Talk:The Monkees/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This is really poor - some1 with expertise needs to get her. NOW

To jls: The Monkees did in fact play on some of their hit songs, including "The Girl I Knew Somewhere", "Pleasant Valley Sunday", "Words" and "Daydream Believer." No where in the article does it state that The Monkees wrote the hit songs...the names of the songwriters are clearly given credit. (Did you read the article in full?) Your notion that the songs are good and that it's merely a tribute to only the songwriters is yet another naive and uninformed opinion of the Monkees. Nobody cared who wrote the songs, people bought the records because they liked how they sounded and the personalities who sung them. How many people out there know that Carole King wrote "Pleasant Valley Sunday"??? Not many. But they do know who sang it, and they liked it, and that's a tribute to the Monkees themselves. If it's only the songwriters who mattered, then how did the four Monkees fill up Wembley Arena for two nights in 1997 when nobody was on stage but just the four of them? --Music Fan 26 Mar 2005

Early in the article it says Nesmith and Tork were professional musicians, which implies Jones and Dolenz weren't. But later it says all four were accomplished musicians. Which is it? Goes to the motivation of why the producers didn't let the Monkees play.

Fixed! (Wording of article needed correction)

Look, I agree the Monkees were very popular - I was around back then, and for a time in late 1966/early 1967 there were people who thought the Monkees were overtaking the Beatles. And their popularity then and now is largely attributable to their visual and singing personalities, and that's ok. The article is much better now with those long lists removed. However I still feel that the tone of the article is too defensively pro-Monkee. The songwriters and session players used for the Monkees' hits were better writers and musicians than the Monkees themselves, and that just deserves to be made clear in a non-defensive manner. And if you want another good example of this happening, Brian Wilson exclusively used session musicians on all but one track of Pet Sounds, because the Beach Boys weren't good enough for what he wanted to get. Beach Boys fans don't try to pretend otherwise. --jls 28 Mar 2005

I have re-read the article twice and submitted to another person for reading, and we both agreed that the article is fair and extensive. The article does not pretend them to be anything they are not...session musicians are noted as being used, as well as the Brill Building songwriters. It does not come out and say the Monkees are better than the Beatles, the article in fact says that the Monkees paled in comparison to the Beatles when the whole controversy over the band started in 1967. The article also notes that the band returned to session musicians for later recordings. Again, it appears to me that you want the article to be the typical snow job on the Monkees, without giving them the least bit credit. Even Rolling Stone Magazine, the #1 critic of the Monkees in the '60s, in recent years called the band and its output an example of 'fine 1960's pop.' Those who have written the article have provided a sound and accurate depiction of the Monkees. I encourage you to re-read the article again and provide a second assessment. For example, country singer George Strait has had 50 #1 hits, and he wrote NONE of them. Does that make him any less talented or less of an influence? --MusicFan 28 Mar 2005

I take your points, and I don't think that our disagreement is that large; I have no problem with that RS assessment, for example. Rather than try to explain my view further, I've made some edits which I think give better balance to the Monkees' story. Do with them as you will. I've also changed the order of the Hendrix paragraph to improve the flow. I've also added a description of the four Monkees "personalities", which it seems to me is a major item that had been left out. -- jls 28 Mar 2005.

jls: Your revisions are great: I enjoyed the debate! --MusicFan 29 March 2005

Dolenz, Jones, Boyce and Hart

I think there should be a little blurb in there about that incarnation. googuse 16:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[Boy meets world]

should it be mentioned that three of the monkees were on an episode of boy meets world--aaronpark

The Monkees Sequel TV Show

I seem to recall a sequal TV show called something like "The New Monkees" or something like that. It was based on a punk rock group put together the way the originals were. It didn't last long and was a failure, but does deserves maybe a mention. -- Benjamin (Not a member, but is being tempted) 8/14/2005

You are correct, except they weren't punk. Just created article The New Monkees. MakeRocketGoNow 02:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, they were very '80s. I added it to timeline near the 1986 revival stuff —Fitch 05:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern boybands

