Sunday Morning Playlist: Garage Rock of the 1960s - Page 4

Part of: Sunday Morning Playlist
Author: uaoPublished: Nov 20, 2005 at 2:11 pm 16 comments

3. The Standells: Try It
The Standells: try It (1967)
Despite the claims of their big 1966 national hit, "Dirty Water", Boston was not home to the Standells, a group of Hollywood hustlers who managed a cameo in an episode of The Munsters early into their career. The singer, Dick Dodd was an ex-Mouseketeer, Larry Tamblyn, on organ, was brother of actor Russ. Meeting Ed Cobb, a former member of the Four Preps who became their manager (and manager of labelmates and rivals Chocolate Watchband), changed them into punks, which is why they've always qualified as "garage rock". "Dirty Water" (written by Cobb, leaving his clean-cut past behind) had an attitude, a snarl, and a bold fuzz guitar lead, which pretty much describes all of their subsequent work; "Sometimes Good Guys Don't Wear White" was their second biggest hit, a cowbell-and-guitar driven rocker that peaked at #43. "Try It", from 1967 was their most notorious; a super fuzzydelicized endorsement of drugs and sex, it was banned from the airwaves. In 1968, Dodd left the always-unstable lineup and although versions of the band survived into 1970, it never recorded again.

4. ? And The Mysterians: 96 Tears
? and the Mysterians: 96 Tears (1966)
? and the Mysterians were a band of mostly displaced Tex-Mex members, who grew up near Saginaw, MI, and formed the band in 1962. ? (Rudy Martinez, whose name was legally changed to "?") was a freaky frontman for his day; brash, given to ridiculous pronouncements, claiming to be from Mars, never without his wraparound sunglasses, snarly and surly. His band displayed some of their Tex-Mex roots, but picked up a rootsy rock sound as well, which they spiced up with a rinky dink Vox organ (often mistaken for a Farfisa). "96 Tears", from 1966, is instantly recognizable for its swirlying hockey-rink organ and ?'s mean Mick Jagger styled vocals. It was originally released on local Pa-Go-Go records and did so well in the Detroit-Flint regional market, it was picked up by the much larger Cameo-Parkway label from Philadelphia; it made it all the way to #1, garage rock's biggest triumph. The follow-up singles, "I Need Somebody" and "Can't Get Enough Of You baby" failed to repeat this success, and after some lineup changes and label changes the band broke up in 1969. Following their rediscovery, the band has reunited numerous times over the years, even releasing a couple of records in the 90's.

Continued on the next page Page 1Page 2Page 3 — Page 4 — Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for uao

Article Author: uao

uao isn't my real name.

Visit uao's author pageuao's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

  • 1 - The Proprietor

    Nov 20, 2005 at 5:52 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 6:54 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 7:21 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    I meant "possessive" not "passive" I am a famously lousy typist.

  • 5 - Victor Plenty

    Nov 20, 2005 at 7:38 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 7:48 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 8:02 pm

    Where are the chick's?

  • 8 - godoggo

    Nov 20, 2005 at 8:32 pm

    Correction: Wheres.

  • 9 - Michael J. West

    Nov 20, 2005 at 8:47 pm

    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

    Nov 20, 2005 at 11:18 pm

    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

    Nov 21, 2005 at 12:01 am

    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

    Nov 23, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    Good article, look forward to part 2.

  • 13 - Grammar Cop

    May 22, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    Apostrophes never make something plural. 1960s is correct.

  • 14 - JC Mosquito

    May 23, 2008 at 1:11 am

    1960s is indeed correct, but doesn't look as psychedelic as 1960's.

  • 15 - Dr Dreadful

    May 23, 2008 at 2:15 am

    1960s is correct.

    1960's is incorrect.

    You will not use it.

    You will be assimilated.

  • 16 - Christopher Rose

    May 23, 2008 at 5:55 am

    This 3 year old article has been corrected, thanks Grammar Cop.

    Resistance is futile.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 09, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs