|
Post by gee on Jul 25, 2020 14:29:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 25, 2020 14:31:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 25, 2020 15:02:18 GMT
I think it was James T who shared this with me about 10 years ago? Most Canadians over a certain age know the original by the Stampeders...
|
|
|
Post by Malc on Jul 26, 2020 6:33:06 GMT
And yes, as fine as some of their work was, I always felt that The Byrds were rather over-rated! Without wishing to turn this into a total non-Hollies thread, I gotta stand up for The Byrds here ! Whilst they may not be everyone's cup of tea, their influence over the US music scene back in '65 cannot be underestimated. For that brief tantalising moment they were THE quintessential US band of the era - despite the fact that they stole the 'founders of folk-rock' crown from the head of those who actually DID originate the genre - but that's another story... Granted, they only really shone brightly for five albums (up to and including the mind-blowing 'Notorious Byrd Brothers') and were plagued by inner-band issues, before it all became a tad erratic. But even then, they influenced the direction of country-rock with the 'Sweetheart' album. Just shame that a lot of folk only think of them for 'Mr Tambourine Man' and delve little further. After all, Space Rock, what IS that ?! Personally, I love the latter-day, acoustic Clarence White-era and would recommend it to anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2020 6:57:47 GMT
Each to their own. Although I adore the US rock & roll greats as much as anyone, for beat groups (etc) I'm very much an Anglophille. The one exception is The Beach Boys' early (pre-Pet Sounds) stuff, perhaps because this was NOT influenced by the "British Invasion".
I certainly don't hate The Byrds. I just find even their early output patchy at best (for what it's worth, my folk-loving girlfriend disagrees, and can't understand why on earth I would prefer The Hollies!).
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jul 26, 2020 13:28:23 GMT
And yes, as fine as some of their work was, I always felt that The Byrds were rather over-rated! Without wishing to turn this into a total non-Hollies thread, I gotta stand up for The Byrds here ! Whilst they may not be everyone's cup of tea, their influence over the US music scene back in '65 cannot be underestimated. For that brief tantalising moment they were THE quintessential US band of the era - despite the fact that they stole the 'founders of folk-rock' crown from the head of those who actually DID originate the genre - but that's another story... Granted, they only really shone brightly for five albums (up to and including the mind-blowing 'Notorious Byrd Brothers') and were plagued by inner-band issues, before it all became a tad erratic. But even then, they influenced the direction of country-rock with the 'Sweetheart' album. Just shame that a lot of folk only think of them for 'Mr Tambourine Man' and delve little further. After all, Space Rock, what IS that ?! Personally, I love the latter-day, acoustic Clarence White-era and would recommend it to anyone. Many people seem to end The Byrds' peak period at 1968 with either The Notorious Byrd Brothers or Sweetheart of The Rodeo, but I agree the latter-day Clarence White era group had some just as excellent output (the 1970 "Untitled" double album comes to mind) that was/is sorely overlooked. They were arguably the band's best live incarnation too, a lot of superb recordings of their shows up on YouTube. But yes, maybe it's time to steer this discussion back around to our Hollies... 😏
|
|
|
Post by paul71 on Jul 26, 2020 20:32:14 GMT
The Hollies in 66. Is there a more outstanding trio of singles in one year than ' I cant let go' 'bus stop' and 'stop stop stop' ?
For me, these songs, the 'for certain because' lp and writing 8 songs for Don and Phil made 66 their year
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 26, 2020 21:41:49 GMT
The Hollies in 66. Is there a more outstanding trio of singles in one year than ' I cant let go' 'bus stop' and 'stop stop stop' ? For me, these songs, the 'for certain because' lp and writing 8 songs for Don and Phil made 66 their year The Hollies definitely "came of age" in 1966 with that great outburst of material which proved they were more than just another pop group. They had progressed nicely since 1963, but 1966 was a huge quantum leap into greatness. Sure those first two singles of the year weren't self penned but they truly made them their own... there's some great material on the "Would You Believe?" material - "Don't You Even Care?" is pure pop perfection. On some days I think "I Can't Let Go" is their greatest moment - a stunning single and performance all round - the vocal and harmony arrangement is incredible whilst Tony, Bobby and Eric are at the top of their game driving it along with real power and urgency, it's a record that deserves to be better known and enjoyed than it is. "For Certain Because" I put up there alongside "Revolver" and "Pet Sounds" as a great album, their most mature work up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Jul 26, 2020 23:50:26 GMT
Without winding this topic back, me being in Australia opened us up to the US, UK and even Oz music. That gave us great diversity. I started my musical appreciation journey with the Beach Boys. Then we got the Beatlea and the UK music but fortunately we were still have US music on our radio as well. Loved the Byrds and agree with Malc that they were very influential in the US. They did influence some songs created by English bands including the Hollies. Now back to the Hollies. Even though I had appreciated their early singles it wasn't until FCB that I became the album person I became. A friend had bought that LP and we listened to it. Next day I went out and got it and from there grew my love of the Hollies. I purchased the early albums (I had to have the first 2 imported from the UK) and here I am 50+ years later still listening to them. For Certain Because was the start. Baz you have some great albums up there with FCB with Revolver and Pet Sounds. The Hollies follow up Evolution is arguably their very best LP. It hasn't dated as much as Butterfly.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 27, 2020 0:14:36 GMT
Now back to the Hollies. Even though I had appreciated their early singles it wasn't until FCB that I became the album person I became. A friend had bought that LP and we listened to it. Next day I went out and got it and from there grew my love of the Hollies. I purchased the early albums (I had to have the first 2 imported from the UK) and here I am 50+ years later still listening to them. For Certain Because was the start. Baz you have some great albums up there with FCB with Revolver and Pet Sounds. The Hollies follow up Evolution is arguably their very best LP. It hasn't dated as much as Butterfly. FCB is the first Hollies album which I can listen to and enjoy as a whole album whereas those before it have odd tracks I skip and would be happy never to hear again. There's a genuine stylish edge to FCB and it's a solid album in spite of it being a diverse range of styles and songs. It exudes a strong sense of self confidence. Though they clearly aren't or were intended to be, I kinda view FCB, Evolution and Butterfly as a trilogy - the sole three Hollies albums entirely written by Clarke-Hicks and Nash (though sometimes in different combinations), each growing more adventurous and containing some of the band's very best work. I enjoy all three and rate them highly alongside the better known and revered albums by bigger names. Toss in the singles throughout as well - we've mentioned the 1966 ones but the trio from 1967 along with the B sides are excellent as well and compliment the albums beautifully. Even those odd Italian tracks are great! Easily a peak period for The Hollies and it frustrates me more people haven't given that work a chance so in some ways it still feels like lost treasure as far more people should be enjoying and loving that music. I think the only one that outsiders may have given a chance to is Butterfly as that's popped up a lot in psych lists but I think to really appreciate that album it's better to experience it chronologically following the two gems that came before it. So for me, 1966 and 1967 Hollies sits comfortably within the revered greats more people are familiar with.
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jul 27, 2020 2:32:26 GMT
FCB has really, really grown on me so much in the last two months, I now name it my favourite Hollies album - a spot that was long held by Butterfly, but that's only gone down to second. 😊 I too am a little picky with what tracks I like from the first four, but every track here plus (optionally) the two bonus Italian single sides I can really enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 27, 2020 13:29:53 GMT
You can't do 'Butterfly' a disservice because as UK popsyche goes, that album is way up at the top with the best of them. Although some of the tracks are considered lightweight by Hollies standards, they're very much in the spirit of the times and tracks like 'Maker' and 'Try It' put the Hollies on the map as a popsyche group to contend with. As someone who's favourite genre is psychedelia, there's many more highly acclaimed albums that I don't regard as being as good as 'Butterfly'. What tends to happen, is one or two tracks are great, and the rest of a popsyche album is padded with filler and/or given a "groovy" sleeve with some 1965-66 era sounding beat-boom with maybe a sitar added or wah-wah guitar. 'Butterfly' is psychedelic from all angles: the cover art, their clothes on the cover, the song arrangements (like the strangeness of 'Dear Eloise', the sound effects added to 'Postcard', 'Wishyouawish' etc...), the choice of instruments (luscious orchestrations, sitar, Tony's jangly Rickenbacker guitar, even backwards drum loops on 'Try It'), the fat sound of Bernie Calvert's bass which is lost on all the CD reissues sadly, and finally those stunning vocal harmonies which just melt on 'Try It' and 'Step Inside'. It's a masterpiece from start to finish.
