Menu
You are from Seattle then? Greetings. I am from Bothell and I play in
a surf band in the area called The 'Verb. Are you a member of one of
the local groups?
--- In , "unlunf" <unlunf@y...> wrote:
>
> Mel,
>
> > Ventures aren't surf but they had organ on a number of their tracks
>
> Oh? If you'd been there at the Normana Hall in South Everett, WA
> in 1959, and seen 2 guys tearing it up like runaway jack hammers,
> leading kids like the proverbial Pied Piper, making 500 of them
> dance hard enough to threaten the retaining wall a 100 feet away, you'd
> say they were stompin' like a pair of surfers, wouldn't you?
> Not a vocal to be heard the whole night. Fits most definitions
> of surf music I've ever seen printed. <g>
>
> And you know what? They can STILL do it, any time or any place.
> Saw them in Issaquah several months ago, and they got the Mojo, baby!
>
>
> unlunf
>
Who are you talking about?
Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're describing with geat vagueness
what - the Pacific Northwest sound? Just 'cuz no one sings doesn't
make it surf...
--- unlunf <> wrote:
> Mel,
>
> > Ventures aren't surf but they had organ on a number of their tracks
>
> Oh? If you'd been there at the Normana Hall in South Everett, WA
> in 1959, and seen 2 guys tearing it up like runaway jack hammers,
> leading kids like the proverbial Pied Piper, making 500 of them
> dance hard enough to threaten the retaining wall a 100 feet away,
> you'd
> say they were stompin' like a pair of surfers, wouldn't you?
> Not a vocal to be heard the whole night. Fits most definitions
> of surf music I've ever seen printed. <g>
>
> And you know what? They can STILL do it, any time or any place.
> Saw them in Issaquah several months ago, and they got the Mojo, baby!
>
>
> unlunf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for
> Good!
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> .
> Visit for archived
> messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phil,
Forgive me, I really didn't expect such vehemence from a
personality who has dealt with the public at large for over
25 years. If I thought some good would come out of it, I'd
ask you why you're casting aspersions on something that you
yourself describe as vague, without even asking for any
clarification. Man, you were harsh, and you need to know it.
Truly, I had no idea when I wrote that post that I would become
embroiled in a war about something so picyune as who's a surf
band, what makes a surf band a surf band as versus any other
instrumental group, etc. If it's all the same to you, I'd just
as soon opt out of any such activities, thank you.
Between the time I wrote my post and the time it showed up
on my screen, I read a few other 'diatribes' from some of
the group members. Right about then, I got the sick feeling
one gets when they realize they've been had. I saw what
was coming, and deleted my post as soon as I could. Still,
some few others got to see it anyway. (Thanks, Jacob!) Oh well,
I'll live with it, but don't expect me to rise to any bait.
I can find flame wars aplenty on other lists. Me, I'm here
for fun to be had! <lol> You, sir... well, I'm gonna go out
on a limb (take my newly granted SG101 life in my hands), and
humbly suggest that you re-read Mr. Neal's list of Do's and
Don't's, particularly the part about annoying other people
with opinion stated as bald fact, with no authority to back it up.
I should think that a word to the wise is sufficient, wouldn't you?
unlunf
--- In , Phil Dirt <phildirt@r...> wrote:
>
> Who are you talking about?
>
> Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're describing with geat
> vagueness what - the Pacific Northwest sound? Just 'cuz no one
> sings doesn't make it surf...
>
> --- unlunf <unlunf@y...> wrote:
> ...
> (a mistake that needed to be deleted - so it was)
>
In a message dated 10/17/2005 5:33:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time, writes:
who's a surf
band, what makes a surf band a surf band as versus any other
instrumental group, etc.
So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding factor?
Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they used? Simply whether or
not
the declared themselves a surf band?
If true Surf only happened between 61 and 65, then are there any real surf
bands happening today?
I'm still reeling from the notion that the The Ventures weren't surf.
-Matt Crunk
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In , MattCrunk@a... wrote:
> So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding
factor?
> Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they used? Simply
whether or not
> the declared themselves a surf band?
Well, there's no clear cut answer to this question. there are some
bands that clearly ARE surf music. But then there are the marginal
cases, where disagreement is rampant and emotions run high (what a
thing to get worked up about!).
I believe Larry "Moon Dawg" White had a good discussion of this in
the Cowabunga
> If true Surf only happened between 61 and 65, then are there any
real surf
> bands happening today?
I don't think anybody would say this. What people usually say is
that there was no surf music predating 1961. The elements that we
usually identify with surf music did not come into place until Dick
Dale and the Belairs.
