|
Post by JamesT on Aug 18, 2020 6:01:20 GMT
A pleasant surprise: just heard The Hollies version of the above in a news item on BBC Breakfast about the financial woes of The Cavern in Liverpool due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent restrictions.
I must say, I've always liked this version, and in my opinion, it is a sadly overlooked Hollies single.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 18, 2020 7:10:00 GMT
Must admit it is an overlooked single though I tend to play the B side more often.
As for The Cavern, depressing news across the entire UK gig/entertainment network that is making me extremely angry.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 18, 2020 8:07:10 GMT
As for The Cavern, depressing news across the entire UK gig/entertainment network that is making me extremely angry. It's very sad all-round. The whole entertainment industry has ground to a halt. It's a shame that the CD and vinyl industry has stopped because people are crying out for that kind of thing when they've been stuck at home. We're going to see the knock-on effect of Covid for a few years to come. The music industry was by and large barely getting by before this even happened, though the live act industry was booming, so that should recover. I see the Hollies are trying to re-book their tours for next year, though whether or not the American tour comes off remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 18, 2020 11:41:20 GMT
As for The Cavern, depressing news across the entire UK gig/entertainment network that is making me extremely angry. It's very sad all-round. The whole entertainment industry has ground to a halt. It's a shame that the CD and vinyl industry has stopped because people are crying out for that kind of thing when they've been stuck at home. We're going to see the knock-on effect of Covid for a few years to come. The music industry was by and large barely getting by before this even happened, though the live act industry was booming, so that should recover. I see the Hollies are trying to re-book their tours for next year, though whether or not the American tour comes off remains to be seen. As a performer myself, it's been devastating. The whole creative arts thing is the air I breathe, the very essence of my being and to have that taken away completely has been an intensely depressing experience. Fortunately I do have a good "day job" and in a key worker role as well, but most of my pals are in a bad way, barely scraping by. Until the "distancing" and track and trace rulings are lifted, I see no future for the live industry as venues will only be allowed a quarter of the audiences they used to have which will mean a huge drop in income and us artistes will end up working for absolutely nothing. I call this virus thing a "cultural holocaust" as indeed, it will take many years to bounce back from this... if ever.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 18, 2020 17:04:32 GMT
The boys' Cavern brick...
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Aug 19, 2020 8:10:37 GMT
The boys' Cavern brick...
When I lived in London,not far away,I regularly used to go and write THE HOLLIES on the Abbey road gatepost, amid all the Beatles stuffπππ
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 19, 2020 10:56:16 GMT
The boys' Cavern brick...
When I lived in London,not far away,I regularly used to go and write THE HOLLIES on the Abbey road gatepost, amid all the Beatles stuffπππ lol... on my rare visits I'd also scrawl on references on acts other than The Beatles - Johnny Kidd, The Shadows, Alma Cogan, The Pretty Things, Syd Barrett and various others to try and remind everyone that The Beatles were only one of many legendary acts that recorded there!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Aug 19, 2020 13:49:03 GMT
When I lived in London,not far away,I regularly used to go and write THE HOLLIES on the Abbey road gatepost, amid all the Beatles stuffπππ lol... on my rare visits I'd also scrawl on references on acts other than The Beatles - Johnny Kidd, The Shadows, Alma Cogan, The Pretty Things, Syd Barrett and various others to try and remind everyone that The Beatles were only one of many legendary acts that recorded there! Yes! An attempt to 'balance the record', so to speak. It's fascinating to observe how, with the passage of time, acts and events from our past are compressed so much so, that the result reminds me of cramming for an exam back in school days. I can almost hear the teacher/professor reassuring his students the day before the final. "Class! When it comes to the '60's, don't worry about the minutiae! Concentrate on the important points, and for heaven's sake, don't get bogged down in trivialities! When it comes to this period, remember: it's The Beatles, The Stones, Hendrix, The Who, Led Zepplin, Janis Joplin, etc. And events like Woodstock, Vietnam Protesters, Dropping out, the Drug Scene, etc. Whatever you do, don't go on about meaningless fluff like 'pop groups' and 'top 10 singles'. That was all rubbish simply designed to rob pubescent kids of their allowance. Absolutely meaningless in the greater scheme of things! Now, good luck to you all!" And today, what compounds this problem is that many of the interviewers/writers have no 'feel' for the era, having not experienced it. And so they view the period through the prism of their own time/beliefs/attitudes. What comes out of that thinking is a distorted mess, bearing little resemblance to the actual era in question.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 19, 2020 16:17:33 GMT