"Modern" boybands, such as Busted and McFly, currently ARE shown playing musical instruments and actually do play instruments in live shows. The "tightly harmonized ballads/synchronised dance routine" type boybands aren't really around any more, save for ones like the Backstreet Boys who are from a time when there was more of that type of boyband. So if they are to be compared to modern boybands, they should be compared to modern boybands, not a type that has been all but defunct in the last three years. Plus even in the late '90s/early 2000s heyday of those type of manufactured bands, a lot of them DID contribute to the songwriting efforts on the albums.

It's a little unfair as well to imply that the Monkees are superior to "modern" boybands because of the critical acclaim they had decades later and the fact that their songs are still being played today. We have no idea what will or won't be critically acclaimed or played on radio stations decades from now. I'm not neccesarily defending modern manufactured bands, I'm just trying to be fair. This thinly veiled "manufactured bands were better in my day" view isn't a NPOV.

asc, 18th October 2005

I am not sure why modern boybands are mentioned at all. These boybands seem to follow the Motown creations like The Four Tops (and countless others) which were in development before The Monkees. The Monkees were something else again and the modern boybands would have developed in their Motown model even if The Monkees never happened. I don't believe that the The Monkees really figure in this phenomenon. Asa01 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Four Tops is not really a good example - they predate Motown Records by five years. In fact, none of the Motown groups that made it big were assembled by the corporation... but Motown had a crack staff of writers/composers and producers that kept the groups on the stage and in the public spotlight. The Motown groups were together before they were signed to the Motown label (most of them formed while the members were still in high school), unlike the Monkees and the 80s/90s "boy bands." 147.70.242.40 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Micky Dolenz

What is your source for the Micky Dolenz multiple murder story? I can't find it in any archived newstories for Topeka, but the archives prior to 1995 are limited.

What is this reference about???? I can't find any reference to Micky Dolenz and multiple murders in Topeka???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fate7 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Dolenz factoid

Since there is no answer to the above, and the incident no longer appears in the article, I'm going to nick (UK slang for steal/purloin) this box;

In the text it states that Dolenz has his kit set up for a left hander (and offers an explanation). It should be noted that Ringo Starr is left handed yet plays a right handed kit set up. I don't know if this is serendipity or an attempt to emulate The Beatles sound.LessHeard vanU 18:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference here is Dolenz uses a kit that is set up for a left hander, but plays right-handed (hits snare drum with his left hand), while Ringo plays a kit set up for a right hander and plays right-handed. (WL)

Ringo plays right handed to a degree, I recall a Musician Magazine interview from the 80's where he points out that he leads in to his drum fill with his left hand instead of his right hand.

Notable achievements

• Had the top-selling American single of 1967 ("I'm a Believer").
• First use of solarisation in a major motion picture.
• First television series to show teenagers living on their own.
• First rock band to use a multimedia live concert show.
• First band to use a Moog modular synthesizer in a top-10 single ("Star Collector").
• Gave the Jimi Hendrix Experience their first US concert appearances.
• First "manufactured" rock band (The Original Pre-Fab Four).
• The Monkees reunion tour was the largest grossing tour of 1986.
• Last music artist to win the MTV Friday Night Video Fights by defeating Bon Jovi 51% to 49%.
• Introduced Tim Buckley to a national audience, via his appearance in the series finale, "The Frodis Caper".
• Featured the only appearance by a villain from the "Batman" series in another sitcom when The Penguin (Burgess Meredith) made a cameo appearance in "The Monkees Blow Their Minds." Also had Julie Newmar (Catwoman) as the female lead in "Monkees Get Out More Dirt".

---

The above is copied directly from the article, and had remained unsourced for months (as seen). If citations can be found, this can be re-integrated into the article, though hopefully in less of a laundry-list format. 74.134.255.99 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian concert appearances

21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)142.245.193.10I believe this article as it stands now (June 18, 2007 -- one day after Mickey played two dates in the Toronto area) is quite good.

