Whither Bubblegum?

In My Humble Opinion
1

What defines “Bubblegum” Music?

I’m not talking about using the term “Bubblegum” as an insult to describe any bouncy pop song that one doesn’t like. We are of the Straight Dope. We quantify and define.

There was, for a period roughly spanning 1967-1973 or so, a specific sub-genre of music called “Bubblegum”. What defined it? How did one know if a song WAS bubblegum? Is “Windy” by The Association Bubblegum? I say: Probably not. Is “Carrie-Ann” by the Hollies? I say: Certainly not. What about “Jelly Jungle of Orange Marmilade” by The Lemon Pipers? Probably. 1910 Fruitgum Company’s “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy?” Absolutely.

Before preceeding with the discussion, let me introduce one statement, which for the purposes of this discussion we will consider axiomatic. If we can’t, then we have no common ground:

Axiom 1: “Sugar Sugar” by the Archies is the definitive Bubblegum song. In other words, any definition which cannot include “Sugar, Sugar” is incorrect.

That said, here’s some postulates, which are certainly open for discussion:

  1. Bubblegum songs feature bouncy, happy melodies. Any complexity of harmony, rhythm or melody is a strike against the song being Bubblegum. Minor chords are strictly forbidden.

  2. Bubblegum songs have a tendency to feature either a girl’s name in the title or a double word title. (“Tracy” by The Cufflinks, or “Sugar Sugar”) (Not always true, but a good indicator)

  3. Lyrically, Bubblegum songs deal only with dumb teen love, or at least bouncy, Tigger-like happiness. No tragedy, no angst, no deeper emotional feelings of any sort beyond than the first bubbly 15 minutes of being in love. (From “Sugar Sugar”: “When I kissed you girl/I knew how sweet a kiss could be.” From “Tracy” by The Cufflinks: “Tracy, when I’m with you/Something You Do/Bounces me off the ceiling”)

  4. Regardless of the ethinicity of the singer/group, the song has a Wonder Bread with Miracle-Whip sort of Whiteness to it. “Carrie-Ann” by the Hollies, despite fitting definitions 1-3 avoids becoming Bubblegum due to it’s heavy Jamaican/Carribean influence.

The problem is that these definitions still allow The Beatles’ “Good Day Sunshine” to be included. It doesn’t fit #2, but #2 is optional. I know what Bubblegum is, and “Good Day Sunshine” isn’t it. But why?

Something is missing from the list of postulates which would distinguish “Good Day Sunshine” from Bubblegum.

I refuse to consider the postulate:
“Good Day Sunshine” is good therefore it’s not Bubblegum".

Bubblegum, as an actual genre and not just an insult must be able to include good songs. (Since I have albums that advertise themselves as being Bubblegum, we can assume that it wasn’t just an insult). As a matter of fact, I think Edison Lighthouse’s “Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes”, which is Bubblegum in every sense of the word is a very good song.

Any Dopers out there have opinions on this most pressing of topics?

Fenris

2

A few more possibilities:

  1. While not true in all cases, Bubblegum seems to have a higher incidence than other kinds of pop of mixing and matching musicians, and to form and reform groups from the same musicians. There are exceptions, of course, but there seemed to be a great many musicians constantly being shuffled about to form Bubblegum bands–IIRC, Ron Dante played in both the Archies and the Cufflinks, but I think that there were also many of the same studio musicians behind the groups too.

  2. Bubblegum bands seemed more likely to be one-hit wonders. Not true in all cases (remember the Archies also pushed “Bang Shang-a-Lang”), but what else did the Cufflinks or Edison Lighthouse do?

  3. Bubblegum seemed to have been marketed towards the pre-teens–and their parents. At the time when Bubblegum was popular (as you said, 1967-1973 or so), the older kids were mostly listening to either acid rock, heavy metal, or protest music. Not exactly the kind of music that parents of pre-teens were keen on, and perhaps inaccessible to some pre-teens of the time themselves. There’s an untapped market there, so what do you supply to that market? Some kind of rock 'n roll from which the kids won’t learn sex or drugs, and that parents don’t mind buying for their kids: Bubblegum.