lol... on my rare visits I'd also scrawl on references on acts other than The Beatles - Johnny Kidd, The Shadows, Alma Cogan, The Pretty Things, Syd Barrett and various others to try and remind everyone that The Beatles were only one of many legendary acts that recorded there! Yes! An attempt to 'balance the record', so to speak. It's fascinating to observe how, with the passage of time, acts and events from our past are compressed so much so, that the result reminds me of cramming for an exam back in school days. I can almost hear the teacher/professor reassuring his students the day before the final. "Class! When it comes to the '60's, don't worry about the minutiae! Concentrate on the important points, and for heaven's sake, don't get bogged down in trivialities! When it comes to this period, remember: it's The Beatles, The Stones, Hendrix, The Who, Led Zepplin, Janis Joplin, etc. And events like Woodstock, Vietnam Protesters, Dropping out, the Drug Scene, etc. Whatever you do, don't go on about meaningless fluff like 'pop groups' and 'top 10 singles'. That was all rubbish simply designed to rob pubescent kids of their allowance. Absolutely meaningless in the greater scheme of things! Now, good luck to you all!" And today, what compounds this problem is that many of the interviewers/writers have no 'feel' for the era, having not experienced it. And so they view the period through the prism of their own time/beliefs/attitudes. What comes out of that thinking is a distorted mess, bearing little resemblance to the actual era in question. My life on Twitter. I've become "that Hollies girl" who shows up to remind (American) Dudes Who Think They Know It All that you can't judge the Hollies on four hit singles. Last time a debate started about which "British Invasion" groups were the most important (because ranking is SO damned important to these guys), I commented and a guy said, "Oh crap, SHE'S here" or something like that!
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Aug 19, 2020 17:30:39 GMT
Yes! An attempt to 'balance the record', so to speak. Β It's fascinating to observe how, with the passage of time, acts and events from our past are compressed so much so, that the result reminds me of cramming for an exam back in school days. I can almost hear the teacher/professor reassuring his students the day before the final. "Class! When it comes to the '60's, don't worry about the minutiae! Concentrate on the important points, and for heaven's sake, don't get bogged down in trivialities! When it comes to this period, remember: it's The Beatles, The Stones, Hendrix, The Who, Led Zepplin, Janis Joplin, etc. And events like Woodstock, Vietnam Protesters, Dropping out, the Drug Scene, etc. Whatever you do, don't go on about meaningless fluff like 'pop groups' and 'top 10 singles'. That was all rubbish simply designed to rob pubescent kids of their allowance. Absolutely meaningless in the greater scheme of things! Now, good luck to you all!" And today, what compounds this problem is that many of the interviewers/writers have no 'feel' for the era, having not experienced it. And so they view the period through the prism of their own time/beliefs/attitudes. What comes out of that thinking is a distorted mess, bearing little resemblance to the actual era in question. My life on Twitter. I've become "that Hollies girl" who shows up to remind (American) Dudes Who Think They Know It All that you can't judge the Hollies on four hit singles. Last time a debate started about which "British Invasion" groups were the most important (because ranking is SO damned important to these guys), I commented and a guy said, "Oh crap, SHE'S here" or something like that! But you do it SO WELL!!πππ
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 19, 2020 18:31:39 GMT
My life on Twitter. I've become "that Hollies girl" who shows up to remind (American) Dudes Who Think They Know It All that you can't judge the Hollies on four hit singles. Last time a debate started about which "British Invasion" groups were the most important (because ranking is SO damned important to these guys), I commented and a guy said, "Oh crap, SHE'S here" or something like that! But you do it SO WELL!!πππ Some classic rock boomer guys from the US really hate when a girl tells them something they didn't know... But I've made friends too...
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 19, 2020 21:14:49 GMT
I've noticed this on the Steve Hoffman Forum, which is why I don't really post there any more, is that the general attitude of the American guys on there absolutely stinks. Their music "connoisseurs" who have a problem with anything but a first pressing and they can be damned ignorant when it comes to the Hollies - if its possible to somehow turn it back around onto the Beatles, they will. I'm not saying it's everyone by any means, but the general vibe there is a bad one. I posted a link to Allan Clarke's version of Bruce Springsteen's 'Born To Run' on a Springsteen thread and it was torn limb from limb. Even though I'm a huge Hollies fan, there's no denying that Allan Clarke has much more vocal prowess than the husky Bruce Springsteen, but they lambasted me for even daring to compare this version to "The Boss". And the absolute obsession with the Beatles is nauseating. Even John Lennon and George Harrison didn't like the Beatles' legend...
