We Read Your Mail

Magazine: Hit Parader
Editor: Patrick Masulli
Published:
Volume: 26
Issue: 38
Publisher: Charlton Publishing Corp.
Pages: 4, 59, 64

Dear Editor:

I would like to send this letter out to the Hit Parader hater in Media, Pa. Say, I just heard your fabulous Mysterians’ third record the other day. I must say that this song sounds like all of the others that your talented group has recorded. In fact, a friend of mine who plays guitar says that all three of the songs have the same progressions but with a different key. Wouldn’t you think that a talented group like the Mysterians could maybe invent a new progression?

I think that “96 Tears” was lousy, and the other two were worse. If you don’t like this magazine, don’t read it—it only tells the truth.

G. Keehn
8229 W. Cordia Ave.
Milw., Wisc.


Dear Editor:

Thank you for printing the words to “Let’s Spend The Night Together” as well as “Ruby Tuesday” in your April issue.

A lot of people, especially a few “illiterate disc jockeys” from Buffalo, New York made a big production out of “Let’s Spend The Night Together,” and that placed the Stones, most of all Mick Jagger and Keith Richard, in a pretty rough spot, which finally led to the words being changed around for their performance on Ed Sullivan’s show, January 15.

Well, the title couldn’t be changed since the record itself had been released the week before, so our lovable dj’s (I don’t think those letters deserve capitalization) from coast to coast refused to give airplay to “Let’s Spend The Night Together” because of the controversial subject involved. I’ll bet if Frank Sinatra (idol of our mothers, dear) had sung it, no one would even as much as have batted an eyelash.

What I’m trying to say is, people don’t investigate before they start giving their uncalled-for opinion’s.

As for that “controversial subject,” the Stones could have recorded that song any time during twenty-four hours and anyway, you can do just as much wrong during the day as you can during the night. (Everyone who agrees, stand up and say, “I agree.”)

Well, now for your reviews. I must say I have to agree with you, in part, about the “Aftermath” album, as the Stones are capable of much better; but then again, there were some good songs on it that could have been better if they had been produced right. I think Andrew Oldham is slipping a bit. But they’ve made up for that with “Between The Buttons” because there isn’t a bad cut on it.

I suppose you’ve guessed by now that I practically worship the Rolling Stones, but I’m not the average screamy-fainting fan. I pay attention to the way they play and the instruments they use and even the talent (?) of Andrew Loog (??) Oldham, and I would some day like to be in the recording business (not as a singer, though).

Well, all I can say now is, keep up the good work in Hit Parader and continue to have articles on the Stones and dear Andrew. Also, have more on the Yardbirds and the Who, but keep trash like Herman’s Hermits and the Monkees out. Let the low grade mags take care of them—that’s all they’re capable of.

I think I’ve said enough now. Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,
Vicky Barthlow
Box 85
Halltown, West Virginia


Dear Editor:

First of all, I want to say that I think your magazine is great. I was surprised and glad to see that at least one magazine (maybe the only one) had something about the fab Beatles. Every magazine I’ve seen doesn’t even mention the Beatles, or if they do, it’s a criticism on every fault they can find about John, George, Paul and Ringo.

Today, it seems to me that every Monkee fan is an ex-Beatle fan. The kids think and say they’re the greatest group, or that they are the most popular group in the world. I know they are popular, but only in the U.S. If it wasn’t for the job they found in the TV comedy show they have, they would be still living like “monkeys.” I hate the people (especially DJ’s) that say the Monkees are far better than the Beatles. They don’t stop to think what America owes to the Beatles: their marvelous music, written and sung by them. “The fab four,” John, Paul, George, and Ringo, were the ones that started the great wave of Beatlemania around the whole world. In only a year or so they became the top vocal group and already millionaires.

Sure, I like the Monkees… they’re funny and cute. But the Beatles—they’re a lot more.

Those stupid rumors about their breaking up, etc. make me laugh every time I hear them. Just because they let a moustache grow, or go to India, or start making a movie, it doesn’t mean they aren’t recording any more.

So keep up the work and start writing more and more articles on the greatest group. Speaking for all the true. Beatle fans,

D.V. Gonzalez
5841 Marbury Rd.
Bethesda, Md.


