Just plain laziness

[moorlock2003]

The nagging question remains; why couldn't the band maintain a sturdy level of popularity? Could it be due to something as simple as just plain laziness? The band made so few trips to the US. The last time they played Los Angeles was 1975. YES, 1975! The "Romany" tour of 1973 got cancelled, even after the band made a significant transition to an FM radio band when the album appeared on various radio stations' playlists. Then we have Clarke's big return to the group. And how did they celebrate the occasion, coinciding with a worldwide hit with "The Air that I Breathe"? They stayed home for some exciting chicken-in-a-basket cabaret gigs. Their 74 LP, filled with great songs, could have gone Top 10 in the US had they toured to support it. Compare them to The Kinks, who had NO hits after Lola, yet they came over to the US relentlessly, touring every time RCA issued a new LP. They gained a fan following that way, and back in the 70s, touring was the ONLY way to do it. The Hollies let opportunity after opportunity slip by. Such a shame.

[anthony]

Jan 2, 2019 19:06:20 GMT moorlock2003 said:

The nagging question remains; why couldn't the band maintain a sturdy level of popularity? Could it be due to something as simple as just plain laziness? The band made so few trips to the US. The last time they played Los Angeles was 1975. YES, 1975! The "Romany" tour of 1973 got cancelled, even after the band made a significant transition to an FM radio band when the album appeared on various radio stations' playlists. Then we have Clarke's big return to the group. And how did they celebrate the occasion, coinciding with a worldwide hit with "The Air that I Breathe"? They stayed home for some exciting chicken-in-a-basket cabaret gigs. Their 74 LP, filled with great songs, could have gone Top 10 in the US had they toured to support it. Compare them to The Kinks, who had NO hits after Lola, yet they came over to the US relentlessly, touring every time RCA issued a new LP. They gained a fan following that way, and back in the 70s, touring was the ONLY way to do it. The Hollies let opportunity after opportunity slip by. Such a shame.

I really don't believe the Americans were really interested in the Hollies, a bit like Cliff Richard, big around the world by not in the US,

[moorlock2003]

Balderdash. In 1972-4 the band was selling far more records in the US than anywhere else in the world. The band should have capitalized on their newfound popularity with US fans and gotten their butts over here more than once.

[stuball]

Allan Clarke, in the 70's, often complained about the poorly organized US tours. Adding and dropping dates on the fly (1966 and 1972) or just thinking playing New York and Los Angeles was sufficient (1975). Or just New York (1965). As Clarke said, there never was a plan to conquer America (a large country), by criss-crossing the country for a couple of months straight. He stated that throughout their career, they would only go where they had a current hit, and then only stay for a quick few dates.

It makes you wonder about the Hollies management and their strategy.

[cameron]

Jan 4, 2019 23:21:41 GMT stuball said:

It makes you wonder about the Hollies management and their strategy.

They didn't have a strategy, other than to look after themselves and the boys financially. Their legendary 'leasing back' deal from 1966 was a genius move. But record companies lose interest when the profits are less. An artist will be exploited if there's money to be made. The Hollies' management on their own couldn't do it. Today, they appear to manage themselves. I am utterly amazed that they still sell out venues all over the world with precious little PR, a completely fixed two hour setlist for the last 15+ years and no archival releases to promote. I just don't understand how they do it. Presumably because the venues they book are small-ish town halls and concert halls? With more PR, pushing their back catalogue more and a varied setlist, who's to say they couldn't be selling out a stadium like the Stones and the Who? They're just about the only surviving 60s band who haven't done the 'Legend's Slot' at Glastonbury too. It seems today that years of managing themselves and taking as much money as they can from their career (which there's nothing wrong with that at all), they're paying the price now due to their fairly anonymous stature and forgotten legacy as far as the public is concerned.  

Talking of laziness, the Hollies went into a self-imposed semi-retirement around 1975/6. They'd throw everything into being the Hollies, but only for six months of the year. That really was the end of the group, with their post-1976 material having a noticeable drop in quality. 

But as for the Hollies selling the most in America from 1972-1975, I think you'll find that they were most popular in Germany for their entire career. Their singles and albums tended to see release there first or very early on compared to the rest of the World. Germany got 'Live Hits' long before the UK (by almost a year) and of course 'Out On The Road' was issued there but nowhere else apart from Spain. Some of their later 1980s singles were released in Germany only. 

[stuball]

The 6-month on and 6-month off thing actually began in 1973. It was one of the terms of Allan Clarke's return. It was the compromise which allowed him to return to The Hollies AND still pursue his solo career. This '6 on/6 off' arrangement also opened the door for Terry's solo work, while Tony was freed up to do outside production work (the Taggart LP comes to mind). What Bernie and Bobby did during those periods, I have no idea. As Terry said, 'you could build houses' during the half-year breaks.

