The trouble with The Hollies' story is that there are the facts and there are the opinions, which vary wildly. Speculation plays in as well, so how can there be a definitive story laid out when, on one hand you have people who denigrate the Rickfors era for instance, and others like myself who feel this was the best era. Like Rick Nelson sang, "You can't please everyone...."
I see Brian Southall also got it wrong re 'Would You Believe ?' album - on page 90 he states the UK album had NO hits on it....well my copy ends with 'I Can't Let Go' (No. 2 in the UK)...
A balanced overview giving some time to ALL eras of the group's history is what is required
Obviously their 'heyday' as a hit singles making band, with charting albums (1963-74) would be the chief part of any Hollies book - a most interesting period in music history in general thus in itself the main focus of any 'sixties' band's career
That said focus on the 'next phase' of a long running band's career is also of interest - in The Hollies case they continued making regular albums up to 1980, then still released singles thereafter (albeit more sporadic releases) plus some later albums too so the reunion with Nash, the 'latter' Clarke years, Carl Wayne's era as frontman & the current Hollies fronted by Peter Howarth also deserve some scrutiny beyond a brief mention or paragraph (Carl Wayne 'saved' the band as a ongoing concert attraction)
The 'Rickfors' Hollies plus the solo albums of each member deserve proper focus too beyond just a couple of pages or a quick mention...(maybe Brian Southall was limited re his book size ?)
for me the irony re The Mike Rickfors version of The Hollies is that a Massive USA hit probably was something of an 'albatross' hung around their necks...as LCW reminded everybody of the Clarke led Hollies and thus the wider public found it even harder to accept The Rickfors version (who were completely different)while it did the Rickfors band no favors at all - Terry had to sing it (unfairly making Mike look 'less than' as a frontman in some people's eyes)
also the 'shadow' of the Nash years was hanging over the group too - no problem when Clarke was there BUT by 1972 for the Rickfors band it was another millstone around their necks...
would say Wings when in their seventies heyday have been required to sing; 'Please Please Me' or 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' as The Rickfors Hollies had to sing sixties hits; 'Bus Stop' & 'Carrie Anne' etc ?
when they were still rehearsing and getting their new act together they suddenly got the unexpected USA tour offer on the back of LCW and LDR (both sung by Allan Clarke) charting in the USA thus as Terry Sylvester said:
'the Americans wanted Allan..and we just didn't sound like that anymore...'
Polydor / Epic didn't help by NOT releasing 'If it Wasn't For The Reason...' or later 'Witchy Woman' (both were potential hits) and besides some USA and European TV shows they 'vanished' after 'The Baby' (a UK top thirty hit) as far as Britain and most countries were concerned
Mike's language problems lengthened studio recording times (and costs) - The Hollies were normally fast workers in the studio - and we know Ron Richards was at odds with them re 'Romany'
they obviously wanted to move towards a more album orientated approach doing acoustic singer/songwriter and electric rock tracks (similar to CSNY, The Eagles, America, etc) but like Marvin Welch & Farrar also found at the same time the 'shadow' of a famous hit making earlier incarnation proved so hard to escape
In this new book Mike Rickfors is quoted as saying he'd have stayed IF they had done 'bluesier' material (I believe Hicks actually asked him to drop out when Clarke agreed to return - another error in my opinion) I've said before Hicks ought to have accepted Clarke's tour offer BUT on the one condition Mike Rickfors remain as co-lead singer/co-frontman, which Clarke at that time very likely would have had to accept...
Mike would have overcome his language issues of course & we can see from OOTR he was getting more confident & writing more strong material for the band, and certainly there's no question the music they made over 1972-73 was quite excellent - tho' maybe 'Magic Woman Touch' was not the right song to use as the follow up single to 'The Baby'? (shades of 'Son of A Rotten Gambler' after 'The Air That I Breathe' two years later)
Clarke COULD have slotted into the more album orientated Hollies band (still doing his solo albums too) and they could have moved towards a CSNY / Eagles type album styled music rather than just doing pop and pop/rock - some pop and pop/rock songs could have still had a place so 'Air That I Breathe' might still have been cut, but overall they would have been more of a contemporary outfit and thus over time less of a nostalgia act...
but that's hindsight of course, which is so easy to have...
whatever, a more in depth book(s) on The Hollies in the future hopefully will look at each of their eras in more depth giving lesser covered periods and albums more attention..