'Evolution' I would almost agree is the Hollies' master work from the Nash years, EXCEPT, two quite significant things let it down; firstly the muddy mix and secondly, Bobby Elliott doesn't play on most of it. Although they got the incredible talents of Clem Cattini and Mitch Mitchell, they just don't have the same flair and inventiveness as Bobby, who was confident enough to leave his unique signature all over pretty much every Hollies song at that point. But it doesn't detract from the absolute stellar songwriting on that album. It's pop perfection from start to finish. The cover I think draws the psyche fans in, as it did me initially, only to be slightly disappointed that the music doesn't mirror the artwork as such. Though 'Butterfly' makes up for that.
'For Certain Because' was the last of the great trilogy that I discovered. It wasn't for a few years that I began to appreciate the album in the context of the time that it was released, realising how ahead of the curve it was by some months in terms of its maturity and quality. I think there's a couple of "odd ones out" on the album, that were perhaps throwbacks to the 'Would You Believe' era, but on the whole, what a stunning progression from their first LP in 1966.
Hopping back to the Byrds argument, I too cannot deny their brilliance and influence. I actually think their debut album is one of the strongest debut albums of the 1960s. For me, they peak with 'Notorious Byrd Brothers', which is ruined by the drab cover I've always felt. It's a bit forgettable, but the music is not. I mocked up a version of it with the Crosby tracks on it that they cut from the album, which I listen to a lot.
It's great how we're all different - like peterc prefers the pre-Pet Sounds Beach Boys, to me, they hit their stride from 'Pet Sounds' onwards. I rarely listen to the early albums and singles, though 'Beach Boys Today' and 'Summer Days... and Summer Nights!' are my favourites of that era. For me, my favourites are '20/20', 'Sunflower', 'Surf's Up' and 'Wild Honey'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2020 13:56:29 GMT
It's great how we're all different - like peterc prefers the pre-Pet Sounds Beach Boys, to me, they hit their stride from 'Pet Sounds' onwards. I rarely listen to the early albums and singles, though 'Beach Boys Today' and 'Summer Days... and Summer Nights!' are my favourites of that era. For me, my favourites are '20/20', 'Sunflower', 'Surf's Up' and 'Wild Honey'. 'Butterfly' is my 2nd least favourite Hollies album of the Nash era (just ahead of 'Stay with The Hollies'), but then again I'm much more of a fan of Beat Groups than I am of Psychedelia. Give me 'A Hard Day's Night' over 'SGT. Pepper' any day!
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 27, 2020 14:42:10 GMT
You can't do 'Butterfly' a disservice because as UK popsyche goes, that album is way up at the top with the best of them. Although some of the tracks are considered lightweight by Hollies standards, they're very much in the spirit of the times and tracks like 'Maker' and 'Try It' put the Hollies on the map as a popsyche group to contend with. As someone who's favourite genre is psychedelia, there's many more highly acclaimed albums that I don't regard as being as good as 'Butterfly'. What tends to happen, is one or two tracks are great, and the rest of a popsyche album is padded with filler and/or given a "groovy" sleeve with some 1965-66 era sounding beat-boom with maybe a sitar added or wah-wah guitar. 'Butterfly' is psychedelic from all angles: the cover art, their clothes on the cover, the song arrangements (like the strangeness of 'Dear Eloise', the sound effects added to 'Postcard', 'Wishyouawish' etc...), the choice of instruments (luscious orchestrations, sitar, Tony's jangly Rickenbacker guitar, even backwards drum loops on 'Try It'), the fat sound of Bernie Calvert's bass which is lost on all the CD reissues sadly, and finally those stunning vocal harmonies which just melt on 'Try It' and 'Step Inside'. It's a masterpiece from start to finish. 