Let's Hear it for the Byrds

[Brandon Burke]

Mr. Weir is correct; get ALL the Gene Clark you can, at least through the brilliant albeit oft-maligned & misunderstood "No Other." The two cd "Flying High" on A&M is a fine comp w/a bunch of rarities, inc. the amazing "American Dreamer"--

has anyone seen the Dennis Hopper movie film of the same title it comes from?

I will assert HERE that Gene Clark beats Gram Parsons tho' Gram was... good. "Sweetheart" marks a pretty steep falling off after those first five masterpieces I feel.

Africa Brass, have I touted Wynn Stewart before & you concurred? "Sweetheart" is a good gateway drug or whatever the term is and the first Burritos holds up well, esp. "Hippie Boy," hah. The Hillmen's one lp is a hot mostly trad bluegrass btw; worth checking out.

Post-"Sweetheart" McGuinn is of little interest, I think, except for Clarence White adepts.

"If Only I Could Remember My Name" is pretty much Crosby's shining non-Byrds moment, other than his coincidental presence on a few Neil Young records. Crosby is quotable tho', which I why I think he makes MOJO so often.

Brandon: TFC never had enough ** content ** for me; even that first Matador record faded pretty quickly. Did they develop a distictive voice as songwriters over the years?

Sundazed Byrds' singles double-lp rules too, esp. for those of us who grew up on the Byrds lps... the recontextualization is pretty wild.

clem

I agree with most of this. I'm a considerably bigger Gene Clark fan than I am any of the individual members of the Byrds (including Parsons). In fact, I like Gene Clark with the Gosdin Brothers and The Fantastic Expedition of Dillard & Clark more than any straight Byrds release. Perhaps this is because he's a fellow Kansan.

In any case, Clark wins out over Parsons with me mostly because Parsons is just too hokey for me. I used to love him but my tollerance for that kind of thing dwindles with age. For the same reasons, I can't really get into Will Oldman (Palace Brothers, Palace Music, Bonnie 'Prince' Billy, etc) as much as I used to either, though I was at a cookout with him a week or so ago and was quite enthralled with his choice of fashion: a thin white V-neck t-shirt, no shoes, and O.R. scrub pants rolled up to his knees.

In anycase, I agree. Clark's my boy too.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Brandon Burke

[DrJ]

Putting in a good word for Crosby, at least in his "prime." Goofy dude and now a media charicature, but undeniable, tremendous talent in the most natural, idiosyncratic way - although largely squandered before 1968 and after about 1970 onward (a VERY brief peak!). Some of the shit he wrote or contributed to CSN was just unreal, and the "jazz sensibility" comment by Bev is spot on.

I also agree with comments about some (most?) of the Byrds albums sounding more like a few great singles held together with unmemorable filler. I don't think the majority or maybe any of the albums belong in anywhere near the same league as the best work of the Beach Boys, Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, or Who (put any of their LPs alongside something like THE WHO SELL OUT and it's a no-contest victory for Mr. Townshend, for example).

Still, their greatest singles were glorious slices of pop.

And yet ultimately the Byrds now sound tame, almost quaint with this many years' hindsight. They sound much more "of the 60's" too than the greatest artists of the era to me.

Some of the comments above seem to me to be commenting more on their INFLUENCE - their sound and elements of it as filtered through other, later artists' prisms, which is probably their greatest legacy - arguably, they have had more DIRECT influence on the SOUND of rock and pop guitar bands than any of the other artists listed above - than on the staying power of the music the Byrds actually recorded.

The contrast between a great Byrds single like "Eight Miles High" and the Who's greatest for me, "I Can See For Miles," is instructive. Townshend and company still sound as though they are exploding out of my speakers, whilst the Byrds twitter (albeit pleasantly) in the background.

I think one can even argue that an "unintended consequence" of the folk and country touches the Byrds introduced, undeniably a breath of fresh air in small doses, was to drain American rock of a little bit of its more sinister, blues and R&B derived edge. Good, bad, or indifferent depending on your point of view, but an issue to be confronted.

Edited June 10, 2004 by DrJ

[Guy Berger]

I also agree with comments about some (most?) of the Byrds albums sounding more like a few great singles held together with unmemorable filler. I don't think the majority or maybe any of the albums belong in anywhere near the same league as the best work of the Beach Boys, Dylan, Hendrix, Beatles, Stones, or Who (put any of their LPs alongside something like THE WHO SELL OUT and it's a no-contest victory for Mr. Townshend, for example).

I'd feel pretty comfortable putting Younger Than Yesterday and The Notorious Byrd Brothers head to head against almost any album from that era.

