|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jul 31, 2019 6:37:13 GMT
I was looking at the UK music magazines at the bookstore and one of them (mojo, uncut, or one of the others) had 2 separate issues with the best albums of the 60s and 70s. Out of both decades, the only Hollies album cited was "Butterfly". What a bunch of nonsense. What's wrong with the snobbish UK press?
|
|
|
Post by paul71 on Jul 31, 2019 9:21:34 GMT
I agree, it seems that the usual suspects always get the press, we're obviously biased on here but the Hollies deserve far more respect for their albums. Especially 66-67 and 70-74
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 9:53:43 GMT
What I find interesting is that the only Hollies albums to have reached the UK top 5 (not including live or compilation albums) are 'Stay With The Hollies' and 'Hollies Sing Dylan', yet they're amongst the band's most ignored / derided by fans today. I guess it's not just the music press who like to rewrite history.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jul 31, 2019 16:41:19 GMT
I agree, it seems that the usual suspects always get the press, we're obviously biased on here but the Hollies deserve far more respect for their albums. Especially 66-67 and 70-74 The magazine freely lists Beatles and Stones albums, but can't come up with anything by The Hollies other than a slightly over the top psych album? The trouble is a lot of people don't bother to listen to their albums and just know them for their hits. The lingering prejudice against the band continues. You'd think people would have gotten over that by now and would take the time to listen to The Hollies' many wonderful albums. Personally I would listen to For Certain Because (aka Stop Stop Stop) before I would listen to Rubber Soul or Aftermath.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jul 31, 2019 17:09:31 GMT
What I find interesting is that the only Hollies albums to have reached the UK top 5 (not including live or compilation albums) are 'Stay With The Hollies' and 'Hollies Sing Dylan', yet they're amongst the band's most ignored / derided by fans today. I guess it's not just the music press who like to rewrite history. I would venture to say that most Hollies fans don't care much for the Stay or Dylan albums. The general public can't be expected to like them either. Neither are artistic triumphs. The band's UK LP sales went down after both. It's impossible to see that as a positive.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 31, 2019 18:12:29 GMT
'Sing Dylan' is marred by its reputation as being the album that made Graham Nash leave (which we know isn't quite true) but despite this, it's the only Hollies album to remain in print on both sides of the Atlantic way into the 1980s! But the Hollies' back catalogue must have been selling well for EMI to reissue 'Evolution' and 'Butterfly' on their main Parlophone label in 1978. 'Hollies Sing Dylan' remained in print anyway since 1969 and is actually the most recent Hollies album to be reissued on CD in its original form, paired with '20 Golden Greats' in 2010.
Let's also not ignore that 'In The Hollies Style' reached No.2 on the NME album chart in 1964, but Wikipedia doesn't reference NME, so it appears that this "unpopular" album didn't even chart. Surprisingly, their only 1960s album with Graham Nash that genuinely didn't chart was 'Butterfly'. As much as 'Butterfly' is actually my favourite Hollies album, I'd put forward 'Evolution' over it as being the album to introduce someone to the original 1960s Hollies.
'Stay With The Hollies' appears to stay in print as late as 1968 in the UK, 'In The Hollies Style' goes out of print in 1965, but re-appears in stereo as 'The Vintage Hollies' in 1967. 'Hollies (1965)' also comes and goes pretty quickly, but was re-issued on the budget Starline label in stereo in 1969. 'Would You Believe' is a slow burner, coming out in mono only in June 1966, but the stereo version hits the shops in April 1967 AFTER 'For Certain Because...'!, it also survives into a re-press on the 1969/70 "one box" label, the only 1960s LP of theirs to do this! 'For Certain Because...' remains available until around 1969, as does 'Evolution', with 'Evolution' getting an official re-press in 1972 on Music For Pleasure and again in 1978 on Parlophone. 'Butterfly' too gets a repress in 1978, though goes out of print in 1968. So the core Graham Nash years Hollies at least were popular enough to warrant several re-pressings of their albums, some over ten years after their initial release.
But the streaming service Spotify tells a different story: based on streams of each album, the top three most popular are 1) 'Distant Light', 2) 'Hollies [1974]' and 3) 'Confessions Of The Mind'!
