At 03:36 PM 4/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I confess to not being able to follow the thread much, so never mind if
>I'm off base. Just pickin those nits.....
Ah, not a problem...
>
>As for singles, there is a pretty good book (by David Marsh?) of best
>singles (rock and pop) and it is a -of course completely subjective
>listing of great singles and why. A good read, inspires you to go back
>and listen to say "Ticket To Ride" again...
That sounds like a good one... I like Marsh to boot for the most part...
'Ceptin maybe for "Glory Days"... He was officially on the Springsteen
payroll aside from the book commision, yes? No slam on Bruce though...love
him.
>
>Singles generally conjure up time and place, particulary summer singles,
>so of course to pick the best means to pull together not just perfect
>musical moments, but personal moments as well and combine em for a swell
>experience. "It's So Nice To Be With You" qualifies for me, tho the song
>ain't so hot. I still can't hear it without hearing the crackling sounds
>of the 45 we had. But you're all talking punk and new wave singles,
>ain't ya? Lords of the New Church: Open Your Eyes, 1983.
No, you're right on the money on that one... Please don't kill me folks,
but going with what you were saying Matt, I vividly recall hearing
"Stone(d) in Love" by Journey one particular summer. Great summer and I
guess I just associate it in a "Wonder Years" type reverie... I remember
destroying my Apple 45 of "Hey Jude" backed by "Revolution" (if I recall)
from far too many plays... Another song I associate with summer...or Steve
Earle's "I Feel Alright", it was all over a Boston station at the time and
I picked up the record the night before my wife delivered...The song just
brings me back...
New wave single: Talk Talk-It's My Life
morgan
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Morgan Keating [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:43 PM
>> To: passenger side
>> Subject: RE: the sidemen thread
>>
>>
>> Well, I suppose...but I think the general rule to the voting process
>> was
>> that there really weren't any? True, a band doesn't fit the
>> desription of
>> "sidemen", but what the hey? A nod to the godesses...what about
>> sidewomen?
>> Not sure where you're going with the whole pay issue? But, I guess
>> it'll
>> be something for the powers that be to decide. <g> Either way, 'tis
>> not a
>> big deal, just me 2 cents...
>>
>> morgan
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:08 PM 4/14/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> >FOlks counting the Jayhawks, or even the Hawks as sidemen are kinda
>> >missing the albeit very fine point. They're backing bands, more than
>> >they are sidemen, who are folks like Jon W. mentioned, and Glen
>> >Campbell, Leon Russell, Hal Blaine, etc.. folks hired to fill out the
>> >sound of a recording session, not friends of the artist who are part
>> of
>> >a particular scene, like the Jayhawks. They may put their own
>> particular
>> >styles and sound into the recording, and are usually hailed for that
>> by
>> >anal musicians on down the line, who can tell every Burton lick and
>> >Blaine roll <g>. They were hired because they were the whip, the
>> trusted
>> >for hire musicians who can nail the recording and nail it well in a
>> >short amount of time. The Jayhawks probably didn't draw pay from the
>> Joe
>> >Henry session, at least not union scale like a true side musician.
>> Maybe
>> >they were paid in beer, or good vibes, I don't know, but they didn't
>> >walk into the session, hear one pass of the tune and then come up
>> with a
>> >part, I would bet. Not that they could'nt, but I'd wager that a Joe
>> >Henry session with the Jayhawks was a far different scene than Emmons
>> >and Ray Price....
>> >
>> >Matt "hit me with your best shot" Benz
>> >
>