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 19, 2020 23:22:33 GMT
I've noticed this on the Steve Hoffman Forum, which is why I don't really post there any more, is that the general attitude of the American guys on there absolutely stinks. Their music "connoisseurs" who have a problem with anything but a first pressing and they can be damned ignorant when it comes to the Hollies - if its possible to somehow turn it back around onto the Beatles, they will. I'm not saying it's everyone by any means, but the general vibe there is a bad one. I posted a link to Allan Clarke's version of Bruce Springsteen's 'Born To Run' on a Springsteen thread and it was torn limb from limb. Even though I'm a huge Hollies fan, there's no denying that Allan Clarke has much more vocal prowess than the husky Bruce Springsteen, but they lambasted me for even daring to compare this version to "The Boss". And the absolute obsession with the Beatles is nauseating. Even John Lennon and George Harrison didn't like the Beatles' legend... Don't you dare challenge the American Boomer Man Classic Rock Canon! Some of these guys will fight tooth and nail to retain the 1970s rock and roll hegemony as they remember it from their teen years when everything was "perfect". It has nothing to do with the music and everything to do with them getting old(er).
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 20, 2020 10:20:16 GMT
And today, what compounds this problem is that many of the interviewers/writers have no 'feel' for the era, having not experienced it. And so they view the period through the prism of their own time/beliefs/attitudes. What comes out of that thinking is a distorted mess, bearing little resemblance to the actual era in question. Oh, it winds me up big time how history gets mangled and potted into cliches. If we're to believe "common" history, it was all "love and peace" in 1967 and everyone became a hippy. In documentaries, they use the same old stock footage of hippies prancing about and it gives a false impression of that year. The reality was hippies were a very tiny minority. In the UK, there was a tiny hippy scene in one or two parts of London. The rest of the UK, it was mundane business as usual... hair did get longer by the end of the decade on some hippy-like garb worn in other parts of the UK but certainly not in 1967. I've encountered too many people younger than myself who believe that deluded version of 1967. Given the rewriting of 20th Century history we've been witnessing over the last 20 years, the history books are getting ridiculously distorted in spite of the fact we have plentiful evidence proving otherwise in the form of recordings, TV shows, newspapers and various forms of media which in this PC obsessed age is being censored and desecrated. I'm sure a big reason why we rarely ever see shows from the 60's and 70's anymore is because most characters and stars smoked. Smoking on TV now is a big NO NO NO. It's stupid. I look at old TV shows and view them for what they are - historical documents capturing a time long gone. When is the Mona Lisa gonna be enhanced and brought up to modern standards with collagen lips and a boob job? You can't rewrite history but the ongoing crusade to do just that is extremely depressing.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 20, 2020 15:32:38 GMT
If we keep demanding that our children only learn that which will train them for "jobs jobs jobs" then history will be increasingly marginalized and misinterpreted. Because it's just an "arts" course, you know. As a history major though, focusing on social history, I welcome a lot of the re-evaluation and inclusion of those who've been ignored in the past due to the focus on war and leaders and empire-building. That's also a distortion of the truth, imo. Just as most young people in the 60s weren't hippies, most weren't sitting on the right hand of Winston Churchill either. And many good people suffered under the regimes that we were told were for the good of our great nations and "progress." But I digress. Bringing it back to the purpose of this forum, lol, I find that the biggest problem with not teaching our kids history properly is that they have no concept of cause and effect, evolution, or change. They listen to the early Beatles with the same ears as they do Led Zeppelin or Rush or Eminen or anything modern, and conclude that because the Beatles sound prehistoric in comparison, they suck. NO concept whatsoever of the fact that their modern heroes wouldn't exist without those "prehistoric" Beatles. NO clue or interest in how the Beatles even evolved between '63 and '70. They only look at the music with no context whatsoever. And when you try to give them one, it's all "okay boomer." Unfortunately, we (or rather, those annoying boomer classic rock dudes!) did built this, then turned around and blamed the kids for their attitudes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 17:03:28 GMT