Perhaps this is where “Good Day Sunshine” comes in (or out, as the case may be). The Beatles were a band whith a fixed list of well-known members. They had a string of hits by the time of Bubblegum’s prominence, and they were adept in a variety of styles. In 1967, which we agree is the start of Bubblegum, they released the Sgt. Pepper album, which was a far cry from anything remotely resembling Bubblegum. Since they were not primarily a Bubblegum band (Sgt. Pepper proved that they were not going to be one), nor were their albums marketed exclusively at the pre-teen demographic, nothing they did could be called Bubblegum.

Some thoughts for the discussion, anyway.

(And I will–ahem–also admit to liking Edison Lighthouse’s “Love Grows” so much that I once did it at karaoke. That was a mistake, but I had fun with it.)

3

Spoons: thanks for the reply:

(would I lose your respect if I admitted that I know bunches of other songs by The Cufflinks and Edison Lighthouse? They’re not particularly good songs mind you, but… And that I have all six(!) of the Archies albums, including the very rare post-Kirshner “This Is Love” album? Do you hate me now? ::ashamed:: :wink: )

I’m not sure that #6 (Mix-n-match artists) was all that important, given how other groups traded members, but the lack of “names” is important (I knew Ron Dante, but I have no idea who the rest of the Archies or the Cufflinks etc, were)

I think #7 is the magic ingredient, though: “Bubblegum groups aim their music excusively at preteens and their parents.” Works perfectly and covers everything from the Archies at the beginning to The Partridge Family at the end.

I like it. :slight_smile:

Anyone else have any ideas?

Fenris

4

Not at all; I’m in awe–and I’m kicking myself because I had the opportunity to pick up the Archies’ “This is Love” about fifteen years ago when a radio station with whom I was affiliated cleaned out their archives. I can still see it sitting there in the “to be trashed” pile, and yet I never made a move, though I was considering it. Had nice inoffensive illustrations of teenagers participating in nice wholesome activities on the cover, right?

Anyway. I was remembering this subject this morning, and trying to review some material on it, but I’m not sure if my morning coffee took hold too well. Did I really see that Rupert Holmes filled in for Ron Dante on subsequent Cufflinks recordings? That Cheryl Ladd sang with Josie and the Pussycats? And that one of the other Pussycats went on to be one of Dawn (as in Tony Orlando and Dawn)?

And I hope you won’t mind too much–but as regards a statement in the OP, I think it was Ohio Express that did “Yummy, Yummy, Yummy.” The 1910 Fruitgum Company was known for “Simon Says.”

Gah, if I know that, I’m the one who will lose the respect of others… :slight_smile:

5

Yeah. And the teens were NOT ARCHIE CHARACTERS!!! They were fairly desperately NOT ARCHIE CHARACTERS!!! (Apparently Kirshner took the licesense with him for everything but the name). Anyway the kids were surrounded by what I remember as a sort of satin pillow-like lacy cover thing. And the song “This is Love” has an obnoxious voice-over in the middle. (I also found a page with tons of info on Ron Dante. Urk. He’s even got a new album!
**

Rupert Holmes? I dunno. When I get home, I can check my Cufflinks album (I think there was only the one) and see if his name appears.

Cheryl Ladd is one of the original Pussycats (Decent album too.) But their rendition of “(They Long To Be) Close To You” is even worse than the original. I don’t know if there was a Dawn in the Pussycats, but I can give you a list of the Pussycats (I think…) and maybe we can figure it out. Now I’m curious.

**

**
I thought 1910 Fruitgum Co = Ohio Express with a name change. And I thought they did “Yummy[sup]3[/sup]” as 1910, but now I’m not sure. I’m sure that 1910 was the name that recorded “Simon Says”. Hmmm. After thinking about it, “Yummy[sup]3[/sup]” was Ohio Express. (I also checked the web. They’re still * around*!! )

Back on topic, where do we put the Monkees? I’d tend not to put them into Bubblegum after the first two albums due to
Nesmith’s Country-n-Western influences, and Dolenz’s (kinda lame, but give him credit for trying) political statements (“Two little kings/Playing a game/They gave a war/and nobody came” from “Zor and Zam” Thanks for that insight, Mickey :rolleyes: ) But the first two albums are problematic. Opinions?

