|
|
Post by thejanitor on Feb 4, 2020 18:24:26 GMT
Just curious to know what are everybody's thoughts here on the version of Peggy Sue Got Married that The Hollies recorded for the 1996 "Not Fade Away" tribute album? Something I find quite heartwarming about this is that it turned out to be the final Hollies song (to date anyways) to feature both Allan and Graham. Of course, Allan managed to stay on with the group live for another three years after this, but it's undeniable both thought this would be the perfect high note to end their contributions of new studio material for The Hollies on, and I agree with them - can't go better than a rocking tribute cover to one of your biggest idols featuring the man's original vocal track. It blows the bland, pseudo-reggae version from the "Buddy Holly" album out the water anyday.😊
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 5, 2020 1:41:27 GMT
All this talk of how great Buddy Holly was as a guitarist - yet look at Tony just tear up that fretboard! When is he going to get the recognition he deserves? Always knows what to play and when. Tony can play ANYTHING, but the difference is, he knows just not what to play as well. I really enjoy it when he lets loose on a solo like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 8:08:22 GMT
Unfortunately the thing that stands out the most for me in this clip is Allan's dreadful long wig! Did he ever tour in this, or was it a one-off? Thankfully by the late '90s he got a much better short one.
As for the music, I'm not keen on it at all, and would much rather hear Buddy Holly without modernised overdubs... great though it is seeing everyone together one last time. |
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Feb 5, 2020 13:45:28 GMT
I too much prefer the later version with Nash, as it has some 'life' to it. Far superior to the almost comatose 1980 version. That tribute LP should have been titled 'Buddy Holly Embalmed', as the group's late '70's rigor mortis reached its nadir. Hard to make Buddy Holly dull, but got to hand it to the group, they definitely managed it.
The Nash version definitely has some zest to it, although I could have done without the dialogue over Tony's fabulous solo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 14:19:56 GMT
I'm glad I'm not the only person who dislikes the 'Buddy Holly' album. Nothing on it comes close to the brilliance of 1966's 'Take Your Time'.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnt on Feb 5, 2020 14:29:05 GMT
I remember The Hollies doing this song on stage (with Alan Coates in the line-up, not Graham) in the 1990s singing live to Buddy's pre-recorded voice.
And if I remember correctly, they also performed After the Fox at the same gig, singing along to a pre-recorded Peter Seller's voice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 14:46:22 GMT
I remember The Hollies doing this song on stage (with Alan Coates in the line-up, not Graham) in the 1990s singing live to Buddy's pre-recorded voice. And if I remember correctly, they also performed After the Fox at the same gig, singing along to a pre-recorded Peter Seller's voice. Yes, they did both songs when I saw them in Margate in 1999. |
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Feb 5, 2020 15:15:39 GMT
I've said before I do actually quite like their version of "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" from the Buddy Holly album - I think that would've made a decent single, but everything else from that album is honestly hit or miss for me. Perhaps if they'd come up with the idea for the album and recorded it later, around the time of this version of "PSGM", the outcome might be a little more acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 17:17:04 GMT
Perhaps if they'd come up with the idea for the album and recorded it later, around the time of this version of "PSGM", the outcome might be a little more acceptable. I suspect the opposite, for the simple reason that Allan's vocal range was seriously reduced by the mid '90s. Also, and this has been a problem since at least the mid '70s, The Hollies insist on trying to prove how 'modern' they are instead of playing to their strengths. This is why 'What Goes Around' and 'Staying Power' were so disappointing, and why we hear such cr*p as the intro to 'Bus Stop' played on keyboards instead of guitar when they perform the song live. Can you imagine The Rolling Stones or Paul McCartney doing that to one of their biggest hits? Singing along to Buddy Holly and Peter Sellers, Tony performing 'When I'm Dead and Gone', overlooked B-sides like 'Not That Way At All' and 'Running Through The Night', a greatly increased role for Alan Coates (including a very Nash-like 'Butterfly')... all of these things were probably done to hide Allan's deteriorating voice, but it sure made for interesting setlists! I'd be much more inclined to see the current band if they did more than just the hit singles. |
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 5, 2020 18:44:54 GMT
I don't dislike the "Buddy Holly" album... it is hit and miss but I enjoy it more than the three albums that came before and after it! The timing was wrong as had it been 2 years earlier when there was plentiful interest in Buddy thanks to the movie, it would had fared better, but alas, Allan was elsewhere so wasn't possible anyway. Whilst there was still interest in rock and roll in 1980, the treatments took the rock and roll out of Buddy's songs so that backfired as well. I am also one who dislikes how the keyboards became too dominant from the mid 70's and the 80's output after that album... lets just say I find them unbearable to listen to and worse, they sound so hideously dated, far more than the 60's stuff which still sounds fresh!