> I'm still reeling from the notion that the The Ventures weren't
surf.
Two things about the Ventures: 1) they've released SOOOO much stuff
over the last 45 years, and clearly the majority of it doesn't fall
under the category of surf by any stretch - so, I'd say they
transcend surf music. Only a short amount of their output was self-
consciously trying to sound like surf music, and most of that was
confined to '63-'66 era; 2) they themselves do not want to be
identified as a surf band - again, probably cause that's overly
restrictive. They've done too much to think of them as such.
I don't think it's meant as a putdown - we all know that the
Ventures have done some amazing surf songs!
Ivan
Unlunf,
Yes, Phil's response was swift and pointed but, when you describe him as
vehement, I think you have the sensitivity knob turned up a little high. I saw
your response to Mel and it wasn't exactly clear to me either who your two
individuals 'tearin' it up' at a northwest venue in '59 were and why raising the
roof made them a surf band.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: unlunf
To:
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:32 AM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Who ain't Surf??? (was Organ Sound for Surf
Music...)
Phil,
Forgive me, I really didn't expect such vehemence from a
personality who has dealt with the public at large for over
25 years. If I thought some good would come out of it, I'd
ask you why you're casting aspersions on something that you
yourself describe as vague, without even asking for any
clarification. Man, you were harsh, and you need to know it.
Truly, I had no idea when I wrote that post that I would become
embroiled in a war about something so picyune as who's a surf
band, what makes a surf band a surf band as versus any other
instrumental group, etc. If it's all the same to you, I'd just
as soon opt out of any such activities, thank you.
Between the time I wrote my post and the time it showed up
on my screen, I read a few other 'diatribes' from some of
the group members. Right about then, I got the sick feeling
one gets when they realize they've been had. I saw what
was coming, and deleted my post as soon as I could. Still,
some few others got to see it anyway. (Thanks, Jacob!) Oh well,
I'll live with it, but don't expect me to rise to any bait.
I can find flame wars aplenty on other lists. Me, I'm here
for fun to be had! <lol> You, sir... well, I'm gonna go out
on a limb (take my newly granted SG101 life in my hands), and
humbly suggest that you re-read Mr. Neal's list of Do's and
Don't's, particularly the part about annoying other people
with opinion stated as bald fact, with no authority to back it up.
I should think that a word to the wise is sufficient, wouldn't you?
unlunf
--- In , Phil Dirt <phildirt@r...> wrote:
>
> Who are you talking about?
>
> Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're describing with geat
> vagueness what - the Pacific Northwest sound? Just 'cuz no one
> sings doesn't make it surf...
>
> --- unlunf <unlunf@y...> wrote:
> ...
> (a mistake that needed to be deleted - so it was)
>
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "SurfGuitar101" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________ NOD32 1.1257 (20051016) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I didn't finish a sentence below - here it is:
--- In , "ipongrac" <ipongrac@g...>
wrote:
>
> --- In , MattCrunk@a... wrote:
>
> > So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding
> factor?
> > Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they used?
Simply
> whether or not
> > the declared themselves a surf band?
Well, there's no clear cut answer to this question. there are some
bands that clearly ARE surf music. But then there are the marginal
cases, where disagreement is rampant and emotions run high (what a
thing to get worked up about!).
I believe Larry "Moon Dawg" White had a good discussion of this in
the Cowabunga FAQ, which can be found here:
I think this is still the best discussion of this particular issue.
Ivan
I was gonna stay out of this, but my name was invoked...so.. :-)
I definitely agree with Marty...you need a little thicker skin on
these Yahoo Groups. Phil's response was terse but there wasn't any
hostility (at least detectable by me), just simple disagreement.
The actual guidelines are "Do not be excessively annoying to others"
AND "Do not be excessively annoyed by others". I don't detect
anything from column A (Phil), but maybe a little from column B
(you). :-)
No hard feelings, welcome to the group!
BN
--- In , "Marty Tippens"
<mctippens@e...> wrote:
>
> Unlunf,
>
> Yes, Phil's response was swift and pointed but, when you describe
him as vehement, I think you have the sensitivity knob turned up a
little high. I saw your response to Mel and it wasn't exactly clear
to me either who your two individuals 'tearin' it up' at a northwest
venue in '59 were and why raising the roof made them a surf band.
>
> -Marty
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: unlunf
> To:
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:32 AM
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Who ain't Surf??? (was Organ Sound
for Surf Music...)
