|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 6, 2019 0:04:55 GMT
The Hollies' replacing their lead singer in 1972 can be compared to the spy series The Avengers replacing their lead actress in 1968. Diehard Diana Rigg fans have resisted her replacement, the leggy Linda Thorson, for decades now, just as some Hollies fans have resisted Mikael Rickfors replacing Allan Clarke. My arguement is, why can't a person dig both? I am a megafan of both The Hollies and The Avengers, and I am fine with both. It's unfortunate that some people think otherwise. It IS possible to dig it all, simply by being open-minded and welcome to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 6, 2019 0:17:46 GMT
Peter Howarth.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 6, 2019 8:10:25 GMT
It confuses me how people seem to dislike the Mikael Rickfors era, but on the whole love the Peter Howarth era. At least during the Rickfors years they had four core members who'd be with the group throughout their heyday for around 15 years in all. And during that time, we got two excellent Hollies albums ("Romany" I'd definitely put somewhere in their top five albums) and we also got two superb Allan Clarke solo LPs in this time, so theoretically, got twice the usual output of Hollies output during 1972-1973.
I think the reason that fans dislike the Peter Howarth fronted Hollies is that they've become really far removed from the original sound (which Rickfors, Sylvester and Coates managed to keep going when they replaced their respective members) and also perhaps the fact that Tony and Bobby push the current line up as THE lineup, seemingly shunning a lot of the involvement of ex-members in interviews. I don't think they intentionally run from their past, but I guess it's just a PR effort to get people to see the current lineup in concert. I don't for one second suggest that there's a conscious effort to hide from their history, but I think in pushing the current lineup, it comes across that way to some fans. I remember seeing them on BBC Breakfast once, and for all the world it seemed that Peter Howarth was the only lead singer of the Hollies! At one point he has to explain that he didn't originally sing "Bus Stop"! I think that's what winds fans up. Not so much Peter Howarth's fault personally. They take every opportunity to push their newer material, particularly on compilations, which by and large, Hollies fans just don't care for sadly. The point has been missed entirely of promoting the original lineup, as that's the easiest way to get people to shows, even though only two original members are still touring. If Bobby and Tony weren't there, no one would go and see them, that's just how it is.
No mention of Eric Haydock was made regarding his recent passing by the "official" Hollies, other than a brief tribute on their website, whereas Graham Nash teamed up with Allan Clarke on stage at a recent awards ceremony and spoke highly of Eric and mentioned the fact that he'd be attending his funeral. Allan Clarke is never mentioned at Hollies concerts either, despite being the voice on ALL of their top 20 hits. I know relationships between them may be a bit frosty, but the fans don't care for that. I think relations between Clarke vs Hicks/Elliott and Haydock vs Hicks/Elliott drive them to put the spotlight on Howarth and the result is that the fans just dislike the man purely because he's pushed forward as THE lead singer of the Hollies. As the original poster says, fans get very defensive over their heroes, and if it wasn't for the fans, ou heroes wouldn't be where they are now. It's all a delicate balancing act of pleasing the fans and doing what they have to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 9:03:06 GMT
Is Peter Howarth the equivalent of Joanna Lumley in The New Avengers?
|
|
|
|
Post by rokinrobinoflocksley on Jun 6, 2019 15:19:49 GMT
Now don't yall forget that Diana Rigg replaced Honor Blackman in 1965!
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 18:41:51 GMT
and Honor Blackman herself from 1962 replaced Ian Hendry of the ORIGINAL all male Avengers first season team pairing of Ian Hendry / Patrick Macnee as Dr. David Keel and John Steed in 1961...
after Ian Hendry quit the show to successfully do British films
Honor Blackman initially being a 'semi regular' as Catherine Gale sharing the co-Avenger role with Julie Stevens as Venus Smith and Jon Rollason as Dr. Martin King in the show's second season of 1962,
Honor becoming the full time co-Avenger with Patrick Macnee from 1963-64 season three
mind you no matter how good they were at 'Avenging' this was their musical ability !