'Evolution' I would almost agree is the Hollies' master work from the Nash years, EXCEPT, two quite significant things let it down; firstly the muddy mix and secondly, Bobby Elliott doesn't play on most of it. Although they got the incredible talents of Clem Cattini and Mitch Mitchell, they just don't have the same flair and inventiveness as Bobby, who was confident enough to leave his unique signature all over pretty much every Hollies song at that point. But it doesn't detract from the absolute stellar songwriting on that album. It's pop perfection from start to finish. The cover I think draws the psyche fans in, as it did me initially, only to be slightly disappointed that the music doesn't mirror the artwork as such. Though 'Butterfly' makes up for that. I make no secret of the fact that "Butterfly" is my number one Hollies album! "For Certain" is second and "Evolution" third. The order I first heard them was surprisingly the US "King Midas/Dear Eloise", "For Certain", "Evolution" and lastly "Butterfly" in its UK form where I got to finally hear the crucial "Try It" and "Elevated Observations?" for the first time and was blown away! "Evolution" in stereo bugged me and when I finally got the mono mix, it disappointed me - we've discussed elsewhere in this forum about the lack of differences and effects between those mixes whereas there's lots of differences in the two mixes of "Butterfly" which I always prefer in stereo complete with no gaps between tracks. Despite that, "Evolution" is what it is and still a great album of great songs. "Butterfly" for me is one of the very best Brit-psych albums of all - definitely enjoy it more than "Sgt Pepper" whilst Pink Floyd's first album is my fave psych album of all. Toss in another gem from a year later, The Pretty Things' "S.F. Sorrow" and woah... Abbey Road was a hotbed for prime psychedelia... one could also toss in The Zombies' fine "Odessey and Oracle" as 3/4 of that was recorded at Abbey Road as well! Another psych album I love is the Rolling Stones' much derided "Their Satanic Majesties Request" though willingly admit it's probably weaker than the rest I've mentioned as it does ramble in places and a couple of the songs aren't that brilliant but I admire the fact they did turn in something unusual and unique in their catalogue! In many ways on the surface, The Hollies would be seen as one of the unlikeliest candidates for an album like "Butterfly" being what it is, but when one hears the progression across the two albums preceding it, it sure makes sense. A pity that some in the band appear embarrassed by it... maybe they didn't feel overly comfortable going along with that direction (they sure weren't comfortable dressing in the flower power outfits!) but with songs and production of that calibre and the fact we're still enjoying and talking about it some 53 years later, it's absolutely nothing to feel ashamed of. Whilst not to everyone's tastes as is known here, I love it for it's experimentation, spirit of adventure, good songs, those sublime harmonies and the overall oddness of the package. There is nothing else quite like it in The Hollies fine catalogue. It wouldn't have happened were it not for that leap they made in 1966 on "For Certain Because..."
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 27, 2020 17:36:58 GMT
I love that summary baz, that's exactly how I feel about it as well.
Personally, I'm not a massive Stones fan, so 'Satanic Majesties' is the one I play the most! Jointly with 'Beggars Banquet' probably. I'm not really a fan of beat-boom, finding it a bit lacking in places and the rushed nature of the albums of that era, often padded out with a lot of filler. That said, 'Hollies ('65)' is one of the finest beat-boom albums EVER. The confidence they exude over the whole LP is just glorious to listen to. I find all the Hollies' albums a definite progression from the previous one right through to the late 1970s. People much malign 'Stay With The Hollies' with 'In The Hollies' Style', but the latter is way more refined and fleshed out than the former. I do think 'Stay...' is one of the strongest debut albums of all the British Invasion artists. It's exciting and it's vibrant, and the material is a very even keel of quality.
'Hollies ('65)' is a very bold move forward from 'In The Hollies Style', even touching upon political issues like 'Too Many People'! The Beatles wouldn't be making statements like that for another year! I do feel like 'Would You Believe' is a stepping stone, rather than a big leap, but still there's some real high points on that album.
We've already spoke of the "trilogy", which I wish the Hollies would just get behind. Allan is the only one who's gone on record to say how pleased he is with those albums, and how he'd pitch them against anything else of the era, even today. I think a smart thing to do would be to issue the three albums as a small mono vinyl box-set to test the water for a larger boxset covering the full Nash era. I think you can get into the real meat of the Hollies' Nash years catalogue across those three albums.
