective to it, otherwise there wouldn't be so much common ground among those who believe they are listening to garage music, particularly '60s garage.

The Macquarie dictionary (2001) defines garage music as "rough and unsophisticated". I think this is a good attempt but is too broad as it allows far too much crap into the category; and we all agree that garage should by definition be listenable, don't we? Therefore, I would add "emotive" meaning that it should trigger a positive emotional response in the listener – maybe even passionate – something which is lacking in most commercial music which is "catchy", but emotionally empty or superficial.

This brings me to the other major aspect - to my mind, at least - of garage: it is quintessentially non-commercial. This is a far more complex phenomenon and difficult to explain, as commercial success is often just the difference between a song being promoted or not, and some garage songs have had commercial success, although usually only on a regional scale, but some have had rather wide-spread success, such as the Kinks' All Day and All of the Night. More typically, though, musical hits are sophisticated, polished, and even over-engineered; which brings us back to the Macquarie definition of garage, because this describes the exact opposite: rough and unsophisticated.

Then there’s also the question of whether garage can be sophisticated. I think it can be. The Master’s Apprentices’ Wars or Hands of Time comes to mind: I consider it musically accomplished and skillfully executed, yet it is still garage to my ears, and outstanding garage at that. I believe it is clearly garage for two reasons: the amplification/recording sound character; and the emotional content, or more specifically, the “attitude”. Perhaps the “emotion” I refer to earlier is better described as “attitude” or “teen angst”. So, attempting a dictionary length definition of garage:

A style of music which is usually lacking in sophistication or refinement, and often characterised by its strong juvenile emotional content.

Not a perfect definition, but maybe as good as you can get for something as nebulous as the concept of garage. There are some who may argue that garage is only properly applied to American sixties, but this then ignores the universal elements which obviously tie North American garage to that from other countries, whether you choose to call it freak beat, mod, Mersey beat or whatever.
 
I don't know, I can only get my head around 'do it yourself' anymore... or maybe even just 'beat'? There may be no garage, may be no teens involved, but isn't it always someone doing it for themselves with a beat? Antithesis might be having studio musicians, or a promotions guy somewhere? I'm sure the Beach Boys were a garage group on the original recording of "Surfing", but later I find them to be almost the antithesis of a garage group or doing it yourself. I'd rather listen to old Elvis Louisiana Hayride broadcasts than Pet Sounds for something raw, but how often does that stuff get reviewed by the garage-punk crowd while we've seen raves about Pet Sounds and Smile sessions for a couple of decades it feels like from and for the same people. And "punk" is still originally the young guy in prison who wore his pants saggy to invite some personal attention. Just because some other people didn't know this when they started using that slang term doesn't erase it's history. :D
 
I think the "do it yourself" vs studio group is just another way of saying polished and sophisticated vs rough and unsophisticated. In the sixties, garage was almost exclusively the province of teens, and early twenties to some extent. I don't think the older generation was capable of it: maybe because you needed a combination of teenage hormones and a lack of being jaded. I agree with you about the Beach Boys - to my ears they're too commercial, polished, and sedate to be considered garage.
 
"Hey, they remind me of the Rolling Stones." Not sure about the rest of you, but I hear this nearly every time I attempt to turn someone on to 'garage' music. Although I wasn't a 60's garage musician, I have wondered if those that were, would initially find the term "garage" insulting to their efforts. Of course, we know that it's not.

When asked, I simply describe the music as "the essence of purity." When I hear (although perhaps not essentially DIY or "garage") The Cult's "You know you really hurt me girl" ... I could truly believe that the guy got played by an operator, wrote a song that night and the next day, the band had thirty minutes to cut two tracks. Okay, theirs was on a major label, so perhaps not the case, but you get the idea.

Most people don't get it, but why listen to manufactured angst that took hours if not days to produce (by commercial musicians that have probably never even experienced it) ... when we can listen to the real deal!
 
That's one I glossed over in my haste: the element of "purity"; I call it "honesty", but I'm sure we're talking about the same thing.

You're one up on me in trying to convert others to the garage sound; I get "they remind me of the Beatles".
 
sorry, but i have a hard time agreeing to most of what the "definition" points out.

just to pull some defining terms from your post:

"rough"
would exclude hundreds of bands that must never be excluded. Of course there's the BFTG material, but - even if many people try to ignore it - there's aways this strong undercurrent of beatles influence, call it "garage beat", "garage beat" "teen beat" or whatever. well-crafted, "pop" songs with hooks, good production.
E.g. REMAINS, DOVERS, lots of the NETS, "hope i please you" (BARONS), gazillions more that don't fit here!