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:25:15 GMT
Here is the original opening and theme of The Avengers from 1961
note that Ian Hendry is star billing and Patrick Macnee the co-star !
Steed begins wearing his bowler and carrying an umbrella mid way through the first season
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:32:32 GMT
Enter Honor Blackman from 1962 - same Johnny Dankworth original theme tune but note now with more 'urgent' percussion added to speed up the feel of the piece
actually this is a season three intro from 1963
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:37:42 GMT
A major transformation in style of the show from season four as Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell take control from here on re opening credits and feel plus Laurie Johnson takes over the music with 'The Shake' for Diana Rigg era in 1965
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:41:35 GMT
into colour, a slight theme arrangement update and revised opening for 1967 season five and Diana Rigg's last season as Emma Peel
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:44:41 GMT
Tara King era of Patrick Macnee and Linda Thorson for season six
Laurie Johnson again updates 'The Shake' here adding a counter melody on trumpet to herald Tara's arrival in the show
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 6, 2019 19:50:24 GMT
and for 1976 Laurie Johnson's 'The New Avengers' theme for Steed, with his last co-Avengers Mike Gambit (Gareth Hunt) and Purdey (Joanna Lumley)
Laurie Johnson uses the 'Avengers' intro from 'The Shake' to open his more disco seventies style theme tune
|
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 6, 2019 20:28:18 GMT
It confuses me how people seem to dislike the Mikael Rickfors era, but on the whole love the Peter Howarth era. At least during the Rickfors years they had four core members who'd be with the group throughout their heyday for around 15 years in all. And during that time, we got two excellent Hollies albums ("Romany" I'd definitely put somewhere in their top five albums) and we also got two superb Allan Clarke solo LPs in this time, so theoretically, got twice the usual output of Hollies output during 1972-1973. I think the reason that fans dislike the Peter Howarth fronted Hollies is that they've become really far removed from the original sound (which Rickfors, Sylvester and Coates managed to keep going when they replaced their respective members) and also perhaps the fact that Tony and Bobby push the current line up as THE lineup, seemingly shunning a lot of the involvement of ex-members in interviews. I don't think they intentionally run from their past, but I guess it's just a PR effort to get people to see the current lineup in concert. I don't for one second suggest that there's a conscious effort to hide from their history, but I think in pushing the current lineup, it comes across that way to some fans. I remember seeing them on BBC Breakfast once, and for all the world it seemed that Peter Howarth was the only lead singer of the Hollies! At one point he has to explain that he didn't originally sing "Bus Stop"! I think that's what winds fans up. Not so much Peter Howarth's fault personally. They take every opportunity to push their newer material, particularly on compilations, which by and large, Hollies fans just don't care for sadly. The point has been missed entirely of promoting the original lineup, as that's the easiest way to get people to shows, even though only two original members are still touring. If Bobby and Tony weren't there, no one would go and see them, that's just how it is. No mention of Eric Haydock was made regarding his recent passing by the "official" Hollies, other than a brief tribute on their website, whereas Graham Nash teamed up with Allan Clarke on stage at a recent awards ceremony and spoke highly of Eric and mentioned the fact that he'd be attending his funeral. Allan Clarke is never mentioned at Hollies concerts either, despite being the voice on ALL of their top 20 hits. I know relationships between them may be a bit frosty, but the fans don't care for that. I think relations between Clarke vs Hicks/Elliott and Haydock vs Hicks/Elliott drive them to put the spotlight on Howarth and the result is that the fans just dislike the man purely because he's pushed forward as THE lead singer of the Hollies. As the original poster says, fans get very defensive over their heroes, and if it wasn't for the fans, ou heroes wouldn't be where they are now. It's all a delicate balancing act of pleasing the fans and doing what they have to do. It's very simple. UK fans CAN'T STAND the fact that The Hollies' biggest worldwide success happened not in the UK, but in the USA, and without their hometown lad present. Now one would logically think those so-called fans would be thrilled about this success for the band BUT NO. Instead, it is downplayed or denied outright, begging the question "Do you like The Hollies or not?". History can't be changed, and band lineups cannot be tailor-made according to one's wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 6, 2019 20:31:34 GMT
Is Peter Howarth the equivalent of Joanna Lumley in The New Avengers?