>
>
> Phil,
>
> Forgive me, I really didn't expect such vehemence from a
> personality who has dealt with the public at large for over
> 25 years. If I thought some good would come out of it, I'd
> ask you why you're casting aspersions on something that you
> yourself describe as vague, without even asking for any
> clarification. Man, you were harsh, and you need to know it.
>
> Truly, I had no idea when I wrote that post that I would become
> embroiled in a war about something so picyune as who's a surf
> band, what makes a surf band a surf band as versus any other
> instrumental group, etc. If it's all the same to you, I'd just
> as soon opt out of any such activities, thank you.
>
> Between the time I wrote my post and the time it showed up
> on my screen, I read a few other 'diatribes' from some of
> the group members. Right about then, I got the sick feeling
> one gets when they realize they've been had. I saw what
> was coming, and deleted my post as soon as I could. Still,
> some few others got to see it anyway. (Thanks, Jacob!) Oh well,
> I'll live with it, but don't expect me to rise to any bait.
> I can find flame wars aplenty on other lists. Me, I'm here
> for fun to be had! <lol> You, sir... well, I'm gonna go out
> on a limb (take my newly granted SG101 life in my hands), and
> humbly suggest that you re-read Mr. Neal's list of Do's and
> Don't's, particularly the part about annoying other people
> with opinion stated as bald fact, with no authority to back it
up.
>
> I should think that a word to the wise is sufficient, wouldn't
you?
>
>
> unlunf
>
>
> --- In , Phil Dirt <phildirt@r...>
wrote:
> >
> > Who are you talking about?
> >
> > Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're describing with geat
> > vagueness what - the Pacific Northwest sound? Just 'cuz no one
> > sings doesn't make it surf...
> >
> > --- unlunf <unlunf@y...> wrote:
> > ...
> > (a mistake that needed to be deleted - so it was)
> >
--- In , MattCrunk@a... wrote:
[...]
> So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding
factor?
> Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they used? Simply
whether or not
> the declared themselves a surf band?
Matt...I think Ivan's response directing you to the Cowabunga FAQ is
kind of the standard answer around here. Moon Dawg did a great job
with that.
>
> If true Surf only happened between 61 and 65, then are there any
real surf
> bands happening today?
>
Certainly surf is an evolving genre and it does continue today.
> I'm still reeling from the notion that the The Ventures weren't
surf.
Well, first of all, don't freak out! No one is slagging the Ventures
by saying they aren't a surf band. You are certainly welcome to your
opinion on this.
Here is my take on this...it's soley my opinion...take it or leave
it, it's all very personal and subjective :-)
The Ventures pre-date the surf music phenomenon. In fact, a lot of
the original 60's surf bands were heavily influenced by The
Ventures. Props to the Ventures. When surf music broke, The Ventures
jumped on the bandwagon (I'm not being negative here...those guys
clearly love the genre) and released some surfy records. After surf
music declined in the mid to late sixties, The Ventures moved on,
releasing seemingly 1000's of albums ranging from their takes on
classical music, rock, country, The Carpenters, and disco. So to say
they are "a surf band" doesn't quite fit with me. They are still a
great band and deserve much more recoginition than they get here in
the USA.
I feel somewhat the same about Los Straitjackets. A great band that
happens to play some surfy songs...they also do Shadows inspired
songs and the more garagey Link Wray type stuff too. Pinning them as
just a surf band doesn't quite do them justice.
The Ventures were very important in helping to popularize surf
music. I personally dig them. Even if not everyone likes them, I
think most of us respect what they have accomplished (long careers
in popular music). The fact that they inspired so many kids to pick
up guitars is enough for me.
BN
Yikes! No hostility intended or even implied, just wee-hours brevity.
It wasn't an attack.
I was just trying to clarify. It was entirely unclear to me who you
were talking about, hence the question. And surf didn't evolve until
1961 - that's just the historical fact. Everything instrumnetal isn't
surf, that's also just a statemnet of fact.
Now that I know you were talking about the Ventures and not the Wailers
or one of the other wonderful Northwest bands, maybe a few facts will
help clarify.
The Ventures being a surfband is a very common misconception, and it
blurs definitions that make surf a genre, so the surf historian in me
tends to clarify.
The Ventures themselves have long fought to not be labeled a surfband.
They were a great band, AND their surf output was often splendid, AND
surf a small percentage of their recorded output, before and after
surf's big period. Much of what the Ventures did during surf's heyday
was not surf. Jim Waller and the Deltas were not a surfband. They were
a jazz band from Fresno. They cut one LP and a few singles, and acted
as studio backup on some sessions, but they never played surf live.
