This is default featured slide 1 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 2 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 3 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 4 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

This is default featured slide 5 title

Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.

Showing posts with label interesting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interesting. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Interview with Ray Foulk & Caroline Foulk, authors of When the World Came to the Isle of Wight: Stealing Dylan From Woodstock



Author Ray Foulk

Author Caroline Foulk

Today I'm very pleased and very excited to bring you the following interview with Ray and Caroline Foulk, authors of the fantastic new book When the World Came to the Isle of Wight, Volume 1: Stealing Dylan From Woodstock. I reviewed the book earlier this year and Ray and Caroline were kind enough to answer my questions regarding the second Isle of Wight Festival in 1969, what is was like booking Bob Dylan for the festival, and much, much more. Before we begin, how about a little background on the authors?

Ray Foulk, now based in Oxford, has fostered many passions since his early days as a promoter. After the dizzy heights of the Isle of Wight Festivals and stadium events in London, the Foulk brothers were head-hunted by the Milton Keynes Development Corporation to help plan the leisure content of their new city. Through this, Ray brought the inventor/scientist/designer Buckminster Fuller to the project, embraced his environmentalism, and eventually trained as an architect himself at the University of Cambridge. Combining design, education, and promotion he spent much of the nineties and noughties as an environmental campaigner, and led the ambitious in-schools project, Blue Planet Day, rekindling the satisfaction, and more, that the festivals had brought to his youth. Recent years have been dominated by environmental architecture and writing.

Caroline Foulk has worked with her father, Ray, for many years, researching, writing, and co-promoting the schools environmental project, Blue Plant Day. Recently, together they have completed a screenplay for the cinema about the invention of modern art. Caroline trained and worked as a teacher and lives in Oxford with her husband and three children.

RNRChemist: First off, can you give us a bit of background on you? How did you come to settle on the Isle of Wight? What year was that and what were the circumstances? How did you like living there?

RF: After the relatively sudden death of my father in 1956 it was no longer practical for my mother to keep up a large house in Derbyshire with 5 young children to bring up. We moved to the Island because my Uncle already had property there. Also my aging grandmother lived there. It suited Uncle Ronald to encourage Mother to move.We were disappointed in some respects with the island, especially the house we relocated to, which was parochial and small compared to the amazing mansion house we left behind. Sutton Rock had seemed such a marvel to my father’s family who had lived for generations as coal miners. I think we had an overall general feeling of immense loss, but the seaside was a plus.


RNRChemist: What was the impetus for you and your brothers to decide to stage the first festival in 1968? Why did you decide to do that?

RF: We put on the first IOW festival because my brother Ronnie got involved in raising funds for a local charity – IWISPA, whose remit was to raise money for an indoor swimming pool for the IOW.

RNRChemist: That first festival seems to be the forgotten one of the three you promoted...looking back on it, what are your thoughts on it?

RF:  The first festival seems almost a little embarrassing in retrospect. Although it was put on with a degree of professionalism, the stubble field was painful to sit on and we made wild claims about the national significance of the event, for instance we put it about that the Beatles would attend, (little did we know that they really would come the following year). We were disappointed that only about 10,000 attended. My brother Bill had assured us of the importance of Jefferson Airplane, Arthur Brown and the various underground bands. The island felt like a hopeless place for events.

RNRChemist: What did you have to go through to get Jefferson Airplane to headline that first one? How was their performance?

RF:  My brother Ronnie had to keep plugging away for Jefferson Airplane. He was casting around for any big names really. He had little knowledge of the contemporary scene and was turned down many times. He had no track record as a promoter and had to rely on his abilities as a salesman to finally convince the Clayman Agency that we were really serious contenders able to host an event worthy of an international band like Jefferson Airplane.

When it came to playing the Airplane were on form. Although it was freezing cold they brought rock genius into the night and lifted everybody’s spirits. They made everything seem worthwhile even though their light show was constrained by the dusty conditions.

RNRChemist: When you decided to plan the festival for the following year, what sort of things did you feel you needed to improve upon from 1968?

RF:  The IOW festival ‘mark one’ had seemed makeshift in many ways. We definitely wanted to make our festival-goers more welcome and comfortable – to go bigger and better in every way. It was important that we found a decent grassy site with proper facilities. Probably the biggest difference was that we styled it a ‘Camping festival’, which was unusual at this time. Because we were on an island we wanted people to have enough time to travel. Trench type toilets were replaced by cubicles and we appointed staff, often friends, to different departments overseeing every aspect of festival necessities. Everything was more designed from the tickets, to the programmes, posters etc. to the stage. We tried to address everything with excellence.



RNRChemist: Why Dylan? What made him your top choice as headliner for the second festival? Did you think you had a realistic shot at booking him? Was it more a "shoot for the moon" type thing?

RF:  It was obvious that we needed the biggest names to draw people across the water. Jefferson Airplane hadn’t been able to do this – the task of finding somebody with enough clout seemed daunting. Dylan really was the holy grail in 1969, he had acquired a god-like status due to his influence upon a whole generation. He was more than an ordinary musician, whether he liked it or not.

RNRChemist: I'm assuming you were expecting to be turned down outright by Dylan's management when you first called? What was your reaction when they didn't immediately say "no?"

RF:  I don’t think we set out believing that we had a chance to get Dylan. The fact that Dylan’s management didn’t dismiss us out of hand was a green light to us. We resorted to scheming over what might make the difference, bearing in mind that we had very few resources at all.

RNRChemist: Can you describe in more detail what the process was like for dealing with Block and Grossman as you warmed Bob up to the idea of coming to the island?

RF:  We had less dealings with Al Grossman than with Bert Block owing to the demise of the Dylan-Grossman contract. Dylan was in the process of distancing himself from Grossman. During my visit to New York for the signing when I dined with Grossman and the lawyers almost immediately at a Chinese restaurant (something I’d never experienced before). And after the signing when we visit Grossman’s flat at Gramercy Park. It was there that Al skinned up a joint to celebrate the deal (to my alarm). Al was like a presence but not so much involved. He came to the festival with Michael Lang and seemed more interested in seeing the Who than Dylan.

 I mostly dealt with Grossman’ partner, Bert Block. We developed a good rapport, over the phone initially.  Sometimes Bert wrong-footed me. When he said ‘bring the dollars’ (in preparation for my trip to meet Dylan) I really had to think about what he meant. I looked after him whenever he visited the Island. I made it my mission to make sure Bert was okay and therefore Dylan was okay. Bert seemed a really good old timer, kind of avuncular, though he probably wasn’t that old in reality. I recall I scared Bert a couple of times with my driving, but he always had faith in our abilities as promoters. As for the process of dealing with Block and Grossman it was pretty smooth, apart from Rikki Farr’s little indiscretion. They were decent, friendly and business-like. We knew we had to present ourselves in a business-like way at all times, especially in order to surmount our youthfulness and it paid off.  I had too much to think about to be too overawed by their stature as managers.



RNRChemist: How was it traveling to New York to meet with Dylan and his management? Can you describe how that whole trip went?

RF:  Travelling to New York was a lot of fun. I hadn’t been abroad before of course. Once I had my passport, visa and the guarantees for at least most of the performance fees I could almost sit back and enjoy the ride. A downside was Rikki and his antics. He was a loose cannon and wont to step in claiming he was the organiser, which he patently wasn’t, as well as louse things up, but I had the benefit of his demeanour as a bonafide show producer. We needed to be a convincing duo and Rikki certainly helped.

RNRChemist: After you got Bob, how did you guys feel? I'm guessing it was relief mixed with the immediate pressure of "now how are we gonna make sure it all goes smoothly?

RF:  Securing Dylan was unbelievable but the time period (5 weeks) between him signing and the festival itself was so short that there was really no time to do anything but get organised as rapidly as possible. Ticket sales were the priority. We had to raise enough cash to meet the contracts and build a city. But it wasn’t like a relief it was more euphoric than that. 

RNRChemist: Why choose Dylan? Why not the Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, someone else? What about Bob made you want to go for him above all others?

RF:  Dylan was a way bigger draw than the Stones or Hendrix at this point. The Beatles would have measured up to Dylan but they were in the process of their break up and hadn’t played live in eons.  Elvis’s name even came up, but we couldn’t imagine him playing in a field.  We were after one of the big three. Dylan was the only viable option. It’s easy to underestimate how big Dylan was at this time.

RNRChemist: You mention that you and your brothers weren't promoters, you were businessman...how did that gibe with trying to put on these massive festivals?

