Talk:The Monkees

Unsourced

@MonMothma, I have no problem with the recent changes you made, as I agree that they were unnecessary to the article, and I appreciate you cleaning it up. I would say that if someone cites the Rhino Handmade edition (or something similar) without any other specifics, then that segment is not technically "unsourced" and, if that is the only thing wrong with it, should not be removed on those grounds. I think a better approach in that case is to mark it as needing a better citation. (Again, your changes were based on other reasons, which is fine, but you also mentioned them being unsourced.)

It is difficult with some of this, because a lot of information that we have comes from more reliable but less citation-friendly sources, such as booklets and liner notes from CD and box set releases or other promotional material, as well as podcasts, blogs and social media posts. Meanwhile, some of the professionally published books contain questionable and even factually inaccurate information (Glenn A. Baker's work is particularly notorious for this). If a book claims one thing and Micky sets the record straight in an interview that doesn't have an easy way to reference it, then we have something of a problem. Sm5574 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, Sm5574. Thank you. MonMothma (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sm5574, on a different note, I would have liked to add a well-sourced sentence in the body of the article that would indicate exactly when the group disbanded. However, a quick Google search showed some sources that said 1970 and a few that said 1971. Do you have any guidance you could provide on this question? MonMothma (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@MonMothma, it seems to be a very gray area. They weren't active as a band in 1971, but that may not be significant. A much bigger factor is Andrew Sandoval's notes in the Present super deluxe edition, which state that Micky's contract lasted into 1971, when it failed to be renewed. However, that was his individual contract with the label, not necessarily the band itself. The Monkees were actually four individuals bound to four separate contracts, governed by a corporate entity -- they were not a "normal" band in the sense of being in a partnership (in which case, the band is the members) or sole-proprietorship (in which case the band is the person who started it and hired everyone else to join).

And that brings us to the question of what, exactly, was the Monkees. Was it a band, or was it a brand? The band, you could say, officially broke up when the contracts expired. But that band was no longer the Monkees after 1970, because they had lost the rights to the Monkees name by then. So while the band may have ended in 1971, the brand ended in 1970.

My personal opinion is that the Monkees was, primarily, a brand. It consisted of a television show, recorded music, a live musical act, etc. As such, the Monkees officially ended when they no longer had the right to call themselves the Monkees. That's why the reunions of the 1970s (Dolenz, Jones, Boyce & Hart, etc.) are not considered official Monkees endeavors, but all the activities from 1986 onward are. I also think it's a bit misleading to say that they broke up in 1971 since they had already thrown in the towel by then -- the ending of the contracts was merely a formality. But again, that's just my personal opinion. Sm5574 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So interesting, Sm5574. Thanks for that information. MonMothma (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you’re making the argument that you’re making, but I have to respectfully disagree. They were both a band and a brand, like most popular bands and vocal groups. I guess the best way to describe it, in my opinion, is they were mostly a brand between the hiring of the four members and right before Kirshner was fired, then became a band until 1968-ish (when they started recording separately with almost entirely session musicians again), and then remained a brand until whenever in 1970 or 1971 the official split was.

I also have to disagree regarding 1970s projects; while they may not have had the name in the 70s, I’d argue that Dolenz, Jones, Boyce, and Hart likely doesn’t count as a reunion (with one or two exceptions) because Boyce and Hart were equal participants. I think the 1976 Christmas single does count as an official reunion (didn’t one record sleeve say “We Three Monkees” or something like that) and that the same would be true of the one or two occasions when Peter Tork sat in with Dolenz, Jones, Boyce, and Hart live on a song or two. EPBeatles (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

American-British Band

This has not been fully discussed before, so I'm bringing it up now as reference for when the next person inevitably makes this change.

I do not believe that it is accurate to describe the Monkees as an American-British band (or however you want to word it). The only tie they had to England at all was Davy Jones, and Jones demonstrably contributed the least of all four members in terms of songwriting. Yes, he sang on several of their songs, but that was as a musician under contract (which all the Monkees were) until the reunions. Peter is on record as saying that Davy didn't feel that he contributed much to Headquarters, and Davy himself seemed to imply that he felt Mike left him out of the process on Justus.

I don't want to get bogged down in particulars. The point is, Davy was a hired musician for the first 9 albums (and everyone actually in charge was American), and even including the '80s and '90s, with the exception of a couple of songs almost all of Davy's contributions were vocals only, with some production thrown in. Thus, I think it is too much of a stretch to say that the Monkees were, to any significant degree, a British band...any more than covering Daddy's Song made them a swing band. Sm5574 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)