He Ain't Heavy - with Mike Rickfors

[gee]

Interesting decent quality posting

- close your eyes and Mike sounds very much like Scott Walker doing a cover of the song !

[Deleted]

It's on youtube in better quality than this (I still don't like it much though!)

[gee]

while this what Boulder To Birmingham might have sounded like had Mike Rickfors sung it...!

[anthony]

Not sure if it sounds like Scott Walker as I never was into the Walker brothers, but I don't like the Rickfors version of this song, his voice is just not suited for it.

[baz]

Scott Walker's voice was deeper than Mikael's. Interesting to watch this... Mikael does well with it but it doesn't quite come off either. Also curious Terry doing a Graham Nash... playing an acoustic guitar that's unplugged and unmiked! And what did Bernie do to get virtually ignored by the cameras after the first shot?

[thejanitor]

I watched this clip the other day and personally thought Mikael did a pretty decent job on the song. My only real complaint would be I'm not a fan of the way he pronounces "heavy" on the first two verses! 😂

Hope this isn't too big of a derailment, but is that Emmylou herself singing on the chorus of the Walker Bros version of "Boulder To Birmingham"? While that is a great version, as is The Hollies' (one of their better late 70s ballads), just imagine how awesome her duetting with Allan would have been on theirs!☺

[cameron]

I love Mikael Rickfors' voice. I think he was a great singer, but a totally different singer to Allan Clarke. I think had the Hollies quit and started again (like the Small Faces vs The Faces), they would have been better than riding on their reputation with Allan Clarke, because, let's be honest, Mikael just couldn't really cut the mustard singing Allan's vocals. Likewise, I preferred Rickfors' 'Out On The Road' to Allan Clarke's version, they weren't comparable, the two lead vocalists were absolutely great - but nothing like each other.

What carried the Hollies through was that backing group became pushed to the fore. Tony played much harder to compensate for the change in vocals, and he and Terry seemed to take it up a notch with the vocals with their confidence. Tony seemed relaxed and confident playing around with the lead vocals on 'Long Dark Road' and 'Carrie Anne' by himself on stage, something I wish he'd have carried on with after Clarke returned. They all seemed to try a bit harder, having perhaps got quite complacent before when the hits came rather effortlessly. I think that's why so many of us love the Rickfors era, there was just that little bit extra effort for perfection. They did it again with 'Another Night', making a conscious effort to really flesh out each song and make it perfect. The Hollies' biggest problem with their recordings in the studio was complacency and that eagerness to get to the pub before last orders!

The difference between the Rickfors Hollies and the current incarnation of the Hollies is that clear cut high harmony that bridged the gap between the deeper voice of Tony and the lead singer is not there. Terry was the glue that bridged the vocals together. Steve Lauri just isn't as confident. Alan Coates too was a really good fit for the same reason, he was a confident alto vocalist who effortlessly turned out the higher harmony, whereas Steve Lauri is hitting a falsetto vocal, which isn't the same. I think Peter Howarth does a great job of interpreting Allan's vocals. He's much more refined and controlled than Allan, which isn't as exciting on stage because it comes off rather effortlessly. Allan's voice is so unique, so emotive and so confident that he's just incomparable. Watching him give every ounce of energy and effort to deliver those vocals on stage was what made him so great. Peter Howarth just closes his eyes, opens his mouth and the notes come out seemingly effortlessly. He's very talented, but just not as exciting to watch as Allan. Like Rickfors vs Clarke, Clarke vs Howarth just isn't worth comparing because they're both different and great in their own ways.

I can't say I've ever been inclined to dig into Mikael Rickfors' solo career though if I'm honest. Nor Peter Howarth's work outside of the Hollies. To me, the excitement of the Hollies is Tony, Bobby, that soaring confident high harmony (be it Graham Nash, Terry Sylvester or Alan Coates) and the totally unique quality of Allan Clarke's voice. Even Allan Clarke's solo career, as great as it is, just is 5% below his work with the Hollies, because he never worked with a guitarist as virtuosic as Tony or a drummer as inventive as Bobby Elliott. It's that magic combination of Tony, Bobby and Allan plus a suitable high harmony singer. With that combination, they could play and sing anything - be it a ballad, heavy rock song, or even the crazy 'Going To The Zoo' as they duetted with Julie Felix(!) - and it's "the Hollies". 

