Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 15:02:41 GMT
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. It depends what you want from a book. I would NOT want to read "bitter" autobiographies by Allan, Terry or anyone else. However, honest ones that aren't afraid to talk about the bad times as well as the good times are always welcome. There are books available on many Hellraisers who've had controversial lives (The Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis) that still manage to concentrate solely on the music they've made, and then of course there's also the tabloid style scandal books on the same people. Personally I like those that are somewhere between the two. The Hollies book falls into this category to a certain extent, though there are certainly better examples such as Philip Norman's fine (and lengthy) books on John Lennon and Mick Jagger.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jul 15, 2015 16:24:31 GMT
When so many members of The Hollies want nothing to do, or more to the point, nothing to say about their Hollies' career, you have to ask yourself why. Perhaps they don't trust the author, or more likely, they think digging up the past will lead to another pissing contest like we witnessed in the wake of the RRHOF disaster. Tellingly, it seems the relationships between former Hollies run the gamut from strained(to put it mildly) to nonexistent. To me, the great paradox of The Hollies career is this: when they were young, at a time where emotions run high and mouths run off, they seemed the happiest, most content bunch of pals there ever could be. But today, when you'd expect a bunch of septuagenarians, or near enough septuagenarians, to put aside their differences, let bygones be bygones, and embrace their proud past, I detect a wariness, even a coldness, as if discussing Hollies' memories, will inevitably open up a Pandora's box of seething grievances. It makes one wonder if things were all so hunky dory back then after all.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 15, 2015 16:26:52 GMT
I don't think I was making 'far too many assumptions' at all
I know for a fact that Bobby says he doesn't recall hearing from the author !
Allan Clarke and Tony Hicks have never been that keen on speaking up before - and I've seen the pair 'dodge fans' at concerts !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 17:07:55 GMT
I know for a fact that Bobby says he doesn't recall hearing from the author ! "Doesn't recall"? A very strange way of putting something that only happened or didn't happen a year or so ago. He must have a pretty poor memory if he really doesn't know (I doubt if he gets many requests to contribute to Hollies biographies!). As for "dodging fans", I suspect the vast majority of performers do, at least sometimes. Oh sure, there are / were some who seemed to always find time for chats, autographs and photos, but I've worked with dozens of performers a few years back when I was a doorman at a local theatre, and I guess at least 9 out of 10 asked me for the best doors out to avoid fans. I don't blame them either: who wants to spend a hour every night meeting fans when they're eager to get food & rest before traveling 100's of miles to tomorrow night's venue?
|
|
|
Post by greengoddess on Jul 15, 2015 21:39:55 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by greengoddess on Jul 15, 2015 21:43:11 GMT
No, I haven't answered my own question. The quotes I was thinking of concerned things that happened at the RRHF induction ceremony. I've never read any interviews from either Terry or Bernie about that event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 22:06:56 GMT
No, I haven't answered my own question. The quotes I was thinking of concerned things that happened at the RRHF induction ceremony. I've never read any interviews from either Terry or Bernie about that event. Neither have I, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Or are you suggesting that the author made up the quotes?
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 16, 2015 10:33:10 GMT
It really makes me frustrated that Tony and Bobby insisted on managing the Hollies themselves from around 1972/3. That is when everything totally went down the pan for the Hollies. They're both fine musicians, some of the best around in fact, but managers? No. If you are really familiar with the Hollies story (beyond the realms of this book), things into the late 1970's got REALLY bad. And it was mostly due to "management" not having an ear for a hit single and the band resorting to write with a commercial ear (but not fully understanding what was commercial at the time) and not putting in enough effort with the albums. Along side this, you got Allan storming out multiple times, Terry and Bernie being belittled for their contributions to the Hollies, arguments, bad reviews, poorly attended concerts, lacklustre attempts at "breaking" America and this constant theme of not believing in themselves.