RF:  Although we were businessmen rather than promoters I was pretty heavily into some of the issues of the time and was active with the IOW CND and labour party. In fact I set up a CND group in the West Wight. So although I was making a living in business my heart was with the counterculture.  The same is true of my brother Bill who was a student at the Royal College of Art. It’s true that my musical education was lacking at the time of the first festival. Bill was easily able to point us in the right direction groups-wise. But it suited us well to have a business-like approach to the festivals.  The organisation of the two large events was very complementary from the viewpoint of those that mattered, ie. the health authorities, police and bulk of the audience. It just wouldn’t have been possible to host such large numbers without a budget, plan, capable staff and their departments, at least not without creating a disaster area.

RNRChemist: You mention that you were a late convert to Dylan and weren't necessarily a huge rock fan at the time...what were your listening habits like in the 1960s? Did they change after putting on these three festivals?

RF:  My musical taste changed dramatically. Above all I persisted with Dylan and soon became a genuine fan. We were fully incentivized to get familiar with as much current music as we could find the time to listen to it. It was soon flooding in too with demos coming at us from all quarters. Before this time I was a Johnny Cash fan, I liked the Beatles, trad jazz and knew about (by then) old hat stars like Adam Faith and Billy Fury.

RNRChemist: Can you give us a little flavor into how it was organizing this massive festival out of your house, and with 1960s technology to boot! I'd bet most young people today couldn't even imagine how much harder it was than it would be now.

RF:  In some ways organising the massive Dylan festival was easier than it might be nowadays. We had less technology available, but those were the days when the fixed line telephone really worked. People tended to answer reliably and it was easier to make contact even with celebrities. In the case of going above people’s head a person-to-person call would often do the trick. Social media nowadays can take up a lot of time and work. Being restricted to largely paper publications, telephone, radio and television for advertising actually meant concentrating on the job would have been easier in some ways. We employed messengers to deal with some of tasks now taken care of by email and text. Conditions at Mother’s house were hardly consistent with a world-class rock festival but we did make use of a suite of rooms on the upper floor, which became workable office space. Of course dining tables doubled as desks etc. as far as furniture was concerned. Mother was fairly self-contained in a separate wing of the house, but would help on occasion by answering international phone calls in the middle of the night, or providing voluminous quantities of good home cooked food for whoever might be staying.



RNRChemist: What were some of the most difficult parts of the entire festival for you in terms of planning and execution?

RF:  Raising funds was always the most problematic planning issue from the moment that Dylan agreed to sign especially in the early stages when potential backers just really wouldn’t believe that an event headed up by Dylan would happen. Without funds nothing could happen smoothly, but once Dylan had signed of course tickets were selling like lightening, which freed us up to concentrate on other vital matters like building the arena and finding Dylan and co. places to stay. One of the hairiest moments was when Dylan disembarked from the QUEII following his son‘s accident on board. Everything was riding on Dylan’s appearance. We suddenly realised how vulnerable we were.

RNRChemist: What was it like meeting the Beatles and other titans of the music world in 1969?

RF:  It was quite surreal meeting famous people like the Beatles and other rock titans but to be honest I wasn’t interested in hanging around such people too much. There were plenty of others ready to do that. We were so consumed by the operation at hand that you could only take it in your stride. We were there to do a job and we had to concentrate hard on the necessities of keeping the thing together.

RNRChemist: What was Dylan like as a person? How about George Harrison? The other Beatles? The Who? Other rock musicians you met at the festival?

RF:  My first impression of Dylan was that he was quite shy, probably shyer than me even. He was very ordinary, a regular down to earth kind of guy, polite and well spoken. He was dressed in jeans and a leather jacket and I suppose he appeared smaller than I expected, not that he is especially small but anyone with that big a name you kind of imagine to be larger.

George had all eyes for Dylan and clearly set about resuming the relationship he had been building with him after he had visited the Dylan’s home some months before. I enjoyed very much standing there and listening to them harmonizing beautifully to some Everly Brothers hits. That was a truly special moment, like a private concert.

The Beatles were very charming and seemed relaxed either hanging out at the farmhouse or backstage. They were keen on talking between themselves and were apologetic, saying that they didn’t get much chance to talk shop. John and Yoko were quite clingy as I remember.

The Who? We developed a good relationship with them which continued after the 1969 and 1970 festivals with Rock at the Oval in 1971. It has been said that the Isle of Wight gigs were the events of the Who’s career, which I’d be inclined to agree with. They could only have been pleased by their performance, reception, everything worked like a dream for them.

RNRChemist: What was your relationship like with your two brothers, Ronnie and Bill? How about with Rikki Farr? He certainly seemed to have had a knack for saying the wrong thing at a most inopportune time!

RF:  The relationship between my brother Ronnie and I had always been close and inevitably under the circumstances we pulled together. Ronnie is a visionary. I would endeavour to bring in to reality whatever the latest idea was. We worked well as a team and developed ideas together around the clock. Our brother Bill was younger and away at the Royal College of Art some of the time. He was a very important advisor to key decisions such as what acts to go for, what type of festival we were putting on aside from his general duties on site and stage design.

Rikki was a mixed blessing. He was loud, gregarious and amiable. We had a good working relationship with him though he could be unruly. He would breeze in from his Portsmouth menswear shop as something of a VIP but he really wasn’t around on the Island that much. Most of his input came to the fore at the festival itself. He could be a liability in terms of saying the wrong thing, at other times he was able to pull us out of a difficult spot and had valuable experience to add to our credibility.  It was said that he took after his boxer father using his mouth like other people use their fists!

RNRChemist: How did you feel about things heading into the moment when the festival was actually about to start? Confident? Nervous? Terrified? All of the above?

RF:  There were so many balls to keep in the air there was barely time to think about whether we felt nervous or terrified.  In reality there were moments of feeling overawed by the event – like the first time stepping on to the stage at Woodside Bay and seeing that immense crowd – that was quite something.

RNRChemist: Who were your favorite acts from the entire weekend?

RF:  Dylan was the favourite act for me that weekend. It was only during his set that I really sat down in the wings and listened without distraction. The Bonzo Dog Band were certainly amusing as I recall, The Band were stunning and Gary Farr did well. There were many great moments.  Ronnie was really excited about the Who, though sadly he heard them only from a great distance away.

RNRChemist: What was it like to see a crowd that size? How do you remember them? Overall, were they well behaved?

RF: Generally the crowd was well behaved (with certain exceptions like towards Mr and Mrs Thackham, with their bungalow adjacent to the stage, or suffered a minor insult). We never expected otherwise. In fact there was earnestness in the demeanour of most folks, like they really came to hear the music – that was what they were there for.  Generally nobody stood up during the acts. Etiquette was that you would sit and refrain from obscuring the view of your brother or sister in front of you. Otherwise you might find yourself pelted with coke cans.



RNRChemist: What was going through your head when the Band were delayed for a couple of hours and Dylan was getting antsy?

RF: We were not overly worried about the delay to see Dylan. It wasn’t as if the crowd was going anywhere and 10pm would have been a rather early finish. Of course it did cut out the likelihood of Dylan playing on longer, which would have been a bonus and certainly knocked out the possibility of a jam with the Beatles or Stones. Of course that was never really going to happen anyway. We were most aware of the discomfort and general scrimmaging in the press arena. We didn’t really intrude on Dylan during his preparations so we weren’t really too aware of his level of discomfort.

RNRChemist: Dylan's set: your thoughts? How do you think it went down then, and how do you feel about now with hindsight (and being able to listen to it in full via his recent release of it)?

RF:  I enjoyed Dylan’s set immensely. Sure he was different.  He sounded for the first time like he could really sing well. It was a well-constructed set, the Band were perfect in sync with what he was doing.  There were quiet moments and raucous moments. It was great music. The digital release of recent times bears out the quality of the gig and it is a joy to hear it in its remastered form. The audience listened attentively rather than reacted in raptures and calls for encores continued for 20 minutes. There is no doubt that he was well received. For all those expecting the wired rock poet of 1966 they would have been disappointed. Dylan had leapt ahead in with his stage persona. Many were left behind wondering where the old Dylan was.

RNRChemist: How accurately (or not) do you feel the press covered Dylan's set, as well as the whole festival, afterward? It certainly seemed that both you and Bob weren't too keen on what was printed!

RF:  Positive press reports were widespread. There was negativity expressed afterwards in certain quarters of the UK gutter press regarding Dylan cutting short his set - which of course was not true, but perhaps this might have been a reaction to the pre-festival hype predicting a super-jam with the Stones and the Beatles. Others were casting around for something to write – a peaceful trouble-free festival was really not exciting enough. The negatives were easily outweighed by the positives, but it was significantly damaging to Dylan for him to reflect uneasily on playing in the UK afterwards although initially he had seemed delighted with the event. Comments were as varied as George Harrison’s words reported in the Daily Mirror ‘I could go on talking about Dylan for eight hours. He’s unlimited in what he’s doing…’ to the Daily Sketch’s ‘Dylan cuts it short after midnight flop’ For us the flimsy complaints were irritating to say the least but by and large we were very happy. Reporting in general ranged from generally accurate to accounts laden with descriptions of debauchery and depravity, some of which could be quite funny.