If we keep demanding that our children only learn that which will train them for "jobs jobs jobs" then history will be increasingly marginalized and misinterpreted. Because it's just an "arts" course, you know. As a history major though, focusing on social history, I welcome a lot of the re-evaluation and inclusion of those who've been ignored in the past due to the focus on war and leaders and empire-building. That's also a distortion of the truth, imo. Just as most young people in the 60s weren't hippies, most weren't sitting on the right hand of Winston Churchill either. And many good people suffered under the regimes that we were told were for the good of our great nations and "progress." But I digress. Bringing it back to the purpose of this forum, lol, I find that the biggest problem with not teaching our kids history properly is that they have no concept of cause and effect, evolution, or change. They listen to the early Beatles with the same ears as they do Led Zeppelin or Rush or Eminen or anything modern, and conclude that because the Beatles sound prehistoric in comparison, they suck. NO concept whatsoever of the fact that their modern heroes wouldn't exist without those "prehistoric" Beatles. NO clue or interest in how the Beatles even evolved between '63 and '70. They only look at the music with no context whatsoever. And when you try to give them one, it's all "okay boomer." Unfortunately, we (or rather, those annoying boomer classic rock dudes!) did built this, then turned around and blamed the kids for their attitudes. More importantly, they need to teach them about the rock and roll heroes that influenced The Beatles et all... and, perhaps even the artists that introduced them (not just the obvious blues and country either: Elvis idiolised Dean Martin, Chuck Berry's hero was Nat 'King' Cole, Jerry Lee Lewis loved Al Jolson). Yes yes yes, The Beatles were fab, but they didn't invent modern pop/rock music. If they're familiar at all with Elvis Presley, then it's the fat bloke in a white baby-gro who was a decade past his peak. Rant over!
|
|
|
Post by allanangel on Aug 20, 2020 17:07:43 GMT
The boys' Cavern brick...
When I lived in London,not far away,I regularly used to go and write THE HOLLIES on the Abbey road gatepost, amid all the Beatles stuffπππ When I was at Abbey Road last year, there was a sign outside the store with dates and info about when and who and what was noteworthy about the studio. I took out my sharpie and wrote "1963--The Hollies" on it in big letters. I was royally ticked that there were no references ANYWHERE to the group. I went around the wall and wrote "Canada loves the Hollies" and "I love Allan Clarke" everywhere I could. Immature? Maybe, but damn it, they were there at the beginning and deserve recognition!!! LOL, we are crazy ass ladies and I love it! Loyal and devoted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 17:13:29 GMT
When I lived in London,not far away,I regularly used to go and write THE HOLLIES on the Abbey road gatepost, amid all the Beatles stuffπππ When I was at Abbey Road last year, there was a sign outside the store with dates and info about when and who and what was noteworthy about the studio. I took out my sharpie and wrote "1963--The Hollies" on it in big letters. I was royally ticked that there were no references ANYWHERE to the group. I went around the wall and wrote "Canada loves the Hollies" and "I love Allan Clarke" everywhere I could. Immature? Maybe, but damn it, they were there at the beginning and deserve recognition!!! LOL, we are crazy ass ladies and I love it! Loyal and devoted. I went to Liverpool last year, and apart from statues of Cilla Black and Billy Fury, it's Beatles, Beatles, Beatles! Memphis is the same with Elvis. When I went there in 2005, I called up a tour guide, and told him I only wanted to see places connected to Jerry Lee Lewis (to be fair he did a good job, but almost begged me to visit Graceland, which I refused to do!).
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 20, 2020 18:06:41 GMT
The Hollies always get the short shrift when it comes to Abbey Road. I read an article recently that was a re-published interview with Ron Richards - of all the artists he produced, the Hollies were by far the most successful and enduring. But he would have rather spoke about Gerry and the Pacemakers and his favourite production credit... erm... PJ Proby! Other than later Pink Floyd, the Hollies have to be the third most successful/enduring artist to have been in Abbey Road at the same time as the Beatles, as Beatlemania was in full swing. And even then, by all accounts, the Hollies were the only group successful enough to be allowed in to see what the Beatles were doing! Allan told a great gem in an interview recently about walking into the studio to find Paul McCartney in there at the piano when he shouldn't have been. He played Allan an early version of 'Hello Goodbye', which Allan thought was lyrical nonsense and Allan sent Paul on his way!