Far from it. I adore Joanna Lumley and out of all The Avengers/ New Avengers ladies, I would most like to meet her. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 20:40:37 GMT
She still appeals to a great many people, attracting a large audience wherever she is seen... a bit like the Peter Howarth-led Hollies!
|
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 6, 2019 20:48:19 GMT
The current version of the band is for the easily pleased, and no one else. The name "The Hollies" is enough for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 7, 2019 4:05:01 GMT
In the words of this topic we need to be open minded and welcome to change, I would like to find out who doesn't like the Rickfors years. they were great, the Hollies had a fuller sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 7, 2019 5:09:03 GMT
It confuses me how people seem to dislike the Mikael Rickfors era, but on the whole love the Peter Howarth era. At least during the Rickfors years they had four core members who'd be with the group throughout their heyday for around 15 years in all. And during that time, we got two excellent Hollies albums ("Romany" I'd definitely put somewhere in their top five albums) and we also got two superb Allan Clarke solo LPs in this time, so theoretically, got twice the usual output of Hollies output during 1972-1973. I think the reason that fans dislike the Peter Howarth fronted Hollies is that they've become really far removed from the original sound (which Rickfors, Sylvester and Coates managed to keep going when they replaced their respective members) and also perhaps the fact that Tony and Bobby push the current line up as THE lineup, seemingly shunning a lot of the involvement of ex-members in interviews. I don't think they intentionally run from their past, but I guess it's just a PR effort to get people to see the current lineup in concert. I don't for one second suggest that there's a conscious effort to hide from their history, but I think in pushing the current lineup, it comes across that way to some fans. I remember seeing them on BBC Breakfast once, and for all the world it seemed that Peter Howarth was the only lead singer of the Hollies! At one point he has to explain that he didn't originally sing "Bus Stop"! I think that's what winds fans up. Not so much Peter Howarth's fault personally. They take every opportunity to push their newer material, particularly on compilations, which by and large, Hollies fans just don't care for sadly. The point has been missed entirely of promoting the original lineup, as that's the easiest way to get people to shows, even though only two original members are still touring. If Bobby and Tony weren't there, no one would go and see them, that's just how it is. No mention of Eric Haydock was made regarding his recent passing by the "official" Hollies, other than a brief tribute on their website, whereas Graham Nash teamed up with Allan Clarke on stage at a recent awards ceremony and spoke highly of Eric and mentioned the fact that he'd be attending his funeral. Allan Clarke is never mentioned at Hollies concerts either, despite being the voice on ALL of their top 20 hits. I know relationships between them may be a bit frosty, but the fans don't care for that. I think relations between Clarke vs Hicks/Elliott and Haydock vs Hicks/Elliott drive them to put the spotlight on Howarth and the result is that the fans just dislike the man purely because he's pushed forward as THE lead singer of the Hollies. As the original poster says, fans get very defensive over their heroes, and if it wasn't for the fans, ou heroes wouldn't be where they are now. It's all a delicate balancing act of pleasing the fans and doing what they have to do. Hi Cameron, you have me wrong, I do really like Rickfors, thought the band sounded fuller when he was there, I have never said anything bad against him. I have not heard anyone here knock Mikael. In my opinion Wont you feel good that morning is the best opening tack of any Hollies Album. Just think its strange when the topic is about being open minded with change and its jumped upon when any mention of Peter Howarth or someone makes a smart ass comment. Have your views I respect that believe me. Hey its not my topic just giving my view. To me the topic is a bit strange really, we must respect Rickfors because I like him but run Howarth down because I don't like him, Just strange. To me and a lot of well respected fans still enjoy the Hollies, it didn't end when Allan left, that's all I've ever said. If that means I'm easily pleased then so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 8, 2019 11:22:43 GMT
I'm not sure what you've been smoking, but you can't exactly call the Rickfors-fronted Hollies successful in America. "Romany" peaked at No.84 on the albums chart, yet "Distant Light" and "Hollies (1974)" peaked at 21 and 28 respectively in the US. None of the Rickfors-fronted singles charted in America (or most other countries for that matter), and the runaway success of "Long Cool Woman" was a stroke of luck as radio stations were playing the "Distant Light" LP and the song was picked out. Demand was such that Epic released it as a single. The Hollies' biggest worldwide success was undoubtably "Bus Stop" and "The Air That I Breathe", which went top five in most countries, closely followed by "On A Carousel" and "Carrie Anne" which went top ten in most countries. |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 9, 2019 10:51:01 GMT
Don't forget 'He Ain't Heavy...He's My Brother' Cameron !
