Nice remark in actual Boston Globe review

[christocello]

Hi there,

in an actual review of the new Beatles CD (--at the BBC, Vol.2) the author tries to characterise the special clean and somehow polished sound of the Beatles' BBC-Recordings. He excels with the line:
"...at time you think you'd be listening to the Hollies". That's a big compliment, isn't it? But - for whom? (indeed, the reviewer tried to say the opposite...)

here's the link
www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2013/11/11/old-classics-albums-taken-for-new-spin/qVsO1B0jABrTTMpJosZbXM/story.html

[Deleted]

'All You Need Is Love' inspired by an early 1967 Hollies B-side, 'Happy Xmas (War Is Over)' knicked from 'Stewball', Macca's post-Beatles band named after a song on a Beatles / Hollies (& others) charity album... they obviously WISHED they sounded like The Hollies at times! 

[gee]

it's meant as a 'dig' at The Hollies by the Boston Globe reviewer - who is trying to imply that The Hollies had a 'sterile' clean sound minus any raunch !

George Martin 'polished up' The Beatles in the studio...just as Brian Epstein did with their public image (while Andrew Loog Oldham took The Rolling Stones image the other way !)

The reviewer is making the mistake of thinking while The Hollies 'A' sides were very 'clean' sounding they had no "grittier" side (er 'Nobody' - the guitar riff inspired Lennon's 'Dr.Robert' the following year !, 'Come on Back', 'Set Me Free', 'You Know He Did', etc)....thus a complete lack of any fuller understanding of The Hollies music and presumably just an assumption based on the hits the reviewer knows, this is a rather sadly all too common, inaccurate,  and predictable: 'deride The Hollies in order  to plug The Beatles' lazy and prejudicial music press thing....

compare The Beatles & The Hollies respective 1964 versions of 'Mr.Moonlight'....and then tell me who has the 'cleaner' more 'polished' sound !!!

[stuball]

Oscar Wilde obviously never met The Hollies, or he would have re-thought his old saw, 'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about'. In The Hollies case, in North America at least, often the opposite was true. Press attention to the group could often be demeaning, if not openly hostile. About the only upside to The Hollies being missing-in-action on this side of the Atlantic these last 30 years, was that the put downs and insults had at last mercifully come to an end. At least until this latest snide remark.

To this day I have never understood the critical vitriol reserved for The Hollies. Yes, I'm aware they weren't the coolest group ever, and Mr. Nash's putdowns of the band didn't help matters, but the constant bashing they took was out of all proportion. As a teen, I used to search the pop papers for articles on The Hollies, and if they were positive, I'd usually purchase the mag. But more often than not, I'd place it back on the shelf, sickened by another bad album review, another blatant putdown. Looking back, I suppose the only positive was that it expanded my vocabulary: I learned words like banal, saccharine, trite, workmanlike, all from Hollie-bashing. I was told their harmonies were shrill, often grating. Their music was soulless and contrived. While The Beatles 'Let It Be' was magnificent and awe-inspiring, The Hollies 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother' was treacly and pedestrian. Fun, snappy Hollies numbers were considered lightweight and puerile. Hollies ballads were labelled 'cloying', and the group's output was written off as largely 'syrupy' or 'fluff, best taken in small amounts'.

It's no surprise the The Hollies had to wait 20 odd years for admission to the United States Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame. Given the critical bashing they took, or should I say still take, it's a wonder they made it at all.

[Deleted]

Much as I like some of The Beatles' music, I find this "Rock band" reinvention a little OTT. They weren't exactly The Who or The Pretty Things, or even The Dave Clark Five...

As for the critic who wrote the above article, can someone please send him a copy of 'Evolution' asap (perhaps removing 'Lullaby For Tim' first)?

[gee]

I rather suspect that John Lennon and George Harrison may have some culpability here

Lennon saw anyone who was a possible 'threat' as a target (Paul -'How Do You Sleep ?' & even his beloved Yoko - 'Move Over Ms.L' included !), thus his 'blast' at The Hollies which was largely 'all mouth' (Lennon & Nash were friends by 1967) got taken out of all proportion by some American music press writers I suspect...and being 'Beatle lovers' they became instant 'Hollie haters'

George Harrison was the source of the 'Souless sessionmen' jibe at The Hollies ( re 'If I Neeeded Someone' cover - which was suggested FOR The Hollies to do - against Nash's wishes - by Beatles producer George Martin !)

Harrison rather 'shot himself in the foot' royalties & more importantly songwriter recognition wise with his 'off the cuff' remark to a UK music journalist....but the 'souless' jibe stuck in the minds of some music writers thereafter (I think Harrison knew he'd been unfair going by his response to press questions from the same journalist at his forthcoming marriage press conference and thereafter never made such unkind remarks about any other artists), but The Hollies suffered as a result

George apparently later WANTED The Hollies to do a song for his Romanian appeal charity album vol 2 (which for some reason never appeared...) so he wasn't totally 'anti Hollies' and Lennon's later  critical praise for 'Hey Willy' in 1971 suggests he too felt that he owed The Hollies a belated favour....!

Some American music writers (British too !) took ANYTHING The Beatles said as being 100% accurate...look how 'Jam Butties' suddenly became very popular !!!

Interesting how top American musical figures - The Everly Brothers, Paul Simon, Steve Stills, The Mamas & The Papas, John Sebastian, Brian Wilson, & later Bruce Speringsteen, Nils Loftgren, etc....DID rate The Hollies (note Barry & Robin Gibb gave them a standing salute at the HOF induction too !)

so the views of some music writers don't appear to have been reflected within the music industry itself...

To be fair Peter - while I take your point - The Beatles COULD 'Rock' as good as anyone when they put their minds to it  - 'Helter Skelter', 'Birthday', 'Back in The USSR', 'Lady Madonna', 'Hey Bulldog', 'It's All Too Much', 'Get Back', 'The Ballad of John & Yoko', 'Savoy Truffle' (the sound here inspires The Stones 'Honky Tonk Women' the following year ) , 'Oh Darling', 'Revolution' (single version), and earlier 'Twist & Shout', 'I Saw Her Standing There', 'I Wanna Be Your Man', 'She's A Woman', 'I'm Down', plus covers of 'Roll Over Beethoven', 'Rock & Roll Music',  'Slow Down', 'Bad Boy', 'Long Tall Sally' etc, show their rockier guitar led side well...

But The Beatles were a whole mix of styles that were very diverse, hence the incredibly wide range of cover artists of their material....from The Stones to Mantovani, from Hendrix to The Carpenters, from Kenny Ball & His Jazzmen to The Pretenders, and from Matt Monro to Siouxsie & The Banshees  etc - while their sound was very 'polished up' and refined by George Martin - something they tried to get away from in the 'Get Back' / 'Let it Be' sessions...but by then the band was beginning to dissolve...