|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 12, 2019 10:38:18 GMT
It's a good thing The Hollies had hits outside of the UK and Europe; otherwise, we'd be mentioning them in the same breath as Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick, & Tich. Ponder that for awhile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 12:05:35 GMT
So instead we talk about them in the same breath as Chad and Jeremy, Herman's Hermits and Freddie and The Dreamers, do we?
Dave Dee & Co were such a different band to The Hollies that they never got compared. Perhaps closer comparisons were with The Searchers, The Tremeloes (with and without Brian Poole), The Fortunes and Marmalade.
Having said that, I love ALL the above mentioned acts, with the possible exception of Chad and Jeremy (an act incidentally that remained largely unknown in the UK).
|
|
|
Post by knut on Jun 12, 2019 19:59:32 GMT
I would rather compare to Kinks. Remember The Hollies were either no 2 or 3 in the NME Poll charts in the 60's.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 12, 2019 23:48:54 GMT
I don't think we look back on artists for the hits any more - Dave Clark Five who? Hermans Hermits who? They never seem to be played on the mainstream radio now, whereas the Hollies at least do. I think we look at artists and their longevity as a general record buying market these days. The Kinks were nobody after 1967 as far as the general record buying public were concerned. "The Village Green Preservation Society" was labelled 'out of print' by Pye just TWO WEEKS after it was issued because it sold so few copies! Despite some brief interest in "Days" in 1968, the Kinks wouldn't return to the fore publicly until "Lola" in 1970. However, they kept plodding on and turned out two of the best LPs of the 1960s during that time. Though both albums were by and large unnoticed at the time, they've since been appreciated for what they are. The VGPS has even recently been certified Gold in the US, 50 years after its initial release! You can't even buy the DC5 or Herman's Hermits back catalogue easily now in music shops because the general public just don't care for them, despite both bands being arguably as big as the Beatles in the US in 1964/5.
The Hollies do indeed belong with the likes of the Kinks, Small Faces and Rolling Stones because they had something that lots of the flash in the pan groups didn't - progression. Had the Hollies not gone down the more psychedelic route in 1967/8 and then appeared with a more adult orientated sound, they'd have been grouped with Freddie And The Dreamers, The Searchers et al. But our favourites have such an incredibly diverse and varied back catalogue, that it's absolutely categorically impossible to dismiss them as a mere 1960s pop group.
The elephant in the room for me is the aforementioned Marmalade and Tremeloes. Two criminally underrated 1960s groups, perhaps more-so than our beloved Hollies, who also progressed drastically from their early sound and never really got the recognition that they deserved. The stark contrast and artistic grown from "Lovin' Things" to "Reflections of My Life" and "Twist And Shout" to "Call Me Number One" respectively is staggering. Both turned out some consistently great LPs, but to me, just never quite in the same league as the Hollies and the Kinks. Their in-house songwriting just wasn't quite as good as Clarke/Hicks/Nash/Sylvester and Ray Davies. Just didn't quite have the fully fleshed out arrangements and really memorable melodies and chord progressions. There's no Hollies or Kinks album that all kind of blends into one for me, whereas a few of the Marmalade and Tremeloes LPs do.
Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Tich for me also just miss the mark slightly, but are worthy of a mention for their phenomenally tight sound. They were a real top drawer group on stage and Tich was a real virtuosic guitar player, comparable for me with Tony Hicks. The Spanish guitar on "Legend Of Xanadu", that piercing fuzz guitar on "Hold Tight!" and even the highly decorated riff on "Hideaway"... all him playing. For me, their shining standout and a very underrated LP is "If No One Sang" from 1968, showcasing the huge depth to their sound with everything from straight up 1960s pop to flamenco/latin influenced tracks, it's all there to be enjoyed on that album. But again, they didn't really progress. They should have built on "If No One Sang" but ended right back at the chicken in a basket crowd with "Together" in 1969. The first two albums ("DDDBMT" and "If Music Be The Food of Love") definitely are like Vol.1 and Vol.2.
