The 'psychedelic horsesh*t' was plenty fine by me. Unless Ertegun was being humorous, why trash what others like and what you sell just to support somebody else that you like? Is it not possible to like both the Band and all that great 'psychedelic horsesh*t'? I loved the first 2 Band albums, but I listen to all those others a lot more.
Woodstock 1969, or 1967?
In 1967, as The Beatles, The Stones, The Grateful Dead, The Jefferson Airplane, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Pink Floyd, Cream, and the rest of their ilk were peddling their "psychedelic horsesh*t"---as Atlantic Records president Ahmet Ertegun characterized Disraeli Gears after he listened to the acetate Cream had given him of their new album---to the exploding Rock music audience, there was an unheard music revolution simmering underground in Woodstock and nearby West Saugerties.
Bob Dylan and The Hawks spend all of 1967 getting together in a pink house on a 100 acre lot in West Saugerties, making music in the basement of the house. Hawks organist Garth Hudson set up some mics, plugged them into a Uher reel-to-reel tape recorder, and Dylan and the quartet (Hawks drummer Levon Helm left the 5-pc---heh---band in 1965, not at all caring to perform for the booing audiences they encountered on the Dylan world tour, for which Dylan had hired the Hawks. Helm was replaced by the drummer who had been working in Johnny Rivers’ band. When the second leg of the 1966 tour was cancelled, the drummer returned to work in the Los Angeles recording studios.).
The recordings Dylan and The Hawks made of course became known as The Basement Tapes, and they were in essence the seeds planted for the music that Dylan and The Hawks soon harvested on their own separate albums. Dylan recorded and in December of 1967 released John Wesley Harding, an album of music about as far from psychedelia as you can get. His previous 1966 album had been the amphetamine-fueled Blonde On Blonde, which absolutely bristled with kinetic energy. JWH was the opposite of BOB, in terms of both music and lyrics. He had been instrumental in creating the Counter Culture, and just as it was taking over the world of the younger generation, he turned his back on it.
Dylan’s manager Albert Grossman negotiated a record deal for The Hawks (they were contemplating a name change; suggestions were The Honkies, The Crackers, both of which were rejected 
). All through 1967 Hawks pianist Richard Manuel had been learning to play the drumset Dylan brought into the basement, Levon Helm still absent from the band. Helm had worked on an oil rig in the Gulf Of Mexico, then relocated to Los Angeles where he became part of the local music scene (Leon Russell, Delaney & Bonnie, etc.), giving drum lessons to make money (one of his students became the drummer in Linda Ronstadt’s first backing band.).
Richard Manuel was a fast study (in that year of ’67 he developed his own unique and wonderful style of drumming. He plays drums on half the songs on The Band’s second album), but The Hawks would of course need a full-time drummer. Hawks bassist Rick Danko gave Levon a call, informing him of the offer from Capitol Records of a million bucks. Levon jumped into his Corvette and drove straight to West Saugerties, and moved into the pink house.
The Hawks became The Band with the release of their debut album, Music From Big Pink. To say it caused quite a stir is a gross understatement (George Harrison characterized them as "the best band in the history of the universe"). That album and it’s follow up, the self-titled "brown" album, changed the course of Rock music. But that course was one not followed by all, in both terms of musicians/bands/songwriters/etc. and the audience. Led Zeppelin is the band that really took over the world, and they weren’t alone. But The Band were the most respected by their peers. A "musician’s band."
I say all the above to lay the foundation for the video clip below, a wonderful 36 minute film about Dylan, The Band, and Woodstock the town. It is entitled "What Really Happened To Woodstock’s Americana Movement Of The 1960’s", and I think you will find it worth your time to watch.
https://youtu.be/8MDcnoLgLxg?si=FS7EBR484pQkQkMt
32 responses Add your response
You’ll notice that after hearing Music From Big Pink, Clapton himself no longer wanted to do what Cream did, told Jack and Ginger it was over, and made a pilgrimage to West Saugerties, sitting around waiting for The Band to let him play rhythm guitar. When he finally realized that wasn’t going to happen, he went on the road with Delaney & Bonnie, the next best thing. Clapton’s best friend George Harrison---not a guy easily impressed---made his comment about them. Okay, I’ll repeat it: "The best band in the history of the universe." George had a higher consciousness than I, so I’ll have to take his word on that. Ringo and Ron Wood were dying to play with The Band, and were allowed to get up on stage for the jam at the end of The Last Waltz. Do you hear how bad Ringo sounds? That’s partly because you’ve just heard Levon Helm playing.
