|
Post by gee on Aug 9, 2022 23:16:35 GMT
John Lennon saw The Hollies as a threat - as with The Rolling Stones and The Kinks too ! (he even belittled The Seekers...who had the last laugh when 'The Carnival is Over' knocked The Beatles off top spot in the UK in 1965...as later also The Kinks did with 'Sunny Afternoon' in 1966)
Bobby winning NME Top Drummer poll ahead of Ringo in 1965 probably was not too pleasing for John either... ('There's a good drummer in Manchester')
whenever Lennon felt threatened as he saw it he came out with guns blazing - as he did later in turn to Paul re 'How Do You Sleep'
Lennon knew how strong The Hollies were musically and vocally both in the studio and in concerts - they nailed 'Bus Stop' in less than an hour while 'Anthology' shows us how often it was John who went wrong in the studio (and live - often on his OWN lyrics too !)
- so maybe some element of jealousy was also there too as the Liverpool scene had happily accepted The Hollies as the new 'resident group' at the Cavern Club (where Terry in The Escorts likely first met them) and that same Liverpool crowd had a fair number who never forgave The Beatles for both sacking Pete Best...then deserting them for re-locating down south to London (a most serious crime in some Northerners eyes)
These factors probably were why Lennon was so 'Anti Hollies' in those days - later I think he grew up a bit and he did praise up 'Hey Willy' in 1971 whilst a few times 'namedropping' The Hollies even in his Andy Peebles interview just before his death in December 1980
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Aug 10, 2022 8:12:51 GMT
Some interesting posts. I always assumed Lennon had Hollies issues because they could really "do it". Did Lennon secretly wish he had a voice like Allan?
When Lennon professed his unpretentious rock and roll tastes how could he take against the Hollies at the same time?
On IINS... is it just a decent, average song that both groups did good versions of? There wasn't some masterpiece there for some artist to uncover. It's only really notable because it is one of Harrisons first good ones? If anyone else wrote it we wouldn't think it was very special.
Great detail Gee that the Hollies gave Harrison his first and only hit until Something!
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 12, 2022 18:51:16 GMT
I see a HUGE problem with them releasing it. This was a critical time when they were establishing themselves as hit songwriters. This very lame decision of pulling a fast one and attempting to upstage The Beatles irritates me to no end. Would The Kinks have done the same? The Who? That poor decision put them on a level with Herman’s Hermits. The Who released a single in 1967 with "The Last Time" as the a-side and "Under My Thumb" as the b-side in support of Jagger and Richards: "In 1967, after the imprisonment of Jagger and Richards on drugs charges, the Who recorded "The Last Time" and "Under My Thumb" as a single. The Who announced in an advertisement for the single: 'The Who consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have been treated as scapegoats for the drug problem and as a protest against the savage imposed on them at Chichester yesterday, The Who are issuing today the first of a series of Jagger/Richard songs to keep their work before the public until they are again free to record themselves.' The songs were rush recorded and the record appeared in shops in only one week. However, by the time the single was made available, Jagger and Richards had been released. As John Entwistle was away on his honeymoon he authorised the Who to do the record without him and bass parts were overdubbed by Pete Townshend. The UK-only release reached number 44 on the UK Singles Chart." Different reason, but they still did. The Who could afford to fart around covering a Stones song or two; Townsend was already an established writer. Clarke/Hicks/ Nash were still proving themselves as writers.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 12, 2022 21:31:21 GMT
Don't recall The Everly Brothers recording an album of 75% Who, Stones, or Beatles songs in 1966...
'Stop Stop Stop' reached no.2 in the UK, No.7 in USA and charted in at least 14 other countries chart topping in two and top five in 11 countries in 1966
Clarke-Hicks-Nash composed the entire 'For Certain Because..' album of October 1966 which charted in the UK, Germany and Holland
'On A Carousel' reached no.4 in UK, No.11 in USA, charting in another 10 counties making top five in five countries in 1967
'What's Wrong With The Way I Live' made no.7 in Sweden in 1967
The Searchers covered a Hollies song and charted in the UK with it in 1967
while 'We're Through' reached no.7 in the UK chart and no.11 in Sweden back in 1964
so by 1967 I think they had already proven themselves as songwriters - The Everly Brothers certainly felt so...