In contrast, virtually all of the DC5 albums are more of the same, with a bit of a hint of progression with "Everybody Knows" in 1967, but not so far removed from the rip-roaring days of "A Session With" back in 1964. Ditto for "Herman's Hermits", with only "Blaze" carrying some interest for me, but again, 3/4 of the album is more of the same of their sound. Though I can't deny the straight-through brilliance of the "There's A Kind Of Hush All Over The World" album, hopelessly out of date (other than the super forgotten single "Jezabel") for mid 1967, but had it been released six months earlier when most of it was recorded, it would have made a much bigger impact. I wish HH had done an album when they were charting again in 1969/70 with the likes of "My Sentimental Friend" and showcasing a more mature sound, but it obviously wasn't meant to be.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 13, 2019 0:52:43 GMT
you make some great points Cameron, the three big hits Heavy, LCW and Air that I breathe set them apart from the pack, these aren't 60's type numbers from what was a 60's band. These are played all the time on the radio here. The Hollies kept on looking for something new, didn't always please the diehard fans but can't blame them for trying. Agree with HH and sentimental friend, love that song, a far cry from the 60ish poppy songs.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 13, 2019 4:48:16 GMT
Cameron, you make many well founded points on The Hollies historical standing. To support an argument for The Hollies to be regarded as one of the finest bands of the 60’s I state my case by merely noting the following 3 album titles by the band:
For Certain Because – Evolution – Butterfly
Add “King Midas In Reverse” to these self-composed albums and you have a body of work that is up there with the very best; recordings that completely justify their standing as one of the best groups from the 60’s (who progressed to have huge success into the 70’s).
At the time these albums were released my friends and I were absorbing the contemporary sounds of the following artists:
Cream - Jimi Hendrix Experience - Beatles - Rolling Stones – Kinks - Donovan - Bob Dylan - Byrds - Beach Boys - Who - Small Faces - Traffic - Eric Burdon & The (New) Animals – Doors
Listening to these magnificent artists never gave us cause to think of The Hollies as “also-rans”. It was quite the opposite. We thought these three Hollies albums were some of the best albums we had ever listened to. The Hollies more than held their own in the very best of company and these albums remain magical to this day, many years after first being thrilled by them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 7:16:13 GMT
Cameron, you sure do know your music! Excellent post.
One thing I find strange is that people dismiss Herman's Hermits and The Dave Clark Five as 'flash in the pans', yet both groups (along with The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Hollies and The Kinks) were among the very few 1963/1964 groups to still have big hits in 1970. The Small Faces (1965 - 1968) were more of a quick flash than most.
The Tremeloes are extremely under-appreciated. Even in the early pre-fame days, their 'Big Hits of '62' shows them as very capable musicians (if they played like this at their Decca audition then it is no surprise that they got signed instead of The Beatles).
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 13, 2019 10:27:03 GMT
Don't get me wrong; I dig Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick, and Tich. They made great singles. What they didn't make were great albums. Take for instance the "If No One Sang" (US title "Time To Take Off") LP. About half of the LP (including a lively cover of "If I were a carpenter") is quite good; the rest is goddawful dreck.
Brian Poole and The Tremeloes also flopped stateside, despite having an LP release. I really love their covers of "I Want Candy" and "Uncle Willie"; the remainder of their material, including the hits, leaves me cold. The Tremeloes without Poole had some hidden gems such as "Suddenly Winter" and "Sing Sorta Swingle" (both versions).
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 13, 2019 15:08:23 GMT
The Hollies' high output was pretty much unrivalled. In 1967, for example, they released two albums, three non-album singles and two Italian-only singles - that's a total of 34 new songs in 1967! And that is also despite having a three month hiatus to allow Bobby to recover from his appendicitis. And there's nothing other than one or two lightweight tracks that I'd consider 'filler' in all that. Add that to a similarly sized output in 1966 and gifting a whopping eight songs to the Everly Brothers, the Hollies were really onto something during that era. The only group to come close was the Rolling Stones who released 26 new songs in 1967 and the Beatles, who in 1967 released 25 new songs.