RNRChemist: After the festival, can you describe how you felt? How did you think things went?

RF:  After the festival and the initial exhaustion, we felt elated combined with a huge sense of relief for having pulled it off. We were astonished at how well it had gone really. We were completely inspired to repeat the event, if not to surpass it.

RNRChemist: What was the festival site like after everyone left? How long did it take to clean up and return to normal?

RF:  The festival site was awash with rubbish as far as the eye could see. As you might expect, but there was no permanent damage other than minor damage to the catering tent, which had been used as a vantage point by Bob-spotters. It took three or four weeks to restore the site to its former condition.

RNRChemist: Any folks in particular that you want to single out as being particularly helpful throughout the whole festival, from planning to execution to wrap-up?

RF:  There are certain individuals who were particularly helpful throughout the festival. Turner Smith on site was a powerhouse of a man, strapping and strong and willing to take on any task. He had good knowledge of construction and general engineering matters. Electrician Harry Garrood was similarly around from the beginning. He was very skilled and kept with us. Another older gent Dr Quantrill was willing to stick his neck out for us in influencing the authorities to have faith in us and to dismiss scurrilous health scares as ridiculous.

RNRChemist: What was the local reaction before, during, and after the festival?
RF:  Local reaction to the oncoming festival was not initially as great as you might think. In fact a large number of Isle of Wight residents simply had no time to really contemplate what was actually arriving on the Island. Obviously there was great excitement among the youngsters. Some of this was evidenced on site when youths would come by and offer to do any job, sometimes without pay. Older people expressed dismay at the prospect of the Island being flooded with festivalgoers – perhaps our slogan ‘Help Bob Dylan Sink the Isle of Wight’ didn’t help there. During the festival itself there were stresses on certain resources for instance provisions in local shops -but others saw the festival as a great opportunity and set out their stalls, literally!  The reaction afterwards was similarly mixed. On the whole young people were very much in favour of the festival while those of the older generation who objected were wild with antagonism and would express their hostility in extreme terms.

RNRChemist: Why did you decide to jump right into planning the next one? How much time did you take to relax and bask in the afterglow of the '69 festival before starting to plan for '70?

RF:  After just a few days or weeks of reflection, recuperation and taking stock our thoughts gravitated towards another festival. It was inevitable. There was no question of basking in an afterglow for very long. There was just too much to do if we were to repeat the festival only go one better.

RNRChemist: What's your overarching memory of that year and what you and your colleagues accomplished with the 1969 Isle of Wight festival?

RF:  It was a staggering realisation to have accomplished what we had set out to do. It was life changing. It felt like we could do anything or that anything was possible, once the finance was organised.

RNRChemist: Ray and Caroline, thank you so much for your time and insight. You've got me looking forward to volume two even more and I hope we can continue our discussion after that book is published. In the meantime, to my readers, I can't recommend Stealing Dylan From Woodstock enough...if you're a fan of the era and/or any of the acts that played the IOW in 1969, you'll definitely enjoy reading about how it all came together. Britain's answer to Woodstock was bigger and in many ways better, and incredibly they topped it the following year, but the story of how that happened will have to wait for volume two...


Monday, July 13, 2015

Interview with Paul "Smiler" Anderson, author of Mods: The New Religion

Author Paul Anderson

The Rock and Roll Chemist is proud to bring you the following interview with author Paul "Smiler" Anderson. Paul is the author of the excellent book Mods: The New Religion which I reviewed earlier this year. For anyone interested in Mod style and culture and music, or just 1960s Britain in general, it's a must-read. Paul 'Smiler' Anderson has been involved with DJ'ing on the Mod scene for over 30 years and has been writing about it via fanzines, record sleeve notes and books for the same amount of time. He has DJ'd at many of the major Mod nights and has DJ'd at Mod rallies and events, both in the UK and Europe, since the 1980s. In 2011 he wrote and came up with the concept of the biggest ever exhibition of 1960s Mod artfacts, which alongside Damian Jones, he set up at Reading Museum entitled 'Reading Steady Go!' In 2009 he co-wrote "Circles - The Strange Story of The Fleur De Lys" about the little known 60's Mod band. in 2014 "Mods: The New Religion" was published and he is currently working on a new book entitled "Mod Art" due for release next year. Paul was kind enough to answer my many questions about his great book and his views on Mod culture. Enjoy!



RNRChemist: Hi Paul, thanks for speaking with me...I'm really excited to have the opportunity! Let's get started: can you tell us little bit about yourself?

PA: I’m 50 years old and I live in Reading in Berkshire which is approximately 40 miles from London. I  live with my wife Lorraine and my son is 4 later this year. I’ve been into Mod since 1979.

RNRChemist: How did you first get into Mod culture?

PA: I became involved in the Mod scene around September 1979 after watching it evolve from afar. At first the entry point was through the revival bands such as the Jam, Secret Affair, The Chords etc. Fashion-wise I hadn’t a clue: it was all white, socks, loafers and a parka. In 1983 I started work as a postman, and by then lots of the older original revival Mods were getting more into being scooter boys. In other words, their interest revolved around their scooters so clothes were not that important and their music choices changed. To me, being a Mod was always about clothes first, music second, and although I always have owned scooters, they really aren’t a necessity. At work I had to wear a uniform so I really appreciated dressing up in my leisure time, which I guess is the paradox to businessmen wearing jeans and sports wear in their free time. By 1984 locally most Mods had evolved into the scooter scene whilst I went in search of my Mod Nirvana which I found in London. I discovered clubs like The Phoenix and Sneakers which were full of young kids wearing tailor made suits and 60s vintage clothes dancing to original R&B, soul, ska, beat and jazz. I found my Mod heaven and that dictated my direction from then on. I was always in search of elusive vintage shirts by Brooks Brothers, Jaytex, Ben Sherman, Brutus, Austins, Jon Wood, Harry Fenton or Arnold Palmer. If you couldn’t get vintage you’d find a good shirt maker such as Katy Stevens who was based at 7 Archer Street in Soho at the time. She’d made shirts for The Beatles and The Small Faces in the 60s and was the best. Suits and trousers were either vintage or tailor made. We had a guy called Charlie Antoniou who had a tiny room above a shop in Carnaby Street. Beautiful mohair masterpieces in 3 or 4 buttons, or maybe double-breasted. You avoided the mass Mod market shops that were dotted along Carnaby Street and were cheap quality pale imitations. The street fashion by 1984 was Frankie says T shirts, linen one button ‘Miami Vice jackets’ or Casual gear such as Pringle, Lyle &Scott etc paired with Farrah slacks. Youth tribes from the period included ‘Boneheads’ (Skinheads racist ancestor), Punks, Psychobillies, Rockabillies, New Romantics, Casuals, Rockers, and Scooter Boys. Most hated us Mods but in a way it felt great to be involved in such an underground movement.



RNRChemist: What was it about being the Mod scene that interested and appealed to you?

PA: As above really. I had no interest in the present day fashions, really.

RNRChemist: How long did you spend researching and writing this book?

PA: The book took around five years to write and was at the publishers for two years before it was released! I did most of it the old fashioned way, recording interviews on a tape recorder, writing it out in ink, editing and typing it up. Most contacts were gained by getting phone numbers and taking a chance.

RNRChemist: What inspired you to write the book?

PA: I’d always written fanzines in the 1980s and I’d never actually read a book that I thought had done the original scene justice. Lots lean towards the Northern Soul route which really doesn’t interest me that much.

RNRChemist: Why do you think the time was right for the movement to start when it did in the late 1950s/early 1960s?

PA: Britain was still recovering from the destruction of the Second World War. Rationing was coming to an end. Hire purchase was on the increase for working class people. National Service ended and youths wanted to distance themselves from the grime and misery that their parents and siblings lives had seemed to be full of.



RNRChemist: Why were the Mods so obsessed with finding authenticity in everything? In particular, with their music?

PA: Mods love one-upmanship, so what better way than to search out an obscure artist or song? To find a rare record on an even scarcer label is always nice.

RNRChemist: Regarding the drug use by the Mods, how prevalent was it and do you think it was as bad as the media made it out to be at the time?

PA: Yes, I think it was very prevalent...probably worse than what was actually reported!! Amphetamines were a huge part of the Mod experience.

RNRChemist: Besides allowing the kids to stay up all night raving it up, why do you think they were drawn to uppers rather than alcohol, pot, or psychedelics?

PA: You have to remember most clubs were held in unlicensed premises, so alcohol was pretty much out of the question. Besides which, a lot of Mods were kids of, say, 15-17 so they were too young to drink anyway. You also have to remember that it was only later in 1964 that the "illegal use of drugs" act was proposed. Prior to that the drugs taken could be slimming pills or pick-me-ups for anxiety. Psychedelics would not enter the scene until ’66 or ’67, really.