Final question for now: Did anyone actually like the weird goat-braying voice of the lead singer of the Lemon Pipers? (And am I the only one who thinks that “Jelly Jungle of Orange Marmalade” and “Green Tamborine” are pretty pathetic attempts to rip of the “tone” of “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” and “Strawberry Fields”/“Glass Onion” respectively? )

Fenris

6

Let’s check them against the criteria:

  1. Bouncy, happy, melodies: Yes, but not always, and certainly not in the latter part of their recording history: “Daily Nightly,” for example. Since they didn’t limit themselves to happy melodies, I’d vote No.

  2. Girl’s name/double-word titles: I seem to recall some “girl’s name” titles, but not that many. I don’t recall any double-word ones, but some that were ‘cutesy’ enough: “Cuddly Toy,” for example. Call this one a Maybe.

  3. Dumb teen love or bouncy happiness: Again, yes, but not always. You could argue that “Daydream Believer” is for adults. And there is no doubt that “Pleasant Valley Sunday” is about neither teen love nor bouncy happiness. And of course, “What Am I Doin’ Hangin’ Round?” Have to say No.

  4. Wonder Bread with Miracle Whip: Yes, in most cases. Most of the early songs were inoffensive, some bordering on bland. “Star Collector” comes to mind–formulaic, no different from many before or since. But again, “Daily Nightly” rears its head. Maybe.

  5. Mix-and-match musicians: No, unless you consider the session players on the first few albums. Still, the audience was supposed to believe that the Monkees were actually playing, and they insisted on doing so in later years. No.

  6. One-hit wonders: They had a number that we can still remember. No.

  7. Marketed at pre-teens and parents: Yes, especially in the beginning. Still seen as a safe bet for pre-teens in the later part of their career, although they were trying to gain recognition and respect from older fans. Yes.

Let’s see–there are four Nos, two Maybes, and one Yes. I would have to say that they are not Bubblegum, though they certainly were supposed to be. Had it not been for their insistence on playing music other than that which was handed to them, their demands for different directions (Nesmith’s C&W stuff and Micky’s “relevant” attempts, for example), and their attempts at expanding their demographic beyond pre-teens, they might well have stayed a Bubblegum band. But because of those, I don’t think that they can be easily labelled that today.

No, I think you’re correct on that one. “Attempts” is the key word; I can imagine somebody saying, “Hey, psychedelia is working for the Beatles. Let’s whip something up and cash in on it!” And they tried–they did try.

Of course, I still smile when I think of John Fred and his Playboy Band doing “Judy in Disguise (With Glasses).” If you’re going to go for a ripoff, at least have some fun with it. :slight_smile:

7

Um, no, but I get to pick the music for our cross county Dim Sum trip, mmmmkay?

On the OP - is it totally necessary in your view for the band to be bubblegum from beginning to end? See, I think you’re making a mistake, especially with the Monkees - they were decidedly BG in the beginning (marketed for the teen, studio muscians, lotta fluff songs at first-before they let Mickey start wearing his own clothes on the show for example :smiley: )

And, while I agree that in most cases the BG bands were one hit wonders, I think this is a causation from your criteria vs. empirically true (see: Monkees).

Anyhow, didn’t want you to think no one else was interested here (my musical knowledge is definately inferior to the others in my household, however, including my 16 year old son who knows more about the bands/groups of the 60’s and 70’s than I do)

8

Ooooh, cool thread. Fenris: Wow, six Archies albums? You are my kind of lunatic. Have any been released on CD in their entirety? (And do you have the 12" extended single of “Sugar Sugar” that was released well after it charted [I think the late '80s]?)