The Hollies have a STUNNING back catalogue. They faired WAY better than 99% of the whole "British Invasion" brigade and managed an almost twenty year run of albums. But current leaders Tony and Bobby don't seem to care or want to reflect on it. Bobby's sleeve notes for this set are so brief and have a feeling of being very dismissive. Their current concerts stick to the hits and popular tracks, even though I'd reckon over half of the audience have seen the Hollies multiple times overall, if not multiple times within the year and would like to hear some of these album tracks. They seem to have their eyes and ears closed to what the fans want and just how much we believe in our favourite band: but also just how good the Hollies always were. You always think little of your own work, but occasionally you'll hear it with a fresh ear and it's time the Hollies saw it that way.
A classic example is an interview they both did in 2010, stating that: "we did a concert at the Lewisham Odeon in 1968. But our performance was very flat and we thought it was awful. It's still in the vaults somewhere but there's nothing else worth releasing". The following year, to EVERYONE'S surprise, it crept out unannounced on the 'Clarke, Hicks & Nash Years' set and it's FANTASTIC. Way better than the Stones' 60's live recordings, the Small Faces one that was released a short while later and the Kinks' 'At Kelvin Hall'. Even at the Hollies' worst, they still sound great! But it's this view, this lack of confidence in the band that is just letting them down. They could so easily raise the Hollies profile if they wanted to - people are wanting to hear what the Hollies have to say finally after all these years. '50 at 50' was their first official release in America after over twenty years! Their profile is on the way up, but it's not going to rise on its own. The Hollies need to put the past arguments and fall outs behind them, and work at raising their profile with management who are going to promote the band and start thinking outside the box (like someone said, why couldn't the Hollies have played Glastonbury? Lionel Richie did alright!) and good PR (the latest PR campaign for 'Changin' Times' consisted entirely of a Facebook announcement!!) then the Hollies would be back in the limelight and well deservedly getting the recognition that they deserve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 12:14:10 GMT
To be fair, they're not the only artists to belittle unreleased recordings. The Rolling Stones were the same with "Rock n Roll Circus" (and are still the same with the many unreleased outtakes from the Decca years), ditto the ex-Beatles who for a long time insisted that there was hardly any unreleased Beatles recordings worth issuing... until the BBC set and the 3 Anthologies.
I do agree that The Hollies (after circa 1974) didn't have a clue what was commercial though. Often they'd try a little TOO hard to sound "modern", forgetting what made them great in the first place (the "What Goes Around" album, most of their 80s singles, etc).
As for their concerts, back in 1999 (Allan's final tour) they had a very well-balanced setlist, mixing the hits with the obscure + a few nice covers. Here's their set from the show I saw in Margate:
Here I Go Again Jennifer Eccles Just One Look 4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy) Stay After the Fox Don't Let Me Down Not That Way at All Butterfly Running Through the Night I'm Alive On a Carousel
(Intermission)
I Can't Let Go Yes I Will Sorry Suzanne King Midas in Reverse We're Through Peggy Sue Got Married Blackbird (CSN arrangement) Look Through Any Window Bus Stop Carrie Anne Stop! Stop! Stop! The Air That I Breathe He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother
Encore: Let's Dance(Chris Montez cover) At the Hop(Danny & The Juniors cover) Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress
Sadly since then they've become content with just churning out a greatest hits show + the occasional newer song.
|
|
Jan T
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Jan T on Jul 16, 2015 12:30:53 GMT
Perhaps I'm totally wrong with the impressions I've developed over the past few years, but following on from Cameron's points (love the way you write, btw, Cameron) it sounds to me that The Hollies need(ed) a manager who wasn't a part of the band. They need(ed) someone who could be friendly but not, necessarily, a friend, a buddy, a pal. Someone who was capable of seeing a larger picture, who kept them on course, who kept the PR machine purring, who wouldn't take sides in the arguments other than to point out something that was said that was on the right track, who could and would kick butt when it was needed, who would stroke the rock & roll egos when it was needed, and who didn't get stuck in the traditional, practical, and above all, SAFE thing to do. Of the managers they had, who didn't include any of The Hollies, themselves, surely at least one of them must have had those qualities for the band to have become as big as they were. It's sad that, for whatever their reasons were, Tony, Bobby and Allan (to some degree, off and on) decided they could do the job just as well and cut out the expense of having to pay a manager. It's a shame they never caught onto the fact that they couldn't. There are enough acts, who have been around for decades, who still command large audiences, who still have, at least, the occasional chart success, and who still tour internationally, that The Hollies could and SHOULD still be a part of that... IF Tony and Bobby still had any real desire for it. To me, a relative newcomer back to the fandom of The Hollies, it appears that at some point, they gave up and no longer do.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 16, 2015 12:39:58 GMT
As I understand it
The 'senior' Hollies - Nash, Hicks, Clarke & Elliott were to an extent really managing themselves overall ('The Hollies Limited', 'Gralto Music Limited') with Robin Britten really acting more as 'personal manager' after Cohen's exit - hence it was Nash's influence on 'Butterfly' & Hicks' idea for 'Sing Dylan'
After Nash left Hicks became the 'chief Hollie' - as nobody else of the 'senior Hollies' wanted to do the job !