I'd make a case for 'Distant Light' being the best Hollies album in terms of longevity. It didn't do a thing over here in the UK, but was their best-selling album in the US. But I think its time that the music world collectively gave it another spin and evaluated the Hollies on that, proving that they were far more than just a singles band.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jul 31, 2019 18:57:21 GMT
'Sing Dylan' is marred by its reputation as being the album that made Graham Nash leave (which we know isn't quite true) but despite this, it's the only Hollies album to remain in print on both sides of the Atlantic way into the 1980s! But the Hollies' back catalogue must have been selling well for EMI to reissue 'Evolution' and 'Butterfly' on their main Parlophone label in 1978. 'Hollies Sing Dylan' remained in print anyway since 1969 and is actually the most recent Hollies album to be reissued on CD in its original form, paired with '20 Golden Greats' in 2010. Let's also not ignore that 'In The Hollies Style' reached No.2 on the NME album chart in 1964, but Wikipedia doesn't reference NME, so it appears that this "unpopular" album didn't even chart. Surprisingly, their only 1960s album with Graham Nash that genuinely didn't chart was 'Butterfly'. As much as 'Butterfly' is actually my favourite Hollies album, I'd put forward 'Evolution' over it as being the album to introduce someone to the original 1960s Hollies. 'Stay With The Hollies' appears to stay in print as late as 1968 in the UK, 'In The Hollies Style' goes out of print in 1965, but re-appears in stereo as 'The Vintage Hollies' in 1967. 'Hollies (1965)' also comes and goes pretty quickly, but was re-issued on the budget Starline label in stereo in 1969. 'Would You Believe' is a slow burner, coming out in mono only in June 1966, but the stereo version hits the shops in April 1967 AFTER 'For Certain Because...'!, it also survives into a re-press on the 1969/70 "one box" label, the only 1960s LP of theirs to do this! 'For Certain Because...' remains available until around 1969, as does 'Evolution', with 'Evolution' getting an official re-press in 1972 on Music For Pleasure and again in 1978 on Parlophone. 'Butterfly' too gets a repress in 1978, though goes out of print in 1968. So the core Graham Nash years Hollies at least were popular enough to warrant several re-pressings of their albums, some over ten years after their initial release. But the streaming service Spotify tells a different story: based on streams of each album, the top three most popular are 1) 'Distant Light', 2) 'Hollies [1974]' and 3) 'Confessions Of The Mind'! I'd make a case for 'Distant Light' being the best Hollies album in terms of longevity. It didn't do a thing over here in the UK, but was their best-selling album in the US. But I think its time that the music world collectively gave it another spin and evaluated the Hollies on that, proving that they were far more than just a singles band. "Distant Light" has varied sounds and has a great deal of substance. It has not one but two outright anti-war songs with prog-rock leanings. I played "You Know the score" for a friend and he was blown away by the middle section ("Where have all the rainbows gone..."). It was stunning played live in 72.
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jul 31, 2019 19:00:30 GMT
I do feel like there is some kind of prejudice or general avoidance towards their post-Nash work among casual listeners and critics, aside from the three hits of course. Just because Graham was/is the biggest star of The Hollies and made a bigger splash afterwards as part of a better known supergroup, they only think his era of or involvement in The Hollies is truly worth noting (but then again, I think What Goes Around is pretty much overlooked or slated by most modern critics so I could be wrong).