"unsophisticated"
no. e.g. the REMAINS are nothing short of professionals, even bands like the SONICS are in no way "unsophisticated" players. In case you wanted to point out the song material, it might be true for LouieLouie-rip-offs, but again you'd exclude thousands of teen beat songs that are very well crafted, e.g. "i've been through it before" (plagues), "how many times" (5:p.m.), sounds of randall,....

"trigger positive emotional response"
partly agree. But i'd think it's an overstatement to say that simple songs like the just mentioned LouieLouie give me any kind of "positive emotional response".

"non-commercial"
big 'no'. you could mention 1000 songs that have "hit" written all over them. as MTM lays it out in TBM, groups only had a slim chance to make it big, BUT that had nothing to do with song quality. e.g. "back again" (uncivilized), "here to stay" (wanted), "i've been through it before", "wait till the summer",.......

"strong juvenile emotional content."
agreed!

sorry to nitpick, but i think it would be best to follow mike's approach and group the whole circa 63-68 shebang under "teen beat".
 
sorry to nitpick

Au contraire, thank you for your input. It just goes to show how difficult it is to pin down. Grouping the whole lot under "teen beat" though, I think is a cop-out, and would mean grouping the beatles together with "beatles influence[d]" bands. To my ears there clearly is a commercial sound, despite it being difficult to enunciate; but this is part of what I'm attempting to resolve here - and a commercial sound doesn't always line up with commercial success.

The garage sound clearly exists, and many of us judge all we hear from the sixties - and even beyond - by this standard: either consciously or unconsciously, and very likely without knowing precisely what it means. But the border is very fuzzy, so it's not surprising that it is not easy to pin down, and that also accounts for the variability of opinions among fans of the genre; but just because it's fuzzy, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Maybe the best approach is to identify the core elements of garage (which is what I'm attempting with this thread), and even the core elements of purely commercial music; and then to recognise that there is a contiuous spectrum between the two; therefore although we may all agree on a core of garage music; we will all have different shaped boundaries. If we tried to come up with a list of songs we all agreed was quintessentially garage, maybe a song like "Doin' me in" would be right in the centre, and then find something we can all agree is the diametric opposite, such as "Waterloo sunset"; then try to elucidate how they differ.
 
In regards to the "amateur" element: are there many highly-regarded garage records that have been proven to be the work of studio musicians? I thought Scorpio Tube was considered one but was later disproven...

It's pretty hard to define, that's for sure, especially when it takes a turn toward "psychedelic" music. I wonder if any band members even considered that their music would be pegged into some particular genre.
 
One of the first sercon books I ever read about Rock music (circa 1970 I think) was all about what the author saw as an example of "genuine folk expression". It confused me then and still puzzles me at times, but they seemed to think everything out of the bay area was this genuine folk expression along the lines of delta country style blues. Plug in "garage" or "amateur" for folk maybe? Or is it all just making a rock n' roll noise with whatever you've been dealt? Weren't all rock artists amateur folk originally in the '50s? Does not being "inspired" by the Stones or Animals or whoever disqualify Gene Vincent or Johnny Burnette or Bo Diddley as "garage"? Only someone inspired by the Yardbirds doing Train Kept A Rollin' learned off of a Johnny Burnette Trio record? But then the Ramones can't be "garage" for doing California Sun or Surfin' Bird in 1976?

Okay so it's mostly American mostly teens with some kind of amps responding to the "British Invasion" and sometimes in actual garages. Any good? :pray:
 
Something else that may be worth mentioning is what modern-day "garage bands" (or "garage-style" bands) do not get quite right. The songs I have heard from modern bands have failed to capture something that was found in the original '60s garage bands' music.

Was it the amateur-ness of being the first to perform new and innovative music in response to the hitmakers from England at the time? Maybe so. With some exceptions, nowadays, to get signed onto a record label, you do have to be skilled in singing and playing. I can't deny that some of the charm of '60s garage lies within the fact that most bands were, at their core, a bunch of teenagers whose enthusiasm and energy took priority above technical skill. Case in point: the Keggs' "To Find Out": musicianship-wise, it's a disaster, but there's something inherently great about the record - the guys playing the music and their energy.

Maybe it was the recording technique. I might be wrong here, but the consensus seems to be that "raw = good". A ten-minute take on a two-track recorded seems to be preferable to a days-long session with a producer barking commands from behind the soundboard, in the eyes of many garage fanatics. "Green Fuz" sounds like shit. Who cares? But if it was in stereo and had a bunch of reverb and tape loops applied to it, my guess is that it wouldn't be so highly revered.