Thus Hicks & his brother-in-law Elliott gained more & more control (Clarke had some problems circa 1969 and was mostly content to just 'front' the band)
Hicks & Elliott ('The Hollies Limited') thus 'employed' Sylvester (& Calvert already) from 1969 on a salary (as was Bernie) and it was they who gave Allan the choice, stay or leave to go solo - Hicks then hired Mike Rickfors, refused Clarkey's offer to do that early seventies USA tour (an error I think), and later met up for the 'cards on the table' chat & drink with Allan in mid 1973 - Hicks then asked Mike Rickfors to step down (an error I think) as Clarkey returned
Hicks, Elliott, & Clarke (more nominally) were the main business Hollies - note Hicks later (as group manager & 'Hollies Limited' chief) intervened in the row and told Terry to; 'either shut up or you know where the door is...' (words to that effect - Terry walked)
Hicks had just declined Bruce Welch's advice to fire Bernie ('ditch your bass player...') but accepted Bernie's unforced resignation a week later...
I've heard that by 1999 Hicks flatly REFUSED to do another tour with Allan Clarke (due to Clarkey's voice problems) - hence forcing Clarke's 'retirement'
Hicks recruited Carl Wayne - and it was Hicks to whom an ailing Carl said; 'keep the band going, get a new lead singer in'
So Tony Hicks has effectively 'run the band' (in conjunction with Bobby) from as far back as Nash's exit - Robin Britten being more and more the 'personal manager' in truth taking care of business aspects like setting up the tours, initially dealing with venue managers etc & everyday business affairs of the Limited company, and issues such as sorting out the problem that arose in 'Caracas' (as they have had current personal manager Jimmy Smith doing since Robin's exit - a 'personal manager' job they pay him to do)
Bobby is the archivist/historian & both Tony and Bobby deal with the music side, deal with EMI / Warners, own the back catalogue, and lead the current touring/recording band - Jimmy Smith has nothing to do with any of that side of things.
In addition to 'personal manager' they also employ a 'tour manager' - John Pratt was one in latter years , Rod Shields was best known for many years of course (since 1964), before that they had a few loosely termed 'roadies/tour managers, like Tommy Sanderson (who played piano on 'Searchin') with even Alvin Stardust (Bernard Jewry / Shane Fenton) doing it for a time and a colourful character nicknamed 'Freddie The Flea' ! (- maybe a pal of Fifi's ?) who I believe is the guy pictured with them on a CD collection cover
I don't believe Robin Britten had that much 'business say' in their band affairs later on - remember he later became unwell with cancer too from which he eventually died - initially he was very much involved in the business side of ensuring 'who got what' etc - and he was Terry's manager too (hence Terry's warm tribute to 'Robbo' at the Hall of Fame induction show etc) - but over time I believe more and more of the business 'powers' were taken on by the 'senior' Hollies, so that circa 1980 they wanted Britten out of the picture...
It was Hicks & Elliott who by 1980 chiefly wanted Robin Britten out I understand - something Terry & Bernie opposed, but they were 'employees' of the company on a salary thus had no real say and could always be outvoted by 'three to two'....
This probably explains why Terry Sylvester's 'group figurehead' role was notably cut back after 1974 with Terry getting no more lead vocals (his two leads on '5317704' being allowed to save on studio time & costs)
I understand that Clarke has sold most (if not all then almost all) of his holdings in 'The Hollies Limited' and Nash has now severed all ties (I believe) after retaining one share for many years...
so Tony was effectively 'co-leader' with Nash after Cohen's departure, then really took full control after Nash's departure (the time when Gralto became Alto Music) circa 1969 ....
