In the studio, they would have had a hard time if it hadn't been for producer Terry Melcher. My 3-corner hat is off to Terry for making brilliant records on these guys, with great songs written by the best in the Brill Building. I'd agree that guitarist Drake Levin was a rock pioneer, but he & the rest of the band quit in 1967, leaving just Paul & Mark. Terry used The Wrecking Crew on their records.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Paul Revere Dies of Cancer at 76
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
In the studio, they would have had a hard time if it hadn't been for producer Terry Melcher. My 3-corner hat is off to Terry for making brilliant records on these guys, with great songs written by the best in the Brill Building. I'd agree that guitarist Drake Levin was a rock pioneer, but he & the rest of the band quit in 1967, leaving just Paul & Mark. Terry used The Wrecking Crew on their records.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
So? Where would the Beatles have been without George Martin? Where would the Doors have been without Paul A. Rothchild? Derek and the Dominos without Tom Dowd? Lynyrd Skynyrd without Al Kooper?
And so what if they used the Wrecking Crew in the studio? Most bands of that era used the Wrecking Crew, sometimes for basic tracks and sometimes as the only musicians on the album. Solo artists didn't have much choice. Brian Wilson used them for all the Beach Boys' records because the rest of the band was on tour, and only came into the studio to lay down vocal tracks. Big freakin' deal!
What matters is the finished product. The finished product that had the name "Paul Revere & the Raiders" stamped on it was significant in moving American rock and pop music into a harder, more from-the-gut level. The were a rung on the ladder. A very important rung.
Look, I'm not here to say anything bad about their records...they were well-crafted pop music. But I wouldn't raise them to the level of Beatles, Brian Wilson, or the Doors. Those guys wrote their own songs. PR&R didn't write their songs, and they weren't really rock music. They were rock music the way Michael W. Smith is rock music. They were safe rock music, the kind of rock music that mama would approve, the kind of rock music that made it into Tiger Beat every week. In the history of rock music, they are one step above The Monkees, who also were safe, comfortable, well-crafted pop, who benefited from a hit TV show. But I give most of the credit to the producer and the hall of fame songwriters. Those songs would have been hits for anyone.
I am not trying to be a wise ass with this question but are you saying that true rock must be edgy or out of bounds to be considered "real" rock? I don't consider that to be true and I am pretty sure most other "regular" people don't either. The guys in the biz might consider a bad boy image to be necessary to get the publicity for a successful career. As an example the "anti Beatles", The Rolling Stones, debuted as offensive bad boys (comparatively) but then toned it down and released some pretty tame stuff. And their longevity is amazing.
I've asked rock stars that question, and their view is yes. That's what makes music rock. Otherwise it's Pat Boone. When you go back to the foundation of rock & roll, it was closer to R&B than pop. Louie Louie was rock. And yes I know PRR covered Louie Louie, but they didn't have the hit with it. And I think it was because no one believed them.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
That's a common misconception from those who know little about rock, or who are talking to insecure rockers who create a narrow definition that fits them. You don't have to write your own songs to be a rocker. Roger Daltrey is most certainly a rocker, but he didn't write his own songs. He sang the ones Pete Townsend wrote. Same with Robert Plant, who sang the songs Jimmie Page plagiarized from old blues artists. Search for "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" on Youtube to find the much earlier version that Joan Baez sang, and the slightly newer version that The Association did before Led Zep covered it.
And Paul Revere and the Raiders did move the bar during their early years. Yes, there stuff was tame compared to what came after it, but it was rough compared to what came before it. Some people just cannot accept the concept that the pioneers who took the early steps were just as much pioneers as the ones who came along later.
Did someone say that you did? Maybe I missed that.
I can't believe we're discussing Paul Revere & the Raiders as pioneers. That gives a bad name to real pioneers. They didn't move the bar one bit. Their producer's mom is Doris Day, for God's sake! They were a cute pop band with a cute lead singer that sang well written songs recorded by great musicians on a major label. Nothing wrong with any of that, but they weren't pioneers any more than Justin Bieber is a pioneer. And by the way, I know people who think he is! Must be the tattoos.