Ordered my copy from Amazon, hopefully it will be here tomorrow. As my interest is chiefly in the Nash years, I suspect I'll find the book more satisfactory than most.
I've always thought that the Hollies should have listened to Allan Clarke and done most of the material that he issued as a solo artist. Most of it is great, especially later on when the Hollies albums were slipping into bland ballads and Allan was proving that he could still rock. Stuff like 'Born To Run' (HAD the Hollies got there first, but due to a strike at Allan's record company, his version crept out after Bruce Springsteen's, making it look like a cover. Even though it was recorded MONTHS before), 'Slipstream' and 'Don't You Let Me Down Again' (which I always think is 'Distant Light-esque') - these had more hit single appeal than most of their post-1974 singles.
I believe after their disagreements with Graham in 1968 over the Dylan album, the Hollies had their eye firmly on commercial success (hence 'Jennifer Eccles', 'Sorry Suzanne' etc...) and when their surprise departure in sound with 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother' paid off no end, they got too stuck on the commercial bandwagon. Graham said once that in the early days, Ron Richards and the band didn't care what they played, so long as it felt good to play and sounded good to them. I think they lost that ideal and got too tapped into commercial success that it inevitably did them more harm than good. They no longer took risks. Some of the best hit songs ever recorded were either accidents or surprise hits after taking a risk in releasing them. Look at Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody that everyone said wouldn't work as a single as it was too complicated and long, Procol Harum's Whiter Shade Of Pale that was rush written and hashed together in the studio and even the Righteous Brothers' You've Lost That Loving Feeling that even Phil Spector didn't like and said it "sounded like the record player was broken at the start". There is no 'recipe for success'.
I don't think the hierarchy of members helped either. It became "Graham, Allan, Tony & Bobby's Band" after Eric left, "Allan, Tony & Bobby's Band" after Graham left and then "Tony and Bobby's Band" after Allan left. And this left Bernie and Terry out on a limb somewhat (which I believe was their main reason for both walking out having put up with it for so long) and also Allan reported to have less of a say once he'd left and re-joined. Allan was right, internally, after Graham left, it WAS the start of the disintegration of the band. It became about making money, not music. Further evidence of this is on their 1990's Buddy Holly compilation album with Nash; Tony and Bobby did the arrangements, even though it was all Graham's (and somewhat Allan's) idea.
Back to the point of this post - for me, the book was too factual (with some errors, as have already been pointed out) and rather "safe". Books are allowed to convey an opinion and stake a claim - much like Graham's "Wild Tales" - it's his version of events as he remembers it. There's no 100% factual way of recounting history, lots of opinions add together to give you an overall picture. I'd rather the book have conflicting opinions from band members so that us as individuals and fans can take from it what we want. I've read half of the book and don't feel overly compelled to read the rest of it like I was with Graham's gripping autobiography.
What exactly does the band have to hide? I notice from the sample pages viewable on Amazon that Allan Clarke wasn't cooperative in the slightest. I may buy the book in time, but as I said before, the initial reaction from folk on here doesn't fill me with much anticipation. I really cannot believe Bernie Calvert couldn't be tracked down - there's a website of a recent collaboration he made with another local musician etc etc. No perseverance on the part of the author, perhaps?
I did chance upon the fact that a Bread biography has been published, and have bought that. It seems to be getting excellent reviews, is thorough and authoritative.
I think the problem with Bernie is that he's "off the radar". I believe the author is American, so it's hard and expensive for him to keep ringing around the UK to try and track people down. Terry Sylvester always wants paying for his time and interviews, Tony and Bobby can be contacted directly through the Hollies management on their website, same for Graham, his managers 'The Millers' are most co-operative - if anything, Allan is the hard one to track down.
I finished reading the book last night, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it, far far better than I thought it would be after reading some of the negative comments on here. However, it’s not beyond criticism.
There are a number of factual errors. Most have already been mentioned, but a couple of more examples are his claim that ‘After The Fox’ wasn’t released as a single in the UK and ‘Do The Best You Can’ supposedly being from ‘Butterfly’.
