5. The Sonics: Strychnine
If one really wanted to trace the origins of grunge, one could go back a lot farther than the obvious late 70's punk and metal influences. Grunge may well have begun in 1965 when the Tacoma, WA-based Sonics released the fuzzy and noisy Here Are The Sonics. They mixed raunchy fuzzed r&b elements with Kinksian power chords; they were set apart from other similar bands by inclusion of a saxophone and piano, which added to the joyous cacophony. Singer/pianist/organist Gerry Roslie was a shouter; guitarist Andy Parypa specialized in biting, distorted semi-surf-influenced leads. "Strychnine" is the best of many good cuts from them, notable in its endorsement of taking poison for kicks. Never able to break beyond their region, where they were heroes, they broke up in 1966 after 3 albums; versions of the Sonics have reformed several times since their rediscovery, releasing a few more albums along the way.
6. Syndicate Of Sound: Little Girl
Syndicate of Sound, from San Jose, CA, was something of a garage rock "supergroup", including members of The Pharoahs and Lenny Lee and the Knightmen. "Little Girl", from 1966, was the second single they commited to wax, the only one for Hush records. Gaining airplay in the San Francisco Bay area, the band was signed by Bell Records from New York, who re-released it along with an accompanying album. An intensive tour coupled with two good TV appearances, one on American Bandstand, turned "Little Girl" into a #8 national hit. Opening with a chiming guitar from Larry Ray (who was pushed out of the band before they recorded their album in New York), it settles into a galloping rhythm colored by folk/rock guitar with psychedelic flourishes and Don Baskin's growling, suggestive vocal. Syndicate Of Sound's lone 1966 album, which sold weakly, is a solidly eclectic collection leaning towards fuzzed up r&b and psychedelicized folk rock. Versions of the band continued to release singles through 1970, but only "Rumors", the follow-up to "Little Girl" charted, at #55.
7. We The People: In The Past
A reassemblage of members of Orlando, FL groups the Trademarks, the Offbeets, and the Nonchalants, We The People came up with one of the most shiny, glittery, precious raga-rock creations ever recorded, "In The Past", from 1967. Boasting two good songwriters, Tommy Talton and Wayne Proctor, the band actually came up with a number of good singles, including "My Brother The Man", "Mirror of Your Mind", and "You Burn Me Up and Down", all hard rockers. "In The Past" stands apart from the others with its baroque psychedelic guitars and nervous energy; it was also covered by The Chocolate Watchband in 1967. None of We The People's singles charted nationally, although for awhile they seemed destined for national attention. Ultimately, Proctor, who wrote "In The Past", left the group shortly after; Talton and the band soldiered on through 1968 but the project fizzled. Talton would ultimately turn up in the early 70's Southern rock band, Cowboy.
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