As much as it takes a lot of flak, 'Hollies Sing Dylan' kind of takes on from 'Butterfly'. It's refined, it's confident, it's polished... just like every other Hollies album. I find myself playing that LP a lot, as it effortlessly passes 40 minutes or so with 12 selections of pop perfection. And I really appreciate how hard the Hollies re-worked all of those songs. Of all their back catalogue, I feel 'Hollies Sing Hollies' is the only mis-step. I don't think they'd quite found their footing with Terry with that album. There's some real high points, but there's also some low points. They got back into the swing with 'Confessions of the Mind' onwards, right through to around 'Russian Roulette', which I feel is their last great album.
It's about time the music industry re-appraised the Hollies' back catalogue. There's some stellar albums there and a lot of material that doesn't get much of an airing to the general public. It's interesting how Spotify has the Hollies' top three albums listed as 'Distant Light', 'Romany' and 'Hollies (1974')!
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 28, 2020 0:13:41 GMT
It's about time the music industry re-appraised the Hollies' back catalogue. There's some stellar albums there and a lot of material that doesn't get much of an airing to the general public. It's interesting how Spotify has the Hollies' top three albums listed as 'Distant Light', 'Romany' and 'Hollies (1974')! That's reflecting American tastes, isn't it? Somebody actually tweeting yesterday "Here's an underrated Hollies song" and posted "Air That I Breathe." Um, what? Speaking of which, apparently Cherie Currie of the Runaways has covered the a-side AND the b-side in her latest LP? Can't find "No More Riders" on YouTube but did find her rendition of "Air" which is pretty much a note-for-note cover. Except that, sorry, when SHE sings "sleep, silent angel" I'm afraid to close my eyes!
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 28, 2020 1:23:17 GMT
It's about time the music industry re-appraised the Hollies' back catalogue. There's some stellar albums there and a lot of material that doesn't get much of an airing to the general public. It's interesting how Spotify has the Hollies' top three albums listed as 'Distant Light', 'Romany' and 'Hollies (1974')! Which funnily enough are which I regard as the three strongest post-Nash albums!
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Jul 28, 2020 8:20:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 28, 2020 15:33:59 GMT
That is the article where I found out about it actually! Somebody had tweeted it. Yeah, if you look at it as "Air That I Breathe - The Dark Side" it actually works. Been catching up with her lately since I've been reading her autobiography...she does chainsaw art and is married to Robert Hays, the guy from Airplane! Quite an interesting lady who was one of my heroes as a teen because she did what I didn't have the nerve (or support) to do myself...
|
|
|
Post by meekheel on Aug 24, 2023 2:24:09 GMT
When I was 6 I went to a concert in Charlotte NC that featured the Herman Hermits and The Hollies. It was 1965 or 1966. I have the program from the concert but there is no date on it. I have looked at the concert tour dates for both groups and there is no concert listed for either groupie Charlotte in these years. Does anyone know when they both played in Charlotte? Venue? I found a ticket stub on eBay for a Herman Hermits Concert in 1965 at Memorial Stadium, but, I seem to remember being inside, and not outside. No mention of the Hollies on stub, and, the listing mentions that the Herman Hermits only played for 30 minutes. Any clue?
|
|
|
Post by Malc on Aug 24, 2023 6:37:55 GMT
When I was 6 I went to a concert in Charlotte NC that featured the Herman Hermits and The Hollies. It was 1965 or 1966. I have the program from the concert but there is no date on it. I have looked at the concert tour dates for both groups and there is no concert listed for either groupie Charlotte in these years. Does anyone know when they both played in Charlotte? Venue? I found a ticket stub on eBay for a Herman Hermits Concert in 1965 at Memorial Stadium, but, I seem to remember being inside, and not outside. No mention of the Hollies on stub, and, the listing mentions that the Herman Hermits only played for 30 minutes. Any clue? December 31, 1966 (SAT) THE HOLLIES HERMAN’S HERMITS Charlotte Coliseum, Charlotte, NC Support: The Paragons, The Bojax
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 24, 2023 8:39:53 GMT
When I was 6 I went to a concert in Charlotte NC that featured the Herman Hermits and The Hollies. It was 1965 or 1966. I have the program from the concert but there is no date on it. I have looked at the concert tour dates for both groups and there is no concert listed for either groupie Charlotte in these years. Does anyone know when they both played in Charlotte? Venue? I found a ticket stub on eBay for a Herman Hermits Concert in 1965 at Memorial Stadium, but, I seem to remember being inside, and not outside. No mention of the Hollies on stub, and, the listing mentions that the Herman Hermits only played for 30 minutes. Any clue? December 31, 1966 (SAT) THE HOLLIES HERMAN’S HERMITS Charlotte Coliseum, Charlotte, NC Support: The Paragons, The Bojax Now THAT would be the ideal way to spend New Years Eve!!