I saw The Dead in the Summer of ’67. They sounded like an average Garage Band to me. The Airplane followed them on stage, and were quite an improvement. But like almost all the San Francisco guitarists, Jorma used waaay too much finger vibrato. The only two SF guitarists I liked were Jerry Miller (Moby Grape) and Terry Haggerty (The Sons Of Champlin), Not coincidentally, Moby Grape and The Sons were the two best SF bands. IMO, as always. I couldn’t care less if you agree or disagree. I saw both Cream and Hendrix twice each in ’67 and ’68. Liked them the first time, not so much the second. Hendrix’s second was notible for the fact that Jimi seemed quite bored, like he was ready to move on to something else. I didn’t see Buddy Miles with Hendrix, but I did see him with Mike Bloomfield, in The Electric Flag in the summer of ’68. OMG, awesome! I felt bad for the doors, who had to follow the Flag on stage. I saw Janis and Big Brother, who were by far the worst "big time" band I’ve ever seen. Terr-i-ble. If you don’t like hearing that, you can quit reading this whenever you want. The Who with Keith Moon? NOW yer talkin’! Saw them in ’68 and ’69. By the way, Pete Townshend is quite vocal in his distain for The Dead.
As for me, most of the music from the hippie-era bands now sounds comically dated. Just as bell bottoms look silly, except on hot chicks. But I also have no use for David Bowie, the last 50 years of The Stones, The Velvet Underground, U2, R.E.M., or Nirvana. But I love AC/DC! I could go on quite a bit longer, buy that’s enough for now.
Note to the "displeased": No offense, but this thread wasn’t intended for guys like you. It’s for those deeply interested in the Americana genre. That’s the field The Band toiled in. NRBQ is another great, great band.
|
We get that you hold The Band above all others and that you have a low opinion not only of 60’s psychedelic Rock but of (as you recently opined) 70’s Rock as well. The thing is, many of us enjoy The Band, AND 60’s psychedelic Rock AND 70’s Rock and see no reason to choose. Yet you continue to hammer us with the same message, like some sort of evangelist. We understand; we simply don’t agree with the hierarchy you insist upon. I’m glad you’re a regular contributor and as we share a fondness for Americana music, I’m definitely interested in learning more about The Band. However, when such information is always paired with denigration of other musicians whom I also cherish, I’m more inclined to take a pass. Why not simply present the former and leave out the latter?
|
@bdp24 - Not often NRBQ gets a shout-out on A'gon. Underappreciated. |
I think it was 1967 but for a different reason- no disrespect to The Band, but it was the Monterrey Pop Festival that caused the industry to realize that there was a burgeoning "youth explosion" among music consumers and most of the majors had nothing to offer in this realm. It caused a real scramble to start signing these "new acts," which represented the tip of the proverbial iceberg and led to a dramatic change in what the majors focused on. |
The "youth explosion" was already happening well before Monterey which most people experienced when the movie came out a year later. The Band were so strong in all the important areas and had played so many places as The Hawks that their live chops were astonishing...right place, right time, with the right stuff. |
@re-lar-kvothe + 1 - The thread title says 'Woodstock', not 'Americana' or 'The Band'. Personally I don't let Eric Clapton or George Harrison or Bob Dylan or anybody else decide what I should like and what is 'good'; I prefer to choose for myself. My opinion is worth much more to me than their's. |
@wolf_garcia-no doubt, young people "in the know" were tuned in before the movie, but I base my comments on discussions with a few people who were involved in the industry at the time- one, who signed and/or managed some pretty incredible acts as a middle man, another, a label chief for a UK label who was close to the forefront of the "new" music. Based on my experience, the majors were slow to act. (think about how slowly they addressed digital downloads by offering a legitimate source, allowing Napster and its progeny to step into the lurch). Granted, people were exposed through live shows, but especially back in the day, music was spread through radio (FM for the more eclectic) and the source was still records. This also coincided with the majors were getting their lunch eaten by independents like Island because the other bigger labels were slow to pivot. As for The Band, they got AM radio play with Cripple Creek and a few other tracks. Though they had a large following by the time of The Last Waltz, they were, in my estimation, more indirectly influential in being revered by other musicians. What is now called Americana did not take hold, as I recall it, at the time The Band was at its peak, but much later, no? |
Glad I grew up in the 60s at a time when rock was evolving as music always does. Everyone has their favorites. As I get older I find I’m more open to listening to new music and new bands. My Dad didn’t like my music but I listen to what my kids like which includes a lot of country. I also just received my Daves Picks #53 of the Grateful Dead from concerts in 76 and 77. Long live rock be it Dead or alive. |
| Post removed |
I won’t comment on the issue of a personal posting style which seems to be rankling some, but I did find the “documentary” very interesting and educational as I did not have a good enough understanding of the history of the pre-Festival town of Woodstock. Thanks for that. While I do like it, “Americana” is not one of my favorite genres, but there are certain things that tend to define excellence in music and its performance that transcend genre. These are applicable when judging any music. Concerning this documentary, it is odd to me that some would be so dismissive of what musicians of the caliber of those featured, or who commented about what was going on in the Woodstock scene at the time had to say. I heard nothing in the comments by those musicians that suggested what music anyone should or should not like. Good musicians seldom do that. What they did express is what they considered to be good music. An open minded music lover, one interested in growing as a listener would do well to, at least, listen to what those musicians have to say without being so dismissive. |