Their manager and producer made them do it. Waller to this day hates
that tracks they cut. Similarly, the Sentinals were mostly an R&B band
in the east LA mold with a Central Coast twist. They did surf for
Del-Fi and a couple of indie releases, but live thye were something
altogether different. Compare their Big Surf version of Exotic to their
live version. Totally different. Great band, and all but a couple of
their releases are surf instrumental.
Similarly, it's common to identify non-surf intrumentals adapted to the
genre as surf, such as "walk Don't Run," even though they are clearly
not surf instros. In fact, most released version are not surf
arrangements. WDR was a jazz instro originally (Johnny Smith 1954,
country-fied by Chet Atkins in '56, which is where the Ventures got
it), and is most commonly rock-adapted in the style of the Ventures
circa 1960, or the hard rock styling of the Pink Fairies and a bunch of
others. The Pink Fairies wrote words to it that are priceless!
None of this puts down the Ventures, or their Pacific Northwest
contemporaries, or their fans. They are just part of a whole separate
thing.
There is an article on my site under articles titled "What Is Surf"
that explores eome of these questions. You might find it enjoyable. The
Cowabunga FAQ id also very helpful.
I hope this settles your nerves some. Sorry you felt attacked, I was
just offering clarity.
Phil
--- unlunf <> wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Forgive me, I really didn't expect such vehemence from a
> personality who has dealt with the public at large for over
> 25 years. If I thought some good would come out of it, I'd
> ask you why you're casting aspersions on something that you
> yourself describe as vague, without even asking for any
> clarification. Man, you were harsh, and you need to know it.
>
> Truly, I had no idea when I wrote that post that I would become
> embroiled in a war about something so picyune as who's a surf
> band, what makes a surf band a surf band as versus any other
> instrumental group, etc. If it's all the same to you, I'd just
> as soon opt out of any such activities, thank you.
>
> Between the time I wrote my post and the time it showed up
> on my screen, I read a few other 'diatribes' from some of
> the group members. Right about then, I got the sick feeling
> one gets when they realize they've been had. I saw what
> was coming, and deleted my post as soon as I could. Still,
> some few others got to see it anyway. (Thanks, Jacob!) Oh well,
> I'll live with it, but don't expect me to rise to any bait.
> I can find flame wars aplenty on other lists. Me, I'm here
> for fun to be had! <lol> You, sir... well, I'm gonna go out
> on a limb (take my newly granted SG101 life in my hands), and
> humbly suggest that you re-read Mr. Neal's list of Do's and
> Don't's, particularly the part about annoying other people
> with opinion stated as bald fact, with no authority to back it up.
>
> I should think that a word to the wise is sufficient, wouldn't you?
>
>
> unlunf
>
>
> --- In , Phil Dirt <phildirt@r...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Who are you talking about?
> >
> > Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're describing with geat
> > vagueness what - the Pacific Northwest sound? Just 'cuz no one
> > sings doesn't make it surf...
> >
> > --- unlunf <unlunf@y...> wrote:
> > ...
> > (a mistake that needed to be deleted - so it was)
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for
> Good!
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> .
> Visit for archived
> messages, bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Brian is right on. What the Ventures (and the Fireballs) contributed to
the birth of surf was their confuration (GGBD) and a huge influence.
They adapted to the surf sound after its birth, and then moved on to
many other sounds and styles.
I generally think of them as the chameleons of rock instro. They have
been able to adapt to and succeed with every change in music, from
disco to country. They were able to do what studio musicians do, and
still play live to packed houses. Quite a feat.
Phil
--- Brian Neal <> wrote:
> The Ventures pre-date the surf music phenomenon. In fact, a lot of
> the original 60's surf bands were heavily influenced by The
> Ventures. Props to the Ventures. When surf music broke, The Ventures
> jumped on the bandwagon (I'm not being negative here...those guys
> clearly love the genre) and released some surfy records. After surf
> music declined in the mid to late sixties, The Ventures moved on,
> releasing seemingly 1000's of albums ranging from their takes on
> classical music, rock, country, The Carpenters, and disco. So to say
> they are "a surf band" doesn't quite fit with me. They are still a
> great band and deserve much more recoginition than they get here in
> the USA.
Matt,
I shouldn't do this, but I have to agree. I just posted a
response to Marty, but I'm not sure if it got through - Yahoo
choked on giving me the confirmation screen, so I don't know.
If it's not here in a few moments, I'll post a copy.