'Jennifer Eccles' despite a poor USA chart placing was surprisingly successful worldwide as well...as was 'Sorry Suzanne' which charted both in 1969 and again later in 1977
The Clarke sung 'Long Dark Road' also reached no.26 in both USA and Canada while Allan was out of the band
re chart hits
NOT all sixties chart details are available so any of those singles figures could well be increased further as it is very likely there were additional chart placings worldwide to those known so far....
re the known chart figures for best selling Hollies singles;
Sixties;
I Can't Let Go - charted in 10 countries
making no.2 in UK , no.42 USA and reaching top five in four countries overall
Bus Stop - charted in 14 countries
making no. 1 in Sweden, Canada and Malaysia and top five in 13 of those countries overall - reaching No. 5 in both UK and USA
On A Carousel - charted in 12 countries
making no.1 in Sweden, no. 4 in UK, no. 11 in USA and top five in five countries overall
Stop Stop Stop - charted in 16 countries
making no.1 in Canada and New Zealand and top five in 12 countries overall, reaching no.2 in the UK and no.7 in the USA
Carrie Anne - charted in 15 countries
making no.1 in Sweden, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), Malaysia and Singapore, made no.2 in South Africa (only held off top spot by The Hollies with 'That's My Desire' !) made no.3 in UK, , No. 9 in USA and reached top five in nine countries overall
Jennifer Eccles - charted in 16 countries
making no.1 in Sweden,no. 7 in UK, no.40 USA and reaching top five in six countries overall
Sorry Suzanne - in 1969 charted in 18 countries
making no.1 in Switzerland, Zimbabwe, Poland, South Africa, made no.3 in UK and top five in 12 countries overall
on re-issue in 1977 Sorry Suzanne also made no.34 in Germany
He Ain't Heavy He's My Brother - in 1969 charted in 20 countries
making no.1 in Australia, Malaysia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, made no.3 in UK, no. 7 in USA, and reached top five in 10 countries overall
on re-issue in 1988 He Ain't Heavy reached no.1 in UK , no.2 in Ireland and no.20 in Germany
Bear in mind that not all sixties chart details are currently known therefore these chart figures are very probably incomplete
Seventies;
Long Cool Woman in A Black Dress - charted in 11 countries
making no.1 in Canada and South Africa, no.2 in USA (in Billboard chart) no.32 in UK and reached top five in 5 countries overall
The Air That I Breathe - in 1974 charted in 12 countries
making no.1 in New Zealand and South Africa, made no.2 in UK, no. 6 in USA and reached top five in 8 countries overall
on re-issue in 1988 The Air That I Breathe charted in two countries, making no.60 in UK and no.30 in Ireland
Bearing in mind that the sixties chart figures for 'Bus Stop' and 'He Ain't Heavy' are incomplete from what international chart placings details that are known I would say overall that 'He Ain't Heavy', then 'Bus Stop' then 'The Air That I Breathe' would be their biggest three selling hit singles worldwide - although 'Stop Stop Stop', 'Carrie Anne', and 'Sorry Suzanne' could all compete for third position as international best selling singles
|
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 9, 2019 19:46:21 GMT
A couple of thoughts on the Rickfors/Howarth comparison:
I last saw The Hollies live in concert in late August of '83. It was the poorly received Nash-reunion tour, and although they put on a decent show, I had the feeling this would be the last Hollies concert I would have the pleasure of attending, and it turned I was right. They've never been back. But even if they were, I wouldn't attend. The current group are not to my taste and I'm more than content to live with the old recordings and my memories.