Peter does have a point, it does seem unfair to dismiss the DC5 and HH as 'flash in the pans', although it can't be denied that both their careers tailed off after 1966 and neither had a big hit until 1968-70 and even then it was pretty much a one-off with no big selling album (or any album at all for Hermans Hermits) to add to it. I don't think you can count the DC5's "Million Sellers" LP, as it was a hits compilation. Ditto HH's "Greatest Hits" from 1968.
It's funny, I commented on a post yesterday on the Steve Hoffman Forum about someone thinking that the Small Faces could have been the biggest band in the world if they continued. I respectfully disagreed. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love them, "Ogdens Nut Gone Flake" is one of my favourite LPs and I think "Tin Soldier" was one of the best singles of the 1960s. However, I think as a group, they're hugely overrated. They had the lowest recorded output of all the high profile 1960s groups, closely followed by The Who. The Small Faces only managed three proper albums during their heyday, and even then confusingly gave two of them the same name! "Ogdens" was their masterpiece, but again, they didn't have enough material to sustain the 'concept' over two sides. They weren't prolific songwriters, and most of what was left in the vaults when they disbanded was titbits of demos and instrumentals. There was certainly no complete recordings like the Hollies have, which I think goes to show their struggles to come up with the goods. But I think because of their notoriety with manager Don Arden and later liberal use of drugs, they've always been seen as too 'cool' to be dismissed. They were a phenomenally tight live group too. I also think there's a degree of they never fully evolved or found their true sound, a lot of 'what ifs' with the Small Faces. But ultimately, I don't feel like either Humble Pie, the Faces or the SFs reunion ever bettered their work in the 1960s.
As for the Tremeloes, I think they got too confident too quickly having already had a whole successful phase of a career with Brian Poole. Though virtually none of that era interests me personally. I think as a group they really came into their own once they signed to CBS. Their debut "Here Come The Tremeloes" is a really strong LP with a nice mix of mid-60s pop and psychedelia. Things tailed off a bit with "Alan, Dave, Rick and Chip", which didn't progress on their CBS debut. Then it all kind of imploded. They got all confident about their 'artistic growth' but weren't actually delivering the goods to the public. Their career highlight "Call Me Number One" took shape almost a year before it was released, which I think would have been a huge gamechanger had it been released when it was recorded. Then came the infamous 'music for morons' quote, and that was it. To add insult to injury, they also turned down "Yellow River" despite recording it, which they've all since admitted was a fatal mistake. Between 1968 and 1970 they managed a USA-only covers LP in the vein of their earliest material which was absolutely rubbish, and the criminally overlooked and somewhat unfashionably titled "Live In Cabaret" fro 1969, which is probably THE sharpest and most cohesive live LP of the 1960s by a pop group, closely followed by Amen Corner's 1969 live LP. There's also the unreleased and unused soundtrack album "May Morning" from 1969, which didn't see the light of day until 2006. That could have been a great late 60s cult LP I feel, had it been released at the time. They re-grouped to put together "Master" in 1970, which was issued unfinished by CBS while they were on tour. I always thought it sounded sparse and low-energy, which made sense when I found out that they never actually finished it. I feel like they suffered as a group because they didn't have a manager that was driving them forward and keeping them under control.
|
|
|
Post by distantlight on Jun 13, 2019 17:52:29 GMT
For me "Master" by the Tremeloes, "Songs" by the Marmalade and "Distant Light" by the Hollies all have a special and somewhat similar feel or attitude. All three are more ambitious and mature albums from kinda more lightweight 60s acts (or at least those bands were seen that way). So these three albums for me have something about them that none of them had before or after (the Hollies came the closest with Romany but that's a bit of another story).
To a lesser degree I could add "Fresh Ear" by D.B.M. & T. and the debut album by Marvin, Welch & Farrar to that list but they mean a lot less to me.