(Of course, Yahoo will then immediately duplicate the post,
making me look like a newfer. <g>)
I too want a definitive answer as to what constitutes surf
music. At the least, the answer should be acceptable to a
minimum of 75% of the members of this list. Only then will
I be happy. I wonder how many others here are feeling a
little "lost at sea" over this question. It certainly does
make one wonder why he or she is scribbling away, madly
penning responses and replies to a surf music list, when
no one on that list has actually put forth a universally
accepted definition. <g>
unlunf
--- In , MattCrunk@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2005 5:33:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> unlunf@y... writes:
>
>> ... who's a surf band, what makes a surf band a surf band as
>> versus any other instrumental group, etc.
>
> So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding
> factor? Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they
> used? Simply whether or not the declared themselves a surf band?
>
> If true Surf only happened between 61 and 65, then are there any
> real surf bands happening today?
>
> I'm still reeling from the notion that the The Ventures weren't
> surf.
>
> -Matt Crunk
>
Brian,
No, don't stay out of it, please! <g>
It was good of you to remind me that Part B is just as important
as Part A. In the aftermath, I have to admit that I do seem to
be wound tighter than a .024 string. <g> OTOH, Phil was responding
to a message that I had already deleted, and that was probably what
rankled more than his questioning remark about my homeland.
Like I said, I live and learn. Now, I add the third thing I've
learned recently here: There are just too many people logging
into this list far too often for me to keep ahead of the wave.
<g> (They must be my age - retired, and nuttin' better to do
than harass a poor keyboard. <lol>) Try as I might, I have to
admit that I can't make a post but what someone else has already
responded to the same topic, and that I'm late to the party. <g>
Don't despair, I'm still game, and I'm gonna plug away, but I
believe I've made my point - I am not one for a slugfest over
the vagaries of an unsettled question. That road leads to too
much time wasted that could be better spent doing what's way
more important - playing live surf music!!
unlunf
--- In , "Brian Neal" <bgneal@g...> wrote:
>
> I was gonna stay out of this, but my name was invoked...so.. :-)
>
> I definitely agree with Marty...you need a little thicker skin on
> these Yahoo Groups. Phil's response was terse but there wasn't any
> hostility (at least detectable by me), just simple disagreement.
>
> The actual guidelines are "Do not be excessively annoying to
> others" AND "Do not be excessively annoyed by others". I don't
> detect anything from column A (Phil), but maybe a little from
> column B (you). :-)
>
> No hard feelings, welcome to the group!
>
> BN
>
Unlunf wrote:
> I too want a definitive answer as to what constitutes surf
> music. At the least, the answer should be acceptable to a
> minimum of 75% of the members of this list. Only then will
> I be happy. I wonder how many others here are feeling a
> little "lost at sea" over this question. It certainly does
> make one wonder why he or she is scribbling away, madly
> penning responses and replies to a surf music list, when
> no one on that list has actually put forth a universally
> accepted definition. <g>
I doubt there are many on this....a surf music list....who belabor this
issue. You wonder why nobody has actually put forth a universally accepted
definition and you want a definitive answer. We're in subjective territory
here. There is no dictionary definition. But there is a consensus.
At least three of us have published good, comprehensive definitions or
descriptions of the boundaries that define the musical style. They don't
conflict with one another at all. If, after reading Phil Dirt's
description, Larry "Moon Dawg" White's description, and the introduction to
"The Illustrated Discography of Surf Music, 1961-1965," you still don't
feel that there's a universal acceptance of what constitutes surf music, I
think that would be a good start for a new thread here. After reading all
of that, let us know why you don't think a majority of people would agree,
and whether or not what you've read provides the "definitive" answer that
you're looking for.
john blair
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I guess at least once a year the topic of what's surf
and what isn't comes up, and it always seems to ruffle
a few feathers; but it really shouldn't.
Here again is my point of view, and it's from someone
who professionally played guitar rock instrumentals
during the early '60s:
1. Fireballs' guitarist, George Tomsco, in 1959
introduced a meat-and-potatoes version of instrumental
guitar rock 'n' roll and the mainstream teens dug
these novel sounds of reverb, minor chords, and Fender
guitar.
2. The Ventures dug George's output and took this new
genre of rock to the nth power with emphasis on the
tremolo bar and Fender guitars.
3. Dick Dale (who I consider the surf musician purist)
introduced and ran with the double picking style.
All the other bands and musicians who had hits during
the reign of the three giants aforementioned, were
mostly influenced by them and can be classified as
one-hit wonders.
Although surf instros was not a popular mainstream
title during the early '60s, (we just called it
instrumental guitar rock), it certainly is an
important genre title of today since there are so damn
many rock-and-roll genres.
