|
Post by anthony on Jan 20, 2019 23:01:35 GMT
Just a thought, out of all the members of the Hollies over the past 50 plus years, who would you place together to make your perfect Hollies line up. you can have a six member group, but you can't double up having more than one bass player etc. I would like to see if anyone responds firstly, but would you have Eric instead of Bernie in the 70's line up etc. We all have options of whos good and not so good so this would give people a choice to pick their favourite line up.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Jan 20, 2019 23:18:12 GMT
Interesting.
I think the Graham, Allan, Tony, Bobby and Bernie line-up functioned perfectly well artistically. Doesn't need any help.
I would suggest Allan, Tony, Bobby, Terry & Bernie + Mikael Rickfors as the best 70s line up to give them extra instrumental presence on stage. It would really have helped them to fill out their live sound at the time. Even a la the Beach Boys they could have become a really exciting touring group delivering the hits!
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Jan 21, 2019 8:46:51 GMT
Put Rickfors in either of those band Stranger mentioned and they would musically have been much stronger. He would also add a more soulful voice as well to the band although I don't think Allan would have gone for that.
|
|
|
Post by allanangel on Jan 21, 2019 16:06:47 GMT
Allan singing lead and playing his guitar while singing A LOT MORE of his rock songs, Graham harmonizing, Eric on bass, Tony, Bobby and Bernie playing piano. This is my ideal line up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 20:02:22 GMT
Right now (if Allan's voice was still in decent shape), I'd go for Allan, Alan (Coates), Tony, Bernie, Bobby and Pete (Wingfield).
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 27, 2019 17:27:59 GMT
72 lineup of course! Hicks, Sylvester, Rickfors, Elliott, Calvert.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by poco on Jan 27, 2019 17:59:53 GMT
72 lineup for sure.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 27, 2019 18:22:46 GMT
Right on, poco man!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 28, 2019 16:06:04 GMT
I've always thought that IF:
You could have had Clarke, Hicks, Sylvester, Calvert and Elliott + Mikael Rickfors, you would have had the perfect combination. And yes, I realize Clarke would never have tolerated that for a New York minute. And who could blame him? Being shunted from the 'lead singer' spotlight to playing tambourine while Rickfors took the striker position, or just singing the leads on the 'oldie hits', while Mikael soloed on many of the new and fresh tunes. Clarke's ego wouldn't allow that.
But... if Clarke brought that searing AM-friendly, hit-making voice to the group, Rickfors expanded the group's range into soulful, FM-friendly territory, which The Hollies with Clarke lacked. Plus with Rickfors guitar work, without doubt the band had a fuller, hard-rocking sound for live work. And, to his credit, Sylvester's harmonies meshed equally well with both Allan and Mikael.
I've always felt Rickfors was the key to The Hollies bridging the gap between pop and rock, between AM and FM, between hit singles and hit albums. If The Hollies could have contained the ego of Clarke PLUS a happy and settled Rickfors, the potential for all that was there. Of course it never happened but oh, what might have been.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jan 28, 2019 20:24:12 GMT
I wish Graham had stayed with them into the 1970s. The Hollies went down the more mature route that Graham wanted anyway with their songwriting, and Graham didn't grow much beyond what he was writing with the Hollies. In fact, all of his very best work was by and large written while he was still a member of the Hollies. Instead, he somehow managed to waste his talent trying to make the ego-trip that was CSNY work. They spent too long fighting and being excessive that they forgot to make any great music after the first CSN album and first CSNY album, save for a couple of non-album singles. I think Graham's solo work is like Allan Clarke's solo work - it would have been massive had it been done by the Hollies. Graham had an impressive number of contributors, but no drummer as good as Bobby Elliott and I think only Jerry Garcia's peddle guitar could hold a candle to Tony Hicks.