I would suggest that, in trying to define Bubblegum, I would add that the music is sort of manufactured rather than written. It’s more product than art. I love these tunes, but they are not the stuff of an inspired artist writing from his heart, leaving others to later categorize his song as bubblegum. They are songs that someone, with the talent for this sort of thing, cranks out in order to have merchandise to sell to kids, their parents, Fenris, Spoons, and Borborygmi.

PS: I’ve been disappointed with the lack of CD reissues from Rhino for several of the “bands” listed in this thread because I first became interested in bubblegum (and Rhino Records, for that matter) through some of Rhino’s vinyl bubblegum collections that they issued in the early '80s. Rhino Handmade is about to have a new release by a “two-dimensional band” that they do not specify; I’m hopeful it will be one of the cartoon-related bands mentioned in this thread. (A timely Josie and the Pussycats reissue seems like a good guess.)

PPS: This may be the only opportunity I’ll ever get to share this thought: the guitar solo in “Melody Hill” by the Archies is, perhaps, the worst guitar solo I have ever heard. Strange, to my mind, because the studio musicians that do most of these bubblegum albums are professionals and are usually pretty tight. But, yow! I crack up everytime I listen to that song!

9

Borborygmi,

Yup, there were 6 full Archies albums and <smugly> I have them all. :wink: None of 'em have ever been released on CD as far as I know, though there 've been a couple of "best of"s.

I don’t have the 12" “Sugar Sugar” single, and I’ve never been able to get my hands on the reissue of “Everything’s Archie” (when “Sugar[sup]2[/sup]” hit the top of the charts, apparently they glued a new cover on “Everything’s Archie” (the album it appeared on) and renamed it “Sugar Sugar”. I’ve seen a picture or two, but I’ve never seen it IRL.

I agree with the product rather than art definition, and it fits with what Spoons and wring were saying about the early Monkees albums.

BTW: I went back and listened to “Melody Hill”. I hadn’t realized how…ungodly bad the solo was, but it’s not the worst I’ve ever heard ('though it’s up there). There was an album called “Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the Psychedelic Era” (now a series of multiple CDs from Rhino) that showcased garage bands and professional bands during the psychedelic era. There’s some neat stuff, but there’s also some…um…very, very, very amateur stuff too with similar guitar skills.

Wring: Re the music for the trip: No way! We split the music 33/33/33 (the extra 33 is for news/silence/etc). You don’t complain about my obscure musicals, 60’s rock, 40’s swing and Gilbert and Sullivans, and I won’t complain about your Boyzone tapes and your Head-Banging Heavy Metal cds. 'K? ( ::grinning, ducking and running. Fast!:: :wink: )

Spoons: I dug out the Cuff Links (apparently it’s two words) album: No Rupert Holmes, but: Also no Ron Dante listed. There are a bunch of obviously phony names on the back that I’ve never heard of, but on one song, where they just list the last names, one name is “Holmes” so ::shrug:: who knows?

Also, I have a pronouncement to make. “Bubblegum” as a genre was buried on 9/3/77. Bubblegum was dead long before then, probably when the Partridge Family went off the air, but digging through my albums I found a gem I’d forgotten: Kirshner’s last desperate attempt. I just [sub]barely[/sub] remember the show, but a look at this page made me remember Kirshner’s last try at recreating the Monkees:

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls,

May I present the very last manufactured Bubblegum group?

I give you:

The Kids from C.A.P.E.R.!!

Go to the link above, listen to the theme song and I dare you to tell me it’s not pure, Archies-style Bubblegum.

It was the young, less threatening Monkees meet the Mod Squad. (apparently being a Crypto-Fascist means never having to say you’re sorry, if you’re hunky and can sing well.) The show was about four kids, who drove around in the Oscar-Meyer-Weiner-Mobile and stopped international terrorists as part of a super-secret organization, while singing catchy, upbeat, pop music from the heart of Whiteness.

(Um, and why is the blonde Barney Rubble-looking one making a big “OK, BABE, HERE’S MY HUNK O’ MANFLESH” circle around his crotch on the record album cover? How, exactly is this going to be ok with a teeny-bopper’s parents?)