RNRChemist: A lot of detractors thought the Mod males were a bit effeminate for caring so much about their appearance, but most of those guys were tough bastards! Why were working class youth so clothes conscious?

PA: The working classes have always liked to dress up, even back in the days of the "Sunday best" suit. You may be poor, but if you can dress up, the less people will judge you.

RNRChemist: The same goes for scooters. What was the appeal? I'm guessing it was some combination of getting around the city easily and appropriating another fashion from the continent?

PA: Yes, it was a glamour aspect combined with a relatively cheap form of transport for freedom. Plus, you could personalise them, and everything engine wise was covered up unlike the dirty, greasy motorbikes of the period.

RNRChemist: The entire movement seemed to have a live fast/live for today mentality...not many of the kids seemed to care to save their money; as soon as they earned it they seemed to spend it on clothes, scooters, records, pills, and going out. Was this simply a rebellion against the austerity and scrimping and saving they'd all known growing up in the 1950s?

PA: You have to remember that the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 almost saw the end of the world. A lot of youngsters wondered if there was much point in saving. They embraced the feeling of moving forward, but living for the moment at the same time. Plus you have to remember they’d grown up in the bomb sites and the grey days of rationing. This mixed with new fashions, music and inventions...why wouldn’t they want a bit of glamour?

RNRChemist: How do you view the whole Mods vs. Rockers thing? Was it a legitimate rivalry or was it trumped up and exaggerated by the media?

PA: A mixture really, yeah, it could be bad but in most cases Rockers lived in the country or the Home Counties. The press stirred it up for sure but in reality the worst enemy of Mods was other Mods. This being either young Mods coming up trying to gain reputations or the usual rival territories such as East London versus South London.

RNRChemist: In your opinion when did the original wave of Mod start to die out? Why do you think it did?

PA: Mod was constantly evolving. The late 50s Mods, well some may have even been gone by ’61 or ’62. The riots in '64 thrust Mod into the spotlight and caused many to disappear. Mod’s last true stand was probably over by ’66 and by ’67... it was definitely past its sell by date. This is due to music evolving, especially in ’67 where the white West Coast sounds took off, plus heavier drugs. For some it was boredom or for many, getting married and settling down. Mod may have still been found in Northern England  and other places, but London was pretty much over it.

RNRChemist: It seems that most of the folks you interviewed in the book all share the opinion that when Mod went commercial and Carnaby Street became the epicenter for Swinging London, the scene moved past its expiration date (so to speak). Was that the death of the movement, losing its authenticity and becoming too mainstream?

PA: I think it was the combination of all that I mentioned in the previous question. In ’66, Swinging London was a tourist trap and a million miles away from how it all started.



RNRChemist: Regarding the people you interviewed, it was so wonderful to read all of their memories and to see many of them in their youth in the midst of the Mod scene. How did you manage to track down so many of them?

PA: Sheer hard graft is the plain answer. Just tracing leads, phone numbers on bits of paper etc. Asking one interviewee if he had other contacts, that sort of thing.

RNRChemist: Who were your favorites of the people you interviewed?

PA: Hard to say really as since making the book I have become good friends with many. Terry from The Eyes, Ali from The Birds, Chris Farlowe, Steve Ellis, Jeff Dexter, and Mike Quinn are some of "the famous" that I now count as friends, which is as surreal as it is lovely. Then the Mods: Mickey Tenner, Lloyd Johnson, and the Portsmouth Mods were all really great. I had loads of fun interviewing Jimmy James, Geno, Martha Reeves, Eddie Floyd, Owen Gray, Derrick Morgan…the whole journey was a blast! I had a lovely couple of meetings with Ian McLagan, sadly the last one was just before he died.

RNRChemist: Personal opinion of course, but who do you think were the leading figures during the scene, and why?

PA: Mickey Tenner was very influential and I was so glad to have him on board for the book. To me, the Birdcage Mods from Portsmouth seemed to have the whole idea and attitude down to a tee. I love those guys. Guy Stevens and Roger Eagle in terms of the music. I believe Chris Barber is the unsung hero of the scene, really. Whilst he was never a Mod, he deserves credit for bringing over all those early visiting blues artists. Of course then there are Andrew Loog Oldham, Peter Meaden, Johnny Moke, Willie Deasy. Most movers and shakers were just the actual Mods.

RNRChemist: Were there any interesting or crazy stories you gathered while interviewing everyone that didn't make the final cut of the book? Any chance you could share one with us?

PA: Ha ha! I could tell you that Andy Ellison and Johns Children actually got the job of painting The New Scene Club white after the Scene Club renamed itself in ’66 and got rid of its old blacked out image. John Lee Hooker used to piss in old empty beer bottles whilst on tour in the back of a van. One day another band used the van, took a corner too fast, and found themselves drenched in stale JLH piss!

RNRChemist: Which of the British bands of the 1960s era do you think were the most authentically Mod? Which ones are your favourites?

PA: I think Rod Stewart was definitely about on the scene in the early days so deserves more credit than he gets...he was everywhere! I believe that Georgie Fame had a lot of suss to cover what they covered musically. The Animals were also loved by the very hip crowd. There are loads of little bands that maybe could be there such as The Wes Minster Five or the Bo Street Runners. The Stones and the Yardbirds were very sussed in their early choice of blues material. You have to put in The Who really, because although kind of manufactured to be Mods, they were in the epicentre of it all. They were in the right clubs and had first pick of a lot of Guy Stevens records. Out of all the singers, to me Chris Farlowe has one of the most authentic sounding voices. Later bands like The Small Faces, The Action, and The Fleur De Lis contained actual Mods so are obviously included. I love aspects of all of these bands, really, so it’s hard to choose. I think The Action are to me the ideal package, though, in terms of material, look, and that fantastic Reggie King voice.



RNRChemist: Why do you think that, alone amongst the big 60s British bands, the Beatles were never really embraced by Mods? They seemed to dress the part and share the same influences as the Mods, yet their brand of pop and rock seemed to fall on deaf ears when it came to the Mods...

PA: Time has been a bit unfair to them. As my book states, they were one of Britain’s first bands to cover R&B. "Some Other Guy" by Ritchie Barrett was a fantastic song to cover, as was "Twist and Shout." But to London Mods they were aliens from "up North" and so were seen as behind the times. Their squeaky clean image was a bit too produced and they were perceived as a girls pop band. Although The Animals were from up North, too (Newcastle), I think they were regarded as a bit more "street" and tough, working class so they were accepted a bit better.

RNRChemist: Along these same lines, the rock and skiffle crazes of the 50s led to a lot of kids picking up an instrument and starting bands; indeed that's how almost all of the 60s bands got started. Yet it seems most of the kids who came up Mod weren't inspired to do the same...they were content to go see shows, dance, and listen to the records. Am I off base, and if not why do you think this is the case?

PA: Can’t really see that, as most early Mod type bands featured at least one person from art school so I think there was a definite creative flow there. Surely the Beatles and The Stones got as many bands to pick up guitars and form bands as did Elvis and even The Shadows? Most later rock groups like Led Zeppelin, Humble Pie, The Faces, and Status Quo all had that Mod background element in them.

RNRChemist: What aspect of Mod fashion is your favorite? How about least favorite?  What do you think are the best and worst aspects of Mod culture?

PA: I love a good button down shirt and tailored trousers with nice loafers, basket weaves, lace ups etc. A beautiful well cut suit is always aesthetically pleasing. I hate all the psychedelic garb, frilly shirts, day glow, big long collars. I’ve never liked boating blazers. The best part of Mod culture is the creative one, as in discovering new records, styles and facts. The worst part is the destructive one, which is the pompous, blinkered and egotistical bullshit that pollutes it.



RNRChemist: In your view, what was it that made the late 1970s climate in the UK and US so ripe for the Mod revival?

PA: The same as when the original scene sparked in to life: Britain was a depressing place. Faded rock stars, strikes, hippie flares, bad haircuts. Punk cut through that all, thank God, but a lot of it came from a middle class background. That added to the fact that punk was kind of like the Rocker thing in that the whole dressing down look was what the establishment and the general public expected. Working class kids in well-cut suits wasn’t, so the boundaries were blurred. Punk gave it the spark of energy needed but lost momentum. The Mod revival just added the energy needed.

RNRChemist: Which bands, if any, from the second generation of Mod (say, the late 1970s Mod revival through to the late 1990s BritPop scene) do you think embodied the spirit of the whole thing (whether in their fashion or music, or both)?