Bands like the Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, The Searchers or Gerry & The Pacemakers never managed that particular album. Can you add other '60s pop bands who had a major and surprising creative success at the end of the '60s or early '70s comparable to the aforementioned?
|
|
|
Post by knut on Jun 13, 2019 18:54:13 GMT
If you include latecomers (starting in the late 60s) we have Procol Harum and Deep Purple. The Who should be included among the earlier 60s groups.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 14, 2019 0:41:57 GMT
The Dave Clark Five and Herman’s Hermits were very successful 60’s singles acts in Australia (see below), but as noted previously, they did not progress into the 70’s, nor did they record any notable albums. I do think though that the DC5’s Mike Smith was a great singer who deserved more recognition. The DC5 made some really high energy recordings but Dave Clark’s marketing strategies resulted in their product vanishing from the shops (pre online selling) and the band being off the airwaves for decades never to return (this is the situation in Australia).
Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich made a number of high quality singles of which, IMHO, “Last Night in Soho” is a classic, as are Marmalade’s “Reflections Of My Life” and The Tremeloe’s “(Call Me) Number One”. Truly fantastic recordings.
Now, to get to the point of this thread.
To judge a band’s standing I believe one has to start with a band’s success on the singles charts. (Yes, I know Led Zeppelin is an exception to this premise as they were hugely successful without releasing singles in the UK.)
The listing below details the chart longevity (number of weeks in) of UK bands on my local Australian chart.
Beatles - 629 weeks (excluding the individual success of John, Paul, George and Ringo) Rolling Stones - 449 weeks Hollies - 277 weeks Shadows - 268 Herman’s Hermits - 250 Kinks - 215 Who - 214 Animals/Eric Burdon & The Animals - 199 Dave Clark Five - 177 Manfred Mann - 174 Gerry & The Pacemakers - 158 Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Tich - 144 Yardbirds - 127 Troggs - 124 Searchers - 107 Tremeloes - 73 Marmalade - 70 Cream - 68 Small Faces - 64 Procul Harum -61
Therefore, the three dominant bands from the 60’s for chart longevity were The Beatles, The Stones and The Hollies. These bands (and some others) further enhanced their reputations by recording strong, progressive albums that contained little filler material. A 60’s band with little singles chart success would need to have a magnificent album or two in their repertoire to be held in high regard, or indeed, remembered, for 50 years or more.
In this regard, The Beatles lead by a country mile, followed by The Stones (in particular their late 60’s and early 70’s albums), The Who (“Tommy” to “Quadropenia”), Cream, and to a lesser extent The Hollies (“Hollies Sing Dylan” was their biggest seller here, followed by “Confessions” and “Distant Light”). IMHO, as much as I love The Kinks, I have never found their albums to be truly satisfying as they are quite patchy. Their compilations “Well Respected Kinks” and “Sunny Afternoon” are very good though.
I agree with Cameron that the Small Face’s “Tin Soldier” is an all-time classic and that their albums were uneven. Their best album is the USA release “There Are But Four Small Faces”.
The Stones, The Hollies, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Eric Clapton, The Who, Herman’s Hermits, Eric Burdon and, until recently, The Searchers, are all remembered, respected and loved in Australia and they continue to visit these shores (some less frequently than others) and play sell out concerts, albeit in venues of varying sizes.
If Hank Marvin, who lives in Perth, Australia, put The Shadows back together, they would most likely pull a crowd too based on their singles chart longevity!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 7:21:11 GMT
Thank you Eric, interesting!
Out of curiosity, how do homegrown (Australian) acts compare? The Bee Gees? The Easybeats? Billy Thorpe and The Aztecs? Also the bigger US bands (Beach Boys, Monkees, Byrds)....
|
|
|
Post by distantlight on Jun 15, 2019 7:01:28 GMT
For me "Master" by the Tremeloes, "Songs" by the Marmalade and "Distant Light" by the Hollies all have a special and somewhat similar feel or attitude. All three are more ambitious and mature albums from kinda more lightweight 60s acts (or at least those bands were seen that way). So these three albums for me have something about them that none of them had before or after (the Hollies came the closest with Romany but that's a bit of another story).