I think surf instro rock is not that difficult to
recognize as the tunes generally contain most or all
of the following: reverb, clean guitar (if
traditionalist), four/four time, minor chords, and
double picking.
So really, I bet those of you who are really into surf
can pretty much tell in an instant if an instro is
surf or not, don't you think?
By the way, I'm really doing well since the August 31
heart attack: pickin', mowing my lawn, no more oxygen,
etc.
Tu Compadre,
Dick Stewart
Editor - TLM
--- Brian Neal <> wrote:
> I was gonna stay out of this, but my name was
> invoked...so.. :-)
>
> I definitely agree with Marty...you need a little
> thicker skin on
> these Yahoo Groups. Phil's response was terse but
> there wasn't any
> hostility (at least detectable by me), just simple
> disagreement.
>
> The actual guidelines are "Do not be excessively
> annoying to others"
> AND "Do not be excessively annoyed by others". I
> don't detect
> anything from column A (Phil), but maybe a little
> from column B
> (you). :-)
>
> No hard feelings, welcome to the group!
>
> BN
>
> --- In , "Marty
> Tippens"
> <mctippens@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Unlunf,
> >
> > Yes, Phil's response was swift and pointed but,
> when you describe
> him as vehement, I think you have the sensitivity
> knob turned up a
> little high. I saw your response to Mel and it
> wasn't exactly clear
> to me either who your two individuals 'tearin' it
> up' at a northwest
> venue in '59 were and why raising the roof made them
> a surf band.
> >
> > -Marty
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: unlunf
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:32 AM
> > Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Who ain't Surf???
> (was Organ Sound
> for Surf Music...)
> >
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > Forgive me, I really didn't expect such
> vehemence from a
> > personality who has dealt with the public at
> large for over
> > 25 years. If I thought some good would come out
> of it, I'd
> > ask you why you're casting aspersions on
> something that you
> > yourself describe as vague, without even asking
> for any
> > clarification. Man, you were harsh, and you
> need to know it.
> >
> > Truly, I had no idea when I wrote that post that
> I would become
> > embroiled in a war about something so picyune as
> who's a surf
> > band, what makes a surf band a surf band as
> versus any other
> > instrumental group, etc. If it's all the same
> to you, I'd just
> > as soon opt out of any such activities, thank
> you.
> >
> > Between the time I wrote my post and the time it
> showed up
> > on my screen, I read a few other 'diatribes'
> from some of
> > the group members. Right about then, I got the
> sick feeling
> > one gets when they realize they've been had. I
> saw what
> > was coming, and deleted my post as soon as I
> could. Still,
> > some few others got to see it anyway. (Thanks,
> Jacob!) Oh well,
> > I'll live with it, but don't expect me to rise
> to any bait.
> > I can find flame wars aplenty on other lists.
> Me, I'm here
> > for fun to be had! <lol> You, sir... well, I'm
> gonna go out
> > on a limb (take my newly granted SG101 life in
> my hands), and
> > humbly suggest that you re-read Mr. Neal's list
> of Do's and
> > Don't's, particularly the part about annoying
> other people
> > with opinion stated as bald fact, with no
> authority to back it
> up.
> >
> > I should think that a word to the wise is
> sufficient, wouldn't
> you?
> >
> >
> > unlunf
> >
> >
> > --- In , Phil Dirt
> <phildirt@r...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Who are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Surf didn't evolve until '61 and you're
> describing with geat
> > > vagueness what - the Pacific Northwest sound?
> Just 'cuz no one
> > > sings doesn't make it surf...
> > >
> > > --- unlunf <unlunf@y...> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > (a mistake that needed to be deleted - so it
> was)
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
In a message dated 10/17/2005 2:52:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time, writes:
If, after reading Phil Dirt's
description, Larry "Moon Dawg" White's description, and the introduction to
"The Illustrated Discography of Surf Music, 1961-1965,"
Where would one find all three of these online?
-MC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marty,
> .... it wasn't exactly clear to me either who your two
> individuals 'tearin' it up' at a northwest venue in '59
> were.
None other than Don and Bob, by themselves.
It was all about Power. Powerful rhythms, powerful melodies,
throbbing undercurrents of a beat that wasn't from a drummer.
That's a good start on the definition of surf music. Well,
except for the drumming part. <g> And you know, I just can't
recall if there was any reverb or not on any of the amps.
I'm on the fence here. Normally, I'm not afraid to
speak my opinion, and that's because I usually have
my ducks all lined up, nice and neat (research of
noted authorities, etc.). In the case at bar, I deduce
that we are all in agreement that surf music is the
best thing since hot and cold running women, but no
two of us seem to agree on just what is surf music.