PA: The Jam obviously deserve most credit for having influencing so many of the bands to form or "go Mod." Paul Weller was very quick to point out that The Jam were not a Mod band, although he was a Mod in a band. Weller was pretty shrewd there and deserves credit. He saw what happened to Jimmy Pursey and Sham 69 when you align yourselves in such a way. They had trouble at lots of Sham gigs. Secret Affair took on the banner and suffered lots of trouble at their gigs with the Glory Boys etc. The Chords were great energy-wise as were The Purple Hearts. In honesty, The Style Council probably got a lot closer to the original ethics of Mod in the 80s. By the 80s bands were less punk influenced, so bands like The Prisoners, The Moment, Fast Eddie, and Makin’ Time were accepted by more discerning Mods. Although there were lots of fodder amongst them with bands like The Gents and such. I could not relate to these.

RNRChemist: What are your favorite bands from the original 60s Mod era? Favorite albums? Favorite songs?

PA: My favourite musical style is the blues so I love Jimmy Reed, Little Walter, Sonny Boy Williamson, Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, and all those greats. Booker T & the MG’s "Green Onions" probably is the ultimate Mod tune in my opinion with "Ain’t Love Good, Ain’t Love Proud" by Tony Clarke a close second. But my personal favoutite song ever is "Heatwave" by Martha Reeves & the Vandellas. I love all the stuff really. Not a fan of Northern Soul but I like bits of it. R&B, Jazz and Ska are always in my DJ sets. Paul Weller gets a lot of stick but in my opinion he is probably the most influential Mod ever. As much as I love the Small Faces, Marriott and co. were only part of the scene for a very small period. Bands like The Eyes and the Creation always sound so exciting, even today. I’m proud I still like all my revival stuff, too. Hell, life is good. Mod got me in to so many different things, from French Jazz to Brasilian sambas!!!

RNRChemist: Paul, thank you so much for speaking with me and enlightening us with your knowledge and thoughts on all things Mod! It was a true pleasure! For my readers, I can't recommend this book enough. If you're a fan of anything we touched upon in our discussion above, you need Paul's book as it is truly the bible for all things Mod.

Friday, July 10, 2015

BOOK REVIEW: How Music Got Free



For those of us 30 and older, buying music in our youth meant waiting until the newest releases from our favorite artists were available on CD (or in earlier years, vinyl or cassette) before heading to the local brick-and-mortar store in order to purchase a copy. If you wanted something before it came out, you just had to wait, and if you wanted something your local stores didn't have, you either tried to mail-order it from a catalog or you called stores in the surrounding area to see if any of them had a copy. While this may seem like archaic to anyone under 30, that's just the way it was. The record companies controlled access (in terms of both release dates and pricing) to the music and the consumer had little choice but to pay what was asked, and when. Things began to change in the late 1990s, though, and as we all now know, in 2015 the way in which music is distributed and consumed is so drastically different to what went before that it's almost unrecognizable. The story of how this all happened is what How Music Got Free aims to tell.

***special thanks to Joe at The Bodley Head for sending me a copy of the book to review!***

(please note that I reviewed the British version of the book, which has a different cover and subtitle to the American edition...they are, however, identical in every other way)



According to his about the author blurb at the end of the book, author Stephen Witt is approximately the same age as me (he was born a year earlier) and was even born in my home state of New Hampshire. In his introduction, the experiences he had going to college, finally having internet access, and discovering the new technology of the mp3 eerily mirrors my own experiences. I started college in the same year as him which is where I had my first access to the internet, my first high speed ethernet connection (not until sophomore year in 1998...freshman year the university still had dial-up!), and had never heard of an mp3 before then. I arrived on campus with hundreds of CDs in boxes and a huge sound system, although I eventually started using Napster a little bit when it first appeared. I never stopped buying CDs, however (I still haven't) and I never downloaded pirated music. However, Witt did and found himself sitting with multiple hard drives storing hundreds of gigabytes of music by 2011 or so. That got him thinking, where did it all come from? Who was responsible? And did it really cost the music industry millions of dollars and almost kill it off? As he began to dig deeper he realized it started to converge on one man in particular, and the idea to write an investigative book was born. The result is How Music Got Free, and whether you read the British edition (subtitled "What happens when an entire generation commits the same crime?") or the American edition (subtitled "The end of an industry, the turn of the century, and the patient zero of piracy") you'll find yourself wondering the same thing.

The book follows the paths of the three individuals most responsible for the hell that broke loose in the late 1990s: Karlheinz Brandenburg, the German researcher who led the team responsible for creating the mp3 technology; Doug Morris, a legendary record executive who made a fortune shepherding hit after hit onto the charts, artistic quality be damned (and who helped make rap the dominant genre it's been since 2000, for better or worse); and Bennie Lydell "Dell" Glover, the quiet man who worked at the largest CD pressing plant in the USA and who was personally and almost single-handedly responsible for leaking almost 3,000 albums onto the internet weeks or, in some cases, months ahead of their release dates. The chapters take turns advancing the narrative of each one of these men, with successive chapters returning to their subject in order to detail what happened next. As the book progresses the story becomes more gripping and fascinating and at several points seems to be the product of a highly creative individual, until you step back and realize this all really happened. While I won't attempt to tell the entire story in this review, and while I urge you to read the book to get the full story, I'll give a general overview as it's no less fascinating.

Starting with Brandenburg, he was a psychoacoustic researcher at a German university who was obsessed with trying to compress audio files to as little as 1/12th their original size without sacrificing sound quality. He and his team finally achieved this after many years of hard work and research by eliminating many areas of the sound spectrum that are either imperceptible or unnoticed by the majority of listeners. However, committee politics with the European MPEG consortium led to the resulting mp3 technology being purposely crippled by superfluous additional software filtering being unnecessarily mandated by the committee, who preferred to adopt the inferior mp2. Eventually, however, the mp3 won out and made Brandenburg and his team very wealthy. As staunch defenders of copyright laws, however, little did they know that they'd opened Pandora's Box. Running alongside this was the late-career arc of Doug Morris, who had been active in the record industry since the 1960s and spent many years working for the legendary Ahmet Ertegun at Atlantic Records before heading to Warner Bros. Records. Eventually he ended up at Universal Music Group and at one point was personally controlling a third of the entire global music market. Morris had a keen eye and ear for which songs would make huge hits, caring little for artistic quality and more for capturing the public's interest long enough to sell millions of records and make a lot of money. He specialized in making national (and oftentimes, international) hits out of regional acts and scoured the country to bring rock, pop, and rap acts out from their local communities and onto the national stage. Running alongside this boom in disposable music was the CD, where ridiculous numbers of the shiny plastic discs were being sold ever year. The greed of the music industry was on full display during these boom years of 1990-2000, as described in the book: as the industry managed to get the cost of production down to around a dollar a disc, they never thought once of passing the savings on to the consumer, who were still paying the same $15 for a new CD in 2000 that they were in 1993. Eventually, this would come back to bite the industry in a big way. However, one man (among many, it must be noted) stood to do more damage to the industry's bottom line than anything else...

Dell Glover was an unassuming guy living in western North Carolina; he went to church, hung out with his friends and family, worked hard, and enjoyed life. In addition, he was en electronics whiz and spent many hours tinkering with computers and electronic gadgets, fixing them for friends and making a little money on the side doing so. Dell was a music fan, enjoying country, rock, pop, and rap, so getting a job that had some relation to the music industry was fortuitous indeed. He first got a part-time job at the massive Kings Mountain CD pressing plant in the mid-1990s and put in many long hours and overtime shifts in order to get full-time work and benefits there. Around the same period, he and his coworker/friend James Dockery became immersed in the nascent internet and the various IRC (internet relay chat) channels devoted to music. This eventually led them to become part of RNS (Rabid Neurosis), which would go on to become the most infamous online music pirating collective in the history of the internet. Dell began to realize that several new albums were being smuggled out of the plant weeks in advance...he would hear them at parties thrown by his coworkers and wonder how they got out, especially given the ever tightening security measures the plant was taking. Eventually rising to a supervisory position, Dell figured out a way to smuggle freshly pressed albums out (I won't spoil it for you...read the book!) and began his years of leaking album after album through his colleagues in RNS. Eventually, too many albums were being leaked far in advance of their release dates, catching the attention of the FBI. After many years of investigative work (and a few missteps by Glover and his cohorts in RNS), Dell was arrested and the key members of the RNS crew were nabbed. The entire story is gripping and I had to keep reminding myself over and over that this actually happened and was not just exciting fiction.