The Hollies were never really properly managed as such by anyone of any great experience (Michael Cohen ran 'The Toggery' clothes shop !) - but to be fair They WERE for all their missed oppertunities & errors most astute in getting that 'Leasing back' deal with EMI records in 1966 (hence 'A Hollies Recording' on their records from then on) - something The Shadows later also attempted to also do in 1979 but EMI refused, hence they left for Polydor)
As a result from 1966 onwards The Hollies made good money (The Beatles Northen Songs deal saw John & Paul get just 25% of their royalties)
so The Hollies didn't do that badly under their own guidence (running the band like a 'factory' etc) - indeed they haven't had the battles groups like The Moody Blues have had with Decca over their royalties (The Moodies another band never properly managed - and who got conned out of ALL the money for their No.1 hit 'Go Now' when early 'managers' did a runner...)
The Hollies have made their pile of cash, and given us ALOT of great music - Just look at Badfinger's tragic story to see what CAN happen re 'managers' !
|
|
Jan T
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by Jan T on Jul 16, 2015 13:14:00 GMT
That explains a lot. I'm always learning something new here, or having things sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jul 16, 2015 14:17:20 GMT
I think when analyzing The Hollies successes or lack thereof, one must divide that success into two categories: 1) recordings and 2) tours and promotions.
When it comes to musical product, responsibility lies solely with The Hollies and producer Ron Richards. The Hollies picked or wrote most of the songs but Richards was apparently quite the martinet in the studio and when it came to picking material to be released (even picking the dates of release). Of course, after his departure, all recordings were self produced and Hollies Ltd. could take full credit or blame for the product released.. After Richards retirement, the group had very little success. Funny that! A lot of the later Hollies recordings sound tired and uninspired, samey as if done by rote. The group badly needed to bring in a record producer in its later years.
However, when it came to touring and promo work, I think a lot of credit or blame lies solely on the shoulders of Mike Cohen (up to '67) and then Robin Britton ('67-'81). Clarke said years ago that lack of success in some world markets(including the USA) was due to a lack of effort to work those markets hard (' we only went where we already had a hit'). Under Cohen, despite having amazing results in Britain, success internationally was almost nil prior to '66. Things improved exponentially after that, with The Hollies breaking in virtually every market and maintaining fairly consistant presence til the mid '70's, and I think Robin B. must be given some credit for that success. However, in America, Hollies records got very little promotion, being just dumped on the market to sink or swim, and the group rarely present to promote them. Hence their very intermittent success.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 16, 2015 14:43:57 GMT
I agree - re the music the older more 'set in his ways' Ron Richards was a strong producer of 'doing what he knew best' (if lacking say the younger & comedy records producer George Martin's innovation & being open to new ideas etc)
That plus Tony Hicks spotting great songs ('Just One Look', 'I Can't Let Go' later 'He Ain't Heavy') together with good musicianship, and that instantly recognisable vocal sound ensured they had a strong winning formula that kept them above the average 'Beat Boom' crowd of bands
Being able to write decent songs was their next trump card, so all the while Ron Richards and the group worked well together they had no problems in the recording studio (they would follow Ron's advice up to around 1967 without question)
On the promotion side they really were not well handled in truth...
FAILURE to get a proper major record deal in the USA, was a big drawback as Imperial records really did little for them, and thus they 'missed the boat' during the 'British Invasion' only the mid sixties CBS deal (and then only putting them on Epic a subsidary, not the main CBS label) saw things get better for them stateside after 1966....
