>>What about the "Archies"? They were the biggest act, even though they didn't really exist--but the music was bubblegum, by any standard.<<

Of course we didn't forget the Archies. But there weren't part of Buddah. I haven't yet gotten around to writing about Don Kirshner. But, yes, Kirshner certainly had the bubblegum formula down pat. He was in it strictly for the money--which was all bubblegum was really about. The Monkees were a bubblegum band under his guidance. Their first three albums, they didn't even play or write on. Just their voices. By the 4th album, the Monkees had booted Kirshner to the curb and started playing and writing their own material for the records (from what I gather, most of the Monkees didn't know him all that well and didn't particularly like him although he did have an excellent ear for picking hits). While their material was still light and poppy, it was not bubblegum anymore. The Monkees had become a real band and bubblegum bands were not real bands (with perhaps the exception of the Lemon Pipers whose music was not overly gummy to begin with).

>>It was certainly called "Bubblegum" at the time(I was a DJ back then, and I remember it all too well--There was a lot of acrimony, at the time, toward music that wasn't "heavy", which is probably has more to do with the reason that the people who played it disliked it--it was not cool to play that kind of stuff at all--Musicians, to be taken seriously, had to be "counterculture"--this was "teeny bopper" music, and totally uncool to listen to, let alone play.<<

There was a certain hypocrisy in the recording industry concerning bubblegum because it was contrived, created strictly to make money. But is this not equally true of the counter-culture? Granted they weren't under the pressure to produce hits the way bubblegum bands were and their music was allowed to evolve whereas bubblegum bands did not evolve--but nevertheless, they had to garner up some kind of hit material sooner or later or they were going to get dumped. The purpose was still the same--to make money. It's an industry and a business and you have to make a profit--it's that simple. But the counter-culture was all about not making money and so the labels had to pitch these bands that way but all the while intending to make a killing off these guys. At least bubblegum was honest about it.

>>One thing that you've missed, musically, is the "Tom Tom" bass line--it was a straight eight, like the cliche Indian tom toms in the TV and Movie Westerns--and was a break away from the syncopated "Hully Gully" beat that had been at the bottom of all the teenybopper dance music from the middle sixties--<<

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I follow it fully. "Sugar Sugar" kind of had that tom-tom bass and certain the Fruitgum Company did with "Indian Giver" but I can think of a lot of bubblegum that didn't use it. But I think ou might have something there. Could you provide an example of what you're getting at?