At its core, How Music Got Free is a multi-stranded tale of how an unwitting scientist, a clever music-loving techie (among millions like him), and an industry so short-sighted and greedy that they almost deserved what happened to them, all eventually intersected. It's the story of unbridled greed, hubris, and getting caught with their (technological) pants down on the part of the music industry. It's the story of well-meaning, important research and its unintended consequences on the part of Brandenburg's group. And it's the story of an entire generation of music fans and consumers shifting the way they viewed and acquired music. It's this last part that is the crux of How Music Got Free and which will make the reader think long and hard about their own attitudes and habits when it comes to music, both during and after reading it. Reading this book brought back a lot of memories of those times in the late 1990s/early 2000s when I was in college and and graduate school. At the time, I was hearing about all of this as it was going on. Yes, I used Napster a little bit, as well as some of the other peer-to-peer networks like eMule, Soulseek, and BitTorrent. Back then when it was all new, I didn't know that what I was doing was wrong as I was of the mindset that if I liked what I listened to enough, I was going to buy the CD anyway. To this day, I still buy CDs even though I've supplemented my listening with online (legal) streaming like Spotify and YouTube. While I do think the music industry got what was coming to them given their attitude toward the artistic value of much of the music they were pumping out, as well as their indifference to the economic burden their inflated prices placed on consumers, I do believe that artists and producers deserve to get paid for their hard work. The question of ownership and whether online file-sharing is right or wrong is the main thesis of the book and is something that is still hotly debated today. The path that led to where we are now is littered with tortured thinking, legal rulings and technicalities (such as the ruling that mp3s infringed on musical copyrights, but mp3s players were perfectly legal to make), and plain old bad decisions that would come back to haunt the various players in this saga years later.

Stephen Witt does a fantastic job weaving all of the various components of the story together into a cohesive tale of how we got to where we are today: moribund physical music sales, an industry near death that has to think of new gimmicks in order to stay relevant, and technology run rampant to the point that music is both as accessible as ever to consumers and burgeoning musicians, yet the industry is almost impenetrable to new artists unless. Throughout the entire book, Witt brings it all together, creating an intriguing, true-life detective story; making it even better is the fact that he actually met and interviewed (nearly) all of the main people he writes about: Doug Morris, Karlheinz Brandenburg and many members of his research group, and of course Dell Glover. The firsthand accounts and memories from these major (albeit behind-the-scenes) players makes for gripping reading and elevates the book above mere investigative writing. If I have one quibble with the book, it's that I felt it was a little bit rushed toward the end when it came to the discussion of the lawsuits and consequences suffered (or in some cases, unbelievably, not suffered) by the music pirates, as well as the aftermath and impact on all involved once the dust settled. This is more down to my personal thirst for more information than any shortcomings in Witt's writing and it very well may be the case that since the lawsuits in question were relatively recent (2007-11) the information is either not yet available or not accessible to the general public (yet). In any event, How Music Got Free is an excellent book that only describes how we got to where we are in terms of how music is valued as both an art form and product.  This book will force the reader to examine their own attitudes toward both long after the book is finished as you realize all of this change took place over less than a decade. That, perhaps, is the most stunning takeaway of all from How Music Got Free, but there are many more thought-provoking kernels of truth in the book that make it a fascinating must-read for any music fan and/or technophile.

 MY RATING: 9.5/10





Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Chemistry and the Dangers of Perception as Reality

(***DISCLAIMER: I've intentionally "dumbed down," for lack of a more politically correct term, this post so that I don't end up talking over the heads of my non-technical readers. It doesn't mean I think you're dumb, not at all! Rather, it means that I understand I can tend to get carried away when writing about science given my profession and I don't want to risk alienating those of my readers who won't know that the hell I'm going on about by using too much technical jargon.***)

Recently I've been seeing a lot of posts online discussing the perils of chemistry in our lives. Screaming headlines declaring that we're all being poisoned, unwittingly or otherwise, by toxic chemicals that are in everything from our food and water to our clothes, cosmetics, houses, and everything else. Whether it's been in the news or on social media, every day we're inundated with articles and posts going on about how toxic chemicals are, how unnatural they are, and how they're harming us and our children (invoking "the children" is always an effective way to grab someones attention no matter what issue you're trying to gin up support for). Now, I'm not trying to make light of the fact that some chemicals are indeed harmful and need to be used carefully and judiciously. What has gotten my hackles up lately is the fact that the discussion, if you can call it that, on chemistry has been incredibly one-sided. Obviously I've got more than a bit of bias being a chemist myself, but I want to state upfront that I don't feel passionately about the matter because I feel as though my livelihood is being threatened; rather it's the incredible amount of misinformation and taking advantage of the general public's ignorance when it comes to chemistry and science that really irritates me. The complaint from those in my field that the media continually misrepresents science and uses buzzwords and carefully crafted headlines to stoke fear and outrage in society is an old one, but not entirely without merit. However, the prevailing response always seems to be the declaration that we need to "have a discussion" and "educated the public" as to the numerous benefits of chemistry in our everyday lives. The problem is that these internal discussions within the chemistry community never result in any real action and so the problem persists...lather, rinse, repeat...

This post isn't supposed to be my attempt at rectifying that; I have neither the time, desire, or self-importance necessary for such an undertaking. Rather, I merely want to express my personal feelings on the matter. I've written several pieces about being a chemist, how much I enjoy it, and several of its challenges. Beyond the benefits I've experienced in my career, one of the biggest advantages I've found to being a chemist is in the way I now view the world around me. When discussing or thinking about anything in my life from a rusty nail to the GPS in our new car or anything in between or beyond, my experience and knowledge as a chemist has allowed me to understand what makes (most) everything around me work (or not work, in some cases) at a fundamental level. And if I don't know about something, the training I received while I was a PhD student has allowed me to either figure it out or find the answer so that I can understand it. My kids are always astounded that I am able to explain so many answers to them when they ask me about random things, and I tell them that's because of chemistry. I've written about chemistry's reputation as the central science before so I won't belabor the point, but it's true...everything can be traced back to it. However, the downside to all of this is that, as soon as people know I'm a chemist, they expect me to be able to answer any question they ask me in order to satisfy their own curiosity. Usually that's okay, but it gets frustrating when they don't understand that chemistry isn't a one-size-fits-all science. Just because I'm a chemist doesn't mean I can answer your question about why a certain medicine acts in a certain way with your body. I've specialized in organic materials chemistry, not medicinal chemistry! It's the same way a medicinal chemist won't be able to fully answer a question about why adding certain functional groups to a polycyclic aromatic compound can increase or decrease its electronic band gap the way I'm able. And no, not all of us are like Walter White in Breaking Bad, making illegal substances in our basements (that's another one I hear All. The. Time.). My point is, there's an awful lot of chemistry specifically and science in general that there is no all encompassing way to talk or think about it, which leads me to the crux of this post...

Misinformation and panic-induced hysteria about science in particular do no good to anyone and in many cases cause further harm, whether unintentionally or not. While it is true that many chemicals can be toxic, in many cases the lethal dosages are so far above what a person would ever realistically be exposed to over the entire course of their life that the danger is minimal to nonexistent. Likewise, there are chemicals that are toxic but in quantities that no normal person would ever ingest in the required time span such that they would suffer its effect. For instance, the chemical used for the artificial flavoring and aroma of microwave popcorn, butane-2,3-dione, is naturally occurring and has some negative health effects, but in order to be affected from it you either need to work in the factory where microwave popcorn is made over many years in order to be exposed to enough of it, or you'd need to ingest enough for it to harm you which would be some ridiculous quantity of it every day for many years. (See the case of Wayne Watson from 2012, who ate two bags of it a day, every day, for ten years to see what I mean). As a more high profile example, banning other chemicals, like DDT, has had disastrous consequences for malaria deaths in the developing world. My point here isn't to throw caution to the wind, damn the consequences to public health and environment, and use chemicals wherever and whenever we want. Rather, it's to make the point that when used responsibly and safely, many chemicals which are essential for improving our health, comfort, safety, and so on can be utilized in a safe and environmentally benign manner from which we all benefit.

Lastly, I get very tired hearing people decry "synthetic" chemicals vs. "naturally occurring" ones. As a clarification, just because something was synthesized in a laboratory doesn't mean it also isn't naturally occurring. Vanilla, aspirin, penicillin, and the aforementioned butane-2,3-dione, to name but four, are all naturally occurring chemicals that are now prepared in huge quantities synthetically in order for the quantities to be high (readily accessible) and the prices low (affordable). Many lifesaving medicines are entirely synthetic, and result from either modifications of naturally occurring molecules or being entirely synthetic analogues of natural medicines, imparting improved efficacy. Likewise, just because a chemical is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe: ricin, saxitoxin, and cyanides are all naturally occurring and are exceptionally toxic to humans. What I'd like to see in the future isn't the shutting down of the debate on chemistry, but rather a better educated media (with input and assistance from, gee I don't know, actual chemists?) without an agenda who can discuss the subject in a calm and rational manner so that there aren't scares that result in devastating unintended consequences like the malaria outbreaks that have killed millions since DDT was banned outright in 1972. Like everything in life, there needs to be a balance between information and responsible use. Certainly any entity, be it a company or individual, who needlessly harming the public or the environment with chemicals should be held accountable, but I wonder how many people would be willing to give up their life saving medicines or their modern conveniences? Because the fact is that most, if not all of those are synthetic, you know...