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Aug 13, 2022 13:24:21 GMT
Wow, Gee you mention The Everly Brothers who were basically done by 1966. Doesn't really prove your point.
|
|
|
Post by madprofessorblyth on Aug 14, 2022 0:50:50 GMT
John Lennon saw The Hollies as a threat - as with The Rolling Stones and The Kinks too ! (he even belittled The Seekers...who had the last laugh when 'The Carnival is Over' knocked The Beatles off top spot in the UK in 1965...as later also The Kinks did with 'Sunny Afternoon' in 1966) Bobby winning NME Top Drummer poll ahead of Ringo in 1965 probably was not too pleasing for John either... ('There's a good drummer in Manchester') whenever Lennon felt threatened as he saw it he came out with guns blazing - as he did later in turn to Paul re 'How Do You Sleep' Lennon knew how strong The Hollies were musically and vocally both in the studio and in concerts - they nailed 'Bus Stop' in less than an hour while 'Anthology' shows us how often it was John who went wrong in the studio (and live - often on his OWN lyrics too !) - so maybe some element of jealousy was also there too as the Liverpool scene had happily accepted The Hollies as the new 'resident group' at the Cavern Club (where Terry in The Escorts likely first met them) and that same Liverpool crowd had a fair number who never forgave The Beatles for both sacking Pete Best...then deserting them for re-locating down south to London (a most serious crime in some Northerners eyes) These factors probably were why Lennon was so 'Anti Hollies' in those days - later I think he grew up a bit and he did praise up 'Hey Willy' in 1971 whilst a few times 'namedropping' The Hollies even in his Andy Peebles interview just before his death in December 1980 With no disrespect to Gee (or to Stranger), I can't seriously believe that John saw the Hollies as a 'threat' or that he was in any way jealous of their talent. For whatever reason, it seems people all too often take any random word or tidbit that he ever once said about another band, and if it's in any way negative, they chalk it up to some sort of resentment or jealousy (so many weird narratives like this to make each of the Beatles as people very two-dimensional?). How can we infer that, not unlike anybody else, he just had a personal opinion? I don't see why maybe he just didn't like them and it's just his two cents (at the time, at least.) There is no doubt that the Hollies are a very under-appreciated group, both in their heyday and today, but I can see how to some of their peers who had a bit more 'emotion' showing off and 'swing' put into their groove of the music, that the Hollies might have come across as a bit cut-and-dry (or as George put it, like 'session musicians'). The Hollies certainly never helped their own case by, at least publicly, seeming more interested in following the money and going for pints afterwards, rather than being in it explicitly for the sake of making music (with the exception of Graham at least, and he certainly followed his own heart in order to continue that, for better or worse...). Not in the least proven from the very beginning, with Tony requiring a large paycheck in order to even join the group. I don't dispute that they love what they did/do as musicians, but it seems fair to say they looked at the business and the times differently from many of their more 'in-touch' contemporaries. The Hollies were definitely set up to fall into various traps of expectations, but they also deliberately played into them at their own cost - going quite 'mainstream' with Jennifer Eccles and Listen To Me, returning to the matching suits, and the countless and unnecessary ballads in the 70s... I know this has been discussed to various extents ad nauseum, but it is true that unlike the Fabs who transcended stylistic and cultural changes with relative ease, the H had a much harder time making it around the corner and it proved detrimental to them. With these observations in mind, I honestly can't think that the Beatles, in a few ways, didn't even see the Hollies as being true 'contemporaries' of theirs. By 1966 they became more of a 'thinking man's' group while still being lovable pop stars, whereas the Hollies never quite got there (but for Graham), which makes it no surprise he was the one member of the group who ended up at the Our World taping with the Beatles and friends on 25 June of '67... being honest, I don't think there was much for the Beatles or any particular member of the band to be jealous of the Hollies for - they too had their own reliable songwriting partnerships, and were quite capable at all of their respective instruments (as well as the ones they didn't typically play) and were a strong, stable unit as a group (until it wasn't, but we can say that about anything!). What the Beatles may have lacked in instrumental precision that the Hollies had, they made up for with feel. As far as the vocals go, it seems preposterous to assume John (or the others) would want to try and sound like Allan - with all the very worthy and due respect of Allan as a vocalist, John in particular was an extremely impressive singer (with both high and low ability), and was able to switch between both very gentle