TLDR: bands – better knowing who the members are or not?
Browsing through the RSS feeds tonight I came across this article on the Beach Boys and the song in the clip. It’s beautiful – a ghostly shimmering sound that makes it as fresh as the first time I heard it. That’s a long time ago – Beach Boys songs were some of the earliest music I can remember listening to – my parents had a Greatest Hits cassette and Loop John B and others are ingrained in my memories like inner rings of a tree – weirdly sweet interweaving harmonies over happy, jolly music. I never wondered then who was singing what, and to this day, though I know a little more about prodigy Brian with his cracked psyche, tragic womanizing surfer Dennis, cynical and self-centred Mike, and even third bro Carl and Richie Cunningham lookalike Al, I couldn’t tell you who sang what in any of their songs. I wouldn’t know where to go to google it (a big thank to anyone who can break down the track for me).
Then I got to thinking about something that has entertained me every now and then – bands where the members are subsumed into the group as a whole. Madness made great songs, with every instrument played well and brought out in the mix, but apart from Suggs, I couldn’t name many of them – Bedders? Carl? (Is there a Carl in every band?) and couldn’t put a name to a face. Same with the Pogues, Fantastic, multi-instrumental songs, but if I looked at the pictures on Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, I could only pick out Shane and Cait. I mean – great names – Spider Stacy, Jem Finer, Andrew Ranken, James Fearnley, Terry Woods, Philip Chevron – but I can’t picture one of them. Probably because I never saw either band live – that probably makes a difference.
Does this matter? Do those of you with an intimate knowledge of the individuals of such bands feel you get more out of the music by knowing who is playing what instrument, what they look like and something of their personality and past? Or does it detract from the experience of the band as a unit?
I remember when I first heard the Beatles, the pictures just showed 4 blokes with the same haircut. I enjoyed the music as one sound. Now I know a lot more about them individually, I can begin to peel apart the different sounds within each song, the different voices – even imagine them as being not the Beatles, but as 4 solo artists, just in the same band – that’s a Yoko-era John, only a younger version of him, that’s old thumbs aloft, just squeezed into a less wrinkly version, etc. But I’m not sure such examination is better than just hearing the songs as they were released – as whole sounds by a single unit.
I guess I care. Carl has the best voice. I once went through pretty much all of their catalogue and leads were split pretty much equally between Brian, Mike and Carl. Sloop John B has a joint lead, Brian and Mike.
Excellent question!
With the Beach Boys I am the same. I don’t know who is who or who is singing what. The bee gees as well for that matter.
It wasn’t until I watched Live at Pompeii that I started to understand who the different members of pink Floyd were. There’s a band who (post syd and pre Wall) were extremely democratic and were collectively greater as a whole.
Here’s a question. I once had an argument with a friend of mine. Girls Aloud were quite a good pop band, weren’t they? Some fantastic hits. But I couldn’t pick any of them out of a line-up, and the art of their songs came from the writing and production rather than any great vocal performance on their part. I thought that (within reason) you could gather together any five good looking, talented dancer/singers with the same production team and they would be just as successful. Do you agree? Discuss!
The Beach Boys arose out of a bunch of kids harmonising together, practising, practising and having fun. To begin with, dad, Murray, assigned roles. Brian wrote the songs. Dennis provided the looks. And so on. The eldest ones got the lead slots if a lead was required. Carl, the youngest, patiently waited his turn, and what a revelation he turned out to be. The purity of God Only Knows, the gutsiness of Darlin’ and the otherworldly Surf’s Up. Even so, it’s the harmonies that really count, the blend of voices in which no individual one is distinguishable.
The Beatles, although they practised harmonies too, were more a rivalry from the start. To me, to you. It was a fun rivalry, at least for most of the time, but they took turns even when writing one of the songs. The sum was, indeed, greater than its participants. When they wrote songs by themselves, they had each in mind all the time.
You might have seen them as four haircuts, sal, but teenage girls in the mid sixties, the main purchasers of records, knew exactly which was which and had their preferences. An essential part of The Beatles success was the gang of lads, each with their own characteristics and appeal.