Songwriting has already been mentioned by others. It goes right in hand with the energy thing above. The more aggressive the lyrics, the more energetic the song. Make the listener know how they're supposed to feel about the subject matter. "It's A Cry'n Shame" by both the Gentlemen and Five Americans are very raw because the subject matter is about an open wound left by some girl. A counter-example to this would be the Brass Buttons' "Hell Will Take Care Of Her" - unless you're paying attention to the lyrics as you go along, you will likely assume it's another trippy garage-pop song. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

I'm not trying to knock modern garage-style bands here, as I know they and their fans are well-represented on this site. Just trying to outline the differences that distinguish '60s garage sounds and garage-esque music that may have not come from the same source.

Apologies for the wall of text!
 
You make a good point Beccabear in mentioning the folk factor. Sometines, I think ‘60s garage - and even a good amount of popular ‘60s - could be classified as a sub-genre of folk music (which bizarrely in turn has a sub-genre of folk rock). After all, isn’t the spirit of folk also the spirit of garage?

I think you’re right, Harvestman in pointing out the sound is a factor. Case in point: some ’60s songs which I knew only from multi-generation cassette tapes, I fully considered garage, but when I bought the 45, I was disappointed, as the clean sound made it sound like failed pop rather than garage. Same goes for some 45s which have subsequently been released on CD from master tape: it sounds so clean it has lost its “garage-ness”. Maybe the only difference between garage or not garage for a lot of songs is the addition of some distortion, which often was just down to recording technique; or even just down to whether or not a fuzz box was used.

This brings to mind another factor partly alluded to by Harvestman, and that is that ‘60s garage was a part of a significant cultural youth revolution, or more simply coined “youth rebellion”, which was triggered by beatlemania, and which manifested itself in a musical revolt against, or maybe more of an outgrowth from, the staid and formulaic music of the fifties and early sixties. It’s that spirit of rebellion that resounds so clearly in core garage material. It may have been the Beatles (Hollies & Zombies need an honourable mention too) which got the ball rolling, but it was the Rolling stones, Kinks, Pretty Things, Yardbirds, and the Who who steered it in the right direction. This is the main reason why post-sixties garage isn’t quite the analog of sixties garage: it wasn’t spearheaded by a youth rebellion, but probably more by drugs and dissoluteness. That’s probably why that “energy” which Havestman mentions isn’t there, in fact isn’t there. Not that I don’t like garage music from later decades, but I would never pick a retro-sixties garage band, over a band such as the Saints, or Nirvana, because trying to recreate the garage sound of the sixties just doesn’t work, but standing out in your own era does. The bands of the mid-sixties were creating something new, and that’s what I look for in music from later decades.

There’s a third factor that comes to mind in defining ‘60s garage music, and that’s a haunting quality I find in many ‘60s garage songs and even some instrumentals. Maybe it's a purely psychological phenomenon which is triggered by a combination of factors already mentioned, or maybe it is a real characteristic in the music itself, but some of the songs which to me have a strong haunting factor are:

Buck Rogers Movement - Baby come on a.k.a. Baby come home
Trolls - Walkin’ shoes
Twiliters with Bill Kennedy - (Everybody’s goin’ to) rollerland
Mor-loks - There goes life

It also seems to be wholly confined to American garage. Perhaps someone else can put their finger on it…

Anyhow, Based on what’s been said so far, I’ve come up with a list of sliding scale evaluations which can help to identify sixties garage. A song may not have to score well on all scales to qualify as garage, and presumably everyone would have different thresholds and combinations, but I think this at least give us a partially objective basis for claiming legitimacy in the classification of garage versus commercial, the latter being typified by the opposite ends of the scales.

teen angst****************************************maturity / lack of emotion
purity / honesty***********************************jaded / dissolute
simplicity / unsophisticated**********************sophisticated / polished
distortion / fuzz***********************************clean / well recorded
rebellion / divergence from the norm***********popular / conformist
 
agreed to the "folk" aspect.

the importance of the beatles seems to be most importantly their rise to pop-stardom and teens starting bands to do the same and to receive similar benefits.

musically speaking, i'd say from my limited experience roughly 15% of the recording groups directly channel the beatles from a musical point of view.

as for the "folk" direction, i see this as the genuine "american" form of teen beat/ garage music, i'd say perhaps 25% of the recorded output could fall into this category. i don't mean "folk rock" (a bogus term) here but teen music that draws from u.s. roots, mainly blues/folk, some "race music". i'm thinking of songs like "mister, you're a better man than i", "see that my grave is kept clean".
this is by no means beatles territory.

