PDA

View Full Version : Interview From Spain in "Jot Down"


Isabel'sDaughter
10-25-2016, 10:26 AM
A couple of days ago, I received the following via email by someone who had gone to the trouble of having a Spanish interview translated. I would like to refer to one "question and answer" bit from the interview (see below):

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.jotdown.es/2016/10/gary-louris-the-jayhawks-se-hubiera-fundado-los-sesenta-seriamos-mucho-mas-grandes-lo-somos/#382797

************************************************** *******

A curiosity you probably already know: you know you are not the original Jayhawks? There was another group in the fifties that name.

Yes, it's true. We did not know at first, it's true. They never contacted us so I think not had much trouble ... They were a group of doo wop, I remember. I was not in the group the first few weeks, when they chose the name, so I did not have much to do with the election. But I think we have all right!

************************************************** **********
I do realize that there may be some improperly translated words in regards to translations, but I can verify that there was no "election" or voting of any kind for the name of this band. The name "The Jayhawks" was chosen in 1984 when only two members existed, Olson and Palmiter. It remained "The Jayhawks" after Caleb left and continued as such with added member Steve Retzler. Perlman joined during the Retzler period when it was already named "The Jayhawks". There was no band consensus in regards to name selection. Perlman had no input as to what the name of this band is or was because none of the band members knew him when the band was named in 1984.

This article also states Louris as a "founding member" - again, technically inaccurate information. Two guitarists had left the band before Louris joined and became a Jayhawk.

ChiefCrowe
10-25-2016, 01:04 PM
interesting... actually did not know that bit of early history, thanks.

Jerry Smith
10-25-2016, 01:41 PM
Isabel's Daughter (Kimberly): How can you claim that Caleb Palmiter was an original member, was he on the Bunkhouse album? If he wasn't, he is not an original member!

You say Gary "left" the bank after his accident. Well, he couldn't perform, could he? I don't consider that leaving the band, unlike Mark O. who left 2 times.

sacred roots
10-25-2016, 03:43 PM
interesting... actually did not know that bit of early history, thanks.

From a historical perspective this is all very fascinating. A priceless early promo photo of Olson and Caleb Palmiter popped up a few years ago which indicates that there is obviously more to the early history of the band than has been previously known to most people. I've heard bits and pieces about the 1984 version of the band over the years - some incomplete, some conflicting. Even in Mpls this is pretty obscure information. What isn't fascinating is some chatter in various dark corners of the internet that has been brought to my attention that reveals a shocking amount of bitterness, outright lies and a willful distortion of reality. And that's just for starters. I'll leave it to the lawyers to sort out the rest.

I've known Caleb Palmiter for over 30 years. He's a very talented, if not gifted, musician who has had his fair share of "issues" over the years. I do remember talking to him in the late 80s about his very brief tenure in the band and he had a lot of "interesting" stories to tell, none of which I feel comfortable sharing publicly.

What has been hard to pin down is hard data on the 1984 version of the band. They supposedly played some public shows but I've yet to find anyone who remembers one nor have I been able to find a single verifiable date in a concert calendar, venue ad or media mention. That's not to say that there weren't any gigs but documentation is sadly lacking at this point. Any shows during this time likely were played as an opener, probably in one of the venues in Minneapolis' West Bank area or maybe somewhere even more off the radar. None of these factors lend themselves well to historical research. I was a rock critic covering the scene in Mpls at the time, knew the vast majority of musicians in town - including most of the major players in this story - and was out watching live music 6 nights per week and I have no recollection of the band in 1984.

I'd always understood that the 1984 version of the band dissolved at some point when Olson went to California. The Jayhawks MkII, if you will, rebooted after Olson returned in late 1984. After a couple of gigs with Olson, Perlman, Rogers and Steve Retzler, Gary replaced Retzler, completing the Bunkhouse lineup. At this point the band started playing higher profile gigs like the opening slot for Alex Chilton in the Entry in February 1985 and (most of) the rest is history.

What is curious, at least to me, is that for almost 30 years the "official" history of the band as it exists in record company bios and other official documents has gone unchallenged by various band members, including Olson. There have been countless articles and media stories based on this "official" information, resulting in a history that has been treated as gospel. Until now. The band members vetted nearly all of the promotional material once they signed to Twin/Tone and later American so I guess it's also "interesting" why this is coming up now.