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 5, 2020 19:48:38 GMT
I have to admit, the highlight of the current line-up's set for me was their take on 'Magic Woman Touch', which was better than the original mainly thanks to Tony re-arranging it for his electric sitar that he plays on 'The Baby'. It was unexpected and wonderful to hear live. I agree, they need to delve into their back catalogue more often because it's NEVER disappointing.
Back to 'Buddy Holly', I just don't really care for this album. None of it really sticks in my head. Apparently, it was Allan's idea. Something that Terry Sylvester was dead against (shades of Graham Nash vs 'Hollies Sing Dylan'!) and I'm not sure if it was a deliberate thing by Allan to get "revenge" on the Hollies due to his relationship with them very much being on the rocks from around 1978 onwards. Though according to a recent interview, he got sober in 1979 and began to lead a better life, so who knows. Either way, his solo LP 'Legendary Heroes' from 1980 was SIGNIFICANTLY better than 'Buddy Holly'. It still sounds fresh and modern today, which 'Buddy Holly' does not, for the same reasons outlined above. I cannot stand the Hollies and synthesisers either, they go against their notoriously smooth and cohesive sound as a live group, adding in a jarring digital edge to an otherwise great group.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 5, 2020 20:16:09 GMT
I cannot stand the Hollies and synthesisers either, they go against their notoriously smooth and cohesive sound as a live group, adding in a jarring digital edge to an otherwise great group. I've NEVER understood this over-reliance on synths. During the 80's, OK, granted, I can understand why they used them so much as at the time it did sound "modern" and they wanted to sound up to date but unfortunately, they didn't leave them behind. The "Unplugged" craze in the early 90's - another fashionable fad that passed The Hollies by - would had made for an ideal reboot, ditching the synths and getting back to a more basic sound that had served them well years earlier but I suspect they became a crutch to help disguise Allan's increasing vocal problems. I was horrified when I listened to "Staying Power" as not only were there dated sounding synths but the programmed drums was an insult. I know this was for budgetary reasons but you DON'T replace a master like Bobby Elliott with programmed junk! So even when that was released, the album sounded well out of date to these ears. Utterly bizarre and disappointing given the long gap since the previous album. An unplugged type approach would have suited them far better as hey, what are the hallmark of The Hollies? The harmonies. It would had showcased them far better, given Tony new challenges which he would had triumphed with, and Bobby would have come up with some imaginative percussion arrangements. A few songs in that style, plugged back in for the rest of the show with the keyboards kept to the level where they were before they recruited Pete Wingfield. A more basic sound. I just wince whenever I hear the synths swamping the mix playing parts that Tony should be playing. At the end of the day, they're still selling out live shows and figure "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" so I guess our grumbles mean very little. |
|
|
|
Post by distantlight on Feb 5, 2020 21:20:07 GMT
Just heard that recording for the first time. Interesting clip but I don't like that version at all. To me it doesn't exactly sound inspired but very middle of the road. And seeing Tony with that dreadful PRS guitar makes me sick. Apart from the totally un-Rock'n'Rollish look it sounds incredibly safe, slick and boring. Terrible solo, too. The harmonies are OK but also sound a bit out of place. I'm with Peter - I far prefer the demo and don't need a pseudo modernised version. And Graham telling how he would have loved to get "real stars" like Phil Collins etc and then he just got the Hollies is a bit embarrassing, too. I know he told it a bit different but in context it doesn't sound too nice.
Haven't listened to that Buddy Holly Hollies record in a long time. I just remember that I didn't like it at all and I'm sure I'd find it even worse now. Not keen on relistening...
