The ShadowMusic Web Community

I noted in the Ventures chat forum Undergroundfire that there is an article on the Ventures in the current issue of the "Vintage Rock" magazine. A Ventures album photo appears on the cover, captioned "Instrumental Brothers of Invention." I have not read the article as I don’t have access to the magazine, which I believe is a new UK publication.



Apparently, there is an interview with Hank Marvin, in which he was asked his views on the Ventures. It seems he said he generally like them, but didn’t rate their backing/rhythm section of the band very highly, sayng the Shadows were superior there. Perhaps someone can quote the interview?

Anyway, this has sparked lively conversation in the Ventures forum, with most arguments stated quite evenly, but lately with some interesting name calling. All in the spirit of enthusiasm, of course. ("Demons of Mediocrity" sounds like a good name for my band; I'll poll the members.)

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/undergroundfire2/

Interesting reading. I think the analogy comparing the two bands to “Corvette versus Jaguar E-Type” is quite apt.

Best regards,

Andy

Very interesting web site there Andy

I've always liked the Ventures & really can't understand why people cannot enjoy both band's

It's a different approach to the same type of music, I can't help feeling that the failure of The Shads (& Cliff) to breakthrough in the US has a lot to do with the "in fighting" that goes on between the various fans/web sites about who is the............... better/more musical/more dynamic/has the best tunes etc....

Oh well, back to the Ventures site

Dick.

HI Andy,

I bought that issue the other week. It's quite a good magazine, I have a few earlier issues.

The article quotes Hank saying :

'I like the Ventures early records- I think they were great.....I was listening to some of their stuff a while back with a couple of ex-musos who are still in the business. They made the point that the Shad's rhythm section, the bass and drums and Bruce's rhythm guitar, was pretty tight most of time. If you listen to the early Ventures stuff, they sound like they were in different rooms. Honestly, the bass and drums they're not even close sometimes. I don't think they had the variety, the sort of spark we had. But don't tell them!'

He also is quoted as saying....

'The Ventures didn't have their first hit until Apache was coming down from the charts in the autumn of 1960. They hit the big time in the US about the same time as we did in the UK and Europe, but as far as we were concerned this end we hadn't heard of them. So I suppose we got the edge there because we got in first in Europe, the Far East , those sort of places.'

These comments are attributed to Hank, from the Ventures article, and I have just quoted them as they appear.

Not necessarily my opinion!!!

I love BOTH the Shadows and the Ventures!

If Hank knew he was speaking on the record, so to speak, his comments are disappointing. As far as I am aware, none of the Ventures have ever had anything but praise for The Shadows and Hank.

If Hank wasn't speaking for the record, the magazine or website shouldn't have published his words.

JN

JimN wrote:If Hank knew he was speaking on the record, so to speak, his comments are disappointing. As far as I am aware, none of the Ventures have ever had anything but praise for The Shadows and Hank.

If Hank wasn't speaking for the record, the magazine or website shouldn't have published his words.

JN

Hank was none the less truthful as they sound that way to me - they are NOT tight ! I'm surprised that he didn't mention that many of the Ventures recordings would also have benefited from having the guitars in tune. There's no getting away from that !

Many thanks, John. I'm a Ventures fan, too, but the very early years.

Best to all,

Andy

I've often wondered about about this business of the Ventures being "sloppy" as they say (including being in various stages of tune with each other) in the early recordings.

Would it have anything to do with the way that they were recorded ? .... this was the beginning of stereo recording & just everything the Ventures recorded in the "early days" seemed to be panned hard left or right with no attempt at achieving a balanced "mix" in what always seemed to me to be "low budget" recordings but still full of "drive" & "excitement"

It should be remembered that the Shadows from the beginning had the benefit of "world class" recording facilities at E.M.I.
How much difference did this make to the quality of the recorded output of the 2 groups in the first couple of years when the world went instrumental crazy... ?

I also remember the Shads doing innumerable takes trying to get their recordings "right", seems to be that the good old Ventures just turned up at the studio & "went for it" without bothering that much about the "niceties"

Two completely different ways of making music & I for one can enjoy both varieties

Only my opinion of course, formed from listening too (& playing from time to time) music since the 50's

Dick

50 years on ?
What does it matter ?
They were great at the time and I'm sure we all loved em, I did.

I like the Ventures (not as much as the Shads naturally!) but do agree with a lot that has been said.

My own opinion is that although some of the Ventures music was a lot more involved than the Shads' (I certainly find it more difficult to play!) they didn't have much of a sound. I don't remember them ever using echo, and hardly any reverb - I always thought Surf music was supposed to be drenched in reverb.

One also has to say that many Ventures albums contained a lot of 'filler' - also many tracks were duplicated on two or more albums. But then, perhaps they were on the same sort of contract as the Beach Boys, whose record company expected them to turn out an incredible FOUR albums a year! The Beatles were on two!

I didn't mean to start arguments, I was just quoting the magazine article because Andy hadn't seen it.

Perhaps I'd better not post anything like that again?