BUT -- it has one major flaw.

Almost without exception (that one exception being Mickey and Davy "Live in Toronto, 2002) this article makes no mention of CANADIAN concert appearances -- not for the original 4 Monkees or for any of the subsequent reunions and semi-reunions.

I think it is a critical flaw to have Canadian appearances subsumed and made invisible by referring to "tour of the US" or "US tour dates."

For example, I know for a fact that the original Monkees played Toronto; and I know that the "pre-Fab 3 (Mickey, Davy and Pete) played Winnipeg in 1989. But you would never know it from this article. Yet all of this info is readily available to anyone genuine interested in an accurate portrait of the Monkees.

For the sake of both accuracy and balance, I think this info should be included.

Oh, and that "Live in Toronto" concert in 2002 featuring Mickey and Davy (Monkeemania)? It wasn't in Toronto. It was at Casino Rama in Orillia, Ontario -- about 90 minutes or so outside of Toronto.

142.245.193.10 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Steve Zodiac

The Beatles or the Beatles?

Is it "the Beatles" or "The Beatles"? This article uses both conventions.

Vocaro 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Nilsson

This bit it a little off:

But both supporters and critics of the group agree that the producers and Kirshner had the good taste to use some of the best pop songwriters of the period. Neil Diamond, Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, Gerry Goffin and Carole King, Harry Nilsson, Barry Mann, Cynthia Weil

While it is true that they did a couple of Nilsson's songs, it was after Kirshner had been fired. I believe that the Monkees were one of Nilsson's earliest supporters.

Micky, Davy, Mike, and Peter's Influence

Over 40 years later this argument continues. The fact is, the actual four Monkees themselves had forced some of their own influence on the music during the Kirshner controlled days, and were the creative minds behind the music from "The Girl I Knew Somewhere" on. They did provide the musical direction, and did provide much of their own instrumentation (Especially Mike and Peter) and recorded many songs they had written. Nesmith had already written and published material (Under the name Michael Blessing) prior to the Monkees and has written songs post Monkees that have been recorded by other artists. Nesmith written material was included on the Monkees albums even during the Kirshner controlled days.

To say that they didn't or couldn't play and write is simply incorrect. To say that Micky was not as good a drummer as "Fast" Eddie is absolutly correct, but then few could make that claim, the very reason Eddie was chosen. Micky could have played drums in the studio, even though not to the level of Eddie, and did in some cases, but during most of the mix mode days, he chose not to. Since Micky never really wanted to be a drummer, he didn't put much of his effort there. He is a natural front man. He had been a gutiarist in a band prior to the Monkees, he owned one of the first Moog synthesizers. He prefered playing other instruments and working vocals to being a drummer. For the most part, Eddie was the drummer for the Monkees in the studio during the mix mode days, but that was common. Hal Blaine was as much the drummer for the Beach Boys, as Eddie was for the Monkees, and as George Martin was a Beatle. Many studio recordings of that day, including the Beatles, consisted of 20+ musicians representing 4 or 5 man bands, but this does not diminsh the talent or influence of the band members.

The four Monkees wrote much of their own music. They did not write ALL of their music. Considering the volume that they were expected to put out (4 albums in 1967 alone) and working a full time TV series, writing all of their own music would be impossible. The level of influence they had on the music should have been impossible, but was accomplished. Still, the output was what the four Monkees (either collectively or individually) created. The interpetation of the music, whether written by them or someone else, had their personalities and creativity in it as the controlling influence. This became even more evident when they recorded songs separately and the influence of the individual members could be easily identified. Elvis Presley wrote very little, but his creativity and interpetation of the music he recorded gave it a quality that was exclusively his and unmistakable. It never existed on the page or when the same song was produced by someone else. Wilson and McCartney wrote much of their own music, but their interpetation of their own music is what gave it the artistry it had. Their creativity was apparent in the parts that they performed as well as the parts performed by the (usually exceptionally talented) session musicians under their guidance. The Monkees controlled music was no different.