Guy

[A Lark Ascending]

The contrast between a great Byrds single like "Eight Miles High" and the Who's greatest for me, "I Can See For Miles," is instructive. Townshend and company still sound as though they are exploding out of my speakers, whilst the Byrds twitter (albeit pleasantly) in the background.

Which goes to show how much lies in perception.

I can enjoy odd Who songs ('Won't Get Fooled Again' is great) but as a whole they do little for me. The Who sound very much of 'Swinging London'.

Whereas those Byrds harmonies still sound fresh to me.

I think it's accurate to see those Byrds records as collections of individual tracks rather than coherent 'albums'. But The Byrds were at their peak before the idea of the album had really caught on. Those bitty albums were the norm in those days.

[Dave James]

IMO, The Byrds possessed one of the most unique and recognizable sounds in the history of R&R. Their vocal work certainly was a factor, but I always attributed it mostly to the 12 string guitar of Roger McQuinn.

I saw these guys twice. Once in their very earliest iteration (along with the Jefferson Airplane and a long forgotten SF aggregation called the PH Factor) and once late in their collective lives at my alma mater Lewis & Clark College. I really think they are terribly underrated.

Up over and out.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Dave James

[BruceH]

Perhaps this isn't the time or place to admit it, but I never got into The Byrds.

[Guy Berger]

The contrast between a great Byrds single like "Eight Miles High" and the Who's greatest for me, "I Can See For Miles," is instructive. Townshend and company still sound as though they are exploding out of my speakers, whilst the Byrds twitter (albeit pleasantly) in the background.

By the way, I think the comparison between these songs is really unfair. The Byrds tune is from early '66 and is pretty heavy/noisy for the time. The Who tune was recorded at least 18 months later. A lot happened during that time -- Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Blonde on Blonde, Cream and the Hendrix Experience. And the Byrds' recordings from late '67 reflect that, just as the Who Sell Out does.

Guy

[DrJ]

Well no offense was meant in my comparison, to each their own. But really Guy, while you may disagree, I hardly think my comparison can be considered "unfair."

Harder-edged rock 'n' roll, blues, and r&b had been around for years before the Byrds or any of the other artists I mention, after all. Maybe you were interpreting my comments about The Who to pertain only to the "loudness" or distortion on the guitars, but it's the whole package that determines edge and impact for me in rock. So people like Little Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis from 10 years or so earlier, well, their stuff still makes what the Byrds did look a little tame and even a little precious to me, even though there's no screaming guitars in those 50's tunes and the recordings were murkier (maybe it's even BECAUSE of those things). Yet the Who's best work holds up for me when placed alongside even those rock n roll greats. To each their own.

Don't also forget about less heralded (in terms of record sales) younger white artists who would have no doubt been well-known to hip musicians like the Byrds - e.g. Clapton and the Bluesbreakers - who had already crossed into much more sinister, edgy territory either at the same time as or even a little before the Byrds took flight.

So I don't think the Byrds sounded tamer simply because they didn't know about other options; rather they made some conscious choices, adopting a folkier (and later a country-inflected) aesthetic but implementing it with electric 12-string, and this resulted in a very distinctive sound and great influence.

But with 30+ years hindsight I'm not personally completely compelled by the bulk of their stuff - the sound is undeniably seductive and distinctive, but I can't say I feel they threw up more than a relatively small handful of truly great tunes. And I don't find personally that the Byrds' LPs have aged real well as albums that hold interest over 30-40 minutes. Yet I still enjoy their best tunes and their influence on the sound of pop and rock and roll that came after is undeniable - and that is to me their greatest legacy. Heck, groups like REM would probably have never even existed if it weren't for the Byrds, and McGuinn's influence lives on (exemplified by stuff like "Fifty Years After the Fair" on Aimee Mann's WHATEVER album, on which he plays 12 string).

Edited June 11, 2004 by DrJ

[A Lark Ascending]

I can see your point DrJ and you express perfectly why The Who appeal to you more than The Byrds.

But I think that you are continuing a fallacy of rock music when you refer to them as 'tame'. The 'official' history of rock values the ragged and raucous in rock over the melodic and reflective. I've always felt that's little more than received opinion, probably encouraged by rock critics who idolise their (I suspect frequently mythical) wilder youth and find it hard to leave behind.

There is another world of rock typified by The Byrds, Joni Mitchell, CSN&Y, Nick Drake, Fairport Convention etc that is equally valid. Now if it's that side that draws you most...and I fall into that category...then the deification of the 'bad boy' side of rock makes little sense.

Of course many (most?) rock drew from both sides.

I'd argue that they both have their value and preferences to either side will vary according to the listener.