Dear Editor:

Your magazine is truly a fine publication, especially, for blues fans. However, because I’m a country fan, it is not as great for me as it could be. I’m not knocking blues in any way, but I would like to see some semblance of coverage of the country field. Certainly the Spoonful (along with the Beatles, Presley and others) have shown that it can be an influence in pop music. Swinging England is obviously attuned to the country sound with two country songs (Distant Drums and Green, Green Grass Of Home) making #1 there in recent months. It would be nice if you gave plugs to such records as Ray Price’s “Touch My Heart” and “Funny, Familiar, Forgotten Feelings” by Don Gibson which have as much merit as B.B. King’s “Don’t Answer The Door.” Also, an article on Buck Owens wouldn’t be unwarranted as he has had as much influence as some of the blues artists you have covered.

Finally, on another subject, I was wondering how Brian Wilson got credit for “Sloop John B” when it was written by Lee Hays and Carl Sandburg?

Very truly yours,

Spencer E. Wade
Idlewild Park Drive
Cornwall-on-Hudson, N.Y.

“Sloop John B” is a traditional folk song. Watch upcoming H.P.s for interviews with Ray Price and Buck Owens.


Dear Editor:

Hey, Man! A word to the wise. If you want to continue to be a popular mag, you’d better stop burning people (and songs) down. In your May issue you insulted a person who stuck up for Question Mark and the Mysterians and “96 Tears.” Well, maybe you did have a right to get sassy with him (or her) after he (or she) burned you down. But you shouldn’t have said what you did about “96 Tears.” I mean giving it the Yech Award and calling it a crummy record. I really like “96 Tears!” You shouldn’t burn down any record at all. But, if you insist, it seems like you could pick out a record that really is crummy. Of course, no one’s perfect (not even this mag).

Don’t get me wrong. I like your mag and will continue to get it. I think it’s groovy. Everyone has his faults. But it kind of got me down when you insulted “96 Tears” twice!

An Observer,
Milton-Union High School
West Milton, Ohio

We hereby insult it a third time. They released it again under the title of “Can’t Get Enough Of You, Baby.”


Dear Editor:

First off, I would like to commend you on your magazine. As far as I’m concerned it is unexcelled in any category. It is the only musical magazine where you can get real first-hand information and at the same time gather information about groups, their songs, and how they record. All of the other so-called teen magazines are so far down the ladder that they haven’t a chance of catching up to you in quality.

Now to the business at hand. What I am about to say is in no way critical of the fab four, the Beatles, but it concerns their new recording of “Strawberry Fields Forever.” This record, in my opinion, is the Yech award of the month. It stinks. This record is so unlike the Beatles, that it shocked me when I first heard it. Although I don’t like it, and neither do most people if they will truthfully admit it, this song is rocketing to the top of the charts, and by the time you read this, it is probably #1. If a group like Joe Shmoe and the Naildriving 5 had put it out, it probably wouldn’t have reached the charts, but along come the Beatles who record it and Pow! it’s a national hit. I think that this is most unfair. We shouldn’t put a record of this quality on the charts just because our favorite group records it—it’s unjust. The flip side, “Penny Lane,” is 100 times better, yet it is the “B” side. I think people should listen more to a record and its music and lyrics before they go out and buy it and make it a million seller. Listen to such songs as: “Niki Hokey,” “Sock It To Me, Baby,” “Let’s Spend The Night Together,” and others and tell me they are great records. Sure, they may have a good beat but we musn’t [sic] forget the moral issue. This thing of playing a tape backwards on a record is absurd. We wouldn’t want to watch TV backwards or listen to the radio backwards, yet we say that this is cool and in. “Strawberry Fields” gets so crazy at the end it is almost unbearable to listen to.

In closing, I would just like to clarify that I really do like the Beatles and I’m not kicking them personally on their music. But to release a record like this and have it become a hit is just unbelievable. I will accept any comments on my opinion.

Ronnie L. Martin
491 Burton St.
Leaksville, N.C.


Dear Editor:

I just finished reading the April issue of Hit Parader. Usually I find it to be interesting as well as informative, but this issue was just too much. It was hilarious. I got the biggest kick out of looking at the groups you picked to be the stars of tomorrow. You devoted most of your magazine to such headliners as the Sparrow, Lothar and the Hand People, the Doors, and the Music Machine. Wow! You have such insight into the pop music scene today. You have insulted every legitimate entertainer in the music business. I’ll admit the only group I’ve heard of from the preceding list is the Music Machince [sic], but if they’re all like that, then I’ll consider myself lucky.