More often mistakes are down to poor proof reading & sloppy writing. A good example is during the introduction: he recalls first meeting Allan Clarke backstage in 1965 when he (the author) was a 17 year old reporter, and then says he didn’t meet him again “until 20 years later” when Allan was promoting his ‘I’ve Got Time’ album in 1976! Another silly mistake is the claim that the proposed follow-up to ‘Butterfly’ was started in March 1967 (he obviously means 1968). There are several similar errors throughout the book.
The good points far out weigh the bad though. The lack of new interviews with band members is hardly noticeable, as he uses old (often undated) quotes liberally throughout the book. Many will be familiar but many (at least to me) are not, for example Bernie’s opinion on ‘Evolution’ and Mama Cass.
It seems that Allan DID answer a few questions by the author in 2014 (I suspect by email or letter), but he also made clear that he would NOT give his opinion on various band members and managers. Fair enough really; I wouldn’t want him to lie, and the last thing anyone wants is a public slanging match between him and Terry, Eric, etc.
There are also many quotes from various managers and friends, as well as other musicians such as drummer Pete York and both Steve and Muff Winwood talking about an early 1967 tour The Hollies did with Spencer Davis Group. It’s this that makes the book far more than “a lengthy Wikipedia article”. I’d compare it more to a lengthy Record Collector article.
It does concentrate mostly on the original Nash era (about two thirds of the book), but every album and most singles after this are also mentioned, as well as key events. I know some people would prefer a more evenly balanced book and no doubt it IS possible to write as many words about the Sylvester era as it is the Nash, but in later years this would be pretty much impossible (let’s be honest, what happened throughout the ‘90s apart from a few tours, a couple of singles and Allan losing his voice?).
I did learn a few new things. Paul Simon being upset over The Hollies changing a word in ‘I Am A Rock’, Eric nearly replacing Pete Quaife in The Kinks, Allan guesting on Paul McCartney and Wings’ 1973 ‘Red Rose Speedway’ album, part of the reason Terry quitting being because Allan didn’t want to perform live anymore (really?!)… all interesting stuff.
Someone mentioned that the author wanted the 1963 – 1966 line-up to reunite, but this is actually Eric Haydock’s pipedream (a world tour no less!).
As well as correcting the errors and perhaps expanding a little more on the post-Nash years, the main things that would improve the book is a little more author’s opinion on the music rather than just telling us who produced and wrote the songs and how high they got in the charts. But overall I’d still give it 4 out of 5. Recommended!
I agree Brian Southall has done a pretty good job bearing in mind quite a number of key backroom figures are now gone, and that Tony, Bobby & Terry don't contribute while Clarkey's input is very limited
- as Peter says a proper 'proof read' would have ironed out alot of the silly errors (Peter duly spotting some more !)
- the publisher at Red Planet books tells me there will be a second publishing soon and all the points we raised will be passed onto Brian for correction (I mentioned a UK discography including solo records by key members, & a 'Rock Family tree' of Hollies line ups would be a big plus too)
I'd heard Eric was considered for The Kinks - also Ex-Searchers bass player Tony Jackson once said he 'expected The Hollies to be calling him in 1966' (tho' I think Tony's volatile temprament and higher profile might have put them off - Bernie was quiet, unassuming and an old mate from 'Dolphin Days' who also played keyboards too)
They nearly got in Mike Gregory of The Escorts (who was in The Swinging Blue Jeans later) on bass after Klaus Voormann took Manfred's better offer....
as Peter says you would like Brian to have expanded a bit more re their story, their albums & their music in general (much more could be said re every 'era' of the band's music), plus made more mention of their overall story in greater depth - no mention is made here of them appearing in the film; 'It's All Over Town' or re Bobby's illness in 1967 where John 'Mitch' Mitchell from Jimi Hendrix Experience deputised on 'Kill Me Quick' / 'We're Alive' etc - or Graham singing on The Scaffold's 'Lily The Pink' chart topper (and appearing on Mike McGear's solo album), Tony being a backstage guest of The Rolling Stones at their Hyde Park concert in 1969, even latter things like Rod Argent guesting on 'Star', Paul & Linda McCartney loaning them their synth' for 'Another Night' etc
the business side of things is skipped over a bit, no real reference to their ground breaking 'leasing back' deal with EMI in 1966 (hence: 'A Hollies Recording') while there was a bit more to Eric's departure (I sensed Brian didn't want to upset his only interview !) - there were tales re Eric thinking the band was being 'ripped off' (?) and about him supposedly then being seen out at restaurants while signed 'off sick' etc - while there was more to Eric's not being on 'What Goes Around..' in 1983 I've heard...