The early Monkees music was the creativity of Kirshner, Boyce, and Hart with Monkees influence (especially Mike)pushing in. The post Kirshner music was the creativity of the four Monkees members. Mike and Peter are, and were at the time, talented musicians by all accounts, including the Beatles which were pretty much the highest authority on the subject for that time. Micky and Davy are very talented vocalists and had some instrumental talent. Feelings on the output of any band is purely subjective, but in any case, the four became a band that was capable and legitimately successful.

someone seems to forget that the beatles played EVERYTHING on their albums by themselfes, i mean all the lead and rythm guitar parts, the bass, the drums and also mostly the organ/piano, and a lot of other instruments, those 20 + musicians on later albums where mostly string quartett guys and so on. and except for string guys mccyrtney worked solely with the other beatles, you know, george played sitar and so on, they were all so multi instrumentaly talented, with the beach boys it's a fact i need to say, while i think carl recorded a lot of his lead parts for the beach boys, at least his wiki article says that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.225.198 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please verify

Will somebody that knows this band please verify these changes? I can't tell if this is nonsense or real [1]. Thanks, sorry I couldn't revert if it is indeed vandalism...I didn't know for sure. Digital^Ninja 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Article

I wanted to work on this article a bit, but I realized there is one large issue that would dictate how I proceed. Theoretically, there should be separate articles that discuss The Monkees as a TV series and The Monkees as a musical act/musicians.Minerwerks (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there has to be separate pages for "The Monkees" the TV show and "The Monkees" the group. Not helping the confusion is the fact that their first album is also titled "The Monkees" by "The Monkees" featured on "The Monkees" show. Then the question becomes which of the two is the main page and which has either group or TV show after it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acermu12 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll break the article between The Monkees and The Monkees (TV Series) if no one opposes. It makes sense for the group themselves to remain at "The Monkees" and not "The Monkees (band)" for simplicity's sake. The Monkees article should still have a section regarding the TV series, a summary of the content of The Monkees (TV Series) Any reasons against? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I had a more thorough read and realised the two topics are heavily entwined until the TV show ends. We have a bit of a mess on our hands here. Maybe start the TV series article afresh and trim down the main article when it's covered in the subtopic? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I agree that the topics are too intertwined, through the TV series as well as the movie Head and the TV special 33 1/3 Revolutions. I agree that the best strategy would be to complete the article as one unit and then see if anything can be split into a sub-article conveniently. I've sort of embarked on a model to try to split the main article into the main sections of: (1) the TV series, (2) the recorded music, and (3) the live act. I hope that will offer a convenient structure to get things into the right places. I would recommend holding off on creating new articles until everything in the current article is logically organized. At that point, it will be easier to split various portions off. Acsenray (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I entirely agree. This article is a mess but at least it's not Death (personification) (which for me best represents the problems of a wiki). Maybe let things develop a bit more naturally and organised, then split things. I'm still in favour of a The Monkees (leading to the group) and The Monkees (TV series) split. Valid points referencing the beach boys were raised about using session musicians, an article split of Beach Boys live and recorded entities would cause a fuss and I see little reason to do something as such here. Still open to suggestions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my original issue. In my view, I see a very distinct line between the TV series and the musical entity. They were invented on parallel tracks, but each segment had a different creative team. There was little input, for instance, from Rafelson on the recording side and likewise, Boyce and Hart or even Don Kirshner never had a say in the scripts or plots of the episodes. The shows merely required the music be plugged in, as evidenced by the rampant replacement of songs in various episodes over the years.