[stuball]

I don't think I've ever heard it put better than this.

Cameron has really hit the nail on the head in defining precisely what made The Hollies of yesteryear so appealing. And conversely, why the group of today, while extremely professional, sounds so pedestrian and generic. And what's most refreshing, without a word of snark to be found!

Well done, Cameron!

[baz]

Jan 27, 2020 14:31:57 GMT stuball said:

I don't think I've ever heard it put better than this.

Cameron has really hit the nail on the head in defining precisely what made The Hollies of yesteryear so appealing. And conversely, why the group of today, while extremely professional, sounds so pedestrian and generic. And what's most refreshing, without a word of snark to be found!

Well done, Cameron!

Agreed. It ties in what I said about Tony in another thread... an amazing guitarist yet never hogs the limelight nor ever been interested because he serves the band and the songs. What makes a band truly special? It's the chemistry that makes up the whole. It is an interesting observation that when Mikael joined the rest of the band upped their game... there was a sense of hunger there, keen to prove themselves and make it work with a new singer who was totally different from Allan. Of course we know how that panned out in the end but it was a genuinely bold move at the time as The Hollies minus Allan Clarke seemed utterly unthinkable but they turned in some great stuff we enjoy and appreciate which gives us a feeling of "what if?" had they continued with Mikael. Terry really came to the fore showing how crucial his harmonies were as did Tony and that also had me thinking...

I've been a member of a couple of choirs and they're split into three or four parts to sing different melodies which combined - and when one gets right - sound fantastic. I alternated between bass and alto parts and it was a great crash course in how harmonies are constructed as bass and alto parts have one singing seemingly alien notes of the main melody and it genuinely isn't easy to pull off as I discovered a few times as one could be sandwiched between sopranos and bass singers so you would hear completely different notes in each ear AND have to sing a completely different melody to either of them. The Hollies at their very best made it sound so effortless. One can get a basic idea of how it worked on the crudest level if one listens to the first album in stereo as often Allan is one ear and Graham in the other... listen to what notes those guys are singing at the same time. Another great example is that Bobbie Gentry performance of "Louisiana Man" - listen to the notes Graham sings with her.

It's funny how it panned out with The Hollies as it took a little while for Tony to build up confidence with that lower part but when he got there... that's when the magic kicked in. Graham replaced by Terry and it sounded just as good if not better then it was different again with Mikael but it worked. Of course then there's Bobby Elliott, a master drummer along with wonderful bassists Eric Haydock and Bernie Calvert... they made it all sound so effortless. Don't forget how in the 60's even with crappy PA systems, they were always lauded and praised for how good they sounded onstage and when you have a screaming audience, a ropey PA etc, the fact they could pull it off is remarkable and was proved when they visited Abbey Road as they worked quickly and professionally... so yes, that's what made The Hollies what they were - that magic blend and Mikael's era offered a different variation which still leaves many of us wondering what might had been had they gone the whole hog to fully reinvent/reboot themselves.

[knut]

Cameron: a very to the point description. You might want to hear Rickfors' solo version of He ain't heavy he's my brother.

[distantlight]

Totally agree with Cameron and Baz! Well put!

I also like the Rickfors led version of Heavy but I kinda think the opposite of Anthony, though. For me what makes the version with Allan without a doubt better and definitive is that in theory Mikael's voice is better suited for the song. He has that voice with which he can effortlessly sing a big ballad but that is what makes it a bit more usual. Something that Cameron quite rightly also appoints to Howarth in general.

Allan Clarke on the other hand has this much stranger voice and tone and with it makes this good but also kinda typical ballad so incredibly special. All the other versions that I have ever heard of that song don't move me a bit. All these big strong voices can perfectly sing a song like Heavy but to me it then sounds just like another big ballad. Nice enough but not outstanding. Allan's totally unique voice that in a way isn't suited for this kind of material is what makes it so special.