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Feb 5, 2020 22:17:28 GMT
I have to admit, the highlight of the current line-up's set for me was their take on 'Magic Woman Touch', which was better than the original mainly thanks to Tony re-arranging it for his electric sitar that he plays on 'The Baby'. It was unexpected and wonderful to hear live. I agree, they need to delve into their back catalogue more often because it's NEVER disappointing. Back to 'Buddy Holly', I just don't really care for this album. None of it really sticks in my head. Apparently, it was Allan's idea. Something that Terry Sylvester was dead against (shades of Graham Nash vs 'Hollies Sing Dylan'!) and I'm not sure if it was a deliberate thing by Allan to get "revenge" on the Hollies due to his relationship with them very much being on the rocks from around 1978 onwards. Though according to a recent interview, he got sober in 1979 and began to lead a better life, so who knows. Either way, his solo LP 'Legendary Heroes' from 1980 was SIGNIFICANTLY better than 'Buddy Holly'. It still sounds fresh and modern today, which 'Buddy Holly' does not, for the same reasons outlined above. I cannot stand the Hollies and synthesisers either, they go against their notoriously smooth and cohesive sound as a live group, adding in a jarring digital edge to an otherwise great group. From the footage I've seen, he plays MWT on banjo, not electric sitar like the original. I think it sounds much better. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 5, 2020 22:55:13 GMT
From the footage I've seen, he plays MWT on banjo, not electric sitar like the original. I think it sounds much better. You're right, I was mis-remembering it. He really bought it to life with the the banjo. The electric sitar is barely audible in the original mix. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 5, 2020 23:04:18 GMT
I cannot stand the Hollies and synthesisers either, they go against their notoriously smooth and cohesive sound as a live group, adding in a jarring digital edge to an otherwise great group. The "Unplugged" craze in the early 90's - another fashionable fad that passed The Hollies by - would had made for an ideal reboot, ditching the synths and getting back to a more basic sound that had served them well years earlier but I suspect they became a crutch to help disguise Allan's increasing vocal problems. In concert in the early 1990s, the Hollies opened with acoustic versions of a few hits - notably 'Listen To Me', 'Just One Look' and 'Stay'. 'Just One Look' was something really special, reworked to sound mournful and in a lower minor key. The song took on a whole new meaning. They also did that rather nice acoustic version of 'Whiter Shade of Pale' which worked well. That said, none of that made it onto official recorded output, though allegedly there was an official live album planned around 1992/3, which never properly materialised. I just don't know who was behind their sound from the 1980s onwards, who had the final say to say that it was okay and sign it off. To this day, they've managed to sap all the realism out of it. I don't think they ever sounded better on record than they did from around 1970 through to around 1975, just before the synths came in and they still had a powerful production. When you've got a guitarist as great as Tony, a drummer as great as Bobby, a bass player as agile as Ray Stiles now and someone who's naturally polished as Peter Howarth, you need that bit of an edge which capturing their raw sound will do. Even 'Live Hits' managed to sap all the power out of their sound, it was quite a shock to see them live after hearing that CD and feel in person that they actually sound really powerful, not like they all have colds and are playing from inside a tin can! |
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 5, 2020 23:24:14 GMT
The "Unplugged" craze in the early 90's - another fashionable fad that passed The Hollies by - would had made for an ideal reboot, ditching the synths and getting back to a more basic sound that had served them well years earlier but I suspect they became a crutch to help disguise Allan's increasing vocal problems. In concert in the early 1990s, the Hollies opened with acoustic versions of a few hits - notably 'Listen To Me', 'Just One Look' and 'Stay'. 'Just One Look' was something really special, reworked to sound mournful and in a lower minor key. The song took on a whole new meaning. They also did that rather nice acoustic version of 'Whiter Shade of Pale' which worked well. That said, none of that made it onto official recorded output, though allegedly there was an official live album planned around 1992/3, which never properly materialised. I just don't know who was behind their sound from the 1980s onwards, who had the final say to say that it was okay and sign it off. To this day, they've managed to sap all the realism out of it. I don't think they ever sounded better on record than they did from around 1970 through to around 1975, just before the synths came in and they still had a powerful production. When you've got a guitarist as great as Tony, a drummer as great as Bobby, a bass player as agile as Ray Stiles now and someone who's naturally polished