To a lesser degree I could add "Fresh Ear" by D.B.M. & T. and the debut album by Marvin, Welch & Farrar to that list but they mean a lot less to me.
Bands like the Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, The Searchers or Gerry & The Pacemakers never managed that particular album. Can you add other '60s pop bands who had a major and surprising creative success at the end of the '60s or early '70s comparable to the aforementioned?
I would add "Story" by the Honeybus to my list.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 15, 2019 12:48:40 GMT
Peter, in response to your query above, I provide details the chart longevity (number of weeks in) of Australian and USA bands on my local Australian chart. Aussie bands
Bee Gees - 428 weeks Easybeats - 180 weeks Seekers - 166 Billy Thorpe & The Aztecs - 148 Twilights - 147 Masters Apprentices - 126 Ray Brown & The Whispers - 95
USA bands
Four Seasons - 208 Monkees - 196 Beach Boys - 183 Supremes - 147 Creedence Clearwater Revival - 119 Mamas & Papas - 108 1910 Fruitgum Company - 93 Cowsills – 91 Jimi Hendrix Experience – 89 Fifth Dimension - 89 Four Tops - 86 Doors - 76 Drifters - 74 Gary Puckett & Union Gap - 69 Lovin’Spoonful - 62 Byrds - 61 Turtles - 38
The statistics above confirm what most people know: the Bee Gees are one of the greatest success stories of the last 60 years. Everyone knows their story; Three English boys who migrated to Australia made it big internationally by writing their own songs (and many for other top line singers).
Australia’s Easybeats were so young when they hit the charts with “She’s So Fine” in 1965. The lead singer Stevie Wright was 17 year’s old, guitarist George Young 18 year’s old and lead guitarist Harry Vanda 19 year’s old. They wrote their own songs which were inventive and energetic. It is a shame that their records prior to (international hit) “Friday On My Mind” are not known by the rest of the world. The main track on their 1966 “Easy Fever” EP, “I’ll Make You Happy (Just Like Your Mama Wants)”, was on the Aussie airwaves at the same time as “Bus Stop”, “Sunny Afternoon”, “Sunshine Superman”, “Eleanor Rigby” and “Summer In The City”. Those were the days!
Vanda and Young went on to produce the early albums of AC/DC in Sydney in the 70’s. Angus and Malcolm Young of AC/DC took the guitar riffing of the Easybeats to another level!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 13:14:56 GMT
Thanks Eric!
The Bee Gees in the early days (especially 1967-1969) were a wonderful band, and are perhaps overlooked by many collectors thanks to their later disco hits and image.
I am familiar with The Easybeats' pre 'Friday' material, mostly thanks to some excellent surviving TV footage. Billy Thorpe and The Aztecs are a band I've only discovered in the past months or so, and found some of their early covers as good as anyone's, and The Seekers were a world-wide success, and an act that I have a lot of respect for.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 15, 2019 20:14:10 GMT
For me "Master" by the Tremeloes, "Songs" by the Marmalade and "Distant Light" by the Hollies all have a special and somewhat similar feel or attitude. All three are more ambitious and mature albums from kinda more lightweight 60s acts (or at least those bands were seen that way). So these three albums for me have something about them that none of them had before or after (the Hollies came the closest with Romany but that's a bit of another story).
To a lesser degree I could add "Fresh Ear" by D.B.M. & T. and the debut album by Marvin, Welch & Farrar to that list but they mean a lot less to me.
Bands like the Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, The Searchers or Gerry & The Pacemakers never managed that particular album. Can you add other '60s pop bands who had a major and surprising creative success at the end of the '60s or early '70s comparable to the aforementioned?
