18. The Leaves: Hey Joe
The Leaves, from Los Angeles, were one of the first L.A. folk/rock bands to form in the wake of the Byrds, and had a considerably edgier sound, closer to their spiritual cousins, Love. Like the Byrds and Love, they borrowed much from the British Invasion to flesh out their sound, the Beatles and Stones in particular. They also get credit for releasing the first rock version of "Hey Joe" in 1966, which the Byrds would cover almost simultaneously, and Jimi Hendrix would cover on his debut Are Your Experienced? the following year. "Hey Joe" in this incarnation is very different from the slower, bluesier Hendrix version; here, it's all kinetic energy, with an abrasive and manic lead guitar and hollered punk vocals, with a psychedelic coda. It peaked nationally at #31; the Leaves' debut album reached #127. A second album, All the Good That's Happening, was released in 1967 but failed to find an audience; the band broke up shortly after.
19: Mouse And The Traps: A Public Execution
"A Public Execution" is either one of the baldest, most audacious Dylan rips in history, or one of the funniest satires ever. Ronnie Weiss' nasal delivery and phrasing is a studiously accurate Dylan portrayal, and the song's organ riffs and guitar licks are barely-disguised rewrites of the organ and guitar licks from "Like A Rolling Stone". Formed in Tyler, TX in 1965, the non-charting "A Public Execution" remains their most well-known song, although they cut a number of solid non-Dylanesque garage rockers, including one under the name Positively 13 O'Clock. Notable for performing mainly originals and displaying a fairly good pop sense, they never did get to make a full album, although in 1982 an album was cobbled together from their singles and other odds and ends. The band broke up in 1969, still unknowns.
20. The Nightcrawlers: The Little Black Egg
Garage bands are usually flash-in-the-pans, coming up with a lucky single that thrusts them in the limelight for a couple of months before obscurity quickly returns. The Nightcrawlers' experience with "Little Black Egg" was different; having one of the most peculiar chart histories of any garage band single, it was recorded and released in 1965 and took two years to break nationally, on its third issue, after spreading slowly from one regional market to the next. When it finally got its national exposure, it stalled, peaking at #85. The Nightcrawlers formed in Daytona Beach, FL in 1964 and were contemporaries with garage band favorites the Birdwatchers and We the People in Florida. Charlie Conlon was the band's original leader and visionary; their sound was a folk-rock that was sweeter than the Leaves but tougher than the Beau Brummels. "The Little Black Egg" boasts strange, childlike lyrics about wanting to keep a little rotten egg that come across as either absurd or sociopathic, depending on how you listen. Conlon quit the group in 1966, before "The Little Black Egg" could complete its slow odyssey to the national chart. Versions of the Nightcrawlers existed through 1970, but never made an impact again.
Article comments
1 - The Proprietor
The Standells reunited for a live show in 1999 (with Dodd, Valentino and Tamblyn; Gary Lane didn't participate) released as "Ban This! Live From Cavestomp".
The definitive Remains recording was the Capitol audition, which was released as "A Session With The Remains" by Sundazed a few years back. It's an especially fierce recording (their original "Why Do I Cry" is much more powerful than on the Epic LP).
2 - Victor Plenty
Excellent work as always, uao. Interesting mix of stuff almost everybody knows about ("Louie Louie" for example) right alongside songs many of us may never have heard of.
One minor quibble on your title: I'd recommend taking out the apostrophe. It makes the construction look like a possessive, rather than a plural; garage rock belonging to 1960, rather than garage rock from the entire decade of the Sixties.
Also interesting that "96 Tears" came from such obscure origins. The local "classic rock" station plays it all the time. For some reason I'd always assumed it was from a more well-known band with lots of other hits.
3 - uao
Thank you Proprietor, for your ever-useful nuggets of knowledge; I always appreciate them.
Victor Plenty: as an English language instructor, I'm sensitive to apostrophes. However, I've been taught that in addition to denoting a passive, they can also be used when puralizing a specific number: 1960's vs. 1960s. Maybe I'm wrong; I'm too lazy to fish out my Elements of Style right now. But I'll sleep on it, and if the title bugs me in the moring, I'll change it.
Thanks ;-)
4 - uao
I meant "possessive" not "passive" I am a famously lousy typist.
5 - Victor Plenty
It can be equally correct to pluralize a number with an apostrophe, or with just a plain S. You are of course quite right about that, as a general rule. In this specific case, it's the context that makes the construction seem possessive and not plural.
If the title had been "Garage Rock of the 1960's" it would be clear you intended the plural, with or without the apostrophe.
Of course the larger cultural context makes it unlikely any native English speaker would interpret "1960's Garage Rock" as a reference to only the year 1960, but for the benefit of any readers who might not share that cultural context, it would be more clear to leave the apostrophe out.
As I said before, it's a minor quibble, but I at least wanted to make it a clearly stated quibble. :)
6 - uao
For me it's like talking shop, I like it. Your point is a good one, given the wording of the title. You've convinced me; I've reworded it.
7 - godoggo
Where are the chick's?
8 - godoggo
Correction: Wheres.
9 - Michael J. West
Awesome list, UAO! Thanks for linking to the Essential Pebbles collection, too--in any era, that awesome CD is as indie (and as freakin' great) as it gets.
10 - godoggo
Just out of curiosity, I googled both names for the decade in the NY Times, figuring they'd have it standardized. Apparently I figured wrong.
Results:
about 24,200 from nytimes.com for "1960's"
about 23,400 from nytimes.com for "1960s"
A lot (not all) of the latter are from book etc. titles, so I guess the apostrophe wins. But I don't like it, myself.
11 - GoHah
Great article. Maybe this group is more borderline Garage (since they evolved into different directions), but I think the biggest amphetimine-jolt of that time comes from Love's "7 and 7 Is"--that'll give you chills.
Oh, I think the decades are supposed to be written apostrophe-free (but spoken with the apostrophe left in).
12 - wum
Good article, look forward to part 2.
13 - Grammar Cop
Apostrophes never make something plural. 1960s is correct.
14 - JC Mosquito
1960s is indeed correct, but doesn't look as psychedelic as 1960's.
15 - Dr Dreadful
1960s is correct.
1960's is incorrect.
You will not use it.
You will be assimilated.
16 - Christopher Rose
This 3 year old article has been corrected, thanks Grammar Cop.
Resistance is futile.
17 - Dick Stewart
And always keep in mind that:
'60s refers to the years of the 1960s
60's refers to temperature
Dick Stewart
Editor - The Lance Monthly