singing and the great gritty style of the bluesmen and R&B vocalists those English guys admired growing up. I couldn't imagine anyone in the Hollies being able to sing something like 'Yer Blues,' especially with as grungy of a sound John gets on it. Like those early and important bluesmen, he was able to translate that emotional pain into his singing, and it makes his voice and performances quite entrancing and exhilarating. The Hollies, and certainly Allan, are all great singers, but the various range John could demonstrate in many ways is more multi-faceted than the Hollies. That's by the same token that I feel Peter Howarth's subtle and breathier voice can't carry many of those great Hollies songs the way Allan did (or Carl Wayne for that matter) - both of whom had more 'soaring' voices. I really do mean this in a kind way, but this just seems like comparing apples and oranges... Grasping at hyperbolic straws to insinuate John or the Beatles would/could be "jealous" of the Hollies or their talents by trying to read into their personalities (which is never truly unbiased anyways) is rather unnecessary and lacks merit to back up such a dubious claim... Funny this all started over a cover of a George composition anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Aug 14, 2022 11:05:04 GMT
MadProfessorblyth - good summary and I think you are probably right. I personally get annoyed by the overly obsessive Beatles-mythologising and Lennon's bouts of hypocrisy so I've probably come up with an irrational enough theory on my own side! I still can't help feeling the Hollies did several things better than the Beatles, they just weren't anything like the creative force. I still stand by Clarke being the better singer though!
I kind of read Gee's post on The Hollies songwriting as sort of revealing about what little inroads they made on that side. The record would be pretty poor were it not for Two Yanks In London and wasn't that all credited to Ransford anyway?
I don't think it detracts from the band though, they wrote perfectly well for themselves and I don't think the function of those sorts of groups was really to become writers for others. It just so happened that the Beatles did and produced a ton of standards. As great a writing unit as the Kinks were, did they write many hit singles for others? I don't think not being covered a lot diminishes their talent. As far as I can see, it is the "songwriters" like Dylan, Lightfoot, Kristofferson who tend to get covered by all an sundry.
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Aug 15, 2022 14:04:49 GMT
I never understood at all why George took umbrage at it. Marmalade later had a singles 'hit' covering The Beatles' Obladi-oblada, and The Silkie with You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, and there were others... at least they were on the same label with The Hollies and had met them, not sure about some of the others. Marmalade's version of Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is a much better version than the Beatles' own version, IMO.... It was quite a big hit for them, here in NL, peaking at #4.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Aug 15, 2022 18:00:58 GMT
I never understood at all why George took umbrage at it. Marmalade later had a singles 'hit' covering The Beatles' Obladi-oblada, and The Silkie with You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, and there were others... at least they were on the same label with The Hollies and had met them, not sure about some of the others. Marmalade's version of Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is a much better version than the Beatles' own version, IMO.... It was quite a big hit for them, here in NL, peaking at #4. Dean Ford was a better singer than the Beatles too...
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 15, 2022 21:57:36 GMT
John saw a 'threat' even when there in reality was none to worry about
The Hollies successfully becoming the resident band at the Cavern Club - and the fact some Liverpudlians never forgave The Beatles for 'deserting them' for the South by relocating down to London WOULD have 'rankled' - Lennon sneered at those Liverpool folk as 'those who never bothered to come and see us anyway...'
which was NOT true just a 'blanket' attack on his hometown people for not being happy with The Beatles
John knew The Hollies had great consistency as hit single makers - they got the UK press tag as 'The Group's group' and 'Britain's answer to The Beach Boys'(re the vocal harmony work) and that likely would have 'miffed' John, while they worked far faster than he did in the studio and as a live band over 1965-66 The Hollies like The Stones and Kinks went from strength to strength....while The Beatles both John and George knew were struggling to play well onstage, both due to more complex music but also the screaming had left them unable to keep as tight a band as they earlier had been - 'Nowhere Man' in Germany and those live Japanese songs show a group not at their strongest or tightest onstage...
John disliked The Rolling Stones and The Kinks great popularity too - hence his testy remarks to Ray Davies in Blackpool - where Ray gave him back as good as he got...!