The current Rickfors/Howarth brouhaha is interesting however, and made me question why I came to love the '72-73 Hollies and yet pan the current group. After all, the Rickfors-fronted group sounded very unlike the established 'Hollies' (read Allan Clarke) sound, arguably as much as the current lot do.
So for me it comes down to this: Rickfors had a powerful, beefy but soulful voice that mixed wonderfully well with Terry's high and Tony's lower harmony. Yes, it was much removed from the old sound, but extremely powerful and classy in its own right, and I must admit I love that sound to this day. But the Howarth voice to my ear, although professional and proficient, sounds generic and phoned-in. And that weak high harmony does the sound no favours either.
But to each his own. If you love to see 'The Hollies' every chance you get, good for you! Enjoy! But for me, dimming the lights, relaxing on a comfortable couch and closing my eyes while an old Hollies LP or CD plays in the background, is as good as it gets. And I'm more than content with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 9, 2019 22:31:46 GMT
A couple of thoughts on the Rickfors/Howarth comparison: I last saw The Hollies live in concert in late August of '83. It was the poorly received Nash-reunion tour, and although they put on a decent show, I had the feeling this would be the last Hollies concert I would have the pleasure of attending, and it turned I was right. They've never been back. But even if they were, I wouldn't attend. The current group are not to my taste and I'm more than content to live with the old recordings and my memories. The current Rickfors/Howarth brouhaha is interesting however, and made me question why I came to love the '72-73 Hollies and yet pan the current group. After all, the Rickfors-fronted group sounded very unlike the established 'Hollies' (read Allan Clarke) sound, arguably as much as the current lot do. So for me it comes down to this: Rickfors had a powerful, beefy but soulful voice that mixed wonderfully well with Terry's high and Tony's lower harmony. Yes, it was much removed from the old sound, but extremely powerful and classy in its own right, and I must admit I love that sound to this day. But the Howarth voice to my ear, although professional and proficient, sounds generic and phoned-in. And that weak high harmony does the sound no favours either. But to each his own. If you love to see 'The Hollies' every chance you get, good for you! Enjoy! But for me, dimming the lights, relaxing on a comfortable couch and closing my eyes while an old Hollies LP or CD plays in the background, is as good as it gets. And I'm more than content with that. you make some really good points, Rickfors was very un Hollies sounding as most say about Howarth, why knock one over the other, why knock either. The Rickforse years had two core members Tony and Bobby, the Howarth years have two core members Tony and Bobby. The argument against Howarth is strange really. As I always say what do people expect from this band, a sound alike ? Its really strange that the Hollies were not well received on the 83 reunion tour. My argument has always been the Hollies were never that big in the states that's why they stopped touring there I believe. Wasn't it Tony that asked if the audience had come in the same Taxi at a US gig. Funny the Hollies had a big hit in the states with LCW, it was Clarkes voice on the record and Terry sang the song Live on stage. |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 10, 2019 10:33:31 GMT
You talk alot of sense Anthony and what you say is quite correct of course
Some of the success of LCW in the USA was very likely due to the similarity to the lean rockin' sound of Creedence Clearwater Revival who were massively popular then although Allan Clarke has said it was really more influenced by the early Sun records sound of Elvis with the echoey vocal etc, but many assumed it was Creedence who were the influence and even Wiki states that (tho' they are often incorrect !)
Terry Sylvester said of that early seventies USA tour;
'The Americans wanted Allan but we just didn't sound like that anymore...'
while some Americans have said how The Raspberries were regularly blowing the Rickfors Hollies offstage on that tour - hence why the support band were suddenly dropped from the tour (??)
An American guy I spoke with on another forum said he was at one of those concerts and The Raspberries WERE a much better band at the show he attended
Longtime Hollies tour manager Rod Shields certainly felt the Rickfors Hollies wern't ready for that USA tour which was thrust upon them due to the success of LCW
Rod Shields said; 'Trying to find Mike with a spotlight onstage was like trying to catch an escaping convict in a prison yard...!'