As for the younger generation disregarding older music... I get it. I appreciate those who laid the path for the Beatles - the rock and roll greats etc... but I honestly cannot stand them. My mother in law is a huge Elvis fan and she was over a few weeks ago and she played Elvis ALL DAY and I couldn't cope! His singing accent is so thick and forced. No one naturally sings with an accent like that, and later in his career, he seemed to drop it to reveal quite a raw sounding voice. To me, a lot of that music is "more of the same", and therein lies the problem with it: My generation onwards have a notoriously short attention span. To me, the 1960s is when music gets intricate and interesting. Even the early British Invasion/Beat Boom years have songs that are like technicolour compared to what came in the 1950s. To hear a full band section with two or three harmony singers layered on top is just wonderful. I feel like I can keep listening to the Beatles and the Hollies and continue to take things away from the music. For me, the popular rock music of the 1950s is broadly just too simple and antiquated sounding. I get why people like it, but I'm offering you a perspective as to why younger generations don't.
It's very clever of record companies to keep remixing this older music because it breathes a new quality into it and keeps it sounding fresh. Let's face it, even some late 1960s recordings still sound awful and many were never mixed to stereo. I'm glad that many record companies have spotted the potential of remixing old masters to make them sound fresh and current, because let's be honest, nearly all of that music is timeless.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 20, 2020 19:17:29 GMT
I think The Shadows rank along with Beatles and Hollies as the most successful and influential of the sixties EMI bands - and they enjoyed a successful later seventies comeback with a no.1 UK album in 1977 and 1979
- The Shadows were THE group over 1958 to 1962 as well - even The Beatles first album namechecked them in Tony Barrow's linear notes to 'Please Please Me' LP in 1963 while the standard merseybeat band line up of lead, rhythm, bass guitar frontline plus drummer (Beatles, Searchers, Swinging Blue Jeans, Merseybeats, Fourmost, Escorts - plus The Dakotas, Dreamers etc) was based upon The Shadows 1958 instrumental line up (The Ventures formed in 1959 and The Spotnicks in 1960)
also The Beatles acclaimed 'arty' half shadowed faces look on 'With The Beatles' in 1963 copied The Shadows identical 'half shadowed' look on the cover of 'Out of The Shadows' LP in 1962 - a colour cover photo that The Rolling Stones first album was also similar to in 1964
Pink Floyd only really became world acclaimed with 'Dark Side of The Moon' in 1973, earlier their albums were a bit hit and miss ('More', 'Obscured By Clouds', 'Atom Heart Mother' etc) while over 1968-69 they were by later standards not that acclaimed 'post Syd'
...and as with The Who and 'Tommy' thereafter these bands are seen as 'mega' but before those landmark albums elevated them they whilst famous were not as universally popular as some music writers would now have us believe....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 19:21:36 GMT
To a large degree, my musical tastes haven't developed since I was about 4 years old! Seriously. I was born in 1963, and apparently I used to stomp around to The Dave Clark Five in my nappy, and I also used to listen to my parent's records and reel to reel tapes, as well as the Hit Parade of course. So, Elvis Presley, Adam Faith, Little Eva, Chubby Checker, Del Shannon, The Beatles, Cilla Black, Gene Pitney, The Hollies... it made no difference to me what the genre or era (which I was unaware of anyway), I just either liked it (no, loved it!) or didn't. I also quickly developed a more critical ear: I knew that Ricky Nelson and Billy J. Kramer didn't quite have the magic of Elvis and The Beatles, and to this day I can remember first hearing 'Suspicious Minds' and thinking how rubbish it was compared to Elvis' early stuff (I still hate that song!), despite being only 6 years old. Of course, I've discovered a great deal of great music over the years and I'm still discovering it, but rarely do I find anything to match up with the 1956-1966 era. Jimi Hendrix and The Doors? They're alright, but a bit too "modern" to my ears... Anyway, I'm off to stomp around to The Dave Clark Five... without the nappy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 19:23:29 GMT