Last edited:
Hell with Pioneer...all of my high fidelity gear gathering dust is Technics brand by Panasonic.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
And Brian Wilson's dad released an album of syrupy treacle in the 50's. So what? What in hell does what anyone's parents did for a living have to do with anything?
My interest in Pop music began to wane about 1965, so I didn't follow the music very closely after that. But it seems to me that the Beatles and the Stones were the "pioneers". Most bands in the mid '60s tried to pattern themselves after one of those two bands. Gary Puckett, the Searchers, Freddie & the Dreamers, Gerry & the Pacemakers, etc took the Beatles route. The Shadows Of Night, The Zombies, the Yardbirds and Paul Revere took the Stones route.
One's heritage and influences tend to have a strong bearing on current and future actions and attitudes.
“The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” - Winston Churchill.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Maybe it seems that way. The truth is most, but not all, of the bands you named were contemporaries of the Beatles and the Stones. Most or all of them patterned themselves after the same earlier influences that made the Beatles and the Stones what they were. Gerry & the Pacemakers were playing gigs at the cavern at the same time as the Beatles. The Yardbirds were copying old American blues artists, the same as the Stones were. Paul Revere and the Raiders did, at first, emulate all of the British Invasion bands, who were themselves emulating American R&B acts, as well as early American rock & roll and country. Listen to the Beatles' early harmonies and tell me John and Paul didn't study the Everly Brothers! Look at the cover songs the Beatles did on their early albums. But Paul Revere and the Raiders took the British Invasion sound, just as American bands like the Buckinghams, the Knickerbockers, and other did, and overlayed a rougher, R&B edge. That was a small innovation perhaps, but it was an innovation -- a pioneering innovation.
I guess I'm just not understanding how "Kicks" differs from "Satisfaction".
Wow. Have you read the lyrics? Satisfaction is the ultimate anti-establishment protest song. Kicks is Nancy Reagan saying "Just Say No."
A
Avid Listener
Guest
No, you aren't understanding it.
I find myself between a rock and a hard place on this. "Kicks" and "Satisfaction" are from the same genre of music. There are some similarities. There are some serious differences. For one thing, Mark Lindsay could actually sing. For another, on "Kicks" there are harmonies on the vocals. Both songs have strong, raw riffs, but the bass lines are very different. And, the riff for "Kicks" is much more complex. I mean, almost anything is more complex that then the three-note riff to "Satisfaction". "Kicks" has a much more complex chord pattern. "Satisfaction" is basic, two-chords and a cloud of dust, though there is one B7 as a one-time third chord.
In other threads, I've mentioned that if one song goes over well on a radio station that plays vintage music, then songs that sound similar should also work. In this case, "Kick" is similar enough to "Satisfaction" to illustrate that point. But "similar" doesn't mean "identical".
It would help if you'd get out your own guitar and play both songs. You'd see the differences in a New York minute.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Ultimate? He's kvetching about cigarette commercials.
He kvetching about society in general.
Keith Richards was asked recently what was the very first song he ever wrote. He answered "As Tears Go By" in 1965. That was the same year he & Mick wrote Satisfaction. So those are two very early examples of their writing. Kicks was written by Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil, two extremely established New York songwriters, who also wrote "We Gotta Get Outta This Place" for The Animals and "Somewhere Out There" for Linda Ronstadt & James Ingram. They also wrote "Hungry" for PR&R.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
I don't give a damn what he was kvetching about, it certainly wasn't the "ultimate" anti-establishment protest song. I mean, hyperbole is one thing but that sort of exaggeration is just stupid. As for who wrote what and when, so what? As I said earlier, it's the finished product that matters, not how many people were involved, nor who the people were.
Speaking of which, you're arguing about one word, while ignoring the overall issue. The difference between those two songs is obvious. If you don't understand, you're not listening.
So this qualifies Paul Revere as a "pioneer"?
Last edited:
- Status