I love Butterfly - It's my favourite of their albums, but COTM, Distant Light and Romany, as well as the two albums that preceded Butterfly are all just as representing of them at creative peaks and if you ask me, each deserve spots on a someone's top 60s/70s albums list just as much as all The Beatles,Stones, Beach Boys, CSNY etc. releases that would be there.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jul 31, 2019 19:05:37 GMT
I do feel like there is some kind of prejudice or general avoidance towards their post-Nash work among casual listeners and critics, aside from the three hits of course. Just because Graham was/is the biggest star of The Hollies and made a bigger splash afterwards as part of a better known supergroup, they only think his era of or involvement in The Hollies is truly worth noting (but then again, I think What Goes Around is pretty much overlooked or slated by most modern critics so I could be wrong). I love Butterfly - It's my favourite of their albums, but COTM, Distant Light and Romany, as well as the two albums that preceded Butterfly are all just as representing of them at creative peaks and if you ask me, each deserve spots on a someone's top 60s/70s albums list just as much as all The Beatles,Stones, Beach Boys, CSNY etc. releases that would be there. The Hollies still don't get the respect they deserve. Their longevity alone should give them that, but it's a complex set of circumstances that hinders it. Lack of one consistent writer that people can hang their hat on, plus, yes, Nash's mega success post-Hollies play into it.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jul 31, 2019 20:47:09 GMT
I was looking at the UK music magazines at the bookstore and one of them (mojo, uncut, or one of the others) had 2 separate issues with the best albums of the 60s and 70s. Out of both decades, the only Hollies album cited was "Butterfly". What a bunch of nonsense. What's wrong with the snobbish UK press? I would think the snobbish pop press thinking process would go something like this: 1. It's a given that Graham Nash is the only Hollie worthy of note. Therefore 2. The Hollies greatest LPs must definitely be from the Nash era. Thus 3. The album where Graham tends to have the lion's share of the songs and the vocals would be the strongest album. And so 4. Butterfly it is, where Nash is seen spreading his wings just before moving up to the big leagues of rock.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 1, 2019 2:45:43 GMT
I was looking at the UK music magazines at the bookstore and one of them (mojo, uncut, or one of the others) had 2 separate issues with the best albums of the 60s and 70s. Out of both decades, the only Hollies album cited was "Butterfly". What a bunch of nonsense. What's wrong with the snobbish UK press? I would think the snobbish pop press thinking process would go something like this: 1. It's a given that Graham Nash is the only Hollie worthy of note. Therefore 2. The Hollies greatest LPs must definitely be from the Nash era. Thus 3. The album where Graham tends to have the lion's share of the songs and the vocals would be the strongest album. And so 4. Butterfly it is, where Nash is seen spreading his wings just before moving up to the big leagues of rock. I think you nailed it stuball. Everytime an article on The Hollies appears in one of those UK mags, it's centered around Nash. I think a reappraisal of the bands 70-74 work is long overdue, but I'm not holding my breath for it.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Aug 1, 2019 7:38:39 GMT
Aside from the 'playing it safe' Sorry Suzanne, look at the string of UK Top 40 singles afterwards: Heavy, ICTTBFTT, Gasoline Alley Bred, Hey Willy, The Baby, LCW, Curly Billy, Air. Absolute class. The albums during this time are magnificent; discounting Dylan as the concept was initiated before Nash departed, and perhaps the mishmash of Hollies Sing Hollies (where some extremely lightweight songs are alongside some mature numbers such as Marigold/Gloria Swansong, Goodbye Tomorrow and My Life Is Over With You). This was truly a wonderful period for the band, amidst major turmoil. I generally don't give any time to opinions in the likes of Mojo or Uncut. The latter has been producing a series of special editions focussing on one band, looking at their releases. All the usual suspects have featured, will we ever see one on The Hollies? Doubt it. Much although he has been Tweeting utter sh*te in recent years, Terry Sylvester deserves great praise for his work during this period. Glad I'm not the only one who enjoys the middle 'nuclear winter' section of You Know The Score. Talk about atmospheric!
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 1, 2019 14:44:08 GMT
I suspect The Hollies general public reputation is quite strong among their musician peers and devoted fans however in music writers and some 'serious music' fans eyes the detraction John Lennon threw in their direction in the sixties has cast a long standing shadow of prejudice - echoed by 'sheeple' Lennon / Beatles fans and music writers like Ray Coleman and that Mark Pringle guy with his hysterical 'anti Hollies' attitude probably made it 'not cool' or 'acceptable' for 'serious' music fans to take The Hollies seriously as a creative outfit
hiding their own songs under the 'Ransford' pen name did them no favors either - plus I think EMI wrern't that bothered re plugging the original albums where that 'leasing back' deal was in place as compared to 'Hollies Greatest' which they had a stronger interest in and Polydor seem to have soon lost interest in promoting them beyond the 'Live Hits' set which again only enforced the view they were primarily a 'singles' band
as a result many deem them just a 'singles' band and have never bothered to investigate their albums and think they lost any relevance once Nash left - this may explain partly why Nash tried to 'distance' himself from The Hollies in the heyday of CSNY over 1970-73 etc when he was from a mere pop group in the company of 'serious' band members of The Byrds and Springfield (neither of whom then had sold anything like the records The Hollies did worldwide in the sixties)
So we can probably thank the now God like esteemed by some John Lennon to a large extent I suspect for The Hollies not being seen as 'acceptable' to take more seriously....and lacking 'balls' !