For instance, how would you classify Laika and the
Cosmonauts? I'd say they're surf, but is that because
they use reverb? Because they don't sing? Because they
title some/most of their tunes in a 'surfish' manner?
Because they do fantastic arrangements of covers that we
all know and love? Because Dick Dale endorses them?
All the above? None, it's for some other reason????
Until I see this list form a consensual definition,
I'm not saying one way or the other as to what surf
music is. However, that doesn't preclude me from
voicing an occasional opinion, OK? <lol>
EDIT:
At this point, this is being posted after several other
messages have gone by, but I promised Matt I'd make sure
this thing got put up. Phil, John, and others have all
said their piece, but I think that Dick Stewart just
said it best, a few moments ago:
>
> I guess at least once a year the topic of what's surf
> and what isn't comes up, and it always seems to ruffle
> a few feathers; but it really shouldn't.
>
So, the long and the short of all this is, I asked
for a consensus of 'those on this list', not everyone
in the music world. Yes, I'd like to think that I
can instantly identify any instrumental tune as surf
or not, but that's not the point - that would only be
my subjective opinion. What I was hoping to accomplish
in all this was to make the current list members realize
that there are other bodies of work out there, and for
some folks, those definitions are good enough. But
are the folks here satisified with them? That's what
I wanna know. <g> Once that's done, then it won't matter
a hoot in a fartstrom if I'm in agreement or otherwise,
the matter of what this list takes as the gospel will be
what I have to deal with, and that's what I'll take to
the bank. <lol>
Gawd, what a sermon. I'm tired. 'Night all. zzzz...
/edit
unlunf
--- In , "Marty Tippens" <mctippens@e...> wrote:
>
> Unlunf,
>
> Yes, Phil's response was swift and pointed but, when you describe
> him as vehement, I think you have the sensitivity knob turned up a
> little high. I saw your response to Mel and it wasn't exactly clear
> to me either who your two individuals 'tearin' it up' at a
> northwest venue in '59 were and why raising the roof made them a
> surf band.
>
> -Marty
>
That must have been great to see such an early Ventures show, unlunf!
The power, rhythm, melody, and beat that you described from Bob and Don are all
good components of surf, but they are also good components of Glam Rock, Swing,
Bluegrass and other musical styles. That's why it wasn't clear to me why we
should consider the Ventures surf. Surf has other distinguishing
charasteristics. Your right that it would be hard to find two of us who agree on
every element of what is surf music. But most of us agree on certain parameters
of surf music, namely a good depth of reverb, common playing techniques and
instrumentation. John Blair gave good references on where to find more
specifics.
-Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: unlunf
To:
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Who ain't Surf??? (was Organ Sound for Surf
Music...)
Marty,
> .... it wasn't exactly clear to me either who your two
> individuals 'tearin' it up' at a northwest venue in '59
> were.
None other than Don and Bob, by themselves.
It was all about Power. Powerful rhythms, powerful melodies,
throbbing undercurrents of a beat that wasn't from a drummer.
That's a good start on the definition of surf music. Well,
except for the drumming part. <g> And you know, I just can't
recall if there was any reverb or not on any of the amps.
I'm on the fence here. Normally, I'm not afraid to
speak my opinion, and that's because I usually have
my ducks all lined up, nice and neat (research of
noted authorities, etc.). In the case at bar, I deduce
that we are all in agreement that surf music is the
best thing since hot and cold running women, but no
two of us seem to agree on just what is surf music.
For instance, how would you classify Laika and the
Cosmonauts? I'd say they're surf, but is that because
they use reverb? Because they don't sing? Because they
title some/most of their tunes in a 'surfish' manner?
Because they do fantastic arrangements of covers that we
all know and love? Because Dick Dale endorses them?
All the above? None, it's for some other reason????
Until I see this list form a consensual definition,
I'm not saying one way or the other as to what surf
music is. However, that doesn't preclude me from
voicing an occasional opinion, OK? <lol>
EDIT:
At this point, this is being posted after several other
messages have gone by, but I promised Matt I'd make sure
this thing got put up. Phil, John, and others have all
said their piece, but I think that Dick Stewart just
said it best, a few moments ago:
>
> I guess at least once a year the topic of what's surf
> and what isn't comes up, and it always seems to ruffle
> a few feathers; but it really shouldn't.