Also Clarkey's personal problems (that affected the band twice - in 1969 and 1978-79) and his exit in 1971, plus Mike Rickfors departure in 1973 and Terry & Bernie's in 1981 are all 'glossed over' to a great extent tho' perhaps somewhat understandably.
there was a good bit more that might have gone in - maybe a deeper look at their BBC recordings etc - but then maybe Brian had a limited amount of pages for his book (?)
There could have been mention made of Eric Clapton praising Tony's guitarwork on 'The Air That I Breathe' saying he wished HE'D played that intro...or of Jimi Hendrix being so impressed with photographer Karl Ferris cover shot on 'Evolution' he got Karl to do the American cover photos on 'Are You Experienced ?' nor that Pete Ham originally named his group Badfinger 'The Iveys' in salute to Pete's own fav vocal harmony group The Hollies....(Pete had them sing 'Just One Look' until they got their vocal harmonies as tight as The Hollies version)
...or re the use of LCW in several TV shows and 'Jesus was A Crossmaker' in the film 'Elizabethtown' etc...
Kenny Everett made 'Evolution' his radio album of the week in June 1967...and Noel Edmonds did likewise on his Radio One show re 'Write On' in 1976...
Hopefully a follow up printing will put right all the 'silly' errors as the overall book itself is well researched and presented in a good readable style by Brian.
I've just finished the book after reading it in depth and here's my final thoughts:
The book is very "safe" - as people have pointed out, like a Wikipedia article. No secrets about the band (and there are LOTS) are divulged and the author tries to neutralise or distance himself from any outlandish comments made throughout the book (usually by Eric Haydock). All the Hollies interviews are all taken from old NME magazines which have been recirculating for years and a few more recent pieces. The only new material is from Eric Haydock, a bit from Graham Nash (but nothing new) and an archive interview that he did with Tony in 1981. All other interviews are from people who had links with the Hollies. Some are good like previous managers and close friends, some are tenuously linked and should really have been left out of the book - my personal favourite was the one from the son of Dick James who published the Hollies' own music who never met the band and his quote was all "the Hollies MIGHT have done this and MIGHT have done that..." shouldn't have bothered including it, IMO. But the ones from people closely linked with the band are what makes the book worth reading. Their first manager Michael Cohen gives a lot of stories and new anecdotes that are intriguing to read and Eric Haydock gives his "colourful" take on their early career. But there's so many events that aren't really discussed (although amazingly the circumstances behind certain members leaving are elaborated on), and I feel the book it just chatting the Hollies' Story (this happened then, and then this happened etc...) with no pause for many anecdotes and stories that are what keep you hooked when reading a biography.
I think the author did well when you factor in that he had so little to go on. But reading the book you feel that he was clutching at straws by listing chart positions of various singles all over the world, exact dates of certain concerts and their location and even he elaborates on the exact date of certain quotes of the NME magazines that he pulls quotes from. It all smacks of "filling out the book". No details of tracks/albums are really discussed other than the hit singles and gems such as Evolution and Butterfly are merely mentioned in passing which is a big shame. There's also just TWO pages on the entire Rickfors Era and the book certainly gets very thin on the ground by the time he gets to around 1970. As others have pointed out, there's quite a few errors that a read from a "Hollie-Holick" before printing would have rectified.
IMO, it's an interesting read just to read the their story and get a better idea of when their singles and albums came out as he frequently compares them to what was being released at the time, again, filling the book out but it is interesting at least. However, if you're a die-hard fan like myself, you'll know pretty much everything in the book anyway and there's a lot more stories and information available on the Elevated Observations forum. For me, the WORST part of the book is that Bobby, Terry, Tony and Alan declined to be interviewed! Furthering their terrible PR skills that plagued the Hollies career since Graham left. Even Graham, as busy as he is promoting his book and a CSN tour and his photography exhibition took the time out to be interviewed. Come on guys, you're never above any project that promotes your band. This book without doubt will cause people to go out and buy their music and they should have got involved.