as Peter Howarth, you need that bit of an edge which capturing their raw sound will do. Even 'Live Hits' managed to sap all the power out of their sound, it was quite a shock to see them live after hearing that CD and feel in person that they actually sound really powerful, not like they all have colds and are playing from inside a tin can! Thanks for the info about the early 90's acoustic numbers live as I never got to see them so wasn't aware of that... a pity they didn't consolidate it with any kind of an official release to enable more of us to hear it... would have been far more welcome than the handful of tracks we did get. You describe the issue well "sap all the realism out of it"! The Hollies at their very best were a superb pop/rock band and the over-reliance on synths waters that element down badly giving them a bland feel. Agreed on how they sounded between 1970 to 1975 - they did sound powerful live onstage judging from what evidence we have. There was a nice balance there mixing the sophisticated with some grit and there was some passion and hunger there which we talked about truly coming to the fore when Mikael joined. Allan's return yielded one of their very best albums and they had it all, but then came some bad choices of singles and things started getting awry. In came Peter Wingfield and... well... "Hollies Live Hits" is a good album as it's clear it's a great performance but I do think it could have been mixed better to give it the sense of power that they emanated. That's why I find the later 70's albums painful to listen to because it's as if they'd been neutered. They were clearly capable of being much more convincing and more rocky but instead headed in a more MOR direction. No denying there was a large market at that time for that style, but even record buyers weren't giving The Hollies much of a chance as the sales kept decreasing. So, by the time they embarked on "Buddy Holly" I get the distinct feeling morale was low within the band... they'd survived into the 1980's so that album sort of set a template and intent that they were gonna use modern synths and styles, but it also marked the end of Terry and Bernie's time in the band and from then on, things could never be quite the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 8:17:56 GMT
When I saw them in 1987, they opened their 2nd half with an acoustic spot, even doing requests (I shouted for "Do the best you can!" and Tony replied "We are!"). I know they included 'Stay', 'Very Last Day' and 'Listen To Me' in this part, and although they declined requests for 'I Am A Rock', Tony played the intro for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Feb 9, 2020 20:35:07 GMT
This was my fav track from 'Buddy Holly' LP
- maybe they ought to have done more Holly songs in this style which somewhat anticipates how Status Quo did their UK hit cover of 'The Wanderer' two years later in 1982
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 10, 2020 20:11:39 GMT
This was my fav track from 'Buddy Holly' LP - maybe they ought to have done more Holly songs in this style which somewhat anticipates how Status Quo did their UK hit cover of 'The Wanderer' two years later in 1982 Gee, I agree with you. This is the standout track on the album. |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Feb 11, 2020 15:07:06 GMT
yes and compare that May 1980 Hollies arrangement of 'That'll Be The Day' to this UK HIT version of Dion's 'The Wanderer' by Status Quo from a couple of years after which reached no.7 in the UK in October 1984 !
Tells us where Quo got the idea from to do a 'stompin' / rock piano / guitars led driving cover of a old fav song - even the guitar solos are in similar places !
while The Hollies put out the slow ponderous 'Heartbeat' as the single from 'Buddy Holly' LP in 1980....and it sank without trace !
nice one lads
|
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Feb 12, 2020 1:36:39 GMT
Not to mention the previous year before BH (1979), Queen scored big with their 50s rockabilly-style "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" which I'd argue is in a similar league to both of the above songs, so upon reflection I'd agree too that picking the uptempo "That'll Be The Day" for the single was a good move they missed. It certainly would've been the breath of fresh air they needed after several years of mostly ballads, but choosing "Heartbeat" shows they weren't quite done with that image/sound yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 8:05:46 GMT
'Heartbeat' was also a big hit by Showaddywaddy in far superior form a few years earlier, so a very poor choice. Must admit though, I don't like The Hollies' arrangement of 'That'll Be The Day' much. Buddy Holly's original was perfect and didn't need changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnt on Feb 12, 2020 14:22:30 GMT
Think It Over is my personal favourite from that album. A rocking good beat and I think that should have been the single, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 13, 2020 10:49:40 GMT
Think It Over is my personal favourite from that album. A rocking good beat and I think that should have been the single, in my opinion. It is definitely one of the best songs on the album. |
|