I would suggest a disambiguation page that would link to: 1. The Monkees (TV series) - a dicussion of all aspects of the creation and production of the show, with a summary of the music, which would direct to the topic of the band 2. The Monkees (band) - a discussion of all musical aspects of the group, with only a minor mention of the needs of the TV series (directed to the TV series article). This article should also include any mentions of the live act, because it is musically related. 3. The Monkees (album) - the debut record

I started a rough edit of something that I wanted to post as "The Monkees (TV series)", which can be found on my user page: User:Minerwerks/Testing. The first part is my editing, the second was copied from the original page with the intent to modify to suit the focus. Minerwerks (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but in my view "The Monkees" page should be for the television show and when the split eventually happens, the band should get "The Monkees (band)" or something like that. Just my opinion. No big deal. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have just started reading the proposed article, and I think it's very good. One minor nitpick, I would prefer not capitalizing the "the" in constructions like "the music side of The Monkees." 149.79.35.227 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm not old enough to remember the TV show so maybe it was my youth which emphasised the importance of the band. I think this now as the best solution: "The Monkees" leads to a disambiguation page containing links to "The Monkees (television series)" and "The Monkees (band)". Sound good to anyone else? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Don't forget "The Monkees (album)" as I noted above. Minerwerks (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Whoops! So it would to all three links: TV series/Band/album . I'm still mulling over this matter but think that might be the best solution. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I began a good deal of retooling to better separate the TV and music portions of The Monkees' story. The current revision is, I admit, a bit shoddy. There are some redundancies and questionable phrasing. There's so much to do that it's impossible to clean up in one go.

I encourage anyone with an interest in The Monkees to help clean up the sections, with a particular emphasis on citing sources throughout.

I'm also curious on everyone's opinions as to the various disjointed bits of trivia that often pop up in this article. One notorious example is the false rumor that Charles Manson auditioned for The Monkees. While this is an interesting fact, it seems unessential to the overview of The Monkees project and probably should be dropped. I moved and incorporated the last note of this in the section about casting the TV Show, but I would vote it be removed. Minerwerks (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of trivia I would question as interesting but non-essential is that Davy appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show the same night as the Beatles. Again, I left this in the text pending other opinions. Minerwerks (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

What is the current issue with Neutral Point of View that led to the notation being added at the head of the article? Minerwerks (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I take this question back. The article is littered with a number of statements that seem designed to defend the approach of making records with studio musicians and also The Monkees' abilities as musicians. There is a lot of cleanup work that should be done to restate a lot of material in a straight factual presentation and cut out a lot of redundancy between sections. Minerwerks (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Here's an example of such statement: "Despite their seemingly permanent reputation as a made-for-TV act, their hits and many lesser recordings present an enduring quality that has earned respect over the years." - not neutral. Even if that's a point of view of some critic, it needs citation. Generally, the article isn't bad at all & has potential for improvement, but it should be made a bit more NPOV, and also more in-line citations needed. I see that several books are used as sources, so maybe it'd make sense if one points out from which pages or chapters this or that statement is taken (e.g. like in a Good Article Paul McCartney) Good luck, Monkees rock! --Betty kerner (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth to CNN Wolf Blitzer statement

I do not know if he was joking but he said that he had a group named "Monkees" before this group was even formed. He said it during the Republican Convention. If true, should this be included in the article, I am sure we could find a transcript to what he said.--Truthfulchat (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only act to have their first four albums go to number one on the Billboard charts.

"Four number-one albums in a one-year span. The only act to have their first four albums go to number one on the Billboard charts."

I don't really know much about the Monkees but either this is poorly worded to the point that I completely misunderstood or factually inaccurate as off the top of my head I can think of Britney Spears who has had her first four albums go to number #1 on the Billboard Charts. (...Baby One More Time, Oops!... I Did It Again, Britney, In the Zone: from the In the Zone wikipedia article "In the Zone is the fourth studio album by American singer Britney Spears. . .Spears became the first female in Nielsen SoundScan history to have four number-one albums in a row") Therefore, the Monkees are definitely not the only act to have their first four albums go to number one, unless I am missing something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetasmainiandevil (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Four number-one albums in a one-year span" clearly means that they had four number-one albums during the period of one single year, although I'm unsure what four albums that statement refers to. Their second to fifth, maybe? Weird... --194.48.133.8 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The 4 LPs MUST be The Monkees late 1966, More of the Monkees (early) 1967, Headquarters May 1967 and Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. Fall 1967, which all went platinum ...as the 5th LP The Birds, The Bees & The Monkees only went gold ;) ...basic deductive logic Davidmedlar (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes

One editor has made a massive set of changes to the article that I think need to be discussed here for style and content. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

YAbba Dabba do = ) I spent a week trying to better this page ...only to have it reverted = ( I'm crushed = ( ...& kinda new to WIKI- ...so be didactic Davidmedlar (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see.

1. Despite their seemingly permanent reputation as a made-for-TV act, their hits and many lesser recordings present an enduring quality that has earned respect over the years. -- Unsourced opinion.
2. Rearrangement of headers in From TV to stage section not necessary and worsens the flow
3. Changing section headers from (for example) ===Meeting the Beatles=== to Meeting the Beatles is not consistent with Wikipedia style
4. Kaos with & Separation from Kirshner -- "Kaos" is a fictional organization in the series Get Smart; italics don't belong here; characterization as "chaos" is unsourced
5. Without any sourcing, you change the meaning of the paragraph beginning "Kirshner's dismissal came in early February 1967"; the article previously said Kirshner's dismissal came when an agreement was reached; you say it was when the agreement was breached.
6. Monkees record sales dropped by nearly half after Kirshner's departure.-- source?
7. ==Independence== to ==Independence== -- it was right before, now it's wrong
8. ===Controversy=== -- we really don't like "controversy" sections
9. You seem to know how to do headers right (like ===Exit Nesmith===), yet you also do it like Exit Tork. Is there a logic here?
10. "Socio-Audio"? Whatever does that mean?

I'm sure there's more; this was just a quick glance. Also, please learn to use the "preview" button;

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than let the article stay in this terrible state, I've reverted it to the previous, cleaner version. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I didn't do that 1.
2. I disagree = (
3. It seems like SUCH a SMALL part of their History/career (Q.V.)

   ...all hail the mighty Beatles ?! is that it ? Jesus, Mike was sitting next to John & MIck Jagger @ the "All you Need Is Love" TV-satellite broad-cast special...

4. Consonance/alliteration to use "K" ...a literary techn. I used in High School, why be dry ?! ...Get Smart was part of 60s too ...call it 'dated' I think it works
5. R u serious here ? LOL ...I said SAME thing, the orig. was awkward & 'illogical' Captain' ...in fact there was a sentence fragment,, my edit there was merely grammar. 'an agreement must be breached, c'mon take INtro to LAw 101 bro = ) Luv ya
6. (see WIKI- "Kirshner" ...) = )
7. A MAJOR change occurred there,
8. OK...lemme think upon that for better wording
9. yes, I see both sections as relevant to the break-down of the band & should be categorized together
10. Sociological (i.e. cultural effect/s) & audio (as in Latin - to hear) ...'cuz this IS music & not 'optical' per se

sorry, It is very difficult for me to read the editing page, so I kinda make 1 change @ a time...VERY SORRY, please bare w/ me

Here's my e-mail Removed...I'm unfamiliar w/ WIKI 'talk' & editing & don't mean to step on toes per se = )

there's no justification for hundreds of edits to the same article in such a short time span, and it makes it very difficult to correct individual changes. Thanks for listening.