I'd love to hear thoughts from fellow scientists as well as non-scientists in the comments section below, so please chime in and let me know what you think. Am I off-base? Am I being too sensitive and/or paranoid? Or am I right to be concerned with this misinformation? Let's discuss!

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Interview with Chuck Gunderson, author of Some Fun Tonight! The Backstage Story of How the Beatles Rocked America: The Historic Tours of 1964-1966

Author Chuck Gunderson

The Rock and Roll Chemist is very excited to bring you today's interview with Chuck Gunderson, author of the excellent book Some Fun Tonight which has previously been reviewed here on the site. Chuck Gunderson was raised in San Diego, California, the site of the Beatles’ eighth stop on the 1965 North American tour. He was too young to attend the show, but he fondly recalls his older siblings spinning the records of the Fab Four as he grew up, which perked a life-long love for the band. He has worked in the outdoor advertising industry most of his life, although his true passion is history. He holds two degrees in history—a B.A. from San Diego State University and an M.A. from the University of San Diego. Having published a few articles over the years, Chuck turned his sights to researching and writing this epic two-volume set on the history of the Beatles’ North American tours of 1964 to 1966. Chuck is married to Christina, and they are the parents of four children, each a self-described Beatles fan.  After reading both information-packed volumes of his book, I had a LOT of questions and Chuck was kind enough to answer them.


RNRChemist: Chuck, thanks so much for taking the time to discuss your excellent books; it's a real pleasure.  Can you tell us a little bit about yourself? How did you first get into the Beatles?

CG: I am almost a first-generation fan (born in 1962), but fortunately for me, I had older brothers and a sister who were constantly spinning 45's and albums of the Beatles.  I fondly recall the Capitol swirl and later the Apple label revolving on our cheap turn table-so a fan from the very beginning of my life.

RNRChemist: What made you decide to write this book? Why focus on these specific tours from the Beatles' career?

CG: My favorite period of Beatle history is their live performances. Let's face it, they didn't start in a sterile studio but the rough and tumble stages of Liverpool and Hamburg where they logged thousands of playing hours.  Mark Lewisohn's book, "The Beatles Live!" was for certain a catalyst.  Others had written books on one or two of the tours, but they lacked detail and great photos.  I waited and waited for someone to do a definitive book on the tours like Bruce Spizer, but when no one stepped up to the plate I decided to do it myself.  I have a Master's in history, so I know how to write, research, and organize and being a huge fan made it all work out!

RNRChemist: How did you go about researching each show, tracking down the people involved, etc.?

CG: Most firsthand accounts of the Beatles playing in a city in North America were scant at best.  Newspapers of the day devoted a paragraph or two about the concert and maybe printed one photo, and almost never printed a set list of what was even sung!  So in the 8 years of research I conducted in assembling the books, I interviewed lots of people that were connected with the shows: promoters, DJ's, photographers, hotel managers, venue personnel, newsmen, fans, people from GAC (The New York talent agency that booked the shows) and of course, the Beatles' inner circle like Tony Barrow and Bernard Lee.  I'm glad I started to conduct the interviews several years ago as many have passed on.



RNRChemist: Along the same lines as above, your attention to detail is impressive, down to describing what the Beatles ate for room service. How on earth did you find all that stuff out?

CG: One interview led to another which led to another; someone would tell me, "Hey, that guy still works at the hotel the Beatles stayed at!" Great, let's find that guy and conduct an interview.  Some of the finer details of what they ate for breakfast was usually printed in primary sources like the newspaper or teen magazines.

RNRChemist: How did you track down all of that great memorabilia? Hardest piece to find? Most expensive?

CG: The vast majority is from my own personal collection.  Along with loving the music, I've been a collector for many years.  Knowing I would go broke if I collected all you can collect of the Beatles, I decided to concentrate my efforts on North American tour memorabilia: tickets, handbills, programs, posters, photographs, and documents. All of it is in the book and printed in a high quality format so you can easily read every line of a Beatles tour rider. Luckily, they weren't 50 pages long like they are today! The riders for the Beatles tours only consisted of about a page and a half.

RNRChemist: What is your overall assessment of the Beatles as a live band? I always feel that aspect of their career gets overlooked and unfairly dismissed as subpar.

CG: I think they were a fabulous live band.  I would have given anything to have seen a performance at the Cavern or any of the small cinemas they played throughout the U.K.  In America, I would have loved to have seen them at the Paramount (about 3500 seats) and of course, Shea just to say, "I was there!"  Remember, they didn't have the sound technology they have today and I just marvel how they even played a set at Shea with 55,000 plus fans screaming their lungs out!  The reason they endured as a live act was because they had had logged thousands of hours together on stage.  It was a beautiful sympathy to watch as everyone knew exactly where they were in the song despite the sound challenges.



RNRChemist: Can you discuss your thoughts on the scale of those tours relative to the time? It's always seemed as though the band grew too big for the venues they ended up playing and outpaced the logistics as well as the amp/PA technology of the era.  Fair assessment?

CG: Somewhat of a fair assessment.  Nothing on the scale of the Beatles' 1964 tour had ever been done before.  Elvis had played the Cotton Bowl in Texas in the mid to late 50s but he normally played much smaller venues than the Beatles did.  The music they were to create later, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper simply could not be recreated on stage due to sound technology limitations.  The venues they played in North America were the biggest around and were the only options Brian and GAC had to satisfy the fans.

RNRChemist: If they'd hung on another year when amps and PAs caught up do you think they could have kept touring? Obviously they wouldn't have been able to reproduce much from Revolver or Sgt. Pepper, for example, but they could have at least been heard if they'd done stripped back versions of some of those songs.

CG: Great question! I'm just not sure on that.  I think Paul would have gone on, but George was the most vocal in giving up the stage.  Had they been able to recreate some of the newer music they were releasing, Brian may have asked them to continue touring to create more fans and make more money. It seems to fit that after they quit touring in August of 1966, Brian died a year later.  He was instrumental in creating those tours with promoters from around the world.

RNRChemist: Along the same lines, we've all read about how they were invited to play Monterey Pop in '67 and Woodstock in '69.  There is also credible evidence they had booked the Roundhouse in London for some shows in December 1968 before pulling the plug.  Given what you know about their American tours, could you have seen them actually doing those shows in an alternate universe?

CG: I don't think so.  Again, if they did Paul, most likely, had pushed for it.  Later shows featured groups that stayed on stage for an hour or two...would the Beatles do that?  I don't think so....Paul does now, but I don't think the four of them would have post-1966.

RNRChemist: Back to the American tours that are the subject of your book: what's your opinion on their musicianship on these tours? What do you think they could have done differently/better?

CG: Under the circumstances, I thought it was good.  How did Ringo hold down a beat amongst the screams? The answer: experience.  They were playing venues where the sound system was installed in the 20s, like Maple Leaf Gardens...I don't think they could have introduced anything to make the music sound better as it wasn't invented yet.

RNRChemist: Brian Epstein's business ineptitude has been detailed a lot over the years. His tour planning left a lot to be desired in terms of logistics and how the Beatles criss-crossed the country in an apparently random pattern. Do you think it all could have gone smoother had he been a better businessman and more versed how to plan the travel, for example?  I've recently read a book about their UK tours and the same thing happened where they zig-zagged all over the country with no logic behind it.

CG: Brian relied on GAC (the New York talent agency) to book the tours.  GAC knew America and knew the venues.  They presented Brian with everything but the kitchen sink as many cities wanted them.  I think Brian and the Beatles wanted to see particular cities (Las Vegas, New Orleans) that GAC may have frowned on due to size.  It was haphazard, though, playing Montreal then flying down to Jacksonville, then back up to Boston.  It seemed they were inventing the tour as they went along because they cancelled reservations of hotels they were booked to stay at.  The 1965 and 1966 tours were more logical in terms of flight plans.

RNRChemist: All of those tours and the Beatles had a road crew of two: Neil and Mal. Talk about a skeleton crew! You can't imagine anyone these days, let alone even from the early 1970s onward, going out with a crew smaller than 100. It was truly a different era...can you comment on the job Neil and Mal did on these US tours?

CG: I had Ed Freeman, who worked on the 1966 tour, tell me it took four people to set up the stage: him, Mike Owen, Mal Evans, and Neil.  They fit all the Beatles equipment into one stretch van!  For sure Mal and Neil were the backbone of the tour and I feature an image of them sitting on an amp during the 1965 tour for my dedication page on the second volume.



RNRChemist: The Beatles almost split for good after the '66 tour because of everything that had happened on the road that year.  How much do you think the sheer insanity (the endless mania, lack of privacy, screaming, etc.) of these tours contributed to their stopping playing live and never wanting to go back on the road (apart from Paul?).