I forget where I read it, but Allan Clarke was talking about fame and said that he had told his grandson to go into music for the love of the music, not to become famous. He said that he and The Hollies were lucky to have been in the right places, at the right times, that fame had somehow just happened, and that they had had to do virtually nothing. I think that says a lot about why his solo career never took off, and why we saw so few articles or much publicity about them here in the States. Does he forget that Graham would speak up (and still does) anytime he was given the chance? It isn't just Allan who seems to have been under the false impression that fame "just happened," but, apparently, Tony, Bobby, their manager(s) and others within their organization as well. Could that be part of the reason why they didn't contribute anything to the writing of this book? They think they never had to do anything before, why should they now?
Hi Jan - thanks for your post and welcome to the forum! Great to have new members with strong opinions - the more the merrier! Yes all good points - there has always been a lasseiz faire attitude by The Hollies to publicity - they've always just let their music speak for them. And - sadly for us eager to hear all their tales - that's just the way they've always liked it. Consequently, they have frequently been their own worst enemy. Frankly though, they don't care about their legacy in that way - aside from Nash, the band individually has never had any especially charismatic members (Rickfors possibly the exception...if he'd stuck around and built up his confidence to start speaking...and we can't count Pete Wingfield as a proper member!)so we are left with a bunch of unassuming guys that let their singles chart history do the talking.
Graham was always interested in playing the showbiz game, the others not.
Please don't be a stranger here - we'd love for you and other people thinking of joining Elevated Observations to keep coming back and giving us your Hollies thoughts, warts and all! cheers Simon
Thank you for the welcome, Simon. I appreciate it. As I've shared in The Hollies Group, on Facebook, I became reacquainted with The Hollies nearly 4 yrs. ago, when I first saw "Look Through Any Window", and got hooked all over again. I love that this site has so much information on it, and that so many of those I sometimes refer to as "Hollies experts" have shared so much! I also like that it contains so much serious discussion of the band. Great stuff! Thanks, again, for the warm welcome!
DUH! I'm such a dolt sometimes. Thank you, also, for answering my questions! That the guys were unassuming and allowed the music to speak for itself was one of the impressions I've had of them. I'm sure that they, just like everyone else, can be somewhat complex, and not always what we have heard about.
NEVER can there have been such a paradox of a major group as The Hollies - world famous for decades, mates with the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Everly Brothers, and despite an early 'issue' they were soon friends with The Beatles, and got a standing ovation from Barry & Robin Gibb (no doubt Maurice too 'in spirit') at their Hall of Fame induction...
a band whose guitarist Eric Clapton admired (for 'The Air That I Breathe'),
whose 'Evolution' cover Jimi Hendrix so loved...(getting photographer Karl Ferris to do his 'Are You Experienced ?' USA cover)
whom Pete Ham orginally named 'Badfinger' as 'The Iveys' in direct salute to (his fav vocal harmony group)
whom Brian Wilson, Paul Simon, Steven Stills, Phil Collins, Paul Weller & many others have paid tribute to...
yet they besides Graham Nash (& later Carl Wayne for a few years) remain largely anonymous, NOT seeking any limelight apart from their music
I've read Allan Clarke was ANNOYED when after 'He Ain't Heavy' shot to no.1 in 1988 he found himself being recognised in his local supermarket again..!
I saw a Searchers concert at that time - they saluted The Hollies (then did 'Have You Ever Loved Somebody') but before singing it Frank Allen & John McNally said; 'did you see The Hollies on 'Top of The Pops'...didn't they look MISERABLE ? - we'd be over the moon if we were at Number one again !'
it's true too - Clarkey looked positively SAD to be at number one !
in truth both LCW in 1972 and He Ain't Heavy' in 1988 shot up the charts IN SPITE of The Hollies not thanks to them...
I can see why both Graham Nash and later Terry Sylvester each 'walked' from the band feeling 'dis-spirited' and 'frustrated' (that really can't be any co-incidence can it ?)
I suspect the Hollies from early on decided to have success on THEIR terms - hence no real venture into any films (bar 'It's All Over Town' early on when they were still establishing their name) and letting Nash do 99% of their 'PR' work for them - they chose to maintain a 'low profile' hence when Nash left it was a FAR bigger issue than it should have been for them
An eager young Terry Sylvester filled the gap perfectly but Nash's departure threw the spotlight on the visibly uneasy Clarke (sounding ill at ease & sweating at Golders Green in February 1969)
Hicks assumed band leadership/management so in all ways bar one they were fine after Nash left - the one aspect being the 'PR' job !