This section clearly belongs @ beginning of articles, it was in summarizes:

"The Monkees had several international hits which are still heard on pop and oldies stations. These include "I'm a Believer", "(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone", "Daydream Believer", "Last Train to Clarksville", and "Pleasant Valley Sunday".

oh, ok This was there, I just moved it to top of article:

"Despite their seemingly, permanent reputation as a made-for-TV act, their hits and many lesser recordings present an enduring quality that has earned respect over the years." This is an intelligent opinion, a true opinion (no matter how subjective) is still a fact:

'A. Einstien was a genius' 'Hitler was considered a mad-man, by most's people of the 1940s'

THANX for communicating !! = ) I'm open to compromise

I thikn HEAD section is needed ! It is a HUGE p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmedlar (talk • contribs) 01:30, April 23, 2010

"On Tour" and bananas

The paragraph in the "On Tour" section regarding a so-called "Hangin' on Trees" tour and the audience throwing bananas should be deleted. It is a hoax. There was no Hangin' on Trees tour. People did not throw bananas at the Monkees. 68.109.18.173 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

i removed a bit

this here: (although they at times used additional musicians such as George Martin, Eric Clapton or Billy Preston to augment the Beatles' own instrumentation.

it talks over the beatles, but it get's the wrong angle, only george martin was used very few times by mostly john to play some key instruments, eric and billy were both brought in to take some of the tension away the band had, billy was aslo there because they wanted to record the get back album live without overdubs. this sentence makes them sound like using actual session musicians while that's completely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.145.155 (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

English-American

The Pretenders are described as an 'English-American' band, so The Monkees should be as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.64 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Excessive use of copyrighted album covers

This article has for a while had a {{non-free}} tag. Appears to be a long-term issue with no discussion here on the talk-page for reference to new-comers/-editors to the article. Over many months of history, it looks a bit cyclic: bunches of album-cover images get removed with comments that they are not within of WP:NFCC permitted use, then gradually they get re-added. I think they are not permitted. There are specific articles about the albums themselves (where these images are allowed by NFCC) whereas here they seem to be more like decoration or discography-like use (neither allowed by NFCC). I've asked Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Meaning of "Discography" for clarification. DMacks (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, uses like this are rarely going to be legitimate. This article does seem to have a severe problem with non-free content use. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Monte Landis paragraph removed

This.

In 1985, Monte Landis, who had appeared in a number of episodes of the television series, had a cameo in Pee-wee's Big Adventure, a feature film comedy in the style of the Monkees' television show, and his appearance suggests the producers wanted Pee-wee's Big Adventure to have a connection to it.

MartinSFSA (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Conception section

Who is Matthew Peddlesden? Quote from John Lennon has no source. (Is this a case of removal for BLP: "Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately.") Edited for profanity, but incorrectly. 2dlogans (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible public domain photos?

Many publicity photos of '60s and '70s entertainers have been uploaded to the Commons because of the copyright law that puts anything published pre-1978 without a copyright notice in the public domain. So far I have found this promo concert book that doesn't appear to have a copyright tag. And this is another publicity photo, but I can't determine whether it was ever copyrighted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This DVD cover published on the website of The Guardian is labeled "Public Domain". Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To correct myself, the photo I found on Ebay actually is a copyrighted one as it's owned by Getty. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

pre-fab four?

Were the Monkees really called the "Pre-Fab Four" when they were active, as the article implies? The term was used by The Rutles in the late 70s, which makes me think they originated it. Adpete (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I saw it in a Monkees special the other night. Not good enough for a reference, but that means it shouldn't be removed from the article. I'll probably remove this section in a few days since no one else commented anyway. Adpete (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I also thought it was connected with the Rutles, even if it kind of fits the Monkees. Barring a good reference (which a TV special isn't, necessarily), you could zap it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike and the 1997 re-union.