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 24, 2023 17:06:52 GMT
That Milwaukee show in Peter's above interview posting was on 13 April 1966, and apparently The Hollies performance was cancelled late on by instructions of the U.S. Immigration Authority re a work permits issue.... This was symptomatic of the entire 'Hollies in the USA' sixties thing - dogged with problems !! a year before over 14-15 April 1965 The group spent two days waiting at Heathrow Airport, London for U.S. visas clearance before they could fly out for a month long gig at the Paramount Theatre New York, and then it was just a two song or so short stint several times a day on 'The Soupy Sales Show' - hardly the National 'Ed Sullivan Show' & Washington gigs The Beatles did , then The Rolling Stones, The Searchers, The Dave Clark Five, Gerry & The Pacemakers, The Animals, Billy J.Kramer With The Dakotas, ... and even Freddie & The Dreamers (!) had all enjoyed giving them national exposure to the American record buyers - Freddie enjoyed a few big USA hits and briefly there was even 'Freddiemania' ! The irony is many Americans LOVED The Hollies and became big & loyal fans to the band WHEN they got to finally see them.... the entire Hollies 'Ameican' thing was poorly handled on BOTH sides of the pond...as in retrospect it appears that the organisation on both sides seemed very weak, and probably cost the band dearly in terms of proper recognition Stateside for such a long time in their hit making heyday - The Byrds had an almost identical experience when briefly visiting Britain too in failing to capitalise on their hits while The Kinks similarly got held back by the musicians union ban for three key years in the sixties The Hollies seemed to have endless 'clearance' problems, then were never on the key shows (besides maybe 'Hullaballoo' where they went down well) and it was only later via 'The Smothers Brothers Show' and 'Live at Hollywood Palace' during their most successful latter sixties days with Epic records in the USA that they became better known in the USA, and despite the seemingly endless put downs of some music press writers - which sadly still seems to be the case even now - they still built up a loyal appreciative American fanbase. sadly the 1973 tour with Mike Rickfors instead of Allan Clarke, despite good gigs & the 'Midnight Special' show failed to properly establish them minus Clarke whom most Americans expected to be singing...another chance missed by sheer ill luck (& a since admitted mistake by Tony Hicks in turning down Clarkey's offer to do that tour) By 1983 even Graham Nash's return wasn't enough to interest that many Americans, possibly too many 'negative' press comments (& a few unwise earlier 'digs' by Nash too ?) took their toll... although when the Carl Wayne led Hollies returned to the USA for a music festival in Cape Cod area again alongside the reformed Lovin' Spoonful both bands got glowing American press acclaim....so the USA was still a viable place for The Hollies to perform even 'post Clarke' era... There was nothing “sadly” about The Hollies with Rickfors in 1972/3. THE HOLLIES WERE TREMENDOUS. Have I made that clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by gee on Sept 4, 2023 21:41:40 GMT
To yourself and a few others on here maybe...
However The Raspberries clearly believed otherwise...yes ? (they said something about them 'blowing The Hollies away onstage' I recall reading)
Much as I rated The Rickfors Hollies, like it or not the historical facts simply do not agree with your views overall as far as most US record buyers back then felt do they ?
'Tremendous' they might well have been in some of those American concerts....however like it or not the wider public clearly did not share your opinion and just NEVER took to them regardless of how well received some individual concerts might have been, sadly not many people were going out and buying their records even tho' two Clarke sung songs were USA chart hits around that time which gave them the chance to really break through big time stateside
however....
Terry Sylvester: 'The Americans wanted Allan...but we just didn't sound like that anymore...'
