Hey, Hey, We're the Single Most Underrated Rock N' Roll Band of All Time.

I love the Monkees.

I have tried to play it off as kitsch. I have tried to play it off as an anti-intellectual, populist argument. I have tried to play it off as a hyper-intellectual, open-minded argument. But however you spin it, I reach the same result. I love the Monkees.

And this invariably, no matter argument I am spouting at the time, gets me laughed at.

Occasionally, people will laugh with me and then "confess" to loving Herman's Hermits or The Archies or some other kind of sixties bullshit. But more often, I get sincere, actual, I-think-you-are-stupid laughter. I might as well take up a worthier cause, like trying to convince people of the merits of technicolor or ovaltine, or some other pop culture relic.

But, whenever I want to abandon this cause, I pop on a record, and realize all over again that (we're coming to the chorus now...) I love the Monkees.

This is because the Monkees rule. I believe this to be a provable fact.

The most common anti-Monkee arguments:

1. They didn't write their own songs.
2. They didn't play their own instruments.
3. They were put together as a "band" by a producer who wasn't interested in art, only in dollars.
4. They were too image-conscious, and dependent on their television show.
5. They didn't have anything important to say.

In turn:

(1) and (2): To those who present arguments #1 and #2: Congratulations! You can read linear notes!
However, I ultimately do not believe that the Monkees' writing credits or lack thereof is not a knock against them. For two reasons:

(a) They did write songs. Good songs. Mike Nesmith wrote "Mary, Mary." And "Listen to the Band." And "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," which I had previously sworn was a Neil Diamond song. Micky Dolenz wrote "Randy Scouse Git." And the entire band collaborated on "Words." These are some solid pop gems, penned by these supposed talentless boobs.

(b) Why does it matter if the band wrote their own songs? The Four Tops and the Temptations did not write their own songs. Hell, The Byrds rarely wrote their own songs. Sinatra never wrote a song that I know of. Why is it so freaking important for a band to write all of its own material?

I blame the Beatles. They imposed the image of a self-contained band on the public consciousness. But even they began with a ton of covers. And cynics out there will note that they only really started focusing on their songwriting craft when it was pointed out that they did not have to pay writing royalties to the authors when they recorded their own originals.

Country fans have this figured out. They do not seem to care if an artist writes every song he sings. Authorship is something of a bonus, yes. But the perspective and "authenticity" of writing your own material is not a replacement for performing good songs well.

And playing your own music? On every track? The Beach Boys better stop printing the musicians list for "Pet Sounds," lest the rock intelligentsia declare them as crappy as The Monkees.

(3) To those who argue that the band came together inorganically, I say: This is no real criticism. Plenty of artistically successful bands have been assembled by a faceless, profit driven producer. See: Sex Pistols, The; Maclolm McLaren and. See also: Sync, N*, Lou Pearlman and.

Once again, the four buddies from Liverpool have created a model which has shackled people's images of rock music. But giving credit only to bands who played in seventh-grade talent shows together is to, in essence, pre-judge music. When you give credit only to those bands whom you feel meet some pre-determined criteria, you are pretty short sighted, and you are closing yourself off to all kinds of positive experiences. And if you were to do this in other areas of your life, it would qualify you for a seat on the Springer stage.

(4) As for #4, what can I say? It was the sixties. Every band was on TV, running around like idiots. And if you think a band loses credibility for doing that, I guess you should probably not tune in to watch "A Hard Day's Night" or "Help" on AMC.

(5) The people who spout idea #5 are particularly grating. These are the people who will tell you Jim Morrison is a poet while glossing over the fact that he wrote inanities like "Hello, I love you." (Which is a good song, but you see where I am going.)

Not all good songs are deep. "Louie, Louie" is one of the best songs ever written- it is infectious, rebellious, just the right amount of jubilant noise. But it doesn't mean shit. Conversely, not every deep song is good. Otherwise, we would all have "Abraham Martin and John" or some other bullshit like that on our I-Pods.

The Monkees played (and even wrote) some amazing pop-rock songs. The vocals on "I'm a Believer" are tone-perfect. The organ in "I'm not Your Stepping Stone" builds to a dark and wicked-sounding crescendo, building alongside some crashing drums and some rousing call-and-response vocals. "Pleasant Valley Sunday" rides a Byrds-worthy ringing guitar into a gorgeous chorus with flowing harmonies. "D.W. Washburn" sounds like the third-best song on the Lovin' Spoonful's greatest hits (when in fact it is the 12th best song on the Monkees' greatest hits).

And the impetus for this post- I just yesterday bought The Monkees' 1996 album "Justus" off the dollar rack. And it is pretty damn good. Better than "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard." But I don't remember The Monkees playing the halftime show of the Broncos-Packers Superbowl. I just remember another corny VH1 special and a marathon of their show on TV Land.

I have come to accept that the general music-loving public does not like The Monkees. And, my above-listed counterarguments aside, I can somewhat understand why.

But I want to use this space to give a cheer to Micky. To Mike. To Peter. and To Davy.

You guys were easily the 15th best rock band of the 1960s. And the most underrated rock band of all time.