As a consequence a listener with a preference for one side is going to hear lasting value in that side; the other side will seem to have lost its lustre.

[i tend to feel that the appeal of the rougher side of rock is not because it is more 'real'; more because it allows the largely law-abiding listening public to indulge in some frission that they wouldn't go near in real life.]

[danasgoodstuff]

Bev,

In principle, I couldn't agree more that the hard/wild/raw/etc = good/'bad' equation is in need of questioning, if not outright fallacious. Some critics think so too, e.g. Dave Marsh, at least insofar as it applies to his liking for doo wop and girl groups. In practise, I find the Byrds to be 3 (pre-, Gram, post-) kinda interesting bands that don't quite add up. I've never owned a non-hits album, except Sweetheart, and don't have any great desire to - trolling through the library's copy of the box pretty much satisfied my curiousity. Love the hit singles (Marsh hates "So You Want to be a R 'n R Star" but that's his hangup), Dylan covers, and Miles' cover of "guinivere" but overall "precious" pretty much sums up my feelings (which is what it comes down to) about all eras. Townsend on the other hand was more deeply funcked up (don't we know now, and how could anyone have missed it?) in a way that translated into compelling music, not necessarily most so when at it's hardest (I love Sell Out, particularly "Tattoo"). That and they were more of a band (the original 4) whereas the Byrds (& CSNY & so many others) strike me as a bunch of wouldbe solo artists temporarily alligned in a marriage of convenience. Nonetheless, IN PRINCIPLE, you're right...

Edited June 11, 2004 by danasgoodstuff

[GregK]

and Miles' cover of "guinivere"

Guinnevere was actually a CSN tune written and recorded a year or two after crosby was kicked out of the Byrds

[A Lark Ascending]

danasgoodstuff,

I'd still say it's down to the alignment of your antennae.

I understand the energy rush people get (got?) from 'The Who'. But I always found them a bit black and white in musical terms. Now I accept that ws probably the point - the no frills, reduced down to the bone approach, focussing in on the buzz. They rarely stray far from the rock/blues model. (You'll not be surprised that I've never really cared for the Velvet Underground!),

But there's another way of hearing music. For me it's always been nice key changes, rich timbres and harmonies, breadth of instrumentation that has appealed most. A sense of going somewhere else.

Which is why 'The Byrds' appeal to me more. Yes, there are clinkers on their albums and after 'Sweetheart of the Rodeo' I'm only really taken by a few tracks here and there. If anything there's too much ordinary rock from that point on.

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other. I think they were just approaching music rather differently and will inevitably draw different supporters.

Neil Young's an interesting point. He tried to do both! Sometimes on alternate albums, sometimes on the same album.

In the end I'm happy that the 60s left us such a rich legacy of music that could encompass both approaches.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[Guy Berger]

I understand the energy rush people get (got?) from 'The Who'. But I always found them a bit black and white in musical terms. Now I accept that ws probably the point - the no frills, reduced down to the bone approach, focussing in on the buzz. They rarely stray far from the rock/blues model. (You'll not be surprised that I've never really cared for the Velvet Underground!),

But there's another way of hearing music. For me it's always been nice key changes, rich timbres and harmonies, breadth of instrumentation that has appealed most. A sense of going somewhere else.

Bev,

Maybe you should give The Who Sell Out another chance, because it definitely fits the description you give here.

Guy

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm probably talking through my socks on The Who as the only two whole albums I've ever listened to are 'Who's Next' and 'Tommy'. I've tended to hear them in individual tracks.

[GregK]

I'm pretty impressed with the treatment of both Byrds and Who catalogs. The reissues have great sound, interesting outtakes and liner notes and are pretty low-priced (I finished my Byrds catalog for $11.99 each)

[danasgoodstuff]

GregK - um, yer right of course.

Bev - The 'oo do, of course, have their 'power trio + singer' side, but they also have a side much closer to mid-period Kinks or Ogdens-periods Small Faces. And both they and the VU insisted on singing harmony (albiet ragged) at a time when many white rock bands were dispensing with it entirely, or more nearly so. VU could be loud/raw and rather monochromatic, but not always, and even then they were hardly typical hard rockers, at one point you could be fined for playing any blues-based cliches in that band. Not to say YOU WULL LIKE THEM, just something to consider...

Clem - OK, Gene Clark, I'll have to check him out further, preferably w/out spending any $! And what did Dave Marsh do to anger you? He is, among other things, a huge fan of Stax in general and Sam & Dave in particular...