But you're right. It did no favours for the 'Group' as a whole. They became 'part-time' Hollies. And by the late '70's the results of this policy, or 'Clarke Compromise', were evident: recording mediocre material written by outsiders, little quality writing in-house, and often dull and boring arrangements, and more fast-working studio keyboard musicians added to the mix (Wingfield, Arnesen) replacing Hick's guitar fills. I hesitate to say the group became lazy, but I think there was a touch of that. I mean, to become semi-retired (if you so choose) at 30, hardly bodes well for the members or the group as a whole.

Sylvester once said that after a 6 month sabbatical, we come back to the group refreshed and full of new ideas. Judging by results, I think it was more the opposite: along the lines of 'We owe Polydor a new album, a new single and we've got to do a tour, so we better get cracking'.  Like returning to 'the job' after a 6 month vacation. 

[moorlock2003]

There never was a sense of urgency to their decisions. Really, when "Long Cool Woman" was speeding up the US charts, they should have dropped everything and come over here. Even waiting a month or two wasn't a good idea. There's nothing more exciting than seeing a band live when their record is at the top of the charts.

[anthony]

I still believe the band went where they felt more welcome, they have toured Australia so many times over the years. Didn't Tony ask the fans at one US show did you come in a taxi.

I agree the band at times didn't really push themselves. I wish they had put out concert DVD's like all the other groups have over the years. So much stuff on the Stones.  I believe Allan

said they know what we look like thus no Video's at the time. The Hollies always kept their neat good boy image and at times not sure if that really helped. In my opinion and I know some will not agree

the Hollies lost their way in the later part of the 70's, forgettable albums, slow ballads, even tho the Buddy Holly album was good, why didn't they have an Album of their own material, they

needed to be rockier I felt. I think their last great album was Russian Roulette, I didn't mind Wiggle that whatsit, I felt the group was trying new things, Daddy Don't mind was a great song and

 I loved Russian Roulette, all rockier numbers, then it all stopped, in came the Ballads, one after another.

Lets be honest what group from the early 60's still command the large stages, only the Stones really, I can't think of any other. All the others are at the casino's, small concert halls or on package

deals with a few other 60's stars. So like them or not I think the Hollies are still doing Ok, In the end they are considered a 60's group who had a few big hits in the early 70's.

Were they Lazy, well they could have done a lot more to help themselves, I do agree.

[moorlock2003]

There is no more important market than America. Ask Graham Nash; it's where he relocated and became a millionaire and a household name thanks to hooking up with his pot smoking buddies David and Steven. After Long Cool Woman was such a smash here, the band's focus should have been on building a fan base in the US. Nothing was happening in England, so what was stopping them?

[anthony]

Feb 6, 2019 1:04:01 GMT moorlock2003 said:

There is no more important market than America. Ask Graham Nash; it's where he relocated and became a millionaire and a household name thanks to hooking up with his pot smoking buddies David and Steven. After Long Cool Woman was such a smash here, the band's focus should have been on building a fan base in the US. Nothing was happening in England, so what was stopping them?

America is not the be all and end all in music. Ok they gave us Elvis. Graham Nash in my opinion doesn't know whether he liked the Hollies or hated them, just hear him being interview, he either is praising them or dismissing them. America let the Hollies down, they had trouble filling venues, they only went there with Rickfors because they were too scared of the public reaction of no Allan Clarke in the UK. From all reports the ticket sales were poor in 1983 when Nash returned.

thanks, Anthony

[dirtyfaz]

Anthony, actually it's just about all bands perspective to break in America was the holy grail. The Hollies back in the 60s wanted to but poor management decisions prevented this from happening.
There is no denying that the band is popular just about all around the world but just how many of those markets really matter. You can have all the #1 hits in Europe you want but just one #1 in America is all you really need. The Hollies were good enough to break there if they were prepared to get off their backsided and work hard at it. Either they or their management didn't want to. Graham knew America was the market and he did strike up relationships with other people besides Crosby and Stills.

I am Australian and all bands here want to break big overseas. They have been trying since to mid 60s. Really only the Bee Gees broke big in the UK and basically they were from the UK anyway. Now bands want to make it in America cause it is still the biggest market by far. There have been several do that.

As Moorlock said: Graham relocated and became a millionaire and a household name. I would suggest the household name is pretty much world wide. How many of the Hollies members are household names worldwide.

Now I love the Hollies as much as the next guy but I am a realist and would suggest back in the 60s the band wanted to break in America as much as any other band.

Bands like the Kinks, the Stones, Hendrix, the Who and lots more worked hard at breaking in the states. Jeez even Dave Clark and Herman made it bigger there and probabily made more money in the 60 that the Hollies did.

