Sunday Morning Playlist: Garage Rock of the 1960s - Page 9

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

16. The Barbarians: Hey Little Bird
The Barbarians: Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl? (1965)
The Barbarians, from Massachusetts, were known for having longer hair than anyone in 1964 and having an in-your-face punky image; their best known singles, "Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl" and "What The New Breed Say" are championed by some aficianados as the very first punk singles ever; delivered with contempt over aggressive, simplistic fuzz guitar. They are also remembered for their drummer Moulty (left, on the album jacket), who had a hook for a hand. Moulty reflected on his lost hand in one of the oddest records in garagedom, "Moulty", which features a soliloquy from Moulty on the ins and outs of life with one hand, while the band plays a classic garage band chorus before breaking into an uplifting, purely joyous chorus of "Dont Turn Away!"; on that recording the Barbarians are absent, replaced by The Hawks (later The Band). All three are garage band highlights, but the Barbarian's toughest number may be their raw first single, "Hey Little Bird", from 1964, which rocks like the Kinks, and features possibly the earliest fuzz guitar lead ever on record. The Barbarians broke up in 1966; two of them later turned up in the west-coast acid rock band, Black Pearl.

17. Fenwyck: Mindrocker
Various Artists: Turned Into A Helium Balloon (1995)
Fenwyck was largely the project of singer/guitarist Pat Robinson and a revolving cast of members. Robinson had gotten his start at the age of 15 backing Johnny Burnette; after spending a few years working on his own music, he landed a deal with Four Star Productions for whom he assembled Fenwyk. Musically Fenwyck's best known song, "Mindrocker" is an airy Summer of Love piece of sunshine pop, sounding like the Association with a fuzz guitar. That might not sound like everyone's cup of tea, but the song is winning in its studiocraft and naive optimism; its breezy melody and overall good vibe recalls the Mamas and Papas and Scott McKenzie as well. The single went nowhere, however, and Robinson moved on, forming Back Pocket, a country group, and finding success as a country songwriter and producer. "Mindrocker" isn't exactly "garage rock", since the studio played a large part in its sound. But it is usually included on garage rock anthologies, sharing with garage rock obscurity and as sense of time and place. It never charted.

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