CG: Even Paul called it the "Lark of touring."  Even though the U.S. '65 and '66 tours were much shorter in duration than the 1964 tour, the group was yearning to be in the studio creating new music.  Bob Eubanks, who promoted them all three years in L.A., told me that he made more money in the promotion of the 1965 Hollywood Bowl shows than the Beatles earned on stage.  Yes, they made a ton of money during the 1964 tour (over a million) but it was becoming more costly as venues were getting larger and logistics more complicated.

RNRChemist: Speaking of the mania, why do you think the crowds (mainly the girls in the crowds) felt the need to scream and shout nonstop? It's been endlessly debated over the years but I'm interested in your view of it.

CG: The Beatles, as viewed by the girls, were mostly looked at as good looking guys rather than serious musicians.  Plus they added elements into their shows that created the gasps and screams from the girls: the clothes, the hair, the head shake, the scream going into the bridge, PLUS they were handsome, let's face it!

RNRChemist: Can you comment on how spartan the conditions were for the Beatles, the biggest band in the world, on the road? Especially compared to what it would be like a few years later, they had minimal comforts and their tour rider was so innocently simple.

CG: One promoter I interviewed booked them to play in San Diego during their height of superstardom in 1965.  He only spent $33.96 on food for the ENTIRE entourage of the Beatles camp!  He had it listed on his statement which I feature in the book. In 1965 they only added these additional requests from the 1964 tour rider: four cots, mirrors, a portable T.V. set, and clean towels. Yes, very sparse compared to today's spoiled rock stars.

RNRChemist: Let's dive into the actual performances on stage.  First, how bad must it have been for the support acts? No one wanted to see them and they were shouted down by crowds who only wanted to see the Beatles and paid them very little attention. Do you think they only agreed to the support slots because of the exposure they'd get?

CG: Bill Black reportedly paid GAC a bribe to book his group on the 1964 tour.  Sadly, Bill never made it on tour as he became sick and died a year later, so he for sure wanted the exposure.  The Righteous Brothers, however, were not very happy with their slot on the tour.  In trying to sing their soulful melodies, they gave it up after 9 dates on the 1964 tour.  They were sick of fans screaming, "We want the Beatles!" Plus they made more money doing venues on the West Coast.  Brian and GAC were gracious to let them out of their contract.  All the support acts, however, were consummate professionals and played every gig. I still can't imagine what King Curtis, who was used to performing in small jazz clubs, must have felt appearing on stage at Shea Stadium to kick off the 1965 tour!



RNRChemist: Now, regarding the Beatles, here is a theory of mine that I've held to for many years and I'd like to get your opinion on it.  I've always thought that the fact that the crowds didn't even try to listen to the music was a bigger factor in their decision to stop touring than its given credit for? I mean, they've got older teenagers and adults buying their records and really listening to the records and trying to understand their more complex music, while on the other hand their concert audience is made up almost exclusively of young girl teenyboppers who do nothing but go nuts screaming without listening. As John said, they used the concerts as "bloody tribal rites" and an excuse to go crazy at the Fabs' expense. That has to wear on an artist who takes their work seriously and is trying to share it with their fans, no? Am I making too much of this?

CG: I agree with you.  Especially in 1965 and 1966.  Before the tour began in 1965 the Capitol "Help!" soundtrack was released and "Beatles VI" was released only a few months prior.  The Beatles only played three songs off those two albums and one was a cover: Dizzie Miss Lizzie. In 1966 "Revolver" was released right before the tour and not ONE song was covered on stage!  The teenie-boppers would have loved at least to hear "Yellow Submarine."  Ringo said it best in Anthology: he felt people were only coming to see them and not listen to the music.  In 1964 they could pull it off, but not for the subsequent tours that followed.

RNRChemist: Let's talk about the massive and groundbreaking 1965 tour, where they finally made the leap from theatres and auditoriums to stadiums and arenas.  They sure didn't have any problem selling out venues across the country but it seems like they were flying by the seat of their pants and barely doing it given the state of 1965 infrastructure in the USA.  Tell me what you think of this tour.

CG: Many people consider the 1965 tour the "Stadium Tour" when in fact, of the 10 cities they performed in, 5 were stadiums and 5 were arenas, the difference being if they played an arena they would always do two shows.  Plus, they didn't sell out every venue.  Of the stadiums in 1965 only Shea was a sellout and there were plenty of tickets to be had in places like San Diego and Minneapolis.

RNRChemist: Now, let's discuss the final tour of 1966: the fallout from John's "bigger than Jesus" comments, death threats and protests, Beatles memorabilia burnings, a significant amount of unsold seats, and a press that was finally antagonistic (with the Beatles responding in kind). It seemed like a perfect storm of everything that could go wrong going wrong all at once. How much of the press' behavior do you think was due to Beatle fatigue?  And how much do you think this contributed to their already fragile attitude toward touring?

CG: The press went after them in 1966.  They were asked serious questions during all three tours about politics, Vietnam, race relations and such, but it seemed the group was much too flippant for the American press to handle, especially  during the 1966 tour.  They just didn't care anymore and looked at the tours as a business obligation to be fulfilled.  In 1966 they cut back on formal press conference and preferred "Press Tapings" where a reporter would get with an individual Beatle for a series of questions. They did 25 formal press conferences in 33 days in 1964, but by 1966 they only did 6 or 7 formal sessions with the press.  Fatigue was a factor, but they were tired of answering the same "type" questions from city to city.



RNRChemist: Even considering all of what happened in 1966, it's always seemed as though the Beatles were adored much more in the US than in their native UK. This seems to hold true even more today, where the UK press has no problem taking swipes at Paul or Ringo whereas they are almost 100% loved here.  Why do you think America did and still does hold the Beatles dearer than their native England?

CG: America put the "stamp" on the Beatles.  In a worldly sense, I would say New York City is the center of everything Beatle.  Plus the Beatles were not here on American soil a ton as everyone seems to think.  As a matter of fact, the group as a whole only stood on American soil for a total of 90 days...maybe limited exposure? People always want more than they are getting!

RNRChemist: What was the most surprising and/or interesting thing you discovered when working on the book?  Were there any crazy rock and roll stories from the road you uncovered that didn't make the final cut that you can share with us?

CG: I pretty much shared everything.  It was a planned one volume book of about 350 pages, but when I started uncovering stories and photos that had never been seen I just had to share. I'm a fan first and wanted to give the fans the best I could give them for the money.  So it morphed into 2 volumes and over 600 pages and I even threw in a slipcase!  Some people are taken back on the price of $175, but if Genesis did a project like this fans would be paying $600 to $800.  Plus, I put all the bells and whistles on this project: extra thick paper, spot varnish on all the photos and memorabilia, just a complete quality project, plus hundreds of unpublished photos.  I busted lots of myths that had been held for years, so read the books to find out!

RNRChemist: You did indeed do a great job with the presentation of the books...they are gorgeous and as nice to look at as they are to read!  Okay, now for some personal questions:

Which of the American tours do you think was the best, and why?

CG: 1964: new and fresh. Exhaustive in that they did 32 shows in 33 days!



RNRChemist: Musically, which is your favorite concert (I'm assuming you've heard recordings? My personal favorites from the US tours are the Hollywood Bowl shows from '64 and '65, Shea Stadium '65, and Atlanta '65. Philly from '64 is a great one, too).

CG: Atlanta 1965 is my favorite and not because they had feedback monitors; they didn't... another myth broken and a great story in the book.

RNRChemist: What's your favorite song they did live? Least favorite? How about one you wish they played in concert?  What about one they played live that you wish they hadn't?

CG: Most favorite: without a doubt, "Long Tall Sally:" it's a cover song but was the inspiration for my title and the last song they ever sung live, albeit only just over 30 seconds on tape because Tony Barrow's tape ran out...aagghhhh! Least favorite: Yesterday (Sorry, Paul). My wish: I Saw Her Standing There...One, Two, Three, Faaaoorrr!!! Great starter.

RNRChemist: Did you ever see the Beatles live? How about any of them solo?

CG: I wish I had; they came to San Diego in 1965 but I was only 3! I've seen Paul and Ringo several times...if you haven't, you need to see them!

RNRChemist: I saw Paul in 2013 and Ringo last summer and I agree, they were fantastic and must-see for any Beatles fans! Any future Beatles project coming up? Maybe a book on other tours they did?

CG: I would love to do another project and have some ideas in mind, but right now I'm concentrating on selling this book, so please buy it! Thanks so much for the interview...great questions!

RNRChemist: Chuck, thanks so much for enlightening us with your Beatles knowledge and discussing your book with us...it was a real pleasure to speak with you! And to my readers, I cannot recommend Chuck's books enough; if you're a serious Beatles fan, you need these! Once again, thank you, Chuck!