The idea that Mike’s musicianship had somehow deteriorated, making him leave the tour, just isn’t backed up by evidence, and using one isolated reference surely isn’t enough to hang the comment on. It also doesn’t give a citation for Peter Tork’s comment. I attended the Hard Rock Café press conference in London to Launch the tour, and at that, when I asked them if they planned to tour America, it was made quite clear that they had not signed up to do that as a quartet at that time, and would wait and see, so he hadn’t anything to leave. Mike was disappointed by the response from some parts of the U.K. press, it’s true, and the pointed negativity in general shown to the group, but it was Peter who was singled out by Pat Kane, writing a review for the Glasgow Herald, as playing guitar poorly, describig hs blues solo spot as being like an uncle playing at a wedding, or some such (a comment which also wasn’t really fair or proportionate). Apart from that, Mike can be heard on his own recordings from the era, on Peter Tork’s “Stranger Things Can Happen” album, and most significantly the “Justus” album, playing perfectly accomplished guitar. The article also makes it seem like there was a rolling tour with the trio without Mike prior to the U.K. (which there wasn’t), and that the TV special came after the tour. As far as I recall, the quartet played a one-off gig to promote “Justus”, made the TV special, and then toured the U.K. (video from the special played throughut the concerts). Oh, and the tour time-line shhows Mike playing wit hMicky ad Davy until 1972, when in fact he left in 1970 to join the First National Band. 86.135.254.46 (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Conception of the Monkees

Should the "Conception" section of this article be modified to reflect new information regarding what inspired the Monkees? With the recent death of Davy Jones, there has been increased discussion of the show/band. An article in the Portland, Oregon Oregonian quotes creator Bob Rafelson thus:

"Rafelson corrected the oft-repeated assumption that 'The Monkees,' focusing on the antics of four likeable rock musicians, was inspired by the Beatles hit film, 'A Hard Day's Night.' 'This was a show I had written six years before the Beatles existed, and he pilot was based on my own life as an itinerant musician when I was 17 years old,' Rafelson said. 'What the Beatles did was to create a kind of permission for any rock 'n' roll to be a popular subject for television.'" --The Oregonian, "Monkees Co-creator Gives Credit to Jones," by Randy Lewis (Los Angeles Times), March 7, 2012, p. L8.

I think this information needs to be included, as it appears to refute and contradict a position reported in the article, and the information appears to come from someone who would best have that information. tigerdg (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a good start, but we can't let one source, 50 years after the fact, override an existing consensus gleaned from other sources. In particular, just because he had the idea in the late 50s doesn't mean the show's final form wasn't inspired by the Beatles. Powers ^T 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I am researching additional sources to see what I can find. I will post my findings here. tigerdg (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Session Musician Timeline Changes

I've removed some stuff from this section because as it stood it was giving undue prominence to the Wrecking Crew, who really had surprisingly little to do with the Monkees' records (people think they did more mostly because Carol Kaye has, to be charitable about it, a poor memory as to what she's played on). However, this still needs some work, because really there were three phases to the group's career, and this timeline doesn't really cover them very well:

Phase 1 (first two albums) - Pretty much everything played by session musicians. The vast majority of this (including most of the famous songs from this period like Clarksville, Stepping Stone, She and so on) is played by the Candy Store Prophets. The stuff produced by Jeff Barry (I'm A Believer, A Little Bit Me and a couple of others) is played by unknown New York session musicians. The two tracks per album produced by Nesmith feature members of the Wrecking Crew plus Tork.

Phase 2 (second two albums) - Nesmith and Tork play their instruments, Dolenz adds drums (and guitar sometimes), and the band are augmented by various bass players (John London, Chip Douglas) on Headquarters. This persists on Pisces except Dolenz is replaced on drums by Eddie Hoh and the band are augmented by a few extra musicians (London and Douglas plus Doug Dillard, Harry Nilsson and a couple of other people). Pisces also has one track (Hard To Believe) which is essentially put together entirely by the drummer from the Sundowners, along with Jones on vocals.

Phase 3 (Birds, Bees through Present) - mostly solo recordings by the individual band members, using a mixture of the Candy Store Prophets, some Wrecking Crew members, Nashville players and rock people like Steve Stills, Neil Young, Harry Nilsson, Ry Cooder, Carole King etc.

The section as it stood before made it seem like the Wrecking Crew did the vast majority of this, but even as it is now it's a bit of a mess and probably needs further work.

(My information here all comes from Sandoval, who has details of who played on every session)

Stealth Munchkin (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)