The whole 'Hollies in the USA' thing was in truth somewhat shambolic compared to The Beatles, Dave Clark Five, Rolling Stones (even Freddie, Gerry, & Herman too)
A mix up re entry visas saw them sit at London Airport for two days in 1965, their bill at the Paramount Theatere on 'Soupy Sales Show' was a joke (!), they had to sit out TV shows they were supposed to do thanks to musicians union problems etc...
their American TV appearances always went down well (the most annoying thing in retrospect - what the Yanks saw of The Hollies..they LIKED !)
so in many ways it was a case of IF they had been better managed, had a more innovative producer open to their ideas etc The Hollies could have been far bigger again
that said, the main Hollies (besides Nash) don't seem to have ever been THAT bothered about it, maybe content to just make good money, enjoy the successful pop career they had and showing a certain 'conservatism' were quite happy, in their halcyon days, to play to their obvious strengths and not be too adventurous
- I think the lesser sales of 'We're Through' / 'In The Hollies Style' early on plus then of course 'Butterfly' / 'King Midas...' left a very deep imprint of caution within the band to not be 'too experimental'
- later the poor sales of 'Distant Light' / 'Romany' compared to say 'Hollies Greatest' / ''Twenty Golden Greats' compilations of safe hits would later have re-enforced such caution within the group.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 16, 2015 16:04:56 GMT
I think their problem was that they tried to run before they could walk. Yes, that EMI deal in 1966 was great because it earned them a lot more money, but at the same time, it was the worst thing that they ever did. EMI became disinterested in them, hence the comment "EMI weren't very interested in promoting our records, so we moved to Polydor" in the book. From then on, 'Evolution' received a small pop-magazine advert, but only when it became Kenny Everett's 'record of the week' did it start to sell - another management problem IMO, no touting the records around and pulling strings to get them more exposure. From then on in, nothing was done. 'Butterfly' didn't chart and EMI responded by sticking it on the BACK of their 45rpm sleeves (the best sellers being on the front). THere was no real money in it for EMI. They were doomed from that moment on.
I think the Hollies did very well for themselves purely because they ran their band like a business and negotiated deals that were so shrewd, that it ultimately cost them dearly in record sales. "employing" Bernie and Terry was hardly fair. But also the "Hollies LTD" were responsible for everything from then on... paying for studio time at Abbey Road - even paying for the tape that they recorded on! A terrible arrangement, and "Hollies LTD" pulled the purse strings wherever possible so the guys had more money to take home. Great for them in the short term, but long term it hasn't worked out very well.
The frustrating thing is, it's never too late. Even now, I've a feeling that "Hollies LTD" has to contribute towards any new release in terms of mastering/remastering, the packaging, artwork.... and let's face it, unless Warners says 'hey look, let's reissue all your previous albums and we'll pay for it' (which WON'T EVER happen), then we're going to have to accept that we're not going to get from the Hollies what every other 60's band has had. It's doubly worse because Tony and Bobby seem so disinterested in the past! And when they delve in and have a go, it's always terrible because there's no manager figure to say no. Look at that sinful stereo remix of 'King Midas' or the butchered up 'Radio Fun'...
Even now, all these years later, with management that are prepared to push instead of letting the band idle along, the Hollies could rightfully claim their stake at being "second best to the Beatles". A bit of tactical PR, newspaper articles, new exciting products - although 'Changin Times' is pretty good but it's had no PROMOTION - tactical touring instead of ambling around various town halls all year round too would help. But until someone with a bit of passion, drive and flair gets involved, it's never going to happen. Just enjoy the band for what they were. Treasure your vinyl and keep talking about them as we do. We'll have to keep plodding on with the odd treat like 'Marrakesh Express' or the Croatia 1968 TV concert sweetening the mix. The best the "die-hards" can do is help each other in keeping the flame for the band alive.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 16, 2015 18:35:40 GMT
I agree with Peter's view that fans should buy this book and I agree with a 4 out of 5 rating. I found it an enjoyable read and learned, or was reminded of, a few more facts. It is good at last to have a book on the Hollies and it does have a journalist's perspective on the 1962 to 1975 years.
I would have preferred a longer book, with more input from the group, more coverage of 1975 to 2015, a full critical review of the music and the albums, a discography and a rock family tree. Maybe we will get some of that in Bobby's book.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Wilkinson on Jul 16, 2015 19:22:10 GMT
" Just enjoy the band for what they were. Treasure your vinyl and keep talking about them as we do. We'll have to keep plodding on with the odd treat like 'Marrakesh Express' or the Croatia 1968 TV concert sweetening the mix. The best the "die-hards" can do is help each other in keeping the flame for the band alive."
