The Pretty Things - The Pretty Things (1965)

Is this album actually worth buying. The Pretty Things were certainly an entertaining and mildly recommendable band at every stage of their career, but at every stage of their career they also managed to drag behind the Beatles and the Stones, always trying to catch up but hardly even making number three in the race (only S. F. Sorrow might be truly considered an innovative record - at least they beat Jethro Tull to the flute!). And nowhere does this nagging "second-handness" show better than on their debut LP. Consisting entirely of R'n'B covers and R'n'B "originals" that are in fact disguised covers as well, the record is little more than a vain attempt to outstone the Stones in their brand of 'ugly rhythm-and-bluesmaking' to scare the shit out of easily scared mothers and attract their naughty children. Well, the Stones' connection is not at all amazing, considering that the band's guitarist, Dick Taylor, originally played bass in an early version of the Stones, before being replaced by Bill Wyman; but if you ask for my opinion (and you should!), it's also obvious that these guys don't hold a candle to the Stones or to the Animals.
First of all, there ain't a lot of imagination or inventiveness displayed on here. By early 1965, the Pretties had only mastered three styles of playing: (a) the generic Chuck Berry boogie, (b) the generic Bo Diddley beat, and (c) the generic Muddy Waters blues shuffle. Practically all the eighteen tracks on here fit into one of these three categories, and this makes up for a really monotonous record (not to be rude or obnoxious or anything, but, in comparison, the Stones' debut was at least thrice as diverse).
Second, the instrumentation is extremely poor - no keyboards at all, just the usual guitar/harmonica business all over the place. Dick Taylor is a competent guitarist with a tasteful approach to his playing, but nowhere near as masterful as Keith Richards: obviously, somebody hadn't done his Chuck Berry homework as diligently as the Riffmeister. His interplay with the second guitarist is usually draggy, with the guitars very poorly separated in the mix and displaying no personality. The rhythm section is competent, and at least they never mess up the rhythm, but they're not able to keep up a firm, steady, never-wavering, and actually threatening groove like the Stones' rhythm section could in those early days.
And one really irritating factor on here is the lead singer. Phil May tries to ape Jagger's approach to the material, with wild screams, 'evil' intonations and gloomy vocal overtones everywhere, but his voice, unlike Jagger's, isn't really suitable for such things, and he ends up overemoting and producing a really bad effect. Don't get me wrong: he ain't bad in a 'yeah, just another white boy trying to sound like a bluesman' manner, like, say, Keith Relf from the Yardbirds. Rather he's bad in a 'just another garage punk who's too feeble and limp to be truly scary' manner. If I want true brawl 'n' brawn, I'll take that guy from the Sonics, I guess.
(Full Version: starling.rinet.ru/music/pretty.htm)