Yes. What I’ve inferred from interviews is that that good musicians do not tend to view music as a competition. Perhaps there are exceptions but the impression I’ve gotten is that the very best players are typically gracious and humble people. |
I always enjoy your deep dives into music and culture. And thanks for sharing the (very informative) video. A comedian recently said that the purpose of entertainment is to create a common culture. This assumes, of course, that you accept the premise of music being "entertainment," But music certainly has the power to do just that. A half a dozen "kids" pounding on instruments in their garages with an audience made up of girl/boyfriends, the hosting parents inside with the TV turned up loud enough to drown out the music, and neighbors within an 8-home radius with their doors (and windows) shut to maintain some level of sanity. Fast forward a few years and those screaming neighbors are subordinate to tens of thousands of screaming fans. Something happened along the way. Their music, or their mere presence, resonated with a large number people -- and, they were adopted into their culture. They may have been a 3.4 on the "technical" scale, but a 9.8 on the "something grabbed a hold of me" scale. We remember the music. We remember what we were doing, where we were doing it, and who we were doing it with. And how we felt at the time. We may have "outgrown" the genre (or, not!!) but our reverence for the artists and contribution to our lives has not diminished. One iota. The Band as a "Musician’s Band;" I had the opportunity to do a lot of radio searches on my 4 1/2 commute between store locations in my former life and hit on a variety of music and information stations. I was a sales trainer, motivator and as a business owner, the occasional parole officer always looking something useful. Whether you agree, or disagree with the messaging, preachers are some of the best teachers, trainers and motivators on the planet. One sermon that stuck with me went something like this: "We’re just ants on a Rembrandt, seeing textures and colors change under our feet, not knowing the masterpiece that’s been created below us." To me, this helps differentiate between a band that finds itself heavily adopted into a culture and a "musicians band." As non-musicians (I tried unsuccessfully) there are probably things happening above our pay grades that we don’t fully understand, or appreciate. We may be reaching for ’shiny objects" in OUR music that just don’t jump out and grab us with some music or bands (or, both) even though there may be true genius at work here. We’re just "ants on a Rembrandt." I’ll close with another result of poking around on the radio dial during a long commute. I landed on an old-time radio comedy broadcast. Host: We’re going to do a math quiz. Guest: "Okay" Host: "What’s six plus six?" Guest: (hesitates) Host: "Well, it’s twelve!" Guest: "NO!! Six plus six CAN’T be twelve. FOUR PLUS EIGHT IS TWELVE!!" Conclusion: There can be more than one "right" answer to a question/problem. Even with our music preferences.
|
Thank you @frogman I LIKE THE WAY YOU TALK. Enjoy the music |
I’ve been deliberately avoiding this thread since my last post. A few days after responding to the first few comments from others that followed, it occurred to me that I should have pointed out to @zlone that I had NOT in actual fact "trashed a lot of great music and musicians." (not in the original post, that is). Go ahead if you wish and reread it. It was Ahmet Ertegun who characterized the Disraeli Gears album as "psychedelic horsesh*t", not I. I loved both Cream albums at the time of their release, playing a few songs from those albums in my high school garage band. Same with the first two Hendrix albums.
The impetus for this thread was coming upon the video I posted, which was made fairly recently. I find it funny that Dylan is so closely associated with Woodstock, yet wanted no part of the Woodstock Festival (he turned down the offer to perform at it). That’s why I entitled the thread "Woodstock 1969, or 1967?" For Dylan, Woodstock was all about 1967 (making music in the basement of Big Pink, and writing all of the John Wesley Harding album songs), while for the rest of the world (and most Rock music fans) it was (and is) the 1969 Festival, which wasn’t really held in Woodstock.
My motive for starting this thread was to bring the video to the attention of people who like the music that everyone is now calling Americana, but who are perhaps unaware of the role the recordings Dylan and The Hawks made in the basement of the pink house in West Saugerties in 1967 played in the creation of the Americana style of music.
While many comments made since my last post here are not without merit, I feel compelled to bring the discussion back on track with this quote from Clapton regarding Music From Big Pink:
"I listened to this album, and I thought this is it. This is where music has supposed to have gone for a long time, and it hasn’t really got there. And now it’s finally.....someone has finally gone and done it." "It had all kinds of effects. I mean it stimulated me, it moved me, and it upset me and made me very discontent, all at the same time. And I think it had a similar effect on a lot of people."
"It had a similar effect on a lot of people." That it did, and continues to (look at all the young bands involved in projects related to The Band). I don’t cite Clapton’s story insisting (or even suggesting) everyone should share his (and my) opinion of MFBP or The Band, but rather to chronicle the "Big Bang" effect the album, The Band, and the Basement Tapes had on a large group of music makers whom many people love, but aren’t aware of the role The Band played in the musical direction those music makers chose to take. Richard Thompson, for instance.
I love lots of current and past musical artists just as much as I love The Band (Rodney Crowell, Buddy & Julie Miller, Iris DeMent, Lucinda Williams, Emmylou Harris, NRBQ, John Hiatt, Los Lobos, Dave Edmunds, and plenty of others. Plus I love AC/DC, The Ramones, and Weezer, so I'm no Americana purist/snob
|