John also didn't like the sudden massive popularity of singer Tom Jones, who besides having massive hits also had grown women throwing their underwear onstage at Tom - while John had young teenage girls screaming away...hence his insulting Tom....and having to run and lock himself in his dressing room when an irate Jones came after him...!
John dismissed The Seekers too....his 'acidic' put downs were really borne out of his own insecurity as obviously he did not have to worry about any 'competition' - yet he did and years later his grabbing a pig in the photo inside the 'Imagine' album to have a dig at Paul doing so on 'Ram' cover photo only serves to prove how petty John could be
|
|
|
Post by madprofessorblyth on Aug 16, 2022 1:12:01 GMT
John saw a 'threat' even when there in reality was none to worry about The Hollies successfully becoming the resident band at the Cavern Club - and the fact some Liverpudlians never forgave The Beatles for 'deserting them' for the South by relocating down to London WOULD have 'rankled' - Lennon sneered at those Liverpool folk as 'those who never bothered to come and see us anyway...' which was NOT true just a 'blanket' attack on his hometown people for not being happy with The Beatles John knew The Hollies had great consistency as hit single makers - they got the UK press tag as 'The Group's group' and 'Britain's answer to The Beach Boys'(re the vocal harmony work) and that likely would have 'miffed' John, while they worked far faster than he did in the studio and as a live band over 1965-66 The Hollies like The Stones and Kinks went from strength to strength....while The Beatles both John and George knew were struggling to play well onstage, both due to more complex music but also the screaming had left them unable to keep as tight a band as they earlier had been - 'Nowhere Man' in Germany and those live Japanese songs show a group not at their strongest or tightest onstage... John disliked The Rolling Stones and The Kinks great popularity too - hence his testy remarks to Ray Davies in Blackpool - where Ray gave him back as good as he got...! John also didn't like the sudden massive popularity of singer Tom Jones, who besides having massive hits also had grown women throwing their underwear onstage at Tom - while John had young teenage girls screaming away...hence his insulting Tom....and having to run and lock himself in his dressing room when an irate Jones came after him...! John dismissed The Seekers too....his 'acidic' put downs were really borne out of his own insecurity as obviously he did not have to worry about any 'competition' - yet he did and years later his grabbing a pig in the photo inside the 'Imagine' album to have a dig at Paul doing so on 'Ram' cover photo only serves to prove how petty John could be With all due respect, I still don't think a 'threat' or perceived insecurity is at blame here... to say something, for example, like press tags of the Hollies "likely would have miffed" him is still conjecture, and I doubt studio time in comparison to contemporary groups was something any of the Fabs were thinking about, rather than focusing on the songs and completing them... The '66 Beatles do seem out of it on stage from many recordings we have, but I don't think that was a lack of skill but rather their general weariness and legitimate mental/physical tiredness (and J & G both said they were the two most bored and exhausted by the whole ordeal) Additionally, in references to both Ray Davies and Tom Jones (funnily enough, two others who often had a lot to say about their peers and were equally blunt in doing so) - John and Ray did have a difficult beginning (though I think Ray, also being a proud and insecure songwriter, might have taken John's comment a little beyond what it was...) but many sources (including Ray himself in his first book) say John loved 'Wonderboy', and the two of them actually became quite friendly in 1980 during the brief spell Ray lived in New York City like John did, and they often saw each other in Central Park - Ray actually saw Yoko during a walk he took the day before John's death. Interestingly, as it's often under-reported, Ray has attributed hearing the Beatles' version of Twist & Shout as the key motivator for him to become more of a 'rocker' and write music in that vein for the embryonic Kinks, and surely that served them very well in the end...! (And ironically, the Kinks only recorded Long Tall Sally at the behest of their then-managers as the Beatles did it live often but hadn't recorded or released a studio version yet - much in the same way the Swinging Blue Jeans did with Hippy Hippy Shake - though the SBJs knew well to copy the Beatles' arrangement to a tee, unlike the Kinks' bizarre LTS...) According to Tom Jones himself, that meeting between he and John first occurred on the set of Thank Your Lucky Stars during rehearsals and wasn't as severe as your description... he indicates that John said 'how are ya' with an insult in a jokey way, to which Tom responded with an equal one, though was quickly told by Gordon Mills that it was merely John's sense of humour, that Tom later