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 1, 2019 16:32:21 GMT
I think both Lennon and Harrison had professional jealousy of The Hollies. The band's vocal harmony sound, to my ears, is more exciting and engaging than that of The Beatles. It's been said that if George Martin had produced The Hollies, their story would have been different. I think so. Ron Richards was given the thankless task of producer for the final Gerry & The Pacemakers sessions, resulting in the US "Girl on a Swing" album, which primarily consists of covers of MOR fare like "The Way you look tonight" amd " See you in September". Where was their previous producer George Martin? Down the hall with The Beatles no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 1, 2019 20:27:10 GMT
I agree, it seems that the usual suspects always get the press, we're obviously biased on here but the Hollies deserve far more respect for their albums. Especially 66-67 and 70-74 The Hollies weren't the only band to get short shrift in the magazine. Cockney Rebel's "The Psychomodo" was listed, but not their brilliant debut LP, "The Human Menagerie", easily its equal and argubly even better. Ditto Mott the Hoople. They list the LP "Mott" but not its predecessor, the fantastic "All The Young Dudes". Meanwhile, T. Rex gets a full page with an expansive list of their LPs.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 1, 2019 20:58:14 GMT
T.Rex is one that gets me again and again. Yes, some of their music is absolutely top drawer and Marc Bolan's guitar riffs are some of the most iconic of all time, but lyrically, what on earth is going on there?! How were they such a success?! But Marc had the right image and a top drawer producer and engineer. Its that key combination that gets an artist heard. Listen to the really fat sound on "20th Century Boy", it's lyrically absolute nonsense, but still sounds fresh and unbelievably exciting 40+ years later.
The Beatles were very much threatened by the Hollies. The whole reason they laughed off the "rivalry" between them and the Stones was because musically and artistically (in the early days at least), the Stones were no threat whatsoever. The whole group was carried by Mick Jagger's persona, but he didn't exactly have the vocal range to match. Keith Richards and Billy Wyman certainly held the group together too, and they needed that because Charlie Watts' drumming is SLOPPY. How poor Ringo Starr takes so much flak, I don't know, because Ringo's timing was never anything less than 100% perfect and he always mastered his fills, which were Charlie's weak point. I also think that their songwriting was very hit and miss, obviously the hits more than did well, but there's an awful lot of filler on most of their LPs until the late 1960s, and a lot left in the can because it wasn't deemed good enough. Unlike the Hollies, who would consistently turn out 12 tracks of dynamite, with a drummer as exciting as Bobby Elliott, a lead guitarist in Tony Hicks who could easily play George Harrison under the table, and a front three-part vocal that somehow had more range than that of the Beatles. Lennon and Harrison were very threatened by that, hence their remarks to the press. Both of them guilty their entire career of lashing out at artists that they were threatened by. Though Hicks and Harrison would later become friends, though probably because they were neighbours.
I think overall I get stressed with the Hollies' lack of impact now because unlike so many groups that are held in such high esteem, they had such a long and varied career. I remember when I first got into the Hollies, I was absorbed by their 1966-1968 material, with a bit of 1969 creeping in. Then I discovered 'Distant Light' and I was thinking "is this even the same band that sang 'Carrie Anne'?" and it was a revelation. Yet the surprises didn't stop there... 'Another Night', 'Romany', 'Russian Roulette'... I daresay the Hollies have among the most consistently good albums of any band that made it big in the 1960s and sustained themselves into the 1970s. I genuinely believe most of the blame lies with either their record company for not wanting to push the back catalogue or 'Hollies LTD' if they're the ones responsible for that as they own their own recordings. But so many other artists own their own recordings now, it's not unusual anymore. Their 1960s albums have been out of print on CD for nearly 20 years, and some of the 1970s ones the same. How hasn't 'Hollies Live Hits' not been reissued on CD?! I just don't understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 21:48:08 GMT
T. Rex (like Gary Glitter), had a handful of brilliant singles, then quickly ran out of steam. Give me Slade, Sweet and Mud any day!