That said, I think Terry Sylvester actually blended vocally with Allan and Tony better than Graham, but the Hollies needed Graham's leadership and confidence to push them forward.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 29, 2019 16:03:34 GMT
That said, I think Terry Sylvester actually blended vocally with Allan and Tony better than Graham, but the Hollies needed Graham's leadership and confidence to push them forward. Agreed. Re the vocals: with Terry, live and on record, the harmonies were much tighter and I preferred the blend of their 3 voices. But they certainly missed Graham's confidence and outgoing personality on stage. Clarke was never comfortable as a frontman, and his onstage patter was short, forced and memorized. Whereas Nash, with his outgoing warmth, engaged with his audience spontaneously. Case in point: I recall seeing The Hollies back in '76. Halfway through the concert, Allan had just introduced the upcoming number when Tony broke a string. During the delay, (only about a minute or so) Allan ignored the audience and just stared at Hicks. His body language said, 'Hurry up! You're taking too long! This is embarrassing!' Then Terry stepped into that awkward, silent void and in his beguiling scouse accent, engaged the audience, talking about where they had played and where he hoped they wouldn't ever play again, and instantly had the audience laughing, amused, and eating out of his hand. And that was something Allan was incapable of doing. Always unsure, nervous even, in front of a live audience. So they definitely missed Nash in concert, and of course the perpetual 'new boy' Sylvester was kept in his subordinate, and largely silent place. And Clarke soldiered on in a role he was definitely unsuited for. He was much more comfortable putting in his two cents, while Nash controlled the dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 29, 2019 23:22:47 GMT
The take on Clarke is interesting. Yet, the confidence he exudes in the music would make one think he would be more engaging onstage. In '72, Hicks and Sylvester were co-front men, while Rickfors had that brooding, intense, James Dean quality.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 1, 2019 1:13:24 GMT
That said, I think Terry Sylvester actually blended vocally with Allan and Tony better than Graham, but the Hollies needed Graham's leadership and confidence to push them forward. Agreed. Re the vocals: with Terry, live and on record, the harmonies were much tighter and I preferred the blend of their 3 voices. But they certainly missed Graham's confidence and outgoing personality on stage. Clarke was never comfortable as a frontman, and his onstage patter was short, forced and memorized. Whereas Nash, with his outgoing warmth, engaged with his audience spontaneously. Case in point: I recall seeing The Hollies back in '76. Halfway through the concert, Allan had just introduced the upcoming number when Tony broke a string. During the delay, (only about a minute or so) Allan ignored the audience and just stared at Hicks. His body language said, 'Hurry up! You're taking too long! This is embarrassing!' Then Terry stepped into that awkward, silent void and in his beguiling scouse accent, engaged the audience, talking about where they had played and where he hoped they wouldn't ever play again, and instantly had the audience laughing, amused, and eating out of his hand. And that was something Allan was incapable of doing. Always unsure, nervous even, in front of a live audience. So they definitely missed Nash in concert, and of course the perpetual 'new boy' Sylvester was kept in his subordinate, and largely silent place. And Clarke soldiered on in a role he was definitely unsuited for. He was much more comfortable putting in his two cents, while Nash controlled the dialogue. Terry was irreplaceable. Had he sung on "Laughter turns to tears" it would been so much better.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Feb 1, 2019 3:08:18 GMT
Have a listen to Terry's harmony on Amazing Grace. The live one on the end of the DVD. That says a lot. I think his harmony singing was a better fit in the Hollies than Graham's, not to take anything away from him, but they are different.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 1, 2019 16:54:29 GMT
Even Clarke said as much, claiming Terry's voice made the harmonies sound sweeter. I totally appreciate Nash's part in the band's history, however, especially his writing on the Stop Stop Stop LP, which is, to me, superior to what The Beatles were doing at the time.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Feb 1, 2019 17:26:46 GMT