Surely it depends on how “into” the bands you were/are (man).
I mean, The Mothers Of Invention – multiple weird looking lineups but I can tell you every name and probably what month of what year the photo was taken.
What’s “TLDR”?
‘Too long, didn’t read’. It was originally used as an aggressive email reply.
Modern life is rubbish. I want to die.
MLR:IWD
Too long; did not read
Like every other hobby – or passion that grew out of a hobby – the answer to the OP’s original question is surely it all depends on how into a topic you are.
Should a casual listener be moved to tears by the beauty of the BBs’ God Only Knows or the Kinks’ Waterloo Sunset, his/her pleasure is in no way dimmed by having no knowledge of the various trials, tribulations and tensions within each band.
While being sufficiently inspired to start digging deeper into how and why the song was written and recorded will probably expand listeners’ enjoyment, not doing so won’t affect their love for the original tune.
I tend to think of a topic that interests me, and that I think might stimulate discussion on here, and start writing. Before I know it, I’ve written more than I thought I would, and rather than making people read through my waffle to get to the point. I want to encourage people to respond to the original question.
So for the last couple of blogs (T.S. Eliot and this), I’ve stuck TLDR at the top as a kind of subheading to the title.
Does it matter if it is a band or studio/session musicians? I dare say there are those here who could listen to a drum roll, nod their heads knowledgably and say, ‘Ah, Hal Blaine’. I have ‘Everything is Coming Up Dusty’ playing at the moment and have no idea who the musicians are.
Does not knowing Hal Blaine was behind the drum kit on a particular song/album lessen your enjoyment? Probably not.
Would it add to your enjoyment if you were a new listener who cared passionately about such stuff who was coming to a song/album for the first time? Most definitely yes.
Every time I hear an upright bass on a record and I think, “ooh that’s good, I wonder who is playing that?”, the answer ALWAYS seems to be Danny Thompson…
Danny Thompson always seemed to me to be the answer, hovering away in the periphery of my listening, until I brought him front and centre, and have never regretted it. Bill Frisell is another musical Zelig.
Musicians, whose musical essence is an ingredient that improves any sauce or stock its added into – like melodic coriander, or harmonic saffron or rhythmic garlic – I do love discovering their inherent flavours and noticing where these threads pass through and weave into the fabric of music.
I do wonder if Danny Thompson managed to make a good living from his music. He is absolutely everywhere, as I said, and his contributions to songs usually elevate them musically. But would he only ever have gotten a session musician fee?
I suppose that’s an obvious question with an obvious answer. The lot of any session musician I suppose!
Not so sure about that, Arthur.
If you had a name like Danny playing on your album, that was a considerable sales point.
Likewise, if you were touring and he was in your band, that would be sure to boost ticket sales.
I’m guessing though, I should ask the Musicians Union!
I know that the little guy in Simon and Garfunkel is Paul Simon and the curly headed goon is Art Garfunkel aka the guitar tuner.
If only you’d told PS about AG’s minimal contribution to the duo 50 years ago, they’d probably still be together
I’ve sent an email to my brother-in-law who is also a double bass player and knows DT to ask
I have a theory that, at any particular point in time, in London/NY/LA/wherever, there are fewer than 100 musicians making 90% of recordings and they define the sound of an era. I have read too many sleeve note credits…
My other theory being the best records are made in the worst climates. Rainy Manchester: I could fill a book. Sunny Cornwall & Devon: um… Muse?
Interesting theory that sadly falls apart when exposed to direct sunligh in places like Jamaica (just about every reggae record ever made) and LA (the bands and sound that largely defined American music for much of the 60s, 70s and 80s)
Give me Magazine over the Eagles any day.
One of the (many) exceptions that proves the rule!
Let’s look at the M62 to evaluate that theory.
Liverpool – loads of brilliant bands – wet
Manchester – loads of mostly miserable brilliant bands – very wet
Leeds – a few pretty good bands – dry enough for wool
Hull – Spiders, EBTG, The Housemartins and er…. – really quite dry. And flat.
You may have a point.