Assuming this early information is correct I think a simple addition to the bio would suffice. Maybe something like "An early version of the Jayhawks was formed in 1984 by Mark Olson and after a few personnel changes things solidified in early 1985 with the lineup that eventually recorded the first Jayhawks album in 1986: Olson, Louris, Perlman and Rogers." Or something like that.

While of obvious academic interest, this early pre-history of the band is ultimately little more than a historical footnote. It doesn't fundamentally alter what The Jayhawks are best known for.

Well known bands rarely form fully intact and their early histories are often messy and complicated. As a result, official bios and artist histories are frequently condensed for the sake of expediency. There rarely is a nefarious reason for this kind of historical editing; indeed, in most cases, these early minor details have little if any bearing on the big picture. The story of The Jayhawks is no different in this regard.

kubacheck
10-25-2016, 06:05 PM
here's a serious question: are there actually "rules" that determine who is and who isn't a founding (or original) member?.... take the Rolling Stones for instance.... at their first gig billed as the Rolling Stones, Dick Taylor was on bass and Mick Avory was credited as the drummer..... yet everyone considers Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts to be original members...

sacred roots
10-26-2016, 03:15 AM
here's a serious question: are there actually "rules" that determine who is and who isn't a founding (or original) member?.... take the Rolling Stones for instance.... at their first gig billed as the Rolling Stones, Dick Taylor was on bass and Mick Avory was credited as the drummer..... yet everyone considers Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts to be original members...

Good question. I think "founding member" is somewhat self-explanatory: a person who was in the band when it was formed. But what if there's a definite break in the action, like evidently what occurred with The Jayhawks? Is the band "founded" again?

"Original member" is far more slippery I think. Some people take this to mean the lineup of the band on its first recording. Some obviously take "original member" to mean the same as "founding member." The Stones example is an excellent one. Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts are definitely not "founding members" IMO since they weren't present at the earliest gigs of the band when they were actually billed as the "Rolling Stones." The Stones Wiki page refers to the lineup of Jagger, Richards, Jones, Watts, Wyman and Ian Stewart as the first "settled" lineup of the band rather than use the terms "founding" or "original." Maybe that theory applies to The Jayhawks as well.

Icehaid
10-26-2016, 10:31 AM
From a historical perspective this is all very fascinating... <snip>


Well put, PD. There are some nasty little people out there that apparently have precious little more to do than worry about essentially inconsequential ancient history like this. Rather pathetic. I also find it odd, as you alluded above, that Olson didn't pipe up during the MT era about all of these egregious historical inaccuracies - especially since he was, at least in his own mind, king Jayhawk again at that time.

Runningpotleaf
10-28-2016, 12:45 PM
"slight correction" from Gary in a recent article

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/10/27/louris-finds-new-harmony-rejuvenated-jayhawks/92781978/

“I need to correct you on one thing,” says Louris, who brings the band to the Madison Theater Tuesday. “(Bass player) Marc Perlman’s been there since day one. I was actually two weeks late into the game when the other guitar player left. So Marc technically has been in the band longer than I have.”

sacred roots
10-28-2016, 02:41 PM
It's difficult from this statement to tell whether Gary was referring to the version of the band he joined or truly going back to "day one." It makes you wonder just how much Gary even knows about Jayhawks mkI (the 84 version w/Caleb Palmiter) since I don't believe it's ever come up in an interview before. Like I've stated previously, if the 1984 version of the band was so important it begs the question: why wasn't this info incorporated into the official history of the band when it came time to create promotional material and bios, a process that has been ongoing for almost 30 years?

I've seen statements from Olson where he's implied that he didn't know any of the future Jayhawks in 1984, something I find very difficult to believe. The scene in Mpls back in 84 wasn't tiny, but it wasn't that big either. All of the 1985 Jayhawks were in local bands throughout the early 1980s. Gary was gigging during part of 84 with Safety Last and most local musicians knew each other and crossed paths frequently - at gigs, rehearsal spaces, bars and record stores. Even bands that rarely made it out into public were well known amongst other musicians.

