13. The Brogues: I Ain't No Miracle Worker
![The Brogues: Someday + 3 [EP] (1996)](http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/7453/broguesep1lj.jpg)
The Brogues are perhaps the most minor group of all time to merit a rock footnote on the basis of their records. A long-haired r&b quartet from Merced, CA, they formed in 1964 and quickly gained a devoted local following at their gigs; their first single, "Someday", written by guitarist Eddie Rodrigues, was released on the tiny Twilight label; the single was good enough to be picked up by the larger California indie label Challenge, where it became a 1965 hit in Fresno, Bakersfield, and Stockton. The Brogues added a new member before recording their next single, "I Ain't No Miracle Worker", one Gary Grubb (aka Gary Cole, aka Gary Duncan), whose hipster/punk attitude and vaguely Eric Burdon-esque vocals gave the band a focal point. The song, plucked almost randomly from a slush pile of demos, is a mainline garage-punk classic, with an icily-biting distorted lead guitar, moderate-heavy organ, and Grubb's roaring tension-and-release vocal. The Chocolate Watchband covered it later on The Inner Mystique in 1967 and gave it a similarly harrowing treatment. The single went nowhere, but the band continued to accumulate fans; unfortunately, things came to an abrupt end when Rodrigues and organist/bassist Rick Campbell were drafted into the army only 9 months after the band was launched; they never got to record an album. Grubb changed his name (back?) to Gary Duncan and along with Brogues' drummer Greg Ellmore, went on to form Quicksilver Messenger Service.
14. The Music Machine: Talk Talk
The Music Machine was a Los Angeles psychedelic-punk band that specialized in minor-key guitar and Farfisa organ. "Talk Talk" is 1:56 of Rolling Stones style r&b swagger, with menacing lead singer Sean Bonniwell supplying a pissed-off litany of complaints and a swirling, edgy, bad-buzz psychedlia in the playing. The single peaked at #15 in 1967, and the album attained a respectable #76, but the band imploded. By the time they recorded their second album in 1968, Bonniwell's Music Machine, only Sean Bonniwell remained from the debut. The second album displayed none of the inspired dark psychedelia, reminiscent of Love, that their first one did. Bonniwell, a talented musician, managed to release a single solo album in 1969, Close, credited to T.S. Bonniwell.
15. Barry & The Remains: Don't Look Back
Barry & the Remains, from Boston, copped the gig of a garage band's dreams when they opened for the Beatles during their final American tour in 1966. The band was signed to Epic, a major label, and had a professional sounding soul, r&b, and British Invasion flavored single with a gospel-blues break in the middle in "Don't Look Back"; their sound was guitar-based but fleshed out with electric keyboards, Barry Tashian had a Jaggeresque style but wasn't a clone, the overall effect was like a cross between The Zombies and The Yardbirds. Despite having one of the most confident and cleanest sounding garage rock records, the band inexplicably failed to chart, despite four singles of similar, professional quality and a fine 1966 album. Frustrated by their lack of success, the band split at the end of 1966. Drummer N.D. Smart would later work with Gram Parsons; Barry Tashian has led a low-key career as a Nashville-based singer/guitarist.
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.