Rod should have some idea re the live act quality as he was Hollies tour manager for many years from 1964 onwards
Clearly Tony Hicks felt there were problems both onstage and in the recording studio and thus met up with Allan Clarke for a drink....and invited Clarke back
these are historical FACTS whatever some fans might like to convince themselves and believe
Mike Rickfors was asked to leave after less than two years as both they and Mike himself felt it was not working out
Peter Howarth has successfully fronted the touring Hollies in the UK, Europe and down under for FIFTEEN YEARS this August - so clearly the wider general public HAS fully accepted the Howarth fronted Hollies and continue to do so...
any derision or belittlement of the current Hollies is purely the individual opinion of a number of fans, some of whom just repeatedly say the same old thing over and over, year after year...maybe thinking or hoping their gripes and personal insults and digs re Peter Howarth will somehow influence things
...but as FIFTEEN YEARS prove to date their views make NO difference whatsover in reality
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 10, 2019 13:16:44 GMT
You talk alot of sense Anthony and what you say is quite correct of course Some of the success of LCW in the USA was very likely due to the similarity to the lean rockin' sound of Creedence Clearwater Revival who were massively popular then although Allan Clarke has said it was really more influenced by the early Sun records sound of Elvis with the echoey vocal etc, but many assumed it was Creedence who were the influence and even Wiki states that (tho' they are often incorrect !) Terry Sylvester said of that early seventies USA tour; 'The Americans wanted Allan but we just didn't sound like that anymore...' while some Americans have said how The Raspberries were regularly blowing the Rickfors Hollies offstage on that tour - hence why the support band were suddenly dropped from the tour (??) An American guy I spoke with on another forum said he was at one of those concerts and The Raspberries WERE a much better band at the show he attended Longtime Hollies tour manager Rod Shields certainly felt the Rickfors Hollies wern't ready for that USA tour which was thrust upon them due to the success of LCW Rod Shields said; 'Trying to find Mike with a spotlight onstage was like trying to catch an escaping convict in a prison yard...!' Rod should have some idea re the live act quality as he was Hollies tour manager for many years from 1964 onwards Clearly Tony Hicks felt there were problems both onstage and in the recording studio and thus met up with Allan Clarke for a drink....and invited Clarke back these are historical FACTS whatever some fans might like to convince themselves and believe Mike Rickfors was asked to leave after less than two years as both they and Mike himself felt it was not working out Peter Howarth has successfully fronted the touring Hollies in the UK, Europe and down under for FIFTEEN YEARS this August - so clearly the wider general public HAS fully accepted the Howarth fronted Hollies and continue to do so... any derision or belittlement of the current Hollies is purely the individual opinion of a number of fans, some of whom just repeatedly say the same old thing over and over, year after year...maybe thinking or hoping their gripes and personal insults and digs re Peter Howarth will somehow influence things ...but as FIFTEEN YEARS prove to date their views make NO difference whatsover in reality Hi Gee, sadly the Hollies were not the success that some would have us believe with Rickfors. Even tho he did a great job on the two albums, its wasn't really part of the Hollies sound. A clip of 7 songs in a concert full of stars at the times doesn't mean a lot, these type of show they cheer at anyone, even the cleaner who may sweep the stage between the acts gets a big cheer. . Through no fault of his (Rickfors) the Hollies knew they had made an error. I'm sure Allan and Tony would have been frosty but they needed each other for the Hollies to succeed, thus the big welcome back . I think Rickfors was sadly part of a situation that would not work, didn't tour their home country, I personally liked the Rickfors era as it was something different, but we knew it wouldn't have lasted. May start a topic of the Hollies greatest moment. One last thing the Hollies concerts have never been well attended, Kunt has stated that about Oslo, defiantly the case here in Australia re attendances, America the audience came in one Taxi Tony said, but now they are sell outs. these are facts. The avengers should have ended with Emma Peel,, I would not accept any replacement for her. I am not willing to be open minded and welcome change.
|
|