Disagree over Charlie Watt's drumming, his drumming (like Ringo's in The Beatles) suited the band perfectly, though none had the technical brilliance and sheer creativity of Bobby.
I make no apologies for preferring the Nash years, but (to be fair on Terry), this is largely because by 1969 I don't enjoy the music of the era so much (I must be the only Beatles fan in the world who finds Abbey Road their weakest album). My favourite era in music is the (roughly) 18 months from the autumn of 1965 to the spring of 1967. The Hollies, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Animals, The Spencer Davis Group, The Who, The Yardbirds and countless others were at their creative peak then.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Aug 1, 2019 21:53:55 GMT
Give me Slade, Sweet and Mud anyday! Slade - there's another 'singles band' which is criminally under-rated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 21:56:35 GMT
Give me Slade, Sweet and Mud anyday! Slade - there's another 'singles band' which is criminally under-rated. Indeed! A really superb run of singles from 1970 until well into 1977.
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Aug 2, 2019 13:52:37 GMT
So I take from this John was happy to give his positive comment to the music press about Hey Willy in '71 because The Beatles were over and each individual member was pretty much on rocky terms with each other by that point, so he no longer needed to worry about this group rivalry or threat that The Hollies had once portrayed to him/them. Although praising Hey Willy could also just have fed more into this "singles band" reputation that these critics push.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 2, 2019 16:08:31 GMT
T.Rex is one that gets me again and again. Yes, some of their music is absolutely top drawer and Marc Bolan's guitar riffs are some of the most iconic of all time, but lyrically, what on earth is going on there?! How were they such a success?! But Marc had the right image and a top drawer producer and engineer. Its that key combination that gets an artist heard. Listen to the really fat sound on "20th Century Boy", it's lyrically absolute nonsense, but still sounds fresh and unbelievably exciting 40+ years later. The Beatles were very much threatened by the Hollies. The whole reason they laughed off the "rivalry" between them and the Stones was because musically and artistically (in the early days at least), the Stones were no threat whatsoever. The whole group was carried by Mick Jagger's persona, but he didn't exactly have the vocal range to match. Keith Richards and Billy Wyman certainly held the group together too, and they needed that because Charlie Watts' drumming is SLOPPY. How poor Ringo Starr takes so much flak, I don't know, because Ringo's timing was never anything less than 100% perfect and he always mastered his fills, which were Charlie's weak point. I also think that their songwriting was very hit and miss, obviously the hits more than did well, but there's an awful lot of filler on most of their LPs until the late 1960s, and a lot left in the can because it wasn't deemed good enough. Unlike the Hollies, who would consistently turn out 12 tracks of dynamite, with a drummer as exciting as Bobby Elliott, a lead guitarist in Tony Hicks who could easily play George Harrison under the table, and a front three-part vocal that somehow had more range than that of the Beatles. Lennon and Harrison were very threatened by that, hence their remarks to the press. Both of them guilty their entire career of lashing out at artists that they were threatened by. Though Hicks and Harrison would later become friends, though probably because they were neighbours. I think overall I get stressed with the Hollies' lack of impact now because unlike so many groups that are held in such high esteem, they had such a long and varied career. I remember when I first got into the Hollies, I was absorbed by their 1966-1968 material, with a bit of 1969 creeping in. Then I discovered 'Distant Light' and I was thinking "is this even the same band that sang 'Carrie Anne'?" and it was a revelation. Yet the surprises didn't stop there... 