Now that Cameron is EXACTLY where I am........well said......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 22:29:04 GMT
I agree with Peter's view that fans should buy this book and I agree with a 4 out of 5 rating. I found it an enjoyable read and learned, or was reminded of, a few more facts. It is good at last to have a book on the Hollies and it does have a journalist's perspective on the 1962 to 1975 years.
I would have preferred a longer book, with more input from the group, more coverage of 1975 to 2015, a full critical review of the music and the albums, a discography and a rock family tree. Maybe we will get some of that in Bobby's book. Thank you, glad I'm not the only one here who really likes it! I see it's mostly getting positive reviews elsewhere, but the trouble is with fan forums (and I don't just mean Hollies fans) is they tend to concentrate on the bad points. It was exactly the same with the brilliant "Look Through Any Window" DVD.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 17, 2015 11:41:28 GMT
I agree Cameron, the 'Leasing back' deal was something of a 'double edged sword' (EMI's curt response to The Shadows in 1979 shows they were NOT going to be 'stung' twice like that....)
It's true EMI more or less gave up plugging the band after 1966 - 'Butterfly' was depicted on a singles cover but note that neither 'Evolution' or 'Butterfly' are included on EMI's 1967 innersleeve, unlike 'Sgt. Pepper', 'From Hank, Bruce, Brian & John' (Shadows), or new acts 'Piper At The Gates...' (Pink Floyd) & 'Without Reservations' (Simon Dupree & The Big Sound) who all were included
'Step We Gayly' by Jimmy Shand & his accordian or 'The Dancing Years' (Ivor Novello) WERE deemed worthy of inclusion - plus albums by singers Soloman King, Ken Dodd, Des O'Connor, Frankie Vaughan etc - but Hollies ?
note 'Hollies Greatest' WAS included on the 1970 EMI innersleve along with 'Sgt. Pepper', 'Abbey Road', & 'Let it Be' plus 'McCartney' & Ringo's 'Sentimental Journey' also 'Hank Marvin' (solo album 1969) & Cliff's latest album....but no 'Hollies Sing Dylan' or 'Sing Hollies' (current album) was deemed worthy of a plug
'Sing Hollies' did get on another EMI single sleeve to be fair, but besides 'Hollies Greatest' hits compilation no 'current' Hollies album after 'For Certain Beacause...' in 1966 seems to have been promoted on the EMI innersleeves, which seems to suggest the company had far less interest in plugging Hollies albums compared to Beatles, Shadows, Cliff & a few newer acts - even the 'new' and (then) minus ANY hits Tyrannosaurus Rex 'My People Were Fair..' album got on a later EMI innersleeve !
So from 1966 onwards EMI certainly wern't going overboard pushing anything besides 'Hollies Greatest' it would appear.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jul 17, 2015 15:44:30 GMT
As for their concerts, back in 1999 (Allan's final tour) they had a very well-balanced setlist, mixing the hits with the obscure + a few nice covers. Here's their set from the show I saw in Margate: Here I Go Again Jennifer Eccles Just One Look 4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy) Stay After the Fox Don't Let Me Down Not That Way at All Butterfly Running Through the Night I'm Alive On a Carousel (Intermission) I Can't Let Go Yes I Will Sorry Suzanne King Midas in Reverse We're Through Peggy Sue Got Married Blackbird (CSN arrangement) Look Through Any Window Bus Stop Carrie Anne Stop! Stop! Stop! The Air That I Breathe He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother Encore: Let's Dance(Chris Montez cover) At the Hop(Danny & The Juniors cover) Long Cool Woman in a Black Dress Sadly since then they've become content with just churning out a greatest hits show + the occasional newer song. Interesting set list Peter. What strikes me is the sheer number of tunes and the two sets and intermission. Considering Allan Clarke's ailing vocal chords, that's a lot of singing. If this was the standard night's output during a night after night tour, no wonder he destroyed his rapidly deteriorating voice! I'm curious when The Hollies began these extended concerts. Was it only on Brit tours? I'm presuming there was no opening act involved? I've heard The Hollies live several times( the last time being 1983 with Graham) and they never played anywhere near this many songs. They'd always have a opening act, who'd perform for about half an hour and then The Hollies would take the stage, play about say 16 songs or so, for about an hour tops. And that was it. Wonderful to hear such an elongated concert with so many unexpected gems included, but boy oh boy, I'm not surprised it was Allan's last go round. Common sense would dictate sets would become shorter when your aging lead singer is struggling, I would have thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 16:27:09 GMT
No, there was no support act.