On the other hand, how many pages did you devote to the #1 female vocal group in the world? Exactly none. Now I bet you’re thinking the only reason I vented my fury against the Sparrow, etc. is because you didn’t print anything about the Supremes. Well, you’re 100% correct. You print articles about most of the other established groups, but never so much as a word about Diana, Mary and Florence. Then you have page after page, picture after picture, covering all the new but as of yet unsung (if you’ll pardon the pun) groups. You deserve the yech award for that!

I’m a regular reader of your magazine, and I do find most of your articles and interviews just great, but you’ve neglected the Supremes too long.

I’d like to see you do some honest-to-goodness interviews with them such as you did with Wilson Pickett or Jeff Beck of the Yardbirds, rather than reporting on the length of Diana’s fingernails or how the group just loves to spend their money. What the Supremes think about themselves, their music, and the pop scene in general is a lot more important than the trivialities you have printed in the past. Or, in your opinion, don’t the Supremes rate that kind of coverage? I think they do.

Rather than have the wrath of Lothar and his friends descend upon me, just sign me: A Supremes’ fan from Brockway.

PS: Just in case this letter gets tossed into the waste basket, please address this question to Granny’s Gossip—How many gold records do the Supremes (who else) have and what is their total record sales from “Where Did Our Love Go” to their latest hit? Thank you.


Dear Editor:

I’m a devoted Byrd fan. I think their music is really the greatest. I also think that Hit Parader is the greatest. I do wish you would put more stories of the Byrds in Hit Parader. I’m sure a lot more teenagers would buy it if you did.

The other day I bought the Byrds’ new album “Younger Than Yesterday.” It has to be the album of the century. But I do have a few questions about it.

First of all, who sings “Mind Gardens” and “My Back Pages?” What does “C.T.A.-102” mean? Does Jim McGuinn play his 12-string guitar in any of the songs, and if so, which ones? What songs does Chris Hillman sing? Is there a sitar in any of the songs? And did Gene Clark participate in this album?

Please try to answer these questions, for I am really interested in the Byrds’ music.

Hayden Banks III
2250 Lorraine Ct.
Savannah, Ga.

PS: Where can I write to the Byrds?


Dear Editor:

The April issue of Hit Parader was the first I’ve seen. If it weren’t for Peppy of the Blues Magoos, I might have never seen one. Peppy gave me his, or I’d be out one great article on the Magoos for my scrap book.

Most of the teen magazines take pictures of groups who are supposed to read their mags. Actually, the group never reads the magazines. Peppy does read your great Hit Parader and likes it. No joke!

The article on the Blues Magoos was really groovy. I hope you keep running articles on the Magoos because they are really great guys and deserve to be right on the top.

Thanks a million for the article on the Magoos. Please I’d like to see articles on the Hermits and the Beatles, as well as the Magoos. Thanks again.

Magoos-Beatles-Hermits fan

Sarah Oladell
1065 Curtiss Drive
Opa-Locka, Florida


Dear Editor:

I have just finished reading your February issue and enjoyed your interview with Mike Bloomfield. Mr. Bloomfield is certainly outspoken. Most of what he says is certainly true. Although the Stones are one of my favorite groups, Bloomfield’s statement that Jagger is not a good blues singer is true, Because of my agreeing with him, I will probably be denounced by some loyal Stones fan. But Mick Jagger is good at singing the songs that he and Keith have written. But you can’t really call them blues songs, can you? Not the type that Bloomfield is talking about.

By the way, why hasn’t the Paul Butterfield Band put out a single? They are great on their albums.

Another group I enjoy very much is the Blues Project. Their interviews were just great, too.

How about an interview with the Spencer Davis Group? Also, an article on the Buckinghams from Chicago. Keep up your great work.

Mike Grant
Box 761
1720 Melrose Place
Knoxville, Tenn.

The Butterfield single “Come On In” on Elektra bombed.


Dear Editor:

I’m not necessarily writing this letter to Hit Parader itself, but to its readers. Although I think you have a great magazine with some great articles in it, I especially enjoy your articles on the Lovin’ Spoonful, your record reviews, and “Our Girl In London.”

But now to get back to the point. I have a few weird-type friends who described the Good Time Music of the Lovin’ Spoonful as “hillbillyish.” I think any people who can stay cooped up in a basement for three months, write their own songs, provide music for their own songs, and be able to develop and perfect their own type of music are very talented.