Edited June 15, 2004 by danasgoodstuff

[DrJ]

Bev, I think more than the whole bad boy/good boy dichotomy, it boils down to rock for me needing to have what I'd call for lack of a better way of putting it "an edge." To me it's a defining aspect of the music. You can have good stuff without it, still music, but I can't really call it rock then.

Now that might be an edge of lawlessness or even anarchy, but it can also be a deep, nagging, unmet emotional need or disturbing/unreconciled feeling that the artist expresses - not necessarily in over-the-top fashion, but something that is simmering just below (and sometimes just above) the surface.

So in your list of artists who don't fit the "bad boy" mold, I'd take the example of Joni Mitchell. At her best (e.g. BLUE, HEJIRA, a few glorious moments scattered within the piecemeal DON JUAN'S RECKLESS DAUGHTER, NIGHT RIDE HOME) her work expresses a deep, deep sense of longing and unfulfilled potential and purpose. I think this applies too to what I'm familiar with from Fairport Convention, and DEFINITELY Nick Drake, and the best of CSN&Y.

Taking CSN&Y as another example, the "edge" principle exemplifies for me perfectly why the first album worked out so well but the after that their recordings were spotty and inconsistent. Their "edge" boiled down to a sense of commitment to the work on the first album - and by contrast, you can almost hear the ambivalence among group members on their 2nd album, the lack of conviction that each seems to have about the other's whole approach and take on the world. For some groups, that inner tension would work, but it didn't really work for me with CSN&Y. So the second album is still a fun listen BECAUSE it's so spotty and multifaceted, but for me nothing on it approaches the level of "Wooden Ships" or "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes."

So back to the Byrds, by my read, the few true classics have that "edge" but much of the rest lacks it. Just my take on it, and I totally appreciate and understand your (equally valid) alternative viewpoint.

Edited June 15, 2004 by DrJ

[A Lark Ascending]

Funny, because I don't hear much 'edge' on the first CSN album. There's much more, to my ears, on 'Deja-Vu', a far less perfect record.

I do understand what you mean by the edge lying inside Joni Mitchell's music even if it might seem to be quite smooth on the surface. I suppose 'edge' is something I like in music some of the time but it doesn't have to be there all the time.

Cloying sweetness all of the time I too find pretty unpalatable.

But I don't feel a lack of edge to necessarily mean that music is deficient. And I think a fair bit of 'edge' in rock music is cosmetic.

What I look for is ambiguity, asymmetry.

This is quite interesting as it may explain the often extreme differences of view on ECM recordings. To those raised on the jazz mainstream ECMs output is often lambasted for its lack of 'balls'. Yet I've always been a great supporter of ECM. Its recording may not have the energetic 'edge' of Mingus or Roland Kirk; but in a quiet way they move in an ambiguous, asymmetrical world that has the same impact of defying expectations.

[jazzypaul]

(You'll not be surprised that I've never really cared for the Velvet Underground!)

HEATHEN!!!!!

[A Lark Ascending]

(You'll not be surprised that I've never really cared for the Velvet Underground!)

HEATHEN!!!!!

Yup!

[GregK]

How did this thread turn into a Byrds vs. anyone else from the 60s debate? Anyway, back to the Byrds: Fifth Dimension is their absolute classic, especially the remaster, as it adds fascinating alternate takes of 8 miles high (with cleaner, less distortion on the guitar but also simpler drumming) , Why, and particularly a much faster, looser, even jazzier version of John Riley. Beginning to end this is their strongest album(although I still find myself returning to Easy Rider more often than any other)-8 miles high still, after 40 years, sounds fresh and original; why didn't McGuinn play more of that great guitar as the years went by? I also like Crosby's best Byrds tune, What's Happening, and one of the bonus tunes is another great Crosby one, Psychodrama City, with some fantastic melodic bass.

Edited June 15, 2004 by GregK

[A Lark Ascending]

How did this thread turn into a Byrds vs. anyone else from the 60s debate?

That's what happens in pub discussions - even cyber-pub discussions.

I actuallly think all of the six CD reissues are made stronger by the systematic attachment of contemporary singles, even if some are versions of the same song.

[GregK]

Which Gene Clark should I get? A local shop has the one called Echoes (the green cover), for $9.99, and very expensive import (I forget the name, but it's a brown cover, I believe it is a compilation, 2 discs), for $35.99, and they also have White Light. Any suggestions? I'm buying one tomorrow, I just can't decide which

[kenny weir]

White Light - actually, that's just a common usage name for an album that is rightfully called simply Gene Clark - is a beauty. It's a great place to start, although I can't name the other two on the info you have given. A double disc compilation might be a good way to go, depending ...

[GregK]

Sorry, I checked the 2-disc comp is called Flying High