In 2000 Carl Wayne stood out as he was a natural 'chatty' frontman (something not seen in the Hollies since Nash's days)
in other aspects they shunned the limelight too, rarely quoted or giving interviews they drifted off UK television after 1974, and in truth were happy to just do their touring show etc...
I recall singer Lyn Paul (of The New Seekers) covered a Hollies song - 'Give Me Time' (I think) & she said; 'I really loved the Hollies...whatever happened to them ?'
which says it all....
On another forum a fan asked WHY don't The Hollies ever do anything like Glastonbury etc ? - (did Lionel Ritchie no harm !)
I think the fact is they don't want greater exposure besides just doing their show - we know Allan Clarke was wanting to stop touring in 1981 (tho' he carried on until 1999) so it seems they themselves were and still are the main reason they are not seen in a greater critical profile today compared to many 'classic' groups who actually had far LESS success than The Hollies enjoyed in the sixties and early seventies....
Things we find new, exciting and fun in our teens and twenties can become awfully tedious, and even a pain in the tush, by the time we're in our 40s and beyond. It doesn't surprise me that the band has no interest in doing more than they do now. I can understand Allan's feelings about being recognized in the market. While he shouldn't have been surprised, especially after a couple of decades of being recognized, it must get awfully old, at some point, not to be able to be out doing normal, day-to-day things. Having said that, he and the others CHOSE to live in that rock & roll world. Nothing was forced on them.
I appreciate all of the input from some veteran Hollies fans! From what I have ascertained from those that read it, and the summaries contributed by fans, no new information comes out in Southall's book. It seems like a good reference book for having a lot of basic statistics available in a small tome. For me, a relative newcomer to the Allan Clarke/Hollies fan circle, it might be nice to buy; however, I feel like I have learned more from this forum, the Hollies Facebook fan page, and the Allan Clarke Appreciation Society Facebook page. In addition, Jason Barnard had a comprehensive interview with Allan Clarke in June 2014 covering nearly 2 hours of Hollies and solo work. It can be heard at: thestrangebrew.co.uk/http:/thestrangebrew.co.uk/tag/allan-clarke If one listens between the lines, I feel extra information can be extrapolated. For instance, and I qualify that this is mere conjecture, I believe Allan scrupulously maintained a pristine public image and valued his marriage, but did enjoy some of the perks of fame, particularly in the mid-70's. I also enjoyed hearing him speak so fondly of Graham, and his current family life, like taking his grandson on a tour of Abbey Road Studios.
I appreciate all of the input from some veteran Hollies fans! From what I have ascertained from those that read it, and the summaries contributed by fans, no new information comes out in Southall's book. It seems like a good reference book for having a lot of basic statistics available in a small tome.
I consider myself a reasonably knowledgeable fan (particularly on the Nash years), but as mentioned in my review above I learnt several new things. Ignore the negativity of some people, EVERY fan of The Hollies should have this book in their collection!
Despite the fact that the author couldn't find Bernie to contact and Terry didn't respond to his request for input, Southall still manages to quote them. I wonder how he managed that.
Most of the book is a rehash of old interviews interspersed with rants from Eric Haydock. He's really bitter and twisted.
Despite the fact that the author couldn't find Bernie to contact and Terry didn't respond to his request for input, Southall still manages to quote them. I wonder how he managed that.
Most of the book is a rehash of old interviews...
You've just answered your own question.
Eric doesn't seem that bitter to me, merely honest in his opinions. If he was really bitter he wouldn't be suggesting a reunion.
David Roberts tells me that they DID track Bernie Calvert down at Calva Music (as James did) & tried to contact him but got no reply - which seems to be the standard attitude !
You would think EVERY Hollies member would be interested in a book on the band as it would raise the band's wider public profile (beyond the devoted fanbase) and with renewed wider interest they might then be in demand for PAID interviews from music magazines, music papers, & radio etc - and logically increase public interest, help boost sales of their back catalogue, and sell more concert tickets today, raise their individual profiles as artists/songwriters etc, and at the very least make them some more money....yes ?
instead (excepting Graham Nash who always seems happy to talk and STILL do the 'PR' thing for them - no changes there ! lol) most seem to want to ignore anyone asking about The Hollies career....
a very odd almost 'anti social' attitude seems to prevail, as if to become a 'Hollie' you first must sign the 'Official Secrets Act' !