More topics for future research: who played in Jayhawks mk1? Was it just a duo with Olson and Palmiter? No rhythm section? How many gigs did they play? What venues? What songs were played? I've heard that "Let the Critics Wonder" and an early version of "Clouds" were in those setlists.

If the history of The Jayhawks is to be complete, it would certainly help to have some facts rather than half-assed anonymous comments and attacks from the peanut gallery.

KU97
11-01-2016, 06:30 AM
I''m an old history major so latch on to these discussions. It' is also no secret that my favorites are SOL and Proust. I'll be interested to read some concrete information.

KU97
11-01-2016, 06:32 AM
And for God's sake, I clearly cannot type with one finger.��

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 06:17 PM
If more information is desired, then that we should be able to arrange. For now, here is a picture of the original "The Jayhawks". It was taken by Mariana Olson. Mark's mom was taking a photography class at the time, and this was one of her projects for the class.

Olson gave Louris a cassette tape of Caleb playing, in order to teach him how to learn Caleb's parts for the song: "Let The Critics Wonder". This was just one recognizable song that the two of them played at gigs billed as "The Jayhawks".

Two other songs: "Martin's Song" and "Clouds" were also on Mark and Caleb's set list during these early days

Note the holes in the edges of the picture where they hung it on the announcement boards where they played. ( See attachment )

and by the way, it doesn't matter whether this is what this band is known for or not....I would think any fan of the band would honor pure historical fact, whether these two made a commercial album or not, is not the point.

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 06:38 PM
Well put, PD. There are some nasty little people out there that apparently have precious little more to do than worry about essentially inconsequential ancient history like this. Rather pathetic. I also find it odd, as you alluded above, that Olson didn't pipe up during the MT era about all of these egregious historical inaccuracies - especially since he was, at least in his own mind, king Jayhawk again at that time.

I am not here to fight with Olson haters. Your breath is a waste of my time. Your opinions are your own and they are petty compared to pure facts.

Ok you asked for it, you got it. This is why Olson didn't "pipe up" during the MT era about much of anything at all. It is because he was a little preoccupied with the disturbing atmosphere surrounding this band during that time.

Look, I am seriously not here with the intent to publicly shame anyone; just to set the record straight as to why things are the way they are today in regards to the band member status of: The Jayhawks.

Step outside of your one sided view and know that the following literally occurred:

Set the stage - "Lies in Black and White" is a song that most definitely insinuates that Olson is "a liar". This song's incriminating lyrics deserve an overdue rebuttal based purely on FACTS not opinion. The song itself borders on pure slander and defamation of character.

The production of the Mockingbird Time Album was blanketed in a dark cloud of one "enormous lie" ( among others that shall remain unmentioned in a public forum ) centered on a woman that Louris alone willingly brought into both the professional and personal lives of all the members of this band. When all was said and done, it resulted in nothing but the destruction of love- hope- peace and well-being. It resulted in the crumbled destruction of the Olson & Louris songwriting team. Some of us refer to her as the “Yoko Ono” that broke up this duo. All because of this, this songwriting team, one of the most beautiful unions that ever graced the face of this earth is gone forever.

Isn't it funny how the sound of "your own lies" can ring funny against the truth? That's right, Louris, keep telling "yours" and you just might begin to believe it too.

(Anyone is welcomed to send me a private message if you feel the need to discuss further this situation in greater detail)

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 07:04 PM
"slight correction" from Gary in a recent article

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/music/2016/10/27/louris-finds-new-harmony-rejuvenated-jayhawks/92781978/

“I need to correct you on one thing,” says Louris, who brings the band to the Madison Theater Tuesday. “(Bass player) Marc Perlman’s been there since day one. I was actually two weeks late into the game when the other guitar player left. So Marc technically has been in the band longer than I have.”

Yes, Marc has been there longer, but purely not from "day one". Marc had nothing to do with the naming of this band either as some here and other places have insisted upon. Other things have been wrongly publicly stated such as the song "Tomorrow The Green Grass is definitely NOT Mark's song". Correction - it is 100% Mark's song, nothing less, nothing more.

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 08:02 PM
I

More topics for future research: who played in Jayhawks mk1? Was it just a duo with Olson and Palmiter? No rhythm section? How many gigs did they play? What venues? What songs were played? I've heard that "Let the Critics Wonder" and an early version of "Clouds" were in those setlists.