confirmed - "which it was" - and that was it... and they did become friends, showing up together throughout the 70s and were also together in concert in April 1975 for the 'Salute to Sir Lew Grade' which they both performed at, and which was John's final public performance... It would be no surprise if John legitimately resented the Stones, as they had good educations and came from good London backgrounds, but had a very bluesy, dark and dangerous image - while John who came from a rougher town and had a much tougher and difficult childhood was presented in a lighthearted, boy-next-door fashion - which wasn't quite untrue, but wasn't legitimately who he or the other Beatles were in completeness (this is highly exemplified when John confided in Paul that he wasn't happy they had hired Epstein as manager when Brian said they'd be wearing the suits, as he felt that wearing them would be 'selling out' to who they really were as people) I also don't believe the 'Ram' response photo was petty nor out of insecurity, but rather actually a funny albeit pointed nod, which obviously sent a legitimate statement to Paul as well as to fans (who then interpreted it their own way...) Considering how well Macca's first album sold (and its reviews), there indeed was nothing to worry about, and despite the public drama (much of which was, and still is, blown out of proportion), I don't think he wanted to see his friend and long-time partner fail... few people like to acknowledge or remember that John actually went on the record in multiple instances saying how much he liked 'Red Rose Speedway' and that he felt it was a step up from 'Wild Life' which he also liked - and when asked, still said that Paul was his best friend...! For relevance and context, in a letter sent to Paul (and sent to Melody Maker) in November 1971, John says: "No hard feelings to you either. I know we basically want the same [outcome], and as I said on the phone and in this letter, all you have to do is call." There is no doubt that John like anyone else might had many large moments of insecurity, but to broadly assume that any single comment (throwaway or otherwise) was a direct result of that and nothing else doesn't accurately serve John, the historical record, or the truth... These were all proud and talented guys in their early 20s in a highly artistic and extremely competitive field, and it just seems silly (especially so many years after the fact) to take these little things so seriously... (We're all still dealing with John vs. Paul, when they themselves settled it 49 years ago now?) Sorry for another long post that isn't relevant to the Hollies too much !
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 16, 2022 13:37:34 GMT
Kind of funny that so many talk of 20-somethings today as if they are immature kids while thinking 20-somethings in the past weren't as well.
They were kids too. In an unusual and stressful situation for which none of them had a template to follow. They did and said silly thing which happened to end up in the press or passed on as legend.
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Aug 17, 2022 1:16:16 GMT
Marmalade's version of Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is a much better version than the Beatles' own version, IMO.... It was quite a big hit for them, here in NL, peaking at #4. I rarely go against an originating artist's own versions, and as much as I do rate Marmalade (and The Hollies) highly, I'd put The Beatles' full studio productions on their LP at the top. There are some Beatles recordings where they did only a demo, and there the released cover by another artist does seem the best usually. I am fond of having both though, like that Metamorphosis LP by The Rolling Stones as well as the other artists' covers that came out at the time. I much prefer Shocking Blue's Love Buzz to Nirvana's later cover as well, but I do keep both.
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Aug 17, 2022 13:38:16 GMT
Marmalade's version of Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da is a much better version than the Beatles' own version, IMO.... It was quite a big hit for them, here in NL, peaking at #4. I rarely go against an originating artist's own versions, and as much as I do rate Marmalade (and The Hollies) highly, I'd put The Beatles' full studio productions on their LP at the top. There are some Beatles recordings where they did only a demo, and there the released cover by another artist does seem the best usually. I am fond of having both though, like that Metamorphosis LP by The Rolling Stones as well as the other artists' covers that came out at the time. I much prefer Shocking Blue's Love Buzz to Nirvana's later cover as well, but I do keep both. I rarely go against an original version as well, but I find The Marmalade's version much livelier. And though I do like what Joe Cocker did with 'With A Little Help From My Friends' and 'She Came In Through The Bathroom Window' I prefer The Beatles' own versions. I must admit I have never heard Nirvana's version of 'Love Buzz', but, as a Dutchie, I am very familiar with Shocking Blue...