I think The Shadows rank along with Beatles and Hollies as the most successful and influential of the sixties EMI bands - and they enjoyed a successful later seventies comeback with a no.1 UK album in 1977 and 1979 - The Shadows were THE group over 1958 to 1962 as well - even The Beatles first album namechecked them in Tony Barrow's linear notes to 'Please Please Me' LP in 1963 while the standard merseybeat band line up of lead, rhythm, bass guitar frontline plus drummer was based upon The Shadows 1958 line up (The Ventures formed in 1959 and The Spotnicks in 1960) also The Beatles acclaimed 'arty' half shadowed faces look on 'With The Beatles' in 1963 copied The Shadows identical 'half shadowed' look on the cover of 'Out of The Shadows' LP in 1962 - a colour cover photo that The Rolling Stones first album was also similar to in 1964 Pink Floyd only really became world acclaimed with 'Dark Side of The Moon' in 1973, earlier their albums were a bit hit and miss ('More', 'Obscured By Clouds', 'Atom Heart Mother' etc) while over 1968-69 they were by later standards not that acclaimed 'post Syd' ...and as with The Who and 'Tommy' thereafter these bands are seen as 'mega' but before those landmark albums elevated them they whilst famous were not as universally popular as some music writers would now have us believe.... Oh yes, The Shadows were incredibly influential, despite some artists' later claims. Of pre-Beatles British artists, only Lonnie Donegan was (initially) more influential.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 20, 2020 19:30:44 GMT
well Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Pete Townshend (& he said John Entwistle and Keith Moon), Eric Clapton, Neil Young, Mark Knopfler, Dave Gilmour, Justin Hayward, Brian May - all inducted in that Hall of Fame - have cited Hank Marvin / The Shadows as an influence or paid tribute to The Shadows
Olivia Newton John owes alot to them too - especially John Farrar, John Rostill and Bruce Welch
so too does Sir Cliff Richard...
...but the Hall of Fame have probably never even heard of them...or Lonnie Donegan - without whom...
probably as they were not American...
ace rocker Donna Summer is inducted tho'...
much revered DJ John Peel was a 'secret' Shadows fan per that BBC 'Shadows at Sixty' show, also Wishbone Ash guitarist Andy Powell was a fan
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2020 20:26:14 GMT
The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame gets more and more meaningless every year, with many artists only inducted due to influential music industry insiders.
Did you know that even Chubby Checker isn't an inductee? Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, Sam Cooke, Cliff Richard and The Shadows, The Beatles... they ALL cut "twist" records, a craze that wouldn't have took off without Chubby's (for a year or two) huge influence.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 20, 2020 20:26:48 GMT
The Hollies always get the short shrift when it comes to Abbey Road. I read an article recently that was a re-published interview with Ron Richards - of all the artists he produced, the Hollies were by far the most successful and enduring. But he would have rather spoke about Gerry and the Pacemakers and his favourite production credit... erm... PJ Proby! Other than later Pink Floyd, the Hollies have to be the third most successful/enduring artist to have been in Abbey Road at the same time as the Beatles, as Beatlemania was in full swing. And even then, by all accounts, the Hollies were the only group successful enough to be allowed in to see what the Beatles were doing! Allan told a great gem in an interview recently about walking into the studio to find Paul McCartney in there at the piano when he shouldn't have been. He played Allan an early version of 'Hello Goodbye', which Allan thought was lyrical nonsense and Allan sent Paul on his way! As for the younger generation disregarding older music... I get it. I appreciate those who laid the path for the Beatles - the rock and roll greats etc... but I honestly cannot stand them. My mother in law is a huge Elvis fan and she was over a few weeks ago and she played Elvis ALL DAY and I couldn't cope! His singing accent is so thick and forced. No one naturally sings with an accent like that, and later in his career, he seemed to drop it to reveal quite a raw sounding voice. To me, a lot of that music is "more of the same", and therein lies the problem with it: My generation onwards have a notoriously short attention span. To me, the 1960s is when music gets intricate and interesting. Even the early British Invasion/Beat Boom years have songs that are like technicolour compared to what came in the 1950s. To hear a full band section with two or three harmony singers layered on top is just wonderful. I feel like I can keep listening to the Beatles and the Hollies and continue to take things away from the music. For me, the popular rock music of the 1950s is broadly just too simple and antiquated sounding. I get why people like it, but I'm offering you a perspective as to why younger generations don't. It's very clever of record companies to keep remixing this older music because it breathes a new quality into it and keeps it sounding fresh. Let's face it, even some late 1960s recordings still sound awful and many were never mixed to stereo. I'm glad that many record companies have spotted the potential of remixing old masters to make them sound fresh and current, because let's be honest, nearly all of that music is timeless. I tend to prefer the original R&B that early rock and roll artists covered. And the vocal groups. And the Everlys.
|
|