I like jug band music very much, but I wouldn’t call the Spoonful brand ‘jug band music.’ I’d say it was a mixture of jug band and folk-rock music. But hillbilly music, it’s not.

I’d appreciate it if a few people would give me their pros and cons on this subject. I will gladly answer them. I am 16 years old, and I’m a sophomore at Mansfield Senior High School.

By the way, I saw the Spoonful this summer and fell head over heels for them. Actually, I tripped over a chair.

Sincerely yours,

Stuart Seibold
112 Rowland Ave.
Mansfield, Ohio

The Spoons love hillbilly music.


Dear Editor:

I collect LP’s. I have over 60 recent ones. Parrot’s album Them—featuring “Here Comes The Night”—is one of my best. How could a group with so much talent vanish off the pop scene? The entire world of popular music is getting out of hand. There are plenty of talented groups that haven’t made it as big as they should. The Zombies, Young Rascals, Shadows of Knight and Love. The Monkees don’t even play their own instruments, do they?

A “Them” fan,
Marc Whitemore
1415 Pinewood Dr.
Frederick, Maryland (21701)

They don’t. Read the interview with Boyce and Hart in this issue.


Dear Editor:

I picked up your magazine in September, and I haven’t missed an issue since. Without a doubt, you have the best music magazine anywhere. I didn’t know much about music in September, but I like to think I do now. Every month, there’s another letter from some dumb teenager who’s been learning about music ever since he accidentally ran into Hit Parader. I’m no exception. Thank you. I don’t think anybody can read Hit Parader without receiving a small education.

You have got me listening to some great music. Since September, I’ve bought “Fifth Dimension” by the Byrds, “Hums of the Lovin’ Spoonful” and “Animalization”. All three are really great. I wish you’d have more articles on the Byrds and the Animals. The only place in your magazine where I see anything on these two really great groups is the letters’ section. I always see lots of letters of praise from Animal and Byrd fans.

I’d also like to see more on the Kinks, the Hollies and Paul Revere and the Raiders. You always have great Spoonful and Rolling Stones articles.

Your Platter Chatter is really good, but now, since the movie reviews are gone (thank goodness), how about expanding it to two pages? I don’t think one page is enough to review as many records as some of us would like to hear about.

Thanks for your great magazine.

Sincerely,
Brian Richardson
3 Riverdale Ave.
Dover, New Hampshire


Dear Editor:

I just read your March issue containing the article about Chad Stuart. It annoys me to find out that some teenagers actually told Chad and Jeremy to go back to England. They are undoubtedly two of the very finest talents to come from there, and we as Americans should be proud to have them here.

While most of today’s songs are loud and meaningless, they dare to come out with the soft, tender and meaningful. As a musician myself, I know that I could never hope to come anywhere near them in talent. Their sound has entirely its own characteristics. They’re no imitation Beatles, like so many are.

Sincerely,
Jerry Conti
225 Forrest Hill Dr.
Syracuse, New York


Dear Editor:

I was in a rock ’n’ roll group myself and I know what to look for in music.

As many hits as the Beatles have had, I have not found myself getting sick of them at all. A lot of times a singer will make a big hit (or a group)—then the rest of their songs will sound alike. I have not found this to be so with the Beatles. The words and musical arrangements in their songs are unbelievable and they deserve all the credit they get. They really worked hard to get where they are.

Sometimes people get mad at a certain singer or group because they get more publicity than some others. It’s not the singer’s or the group’s fault! What are they going to say to the interviewer, “No, I don’t want to say anything because the fans might get jealous.”

In the case of the Beatles this has happened to John Lennon. The man has a lot of talent as a musician, song writer, actor and poet. Maybe he has talent in other fields.

Why hide it!! All the Beatles are very talented and they’ve recorded some very beautiful recordings as well as real wild ones. They’re very versatile.

Don’t get me wrong—I enjoy The Stones, Yardbirds, McCoys, Dave Clark Five, and mostly all groups at one time or another. A group can’t put out a million seller all the time but that doesn’t say they’re not good. Some fans think this way. So much for that.

I also enjoy Roy Orbison a lot. He’s had hit after hit and has a great voice. Del Shannon is great, too as well as Gene Pitney.

The point is that I give credit to anyone who makes it in a field as tough as popular music today. I know how tough it is.

John
Manhattan, N.Y.


We invite all readers to send comments, criticism, questions and requests to: WE READ YOUR MAIL, HIT PARADER, CHARLTON BUILDING, DERBY, CONN.

Related topics