Have a listen to Terry's harmony on Amazing Grace. The live one on the end of the DVD. That says a lot. I think his harmony singing was a better fit in the Hollies than Graham's, not to take anything away from him, but they are different. Yes, I think when it comes to Hollies harmonies, Terry's were a better fit than Graham's. Not that Graham was an inferior harmonizer. His harmonies with CSN are wonderful and blend seemlessly with his band mates. But in The Hollies, Terry's singing meshes perfectly with Allan's vocals. My theory on why that is, has more to do with personality than ability. As we all know, Nash was a very dominating personality in The Hollies: the spokesman, the leader etc. And I think when it came to singing, whether live or on record, he wanted to be heard, to be in the forefront, even though he was not the lead vocalist. So I think his harmonies, although in tune, tend to dominate and not perfectly mirror Clarke's leads. Graham did not want to be solely known as a fine backup harmony singer. He craved attention and the limelight on stage and on record. And thus his high harmonies can tend to dominate rather than compliment Clarke. Sylvester's vocals, to my ear, are perfectly in sync with Allan, and thus the better match. He was hired on to do a job, and that job was to provide that tight high tenor harmony over Clarke's leads. And he performed that task perfectly for 15 years. Notice on the CSN and CSNY albums, after Graham's departure from The Hollies, his harmonies are much more balanced and seemless. In his new group, he wasn't the dominant personality anymore. Both Stills and Crosby and later Young, were all forceful personalities, and liberties couldn't be taken without major trouble arising. As it often did! And I tend to think that comes across on record. His harmonies are much more in balance with the others.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 1, 2019 20:22:37 GMT
I personally wouldn't know about that. I never bought the first CSN album. I did have the CSNY album for a time, but didn't listen to it much. I always preferred Nash in The Hollies. CSNY didn't have a lead singer of the caliber of Clarke.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Feb 1, 2019 22:43:47 GMT
I personally wouldn't know about that. I never bought the first CSN album. I did have the CSNY album for a time, but didn't listen to it much. I always preferred Nash in The Hollies. CSNY didn't have a lead singer of the caliber of Clarke. I hear what you're saying. When I heard in December '68 that Nash had quit The Hollies, and then read his derogatory comments about the group, I had a hate on for him for a couple of years. I never bought the first CSN LP either. But I sure heard it enough: everybody seemed to have bought it and it was being played at every party and every event back in '69. Yes, there was no lead voice in CSNY. All taking their turn doing the singer-songwriter thing. Couldn't abide Young's voice, and the others were ok voices, but hardly 'lead vocalist' material. They harmonized well, but never in the league of The Hollies, mainly because they lacked that searing, powerful vocal that Clarke provided The Hollies with.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 2, 2019 16:49:16 GMT
Funny about Neil Young. His work in The Buffalo Springfield (Mr.Soul, On the way home) and early solo tracks (Cinnamon Girl, When you dance I can really love) I like a lot, even with his weedy voice. I always thought it odd that The Hollies covered his "Only Love can break your heart" live, both with Clarke and Rickfors. A bit bland for The Hollies I think. "Woodstock", however, is a totally different matter. The Hollies blow CSNY away with their powerhouse version. It's so good they could have put it out as a single themselves.
Nash was trying to justify his new musical setup by dissing his former band. I feel the same way about both Nash and Clarke; love their talents but don't like either of them as people.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 4, 2019 12:01:33 GMT
I don't get the mystique around Neil Young. Yes, he wrote some great songs, but his over-inflated ego and very weak voice overshadow that for me. The upside is that like Bob Dylan, it opens his songs wide up to interpretation and artists covering his work can quite easily eclipse his original version. I don't think any Bob Dylan song (pre-1969) sung by Bob Dylan is "the" definitive version. He needed CSN to flesh out his songs and as for him being a great guitar player...? Get outta here!