>
So, the long and the short of all this is, I asked
for a consensus of 'those on this list', not everyone
in the music world. Yes, I'd like to think that I
can instantly identify any instrumental tune as surf
or not, but that's not the point - that would only be
my subjective opinion. What I was hoping to accomplish
in all this was to make the current list members realize
that there are other bodies of work out there, and for
some folks, those definitions are good enough. But
are the folks here satisified with them? That's what
I wanna know. <g> Once that's done, then it won't matter
a hoot in a fartstrom if I'm in agreement or otherwise,
the matter of what this list takes as the gospel will be
what I have to deal with, and that's what I'll take to
the bank. <lol>
Gawd, what a sermon. I'm tired. 'Night all. zzzz...
/edit
unlunf
--- In , "Marty Tippens" <mctippens@e...> wrote:
>
> Unlunf,
>
> Yes, Phil's response was swift and pointed but, when you describe
> him as vehement, I think you have the sensitivity knob turned up a
> little high. I saw your response to Mel and it wasn't exactly clear
> to me either who your two individuals 'tearin' it up' at a
> northwest venue in '59 were and why raising the roof made them a
> surf band.
>
> -Marty
>
.
Visit for archived messages,
bookmarks, files, polls, etc.
SPONSORED LINKS Guitar music theory Stringed instruments Guitar music book
Guitar sheet music Guitar music sheets Guitar technique
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "SurfGuitar101" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________ NOD32 1.1258 (20051017) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Just a question....if Dick Dale was the first to make instrumental "
surf" music, then where do the Beach Boys whose first hit
was "Surfin'" in 1962 (entered the Billboard charts 2/17/62, demo
recorded 9/61)fall into the picture? First "vocal" surf group? They
pre-date the Ventures by quite a bit.
--- In , "unlunf" <unlunf@y...> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> I shouldn't do this, but I have to agree. I just posted a
> response to Marty, but I'm not sure if it got through - Yahoo
> choked on giving me the confirmation screen, so I don't know.
> If it's not here in a few moments, I'll post a copy.
> (Of course, Yahoo will then immediately duplicate the post,
> making me look like a newfer. <g>)
>
> I too want a definitive answer as to what constitutes surf
> music. At the least, the answer should be acceptable to a
> minimum of 75% of the members of this list. Only then will
> I be happy. I wonder how many others here are feeling a
> little "lost at sea" over this question. It certainly does
> make one wonder why he or she is scribbling away, madly
> penning responses and replies to a surf music list, when
> no one on that list has actually put forth a universally
> accepted definition. <g>
>
>
> unlunf
>
> --- In , MattCrunk@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 10/17/2005 5:33:05 A.M. Central Daylight
Time,
> > unlunf@y... writes:
> >
> >> ... who's a surf band, what makes a surf band a surf band as
> >> versus any other instrumental group, etc.
> >
> > So what does, exactly, qualify a surf band? What's the deciding
> > factor? Do/did they actually surf? The amount of reverb they
> > used? Simply whether or not the declared themselves a surf
band?
> >
> > If true Surf only happened between 61 and 65, then are there any
> > real surf bands happening today?
> >
> > I'm still reeling from the notion that the The Ventures weren't
> > surf.
> >
> > -Matt Crunk
> >
>
Your question about what constitutes surf is not unreasonable, hence
the very existence of the FAQ and my article.
John Blair said a big part of it, and at the end of the day, there are
a couple of other things that are even less objective.
There is a structure, a feeling, and a sound, although all can be
difficult to describe. This is why the article on my site is as it is.
I've created a little test - a show and tell sort of.
These are all 20-30 second samples. Each has its own control. Stop one
before starting another. Ask yourself which are surf and which are not.
It might be interesting fodder for the list. I'll leave it up for a few
days.
Phil
--- unlunf <> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> No, don't stay out of it, please! <g>
>
> It was good of you to remind me that Part B is just as important
> as Part A. In the aftermath, I have to admit that I do seem to
> be wound tighter than a .024 string. <g> OTOH, Phil was responding
> to a message that I had already deleted, and that was probably what
> rankled more than his questioning remark about my homeland.
>
> Like I said, I live and learn. Now, I add the third thing I've
> learned recently here: There are just too many people logging
> into this list far too often for me to keep ahead of the wave.
> <g> (They must be my age - retired, and nuttin' better to do
> than harass a poor keyboard. <lol>) Try as I might, I have to
> admit that I can't make a post but what someone else has already
> responded to the same topic, and that I'm late to the party. <g>
>
> Don't despair, I'm still game, and I'm gonna plug away, but I
> believe I've made my point - I am not one for a slugfest over
> the vagaries of an unsettled question. That road leads to too
> much time wasted that could be better spent doing what's way
> more important - playing live surf music!!
>
>
> unlunf
