The Rolling Stones.
As a musical act, the music transcends the entire history of Rock, of which is rooted in the blues. They made their bones as a poor band living together in London. They actually played their own instruments on most recordings, wrote most of their own tunes, they invented what imitators are still trying to sell on comeback tours.
They then joyously gave back to the black musicians who's shoulders they stood upon.
(Did someone actually say the Monkees? lol
Yeah. I did. Got a problem with that?
No problem friend, didn't mean to rile your feathers: but just as Milli Vanilli didn't really sing, and Alex Baldwin surely pulled that trigger, and there ain't no Santa. The Monkees aren't a true rock band. And there's no law against enjoying the tunes written by Boyce and Hart and the music recorded by the Recking Crew and nobody will blame you. And the Monkees definitely sang those tunes. I didn't mean to insinuate anything.
In fact...cheers to that Last Train to Clarksville.
You're fine. And I apologize for getting a bit riled. I know that the Monkees have a somewhat "controversial" background/origin according to certain people, but they were the first music act I connected with as a kid, and I still love them, and I feel like they often get slighted, through no fault of their own, and I always want to defend them. I mean, they started during the time when music acts had just begun the transition to writing their own music and playing their own instruments, so utilizing outside writers and musicians wasn't exactly taboo at that time—in fact, several other acts were still utilizing outside writers and/or session musicians at least sometimes, including the Beach Boys, yet didn't (and don't) receive the criticism the Monkees get.
And the Monkees, after their first two albums, fought for and gained control of their musical output, and did most of the playing on their third and fourth albums (Headquarters and Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, and Jones, Ltd.) That, coupled with the fact that they did all of the playing on their early tours, is proof enough for me that they're a real rock group.
But, as the saying goes, art is subjective. I just like to make sure people know the whole Monkees story before they make any sort of judgment about them.
You're correct, the Beach Boys did use outside musicians on recordings. But there was a time the Beach Boys could play a live set (alone, without musicians on the side) and sound pretty good.
While the Monkees never played alone as a unit without studio musicians off to the side to help them not embarrass themselves. As to the second and third albums doing "most of the playing" excuse me if I remain suspect. Dolenz could't play drums at all, Tork couldn't play the simplest of bass lines. Mike Nezmeth could play guitar just enough to not look horrible, and eventually left the act because the other were without musical talent. ie he was embarrassed. (I also saw that youtube thing)
IMO a band is built by the musicians themselves, they grow together, they hang together, they toil and suffer together. The Monkees were put together by TV executives to reach a certain audience. The tunes were catchy, but if left to only listen to the Monkees on a deserted Island? eek!
But if the Monkees are what floats your boat, that's great...enjoy! Hopefully they'll lead you to a real band.
People have the right to like or dislike any kind of music, and they don't even have to have a well-defined reason why they like or dislike a particular act. They're also free to define for themselves what they consider a "real band." As I said before, art is subjective. But several of your statements are factually incorrect.
But there was a time the Beach Boys could play a live set (alone, without musicians on the side) and sound pretty good.
While the Monkees never played alone as a unit without studio musicians off to the side to help them not embarrass themselves.
Throughout 1966 and '67, the Monkees played many concerts with just the four of them. They did the same during their 1996 Billboard Live reunion concert and throughout their 1997 UK reunion tour.
As to the second and third albums doing "most of the playing" excuse me if I remain suspect.
It was the third and fourth albums, and you can remain suspect if you want, but it's an indisputable fact that they did most of the playing on those two albums, in no small part to prove to people such as yourself that they were fully capable of doing that.
Dolenz could't play drums at all
Though he didn't learn the drums until after joining the Monkees, and was certainly never a
great drummer, he could, and did, play the drums. There's plenty of footage of this on YouTube.
Tork couldn't play the simplest of bass lines.
Also demonstrably false. He played much more than the simplest of bass lines. He also was proficient with guitar, banjo, piano, organ, harpsichord, and French horn.
Mike Nezmeth could play guitar just enough to not look horrible
Mike
Nesmith never claimed to be a superb guitar player, but he could play more than "just enough to not look horrible." Again, plenty of YouTube evidence. And he wrote more than 140 songs (some for the Monkees, many more for other projects), including "Different Drum," which was a hit for Linda Ronstadt and the Stone Poneys.
and eventually left the act because the other were without musical talent. ie he was embarrassed.
That's not why he left the Monkees. He left because he wanted to start his own country-rock group (The First National Band) and because the initial run of the Monkees was losing steam. I think there were times when he wanted to distance himself from the Monkees, but not because the other members lacked musical talent; it was because a lot of the "cool kids" in the music biz at that time had a low view of the Monkees, and he was serious about continuing to pursue a career in music. But over the last decade he put to bed whatever issues he had with the legacy of the Monkees, because he started touring with them again in 2012, after Davy Jones died, and he made it clear during the Monkees farewell tour last fall (it was just him and Micky) that he had come to embrace the Monkees legacy and was honored to be a part of it.
IMO a band is built by the musicians themselves, they grow together, they hang together, they toil and suffer together. The Monkees were put together by TV executives to reach a certain audience.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but despite the Monkees being put together by TV executives, they "hung together" and "toiled" a lot—15+ hours a day for the first couple of years, as they were pounding out song after song in the studio (more than 130 in that two-year period) AND filming 58 episodes of the TV show.
The tunes were catchy, but if left to only listen to the Monkees on a deserted Island? eek!
I'd probably get sick of ANY music artist if they were my only option on a deserted island, but the Monkees would be one of the last ones I'd tire of, considering they have more variety in their work than just about any other act ever. One of the perks of bringing together four strangers from different music/entertainment scenes is that they had four very different music backgrounds and styles—to boil it down, Mike was country-rock, Micky was pop-rock, Davy was music hall, and Peter was folk, and the Monkees catalog encompasses blends of all of those, as well as baroque, psychedelia, rhythm & blues, jazz, and Broadway.
But really, your initial comment "LOL"ing my mention of the Monkees as a group having broad appeal was a case of you conflating your low view of their "realness" with how popular they are. This thread isn't about origins, it's about appeal, but you "went there," so I felt the need to respond.
And to build on my initial mention of the Monkees ... though I don't think the Monkees are the
most universally liked act, they have a lot of fans across the entire age spectrum, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who didn't enjoy hearing "Daydream Believer," "Last Train to Clarksville," or "I'm a Believer."