The only other time I saw them live was in 1987 (Canterbury), and again there was no support act and two lengthy sets. I thought 1999 had a more interesting setlist though, as in 1987 there were several hits medleys rather than full versions. Unfortunately I don't remember the full setlist (and can't find it online), but amongst the highlights I do recall were Very Last Day, Listen To Me (acoustic version, played during a request spot), Soldier's Song, Too Young To Be Married, Draggin' My Heels and High School Confidential.
Allan was still in fine voice in 1987, and even in 1999 he wasn't anywhere near as bad as you'd think by reading the reports, though many songs were in lower keys which took some of the excitement out of them (for example I Can't Let Go was in "Eb" instead of the usual "G"). By the time of the encores he sounded great! Always loved hearing Clarkey on those rock & roll standards (which seemed to vary nightly).
I guess from big name acts it's become more and more expected to have longer shows (even in their 70s both The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney still do 2 & 1/2 hour plus shows, something they didn't have to do when they were much younger!). But yes, it would've made more sense for The Hollies to do 60 minutes and have a good support act.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 17, 2015 16:57:33 GMT
All the Hollies theatre show tours since 1987 (at least) have been all-evening ones. My favourite tour was 1997.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 17:19:06 GMT
My favourite tour was 1997. Any particular reason? I only saw The Hollies those two times in 1987 and 1999. A friend tried to drag me along to a Carl Wayne era gig but I declined (he told me afterwards that he enjoyed it but wouldn't go again as it wasn't quite the same anymore).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jul 17, 2015 18:12:36 GMT
In 1997-98 they were promoting the "at Abbey road" compilations and they included some more obscure tracks (similar to the 1999 tour) rather than the cover versions, the sound was truer to the original sound, also Allan Clarke was in better voice than in 1995-96 or 1999, and I had a good seat. I did have some reviews from then on the official website but they seem to have been taken down. I've seen the Hollies on every tour since 1987 but that was my favourite.
The later tours with Carl and then Peter were also enjoyable but not as authentic without Allan. They have for instance done more obscure songs that I never saw them do with Clarke such as "Hey Willy", "The Baby", and "Curly Billy", alongside most of the 20 Golden Greats.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Jul 17, 2015 19:11:39 GMT
Brian Southall's book arrived this morning, and I have spent a pleasant few hours reading from cover to cover today. Overall, a very worthwhile book, highly readable, and with a few interesting nuggets I hadn't heard before. There do seem to be a fair few errors - mainly typos and daft things which could (should) have been ironed out by thorough proof-reading. For any reprint, I'd suggest a discography and family tree as appendices. As expected, it did seem like post 1970 was covered at break-neck speed, but there were still some interesting items included. Re: Eric Haydock. To be honest, I think he's just being honest! I think he calls a spade a spade. But it is sad that relationships between members of the band are so strained - just think about how a few songs played together as a large collective unit would have went down at the RRHOF. Hell, the Eagles, yes, the Eagles managed it! Allan Clarke does come across not too favourably, which I expected. Re: setlists. I saw the band in 1998 and 1999 and was surprised as to what they included - Not That Way At All, Don't Let Me Down, Man With No Expression and When I'm Dead And Gone were real surprises! I gather Daddy Don't Mind was also played around this time, too. Don't forget, this was early days of the world wide interweb thingy, and we don't have the veritable treasure-trove of information, reviews etc that we now have at our finger-tips, sometimes an hour after a gig! I keep a note of the gigs I attend on setlistfm - some of the ones I have attended in later years have setlists added by me or others. There are 120-odd pages of gigs listed. See www.setlist.fm/setlists/the-hollies-73d6be41.html
|
|