'Another Night', 'Romany', 'Russian Roulette'... I daresay the Hollies have among the most consistently good albums of any band that made it big in the 1960s and sustained themselves into the 1970s. I genuinely believe most of the blame lies with either their record company for not wanting to push the back catalogue or 'Hollies LTD' if they're the ones responsible for that as they own their own recordings. But so many other artists own their own recordings now, it's not unusual anymore. Their 1960s albums have been out of print on CD for nearly 20 years, and some of the 1970s ones the same. How hasn't 'Hollies Live Hits' not been reissued on CD?! I just don't understand it. Spot on cameron. As for "nonsense" lyrics, a better word might be "fanciful". That certainly applies to Cockney Rebel. The lyrics are often over-the-top, but that's what makes them special. Coupled with Steve Harley's acrobatic singing and the keyboards/electric violin accompaniment, they make a unique and delightful combination, humorous one moment and darkly ominous the next. T. Rex for me peaked with Electric Warrior and The Slider. Those are the two essentials. I think the UK magazines are more interested in rock stars, celebrities, and outrageousness (i.e. punk rock) than music.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 2, 2019 16:29:29 GMT
T. Rex (like Gary Glitter), had a handful of brilliant singles, then quickly ran out of steam. Give me Slade, Sweet and Mud anyday! Disagree over Charlie Watt's drumming, his drumming (like Ringo's in The Beatles) suited the band perfectly, though none had the technical brilliance and sheer creativity of Bobby. I make no apologies for preferring the Nash years, but (to be fair on Terry), this is largely because by 1969 I don't enjoy the music of the era so much (I must be the only Beatles fan in the world who finds Abbey Road their weakest album). My favourite era in music is the (roughly) 18 months from the autumn of 1965 to the spring of 196. The Hollies, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, The Animals, The Spencer Davis Group, The Who, The Yardbirds and countless others were at their creative peak then. So Jan.1, 1970 is when the music died? I think otherwise. The early 70s were very exciting musically. The Beatles broke up, but there were numerous bands to fill the void, The Hollies among them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 16:49:37 GMT
My comment should have said "... to the spring of 1967". Of course it didn't die then, but the "summer of love" turned into a bit of a cul-de-sac for many. The Rolling Stones effectively became the band they are today in 1968, but The Hollies, The Who, and countless others wandered around directionless during that period. Even The Beatles pretty much stopped working as a unified group.
What saved music in the early 70s (for me) was Glam Rock. That's when singles became important (and fun!) again. I can't stand the direction the more "serious" musical acts went in the 70s. Van Morrison did his best work with Them, ditto Steve Winwood with The Spencer Davis Group, Paul McCartney (and to an extent John) with The Beatles - and Graham Nash never topped his work with The Hollies.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 3, 2019 15:47:32 GMT
I hate how “serious” music got in the 1970s. I honestly can’t comprehend how Pink Floyd are so legendary when all their albums are just individual melodic fragments stretched together in a meandering instrumental. But it was “serious” music, so everyone lapped it up. I think the Beatles’ legend looms large because at no point did they actually take themselves seriously. There’s always a joke somewhere, a happy accident, a hidden in-joke in most of their recordings.
I think Glam Rock was so popular because it was freedom from the shackles of pretence. It was just great catchy dance music with memorable hooks and melodies. It was fun and carefree.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Aug 3, 2019 16:26:54 GMT
I hate how “serious” music got in the 1970s. I honestly can’t comprehend how Pink Floyd are so legendary when all their albums are just individual melodic fragments stretched together in a meandering instrumental. But it was “serious” music, so everyone lapped it up. I think the Beatles’ legend looms large because at no point did they actually take themselves seriously. There’s always a joke somewhere, a happy accident, a hidden in-joke in most of their recordings. I think Glam Rock was so popular because it was freedom from the shackles of pretence. It was just great catchy dance music with memorable hooks and melodies. It was fun and carefree. Well said, Cameron! The seriousness of rock, and the posers who engaged in it, turned my stomach back in the late '60's and '70's. And I'm told it still carries on to this day! I'll always belonged to the 'Shutup And Sing!' school of thought. I would no more ask a bricklayer to write a criticism of early baroque art, than I would want to listen to a smart-mouthed, 22-year-old kid with a catchy hit, analyse geo-political matters. It is to laugh! I think The Kinks mocked the prevailing attitude best in their LP track 'Top Of The Tops'. Something along the lines of: 'I'm #7 on the NME, now they want to interview me, and ask me my opinions on politics and religion.' 100% top marks for The Hollies for sticking to what they knew best: music.
|
|