If the history of The Jayhawks is to be complete, it would certainly help to have some facts rather than half-assed anonymous comments and attacks from the peanut gallery.

"half-assed anonymous comments and attacks from the peanut gallery"

Really? What sort of "attack" are you referring to?

Noting the literal history of this band is "attacking" the current line up? How so? Ya mean the current line up that is now riding on the coat tails all fluffy and free that belong from day one to Olson?

Like I told Icehaid I did not come here to fight, but you started the personal insults because you don't like facts.

The Jayhawks could have gotten their own band name in 1995, but they didn't. They had to keep the name that Olson chose for it, because Olson's presence set them on their path to success.

The notion that you stoop so low as to be "name calling" in regards to me making public the accurate history of this band, shows me your frustrations in not being able to keep illusions about this band alive. Why does it bother you so much that history is really different than what you hoped ( and for so long pretended ) it to be?

Get over it.

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 09:08 PM
Isabel's Daughter (Kimberly): How can you claim that Caleb Palmiter was an original member, was he on the Bunkhouse album? If he wasn't, he is not an original member!

You say Gary "left" the bank after his accident. Well, he couldn't perform, could he? I don't consider that leaving the band, unlike Mark O. who left 2 times.

Jerry, the fact that Gary left is stated by me just in regards to him not being "constant", it is not directed as any sort of an insult to him, it just is inaccurately reported information. He did leave the band and then he came back.

As for Caleb, just because you don't appear on a band's "commercial" album doesn't mean your existence and contributions are now nullified.

TimRoss
11-12-2016, 10:28 PM
PD, "dark corners of the internet" wonder who is listed as Admin of the official website? Is this person still involved with the website? Have they ever been involved with the band?

http://whois.webslookup.com/jayhawksofficial.com

JoMama
11-12-2016, 10:48 PM
I thought Gary "left" because he was in a serious car accident. I would think he only went to the "injured reserve" status, not actually left the band.
As for the original lineup/gigs questions, I wonder if Mark's aunt can supply any info about any shows with Caleb.
As for the "Lies In Black And White" stuff--well, that's just to rich to touch. I can't listen to the album anymore. :(

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 10:49 PM
http://whois.webslookup.com/jayhawksofficial.com

Why yes, Pd. Please do tell us all about the woman who is listed as admin of Jayhawksofficial

Isabel'sDaughter
11-12-2016, 10:51 PM
I thought Gary "left" because he was in a serious car accident. I would think he only went to the "injured reserve" status, not actually left the band.
As for the original lineup/gigs questions, I wonder if Mark's aunt can supply any info about any shows with Caleb.
As for the "Lies In Black And White" stuff--well, that's just to rich to touch. I can't listen to the album anymore. :(

Why not ask Mark himself?

JoMama
11-12-2016, 10:54 PM
Why not ask Mark himself?

Probably will, hopefully when I get to California (my inlaws live near Joshua Tree).

sacred roots
11-12-2016, 11:59 PM
http://whois.webslookup.com/jayhawksofficial.com

Why yes, Pd. Please do tell us all about the woman who is listed as admin of Jayhawksofficial

The domain infö for The Jayhawks website is public:

https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=jayhawksofficial.com

The link you're referring isn't an official ICANN certified service. That information is not correct and hasn't been for some time.

Pro tip: if you're looking at what you think is an "official" source of info and it has paid pop up ads - including ones for "Russian singles" - all over it, it's probably not "official." Or reliable.

http://bit.ly/2fOrCGn

Maybe it should be called a hookup site instead of a lookup site. I know, bad joke.

sacred roots
11-13-2016, 12:05 AM
I thought Gary "left" because he was in a serious car accident. I would think he only went to the "injured reserve" status, not actually left the band.
As for the original lineup/gigs questions, I wonder if Mark's aunt can supply any info about any shows with Caleb.
As for the "Lies In Black And White" stuff--well, that's just to rich to touch. I can't listen to the album anymore. :(

I would gladly welcome copies of any and all information from that period, as I've discussed on this forum recently. I've only become aware of this info over the last year or two, as I've also discussed here recently. I'm not the only one to wonder why, all of a sudden, in 2016, it's become an issue after 32 years, something that, yes, has been discussed here recently.