I would add "Story" by the Honeybus to my list. I was a huge Honeybus fan until I heard the group that outshined them in that baroque style, The Left Banke. Their second LP, "Too" has some gorgeous tracks.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 15, 2019 20:23:15 GMT
So instead we talk about them in the same breath as Chad and Jeremy, Herman's Hermits and Freddie and The Dreamers, do we? Dave Dee & Co were such a different band to The Hollies that they never got compared. Perhaps closer comparisons were with The Searchers, The Tremeloes (with and without Brian Poole), The Fortunes and Marmalade. Having said that, I love ALL the above mentioned acts, with the possible exception of Chad and Jeremy (an act incidentally that remained largely unknown in the UK). Chad and Jeremy were/are great. In 1986 I attended one of those British invasion package tours. Out of all the acts on the bill Chad and Jeremy were by far the classiest. They had numerous hits in America but flopped in the UK. Their best is the cult single "Teenage Failure". Fantastic record but totally out of character for them. It was all over LA radio in 1965.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 15, 2019 20:27:13 GMT
My point to this thread is to make it clear that a UK band's reputation is on the line when it comes to success outside of their comfort zone of the UK. Those that failed to dent the Top 40 in the US have a severely tarnished reputation internationally.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 15, 2019 23:24:08 GMT
Obvious its always great to make it big in the US, its not the be all and end all. Cliff Richard one of the biggest recording stars admits he never making it big, well he did well for himself everywhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if HH were bigger that the Hollies in the US, in my opinion the Hollies were never that popular in the states. It took a few attempts for the Beatles to do well in America, they followed the worlds reaction and came on board.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 15, 2019 23:24:22 GMT
Obvious its always great to make it big in the US, its not the be all and end all. Cliff Richard one of the biggest recording stars admits he never making it big, well he did well for himself everywhere else. I wouldn't be surprised if HH were bigger that the Hollies in the US, in my opinion the Hollies were never that popular in the states. It took a few attempts for the Beatles to do well in America, they followed the worlds reaction and came on board.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 16, 2019 4:15:31 GMT
So instead we talk about them in the same breath as Chad and Jeremy, Herman's Hermits and Freddie and The Dreamers, do we? Dave Dee & Co were such a different band to The Hollies that they never got compared. Perhaps closer comparisons were with The Searchers, The Tremeloes (with and without Brian Poole), The Fortunes and Marmalade. Having said that, I love ALL the above mentioned acts, with the possible exception of Chad and Jeremy (an act incidentally that remained largely unknown in the UK). No. I would put The Hollies in the company with The Beatles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 7:47:06 GMT
So instead we talk about them in the same breath as Chad and Jeremy, Herman's Hermits and Freddie and The Dreamers, do we? Dave Dee & Co were such a different band to The Hollies that they never got compared. Perhaps closer comparisons were with The Searchers, The Tremeloes (with and without Brian Poole), The Fortunes and Marmalade. Having said that, I love ALL the above mentioned acts, with the possible exception of Chad and Jeremy (an act incidentally that remained largely unknown in the UK). No. I would put The Hollies in the company of The Beatles. Ditto! I remember saying that on the older version of this forum, and one (US) fan seemed genuinely upset that someone could even suggest such a thing. I love The Beatles (particularly up until Sgt. Pepper; they were a bit patchy afterwards), but several other band's outputs rival them. Regarding Anthony's comment, he's right in that the USA isn't the be all and end all to all acts. This is why The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame means so little to people in other countries (much as I would've liked Tony & Bobby to attend the 2010 induction, I can actually understand how they found a London Palladium gig of far higher priority).
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Jun 16, 2019 11:13:46 GMT
I would think that every band not from the states wants to have a hit there. That is where the financial side or music/publishing is. I would also think that every band wants that kind of success. Us Australians should know that all of our artists wanted to be big either in the UK (in the 60s) and the US after that. That's why the big acts went overseas to try their luck.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 16, 2019 11:49:26 GMT
dirtyfaz, you are spot on. The Aussie artists in the 60's were so significantly influenced by everything coming out of the UK that they headed to London to achieve success. The Seekers, The Easybeats and The Bee Gees did enjoy success but most returned home with their tails between their legs! AC/DC struggled for a long time to achieve success in the UK in the 70's and Sherbet managed a UK hit in 1978 with "Howzat". However, a change eventually occurred in the 70's and Australian artists started heading to the USA. These included the likes of Olivia Newton-John, Little River Band, Bee Gees and Rick Springfield.
|
|