God I love the internet. Without the reference, who’d believe this?

Fenris

10

Your second link didn’t work for me, but the first included a small picture of the album cover so I could see what you mean.

33/33/33 sounds fine (tho I like musicals, 60’s rock, 40’s swing and Gilbert and Sullivans).

I checked out the Kids from CAPER link and all I can say is:
Biff Warren.

What an absolutely perfect name for the genre.

11

wring: Biff Warren? Huh?

And, in a weird bit of synchronicity, a friend who I was reading this to commented “Hey, you know the paper did an article about Bubblegum on Sunday?”

I swear I wasn’t aware of this article until about five minutes ago.

Fenris

12

Biff Warren was one of the cast members, played “doomsday”

this

Fixed your link :smiley:

13

Y’know wring I normally don’t let strange women with three times as many posts as mine even touch my links, let alone fix 'em.

But you did it sooooo well! :wink:

Back on topic,

What’s wrong with everyone other than you, me, Spoons and Borborygmi. Don’t they see how intrinsically cool and groovy this topic is?

Fenris

14

who told you I was strange???/ That was supposed to be a secret :::muttermuttergottafixmyfoilhat::
in answer to your question, I suspect that bubblegum has entered that rhelm (realm? damn) with disco - no one can admit to liking it. We’re all still in high school, after all.

15

Re: The Kids from C.A.P.E.R.

Unfortunately, I’m at work and can’t listen without attracting attention, but I was able to check out the photos–phew! I’m going to have to give a listen when I’m at home.

The “circled crotch” is bad enough, but what was with the photo with the motorcycle helmet and the cop? My first thought was, “Did these guys grow up to be the Village People?” :slight_smile:

That’s probably it.

[hijack]

My wife and I rarely go to clubs, but while on vacation last year (in Denver, BTW), we found a “1970s nightclub” one night and decided to go in. It was a disco–basically a 70s disco–and we had a blast.

They had the dance floor with lights (like Saturday Night Fever), all kinds of 70s artifacts about, and pictures of 70s stuff on the walls. The music was mostly disco, with a little bit of bubblegum thrown in from time to time.

The years fell away, and we both did indeed feel like we were in high school again. Only this time, it was much better–all the just plain fun of the era with none of the hassles of school, parents, and peers. I know that if we’re there again, my wife will insist on returning to that club. And I certainly won’t argue with her!

[/hijack]

Yep. We like it, but we can’t admit it. Except here. “Intrinsically cool and groovy” indeed! :slight_smile:

16

Just catching up since I wasn’t able to check in yesterday with this intrinsically cool and groovy thread! Fenris, as you may have guessed, you are not missing much with the “Sugar Sugar” extended single, although I can’t refresh my memory about it because I do not currently possess a working record player (sad but true). I think this thing was put out to capitalize on “Sugar Sugar” being used in a movie soundtrack at the time.

Also, I mentioned that Rhino Handmade is about to have a release from a “two-dimensional band”… if this proves to be bubblegum related, I will post to the thread. Also, this may be of interest to anyone who has read this far: RH currently offers two Monkees releases, a three-CD Headquarters Sessions set, which I heartily recommend, and they are taking orders for the four-CD Summer 1967: The complete US concert recordings. Not sure if I’ll get this newer release; I may decide to blow some of my money on food and shelter. Hey, the first links I’ve ever posted, and I knew how to do it because of the earlier slip up! Too bad I seem only to be shilling for a record company… all the more reason to shove me into that locker, along with my affection for Bubblegum and my newbie status!

17

I promised that I would reply to the board if the latest upcoming Rhino Handmade release proved to be one of the artists mentioned earlier in the thread. And, it is: “the two-dimensional band” in question is Josie and the Pussycats, and the new release is titled “The Capital Recordings”. The RH site says that a version of this disc will be available from Rhino in stores but that it will have fewer tracks than this package that is available online.

Those who have followed this thread may want to check out the link, even if you have no intention of purchasing the disc: it looks like the RH site has a lot of background info on Josie & the PCs, although I have not actually read through it yet.