sacred roots
11-13-2016, 12:43 AM
PD, "dark corners of the internet" wonder who is listed as Admin of the official website? Is this person still involved with the website? Have they ever been involved with the band?

http://whois.webslookup.com/jayhawksofficial.com

Correction: that person in that very old info is listed as the admin for the domain, not the website itself. Big difference. Furthermore, that "webslookup" domain info website isn't "official" - notice all of the pop up spam - and the information there is extremely outdated and incorrect. Correct info is here: https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=jayhawksofficial.com

The person listed as admin on the "webslookup" site may have had something to do with the registration of the jayhawksofficial.com domain in April 2009 but that is an entirely separate process from the creation, maintenance and ownership of a "website." She was not actively involved with the creation of The Jayhawks website and hasn't had any involvement with it or the domain since late 2010. The official Jayhawks website launched in early 2011 with collaboration and support from Sony Legacy and the band's management at the time. I've been the primary administrator and content manager of all Jayhawks digital properties since early 2011. I personally have had no direct communication with the person in question since late 2010.

The old WHOIS domain info that the "webslookup" site has somehow latched on to was, I believe, updated at some point after 2010 but that was merely an administrative oversight; the old domain admin was long gone by then. The most recent WHOIS update was in March 2016 when the band switched to a new web hosting company (Bluehost) in advance of a complete website overhaul.

As for anything beyond that, for obvious reasons, I won't further discuss any internal business of the band here or anywhere else.

sacred roots
11-13-2016, 01:24 AM
The song itself borders on pure slander and defamation of character.


My limited knowledge of libel law leads me to an entirely different conclusion. I'm confident that the song is a protected artistic expression, especially because nobody is specifically named in the song and its author has refuted any notion that the song is about a specific person. People hear what they want to hear and draw their own conclusions. Welcome to "art."

Besides, who could have an issue with a song that preaches that there are "two sides to every coin?" What happened to the band in late 2012 was complex and troubling for all parties involved. Like any private business, the Jayhawks don't wish to engage in a public discussion of these or any other internal matters. I would hope that people will respect the band's right to privacy and would also understand that just because the band has never commented on internal band matters such as this - and never will - that doesn't mean that the truth is the sole province of any party who has chosen to go public with this. Beware of anyone laying claim to "pure facts" and remember that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story, especially this one.

Of course, anyone who feels aggrieved by this or any other song is free to avail themselves of any and all legal remedies. The band's and label's lawyers are fully aware of the lyrical content of the song in question.

sacred roots
11-13-2016, 05:34 AM
Get over it.

My "peanut gallery" comments were actually directed at activities that have taken place outside the confines of this forum so your defensive tone is a bit confusing. That comment was made after your original, fairly short post and was not directed at any one person or post. Your litany of accusations about insults, name calling etc doesn't seem to be borne out by anything I've posted. If you took it personally and were offended, I apologize.

For the record, I have no frustrations about the band nor do I harbor any illusions about them either. And accusing me of being bothered by historical facts is ludicrous. I've never "hoped" for any history of the band other than an accurate one. I've already admitted that this 1984 info is relatively new to me so it's not accurate or fair to say that I've "pretended" anything. I was basing any previous comments about the history of the band from what I knew to be true at the time, which was obviously incomplete. I had always taken the official bios at face value, not to mention the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no band member has ever brought up any discrepancies before. Between the official published history of the band and my own personal knowledge of events, I never saw a need to further investigate.

To reiterate:

Well known bands rarely form fully intact and their early histories are often messy and complicated. As a result, official bios and artist histories are frequently condensed for the sake of expediency. There rarely is a nefarious reason for this kind of historical editing; indeed, in most cases, these early minor details have little if any bearing on the big picture. The story of The Jayhawks is no different in this regard.

As I've stated before, I anxiously await more documentation from this period.

JoMama
11-14-2016, 09:01 PM
But the truth always catches up, and really, the truth is never really complicated.
When things become complex, its because someone needs to do a lot of "work-arounds" to make something look truthful. Oldest truth in the world.
It's okay to be wrong once in awhile, PD.