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Aug 22, 2022 18:16:51 GMT
I rarely go against an originating artist's own versions, and as much as I do rate Marmalade (and The Hollies) highly, I'd put The Beatles' full studio productions on their LP at the top. There are some Beatles recordings where they did only a demo, and there the released cover by another artist does seem the best usually. I am fond of having both though, like that Metamorphosis LP by The Rolling Stones as well as the other artists' covers that came out at the time. I much prefer Shocking Blue's Love Buzz to Nirvana's later cover as well, but I do keep both. I rarely go against an original version as well, but I find The Marmalade's version much livelier. And though I do like what Joe Cocker did with 'With A Little Help From My Friends' and 'She Came In Through The Bathroom Window' I prefer The Beatles' own versions. I must admit I have never heard Nirvana's version of 'Love Buzz', but, as a Dutchie, I am very familiar with Shocking Blue... And now I HAVE heard Nirvana's version. It's not bad but yeah.... Shocking Blue had Mariska Veres...
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Aug 24, 2022 8:41:37 GMT
Back to the original part of this topic. My understanding of this track is that it was recorded on 4 track with 1 track used for rhythm and 2 tracks used for vocals. It seems that is was normal for the Hollies to record vocals on 2 of the tracks actually doubling themselves. (Listen to the mix on Furmanek's 30th Anniversary set, vocals either side and instruments in Centre). I also believe it was done it 3 takes. 1 a false start and 2 finished takes. That is a pretty good reason for it appearing rushed. It was done in a session on on November 17 with Running Through The Night and Don't Even think About Changing (both only 1 take). It sure was a rushed session.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 24, 2022 11:14:30 GMT
Back to the original part of this topic. My understanding of this track is that it was recorded on 4 track with 1 track used for rhythm and 2 tracks used for vocals. It seems that is was normal for the Hollies to record vocals on 2 of the tracks actually doubling themselves. (Listen to the mix on Furmanek's 30th Anniversary set, vocals either side and instruments in Centre). I also believe it was done it 3 takes. 1 a false start and 2 finished takes. That is a pretty good reason for it appearing rushed. It was done in a session on on November 17 with Running Through The Night and Don't Even think About Changing (both only 1 take). It sure was a rushed session. I wouldn't say it was a rushed session as 3 tracks in 3 hour sessions was still pretty much the norm at Abbey Road. Sure, The Beatles were by then changing the routines as they were getting into all night sessions as they raced to write and record "Rubber Soul" but Ron Richards would still have been insistent upon following the established rule. That definitely changed over the next couple of years as experimentation with 4 track and overdubbing became more commonplace plus I think their exclusive agreement with EMI under "Hollies Ltd" meant that the band were then paying for their sessions as opposed to EMI so could afford to spend more time focusing on certain songs. I also think The Hollies would have been rehearsed before going into Abbey Road since if they weren't, that would have eaten up precious studio time. The Beatles' take was finished on 18th October and mixed to mono on the 25th after which it would have been "available" for Ron Richards and The Hollies to get their hands on it. I suspect it was a similar situation to when The Beatles did "How Do You Do It?" - they had reluctantly rehearsed it beforehand but merely did a competent uninterested recording simply to appease George Martin who got the message and scrapped it. Ron Richards thought they'd get a hit, pushed them to do it and it backfired. Could have been worse - consider The Swinging Blue Jeans and their relationship with Wally J.Ridley. Ridley would get them recording 3 songs or more at each session and in late 1966 came a disaster as he had sent them an acetate featuring 2 songs. They liked one of them, learnt it and dismissed the other song. They went in Abbey Road and began playing the song only for Ridley to halt them and informed them they had learnt the WRONG track and it was the song they hated that he wanted to record so they were forced to learn and rehearse that song quickly on the spot. That was "Rumours, Gossip, Words Untrue", possibly their worst single to date and one they loathed.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Aug 25, 2022 13:21:29 GMT
My "It sure was a rushed session" was meant in a sarcastic way. What, they actually recorded 5 takes (including 1 false start) lasting less than 10 minutes, across the 3 tracks recorded on that session. I do agree that The Hollies were most likely well rehearsed for those tracks but 10 minutes of recording. If they were in the studio for 3 hours they sure paid for a lot of wasted time. Just maybe they worked the tracks up in the studio before attempting to record each one.
I seems common knowledge that the band went into the studio well rehearsed prior to their recording sessions. Anyone got any clues where they may have done that early preparation prior to recording?
|
|