'Area 51' is far better known than some aspects of The Hollies story....!
Eric Haydock appears to suffer from a 'chip on his shoulder' - as Simon pointed out for a ex-member who departed the story in early 1966 (bar the brief 'Holliedaze' reunion later & Hall of Fame show) Eric seems to have alot of opinions re events that were WAY AFTER his era in the band !
Eric's "views" re the latter Hollies years (from summer 1966 to today) are in truth about as important...as yours or mine ! (no more no less)
I have some sympathy for Eric (& Terry too) but only to an extent - Eric & Terry have both 'shot themselves in the foot' really as each either got themselves sacked or 'walked' from the group - then (I suspect) bitterly regretted at least the considerable lost earnings thereafter....(??)
I do have sympathy for Mike Rickfors who did a fine job for them in difficult circumstances and was far too hastily ousted from the band...Mike could have contributed so much more for them !
I'm not sure re Bernie's attitude now - he sounded very open, philosophical, and quite 'matter of fact' in that BBC Radio show; 'They Ain't Heavy...'that he contributed to a while back....but he might have 'moved on ' in his life and simply isn't that bothered re his old music career 'Hollie days' (?)
Tony was in truth never that 'keen' to come forward besides performing with the band (Graham Nash urged him to sing his song 'Pegasus' on 'Butterfly' in 1967 Tony himself wasn't initially expecting to !) & seems quite content now to just lead their current Hollies outfit (where over time he's had to become the main onstage audience frontman) doing just the occasional Radio or maybe DVD interview (talking to professional interviewers) - I've heard tales of Tony very quickly making an exit after concerts with just a smile & wave to eager (often female) fans...a very private individual I think !
Bobby pretty much likewise, he now gives a brief address to the audience (which fans really appreciate) and has become more of a local celebrity - which is great - but was & is always first and foremost the musician, the Hollies 'chief engineer' and of course is currently engrossed in his own book - so Bobby's (so far) lack of response is probably not surprising
Graham & Allan did contribute to varying degreees - and as stated there are quite alot of archive interviews that tell their side of the story already
I don't know much re Terry Sylvester now, besides remarks he makes on his website and talk of him doing a book too, but in not responding here Terry has passed up his chance to put in his 'pennyworth' (tho' I wonder how his relationship with The Hollies is these days given the Hall of Fame show fiasco ?)
Mike Rickfors seldom seems to want to dwell on the 1972-73 stint he had in the band (a pity) possibly Mike felt embarressed at his quick exit from the group (?) - he most certainly had NO reason to feel like that of course - but from a personal angle I could understand him perhaps after all these years now not being too keen on speaking out beyond the archive interviews & comments known
the lack of eagerness to get involved from the main Hollies members today, plus the losses of Ron Richards, Robin Britten, Peter Bown & also Carl Wayne do make it a difficult task for any author of course and to end up telling a story beyond just endless known quotes and statistics is a challenge
But at least it IS a first 'proper' book devoted to The Hollies, something I had long given up hope of ever seeing in print (!) and if it acts as a catalyst for more such books then that can hopefully draw wider public attention and critical appraisal to the band's music & career, something that for so many years has been wrongfully overlooked.
You're making far too many assumptions here. There are many reasons why people don't co-operate with authors. Maybe they weren't impressed with his previous work or didn't trust him or are helping other authors write books with others or want to keep the past behind them or are busy with family or work commitments... there are LOTS of "ifs and buts"!
I still don't find it THAT big a deal that the author didn't get to interview most band members, and some like Tony or Allan probably wouldn't give any new insights or anecdotes anyway. There's also the "problem" that it could've become an "authorised biography", never a good thing imo!
I'm sure I will be crucified for this BUT! I now think the Hollies might simply not be interesting enough to warrant a full length exhaustive biography. It might might be a story far more interestingly told in the form of a biography, from a perspective. That's why I think Eric comes across well enough, he has a point of view and makes some funny comments about people. Two bitter autobiographies from Allan and Terry would make much better reading than, "then in May Write On reached number 35 in the German charts". That's what liner notes are for.