[moorlock2003]

Like my longtime pal poco has said to me, if ticket sales were disappointing, it was because the band should have been booked into colleges. Bands that play colleges always attract a good sized crowd.  I can just imagine if they had gone through with the aborted "Romany" tour, they could have played a good portion of the LP that was on FM radio at the time, escaping from the '60s singles image that they had.   

[cameron]

Feb 6, 2019 1:04:01 GMT moorlock2003 said:

There is no more important market than America. Ask Graham Nash; it's where he relocated and became a millionaire and a household name thanks to hooking up with his pot smoking buddies David and Steven. After Long Cool Woman was such a smash here, the band's focus should have been on building a fan base in the US. Nothing was happening in England, so what was stopping them?

America just opens up a much bigger audience. A bigger audience = more sales = more money. That's it. America is not some Holy promised land of fame and success, it's not a benchmark of the quality of a band. 

The Hollies remained loyal to their fans in the rest of the World. They were HUGE in Australia, Germany and Scandinavia. In fact, by the late 1960s, they'd been viewed as equal or better than the Beatles in Scandinavia because they actually toured there regularly and the Beatles didn't. They were seen as the premier touring act at that time. So why would they go chasing America? It was full of idiot record company bosses who for some reason figured they knew better and carved up their albums and significantly ruined the sound quality of their recordings with echo, reverb and compression. It was full of fans who thought that 'rival' Manchester band Herman's Hermits were second to the Beatles by the mid-1960s, which couldn't have been further from the truth back at home in the UK. They didn't appreciate raw talent, they just wanted a star to exploit who looked the part. Sadly the Hollies didn't really fit that mould. 

America was also the country where money talks. An appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show would make or break an artist. It launched the Beatles, but didn't have the same effect for their pal Cilla Black some months later. Radio play was the second in command to make a single happen, and it involved a hands on effort to convince DJs to play the record you wanted. I have to give it to the Hollies, virtually none of that happened for them. There was no money changing hands to promote them (Imperial famously gave them pretty much a zero advertising budget, and Epic faired only slightly better), there was no A&R man on the ground travelling the country to break their singles in to one radio station at a time, and crucially, no Ed Sullivan performance. So what we glean from this is that all the Hollies' success in America was on their own merit, purely on the strength of their records. 

Take "Bus Stop" for example, their second highest placing single in the US of their whole career. There was no TV performances to promote it, and no tour to sell it. They didn't go back to America to play Bus Stop until 1967. And from 1967-1968, they pretty much exclusively played on the college circuit. So that single reached No.5 purely on its own merit. 

[Deleted]

UK bands can get too hung-up on making it big in the USA, often to the detriment of their career back home (a prime example being Slade, who relocated to the states for 18 months in the mid '70s, without making much impression and at the same time losing their following back home). I quite like the fact that bands like Status Quo just accept that they're big everywhere else.

Of course, some have just been plain unlucky. Both Brian Poole and The Tremeloes and The Swinging Blue Jeans didn't get on US TV in '64/'65, resulting in several far inferior acts making it big there instead of them.

[anthony]

Feb 6, 2019 9:05:45 GMT dirtyfaz said:

Anthony, actually it's just about all bands perspective to break in America was the holy grail. The Hollies back in the 60s wanted to but poor management decisions prevented this from happening.
There is no denying that the band is popular just about all around the world but just how many of those markets really matter. You can have all the #1 hits in Europe you want but just one #1 in America is all you really need. The Hollies were good enough to break there if they were prepared to get off their backsided and work hard at it. Either they or their management didn't want to. Graham knew America was the market and he did strike up relationships with other people besides Crosby and Stills.

I am Australian and all bands here want to break big overseas. They have been trying since to mid 60s. Really only the Bee Gees broke big in the UK and basically they were from the UK anyway. Now bands want to make it in America cause it is still the biggest market by far. There have been several do that.

As Moorlock said: Graham relocated and became a millionaire and a household name. I would suggest the household name is pretty much world wide. How many of the Hollies members are household names worldwide.

Now I love the Hollies as much as the next guy but I am a realist and would suggest back in the 60s the band wanted to break in America as much as any other band.

Bands like the Kinks, the Stones, Hendrix, the Who and lots more worked hard at breaking in the states. Jeez even Dave Clark and Herman made it bigger there and probabily made more money in the 60 that the Hollies did.

Ask anyone to name a Hollie and they would struggle, it's really about the band, never Allan and the Hollies. Lets be honest Graham has a big ego and really does self promote, likes to make political statements etc . Maybe the fact the Hollies never really made it really big in America is something to be said about America. . Agree everyone wants to make it big in the States , you only need a small percentage of people to like you to make millions there.

 I'm sure Bobby, Tony and Allan aren't short of a bob. The point I was trying to make is The Hollies never did well in the States, the Americans didn't seem interested in them, even when Graham returned. Think the group thought it was a lost curse and concentrated on the rest of the world.