(i know those numbers are pure guesswork, so don't freak out)

while beatles-influenced songs would heavily rely on the I-IV-V pattern, adding III and VI-minor for good measure if necessary, the "american" songs would often rely on I-II-IV patterns, that's why they often sound so simple, even "boring" to non-garageheads, also easy or dumb. it's way harder to create "pleasant" hooks or melodies with this scheme.

another two cents re:old and new garage bands: top 3 reasons why LOTS of modern garage rock bands suck:

3: organ's too loud and way too compressed!
2: fuzz tone: check out the 60s tracks: fuzz is not this deafening noise that goes all through the track like a hot knife through the butter. modern tracks have this "in your face"/brickwall approach. i know i cite this track a lot, but dig "i hope i please you" (barons), and check the fuzz guitar. it's dry, it adds little patterns to the song, it resonates, it's not super distorted, compressed, has extra sustain and shit.
1: musicians in modern garage bands: 20-30 y.o. vs: back then: 12 to 18 years old.

thanks for reading!
 
Teenagers unable to deal with their hormonal rush!

Gang mentality. Them and us. Generational clashes. (70's punks' kids are fucked, what can they rebel against?... except become right wing bankers.

Playing "negro" music, "they think we listened to the Rolling Stones" *snigger snigger*. Integrational experimentation!

The lack of good amplification for DJ's to play records. Kids wanted to dance to the songs on the radio the willing pretend stars kind of learned them.... quickly and wrongly mostly. We got big amps and guitars just need us a singer that sounds angry and black. We are covers bands but we picked the meanest songs to play for our school friends. The dance floor is the o-meter of cool. Fill it then play that song more until it is uncool.

Cheap equipment. Slightly outta tune you amateur dork. When these bands became proficient most of this charm disappears - you can't unlearn. Always seems when questioned the original musicians/players are embarrassed by their efforts on our loved 45's... you actually like that?

Ripped off by the recording studios. Lack of knowledge in the recording process.

The best "new" garage I have heard was from 15 year old's who had never heard of 60's garage before but liked the Kinks.

What we love is different, ones 60's garage is an others over produced pop.

It is a big toilet to flush 1000's of bands/songs/sounds into and wipe with the same small square of tissue paper.:flush:
 
When these bands became proficient most of this charm disappears - you can't unlearn. Always seems when questioned the original musicians/players are embarrassed by their efforts on our loved 45's... you actually like that?
Nice periphrastic way of explaining the honest/jaded & rough/polished distinctions! Yes Hicksville, as you suggest, it can be very nuanced.

Human language is marvelous, yet sometimes frustrating, in just how dynamic, fluid, organic, idiosyncratic and contextual it can be; but it does therefore allow humour, and all manor of nuance and double meaning. "Garage" is almost (well, maybe "somewhat") like the word "evolution": most people think they know what it means; everyone understands something different by it; but no one truly understands it. :lol:
 
you can't unlearn.

actually Alex Chilton was doing exactly that in the mid70s according to the book It Came from Memphis and the result was great (like flies on sherbert, bangkok...).

the main problem with the ex garage band members were those who thought Eric Clapton was a great guitarist: once you take this as a fact, you'll never play right again.
 
"Garage" is a concept invented by music archivists interested in certain categories of raw rock 'n' roll from the 1960s. The boundaries are very fuzzy, and no rigid definition exists. All the "rules" are arbitrary and cobbled together to suit the needs of devotees. Mike's TBM contains the best attempt at a scholarly definition.

For me, any garage 45 must exhibit significant stylistic influence from the pre-1967 output of at least one of this select group of mainstream 60s bands.

UK - Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds, Zombies
USA - Wailers, 13th Floor Elevators, Byrds

Other contenders such as Pretty Things, Troggs, Who, Love etc. are generally covered by Beatles, Stones or Kinks. Bob Dylan is covered by The Byrds. In truth, the Elevators are probably covered by The Beatles, Stones and Kinks.

Without this explicit stylistic influence, the 45 under scrutiny is probably going to fall into a related genre such as surf, rocker, soul, psych, electronic or pop. And to agree with Laurent's comment above, I find it hard to equate a Cream-era Clapton influence with garage music. Same goes for Hendrix, Pink Floyd, and a host of others like Lovin' Spoonful, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane.
 
"60's Garage rock" is old men babblin' about something that never existed at the time