THIS FREE MUSICIANS' classified ad appeared in the February 10, 1968 issue of Rolling Stone, just before interviews with Ringo Starr and George Harrison.
I love the requirement to be an "artistic revolutionary." There is ambiguity there. Was the band looking for someone who could revolutionize bass playing, like John Entwistle? Or a revolutionary in that 1960s sense of a social revolutionary, power to the people, man the barricades, up against the wall motherfucker, that kind of revolutionary who also happened to be artistic? And then, there's "up front w\ his feelings," which would suggest that whoever placed the ad did not envision a female bass player. (So much for that particular revolution.) But then there follows "or able to become." Able to become up front with his feelings if he's not quite there yet? (We may be sexist but we can be patient with a certain amount of bottled up emotion.) Or just, in a cosmic sense, able to become?
Able to become, man, able to become. Dig it.
I am tempted to call the number and see if they ever found their up-front revolutionary man, and if he proved to be able to become, much less anchor the rhythm section. But that was 45 years ago, and wouldn't you figure the property has changed hands?
I'd love to know the story of the band, though, wouldn't you? Did they eventually make records, go on tour, wreck themselves on dope and booze, fight and break up and reconcile and break up again, lose a founding member to a motorcycle crash, curse those assholes at Rolling Stone who were so incredibly ungroovy, make some failed solo records, raise kids, get bald get fat get new livers, and finally play a reunion show minus that bass player, the artistic revolutionary who was fired after five years because he just wasn't able to become?