This is what pains me about the whole CSNY vs. the Hollies thing. The Hollies far more deserved the level of success that CSN(Y) enjoyed, but they didn't bring drama and excess to the table, which is seemingly what the public wanted. Even when the press took a disliking to CSN in the late 1970s, you'd be hard pushed to find a negative concert review of the Hollies, who actually seemed to be turning it out better than ever by the mid-1970s. Their stage show was extremely polished and professional. I think had Allan Clarke loosened up a bit and played around with the audience more, they'd have been that bit more memorable as a live act. You couldn't deny the tightness of their harmonies live, nor their superb playing.
It was sad that Graham took to discrediting the Hollies. However, Buffalo Springfield seemed to always escape the flack, who were high and dry the least successful and least talented band out of the three 'supergroups' that formed CSNY.
I always idolised Graham Nash, he was my favourite Hollie since forever. But his whole recent spat with David Crosby over his new girlfriend has really turned me off this man. His egotistical autobiography that became more about David Crosby than him in the end, was accompanied by a book tour where he just spat out the same stories over and over again, never elaborating on the Hollies and still dismissing them as his inferior work. He then left his wife of 39 years for a young hippy-wannabe groupie who still continues to post on Instagram, idolising all 1960s bands. She's the Millennial fan-girl who's actually bagged herself a real 1960s star. I don't think he sees that. Even his kids won't speak to him for the foreseeable future. How can you be THAT selfish as a human being to put your family through that?
Neil Young recently showed his true colours too, divorcing his wife of 32 years, Pegi Young. She remained classy about the whole thing, but Neil made some below the belt remarks about her and flaunted his new girlfriend, who David Crosby called a "poisonous predator". Unfortunately for Neil, his jibes about Pegi and marrying the "love of his life" came just days before Pegi passed away after a quiet battle with cancer.
Yes, David Crosby is no saint and has had more than his fair share of demons to battle, but at the end of it all, I believe his heart is in the right place. He's just not subtle or succinct about dealing with it. How two grown men can just give up on their 32 and 39 year marriages for younger women, and fall out with their children over it is just beyond me. Not something I look for in an idol at all.
In comparison, look at the "good guys" over at the Hollies camp. Tony has been with Jane since the very early 1970s, Allan has been married to Jeni since 1964, Bobby was with Maureen since the 1960s until she sadly passed away a few years ago...
|
|
|
Post by johnt on Feb 4, 2019 12:46:37 GMT
In comparison, look at the "good guys" over at the Hollies camp. Tony has been with Jane since the very early 1970s, Allan has been married to Jeni since 1964, Tony was with Maureen since the 1960s until she sadly passed away a few years ago... I think you mean Bobby was with Maureen, Cameron.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 12:53:25 GMT
I must admit, I don't give a damn how pop/rock stars treat their wives/girlfriends. It's the music that matters to me.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Feb 4, 2019 17:53:53 GMT
Did Allan not have a shot of Marianne Faithful in the early days of his marriage? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 5, 2019 17:24:44 GMT
Sounds like soap opera time here. The problem is, celebrities are used to getting their way, so any behaviors or misbehaviors can be chalked up to that. Excessive amounts of money can also turn people into heartless beasts. Both Dylan and Neil Young are legends not due to their singing abilities, but for their songwriting. Buffalo Springfield apparently had no impact in the UK, but were consistently popular in the US.
Getting back on subject, considering there are so many longtime fans who dislike the current lineup, maybe the solution is for them to become an instrumental band.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 6, 2019 12:15:02 GMT
Getting back on subject, considering there are so many longtime fans who dislike the current lineup, maybe the solution is for them to become an instrumental band. With the greatest of respect, get over it. Our favourite bands from the 1960s are all still touring in one form or another - some of them with NO original members at all! The fact that Bobby and Tony are still on the road, and Ray Stiles too has been with the group now for over 30 years, should be recognised. They deserve some respect for that, whether you like Peter Howarth or not, you can't escape that fact that the Hollies still completely sell out increasingly bigger venues all over the world every year now. Which is more than they were doing for 20+ years while Allan Clarke was still with them.
|
|