Tony Hicks has since quite openly admitted he made an error in turning down Allan Clarke's offer to do that USA tour with The Hollies
can you deny the facts that (on the point of resigning) an unhappy and homesick Mike departed not long after, the second album with him was left unreleased in both UK and USA (and to date has still never been released in it's original album form with Bobby saying to me; 'would there be a market for it ?' when I enquired after it in October 2007), plus Allan Clarke's subsequent return, Hollies longtime tour manager Rod Shields view about; 'trying to find Mike onstage with a spotlight was like looking for an escaping convict...' and Bobby Elliott's remarks in his book about 'looks like we made an error..' (re the recruitment of Mike) plus the key point of the lack of any UK/USA hit single after 'The Baby'.... are all historical facts ?
regardless of what a bunch of fans on a forum might think and wish...the group back then considered that all was not going well as Bobby's book explained, Tony and Bobby who were running the band have made it clear they considered things were not up to a standard they wanted...hence Clarke's being asked to rejoin
yes they certainly had some strong USA concerts...tho' some people counter how good they were at others
but however well they played at some concerts, as Terry Sylvester observed they significantly failed to make the big breakthrough minus Allan Clarke on that USA tour...
you and a few others on here might not like it, get all annoyed about it, and keep on forever trying to deny it... but you just can't argue with historical facts unless you simply wish to carry on deluding yourself and trying to 're-write' The Hollies history to how you want it to be...even tho' record sales and historical events, besides some individual strong concert shows on that USA tour, overall just do not agree
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Sept 4, 2023 22:43:03 GMT
To yourself and a few others on here maybe... However The Raspberries clearly believed otherwise...yes ? (they said something about them 'blowing The Hollies away onstage' I recall reading) Much as I rated The Rickfors Hollies, like it or not the historical facts simply do not agree with your views overall as far as most US record buyers back then felt do they ? 'Tremendous' they might well have been in some of those American concerts....however like it or not the wider public clearly did not share your opinion and just NEVER took to them regardless of how well received some individual concerts might have been, sadly not many people were going out and buying their records even tho' two Clarke sung songs were USA chart hits around that time which gave them the chance to really break through big time stateside however.... Terry Sylvester: 'The Americans wanted Allan...but we just didn't sound like that anymore...' Tony Hicks has since quite openly admitted he made an error in turning down Allan Clarke's offer to do that USA tour with The Hollies can you deny the facts that (on the point of resigning) an unhappy and homesick Mike departed not long after, the second album with him was left unreleased in both UK and USA (and to date has still never been released in it's original album form with Bobby saying to me; 'would there be a market for it ?' when I enquired after it in October 2007), plus Allan Clarke's subsequent return, Hollies longtime tour manager Rod Shields view about; 'trying to find Mike onstage with a spotlight was like looking for an escaping convict...' and Bobby Elliott's remarks in his book about 'looks like we made an error..' (re the recruitment of Mike) plus the key point of the lack of any UK/USA hit single after 'The Baby'.... are all historical facts ? regardless of what a bunch of fans on a forum might think and wish...the group back then considered that all was not going well as Bobby's book explained, Tony and Bobby who were running the band have made it clear they considered things were not up to a standard they wanted...hence Clarke's being asked to rejoin yes they certainly had some strong USA concerts...tho' some people counter how good they were at others but however well they played at some concerts, as Terry Sylvester observed they significantly failed to make the big breakthrough minus Allan Clarke on that USA tour... you and a few others on here might not like it, get all annoyed about it, and keep on forever trying to deny it... but you just can't argue with historical facts unless you simply wish to carry on deluding yourself and trying to 're-write' The Hollies history to how you want it to be...even tho' record sales and historical events, besides some individual strong concert shows on that USA tour, overall just do not agree It’s England vs. America on this board the way I see it. If you didn’t see The Hollies live in 1972 then it is your unfortunate loss. You Britishers would like to conveniently sweep the 1972-3 era under the carpet and have done with it. I am here to remind you otherwise. It was a highly significant and interesting chapter in the band’s history WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. I happen to like it a WHOLE lot and my opinion counts as much as anybody’s. I know what I’m talking about and you Britishers don’t because you didn’t get the Rickfors era in any way shape or form. You have no appreciation for the band’s success in America and I think that is pitiful but it’s not my problem it’s yours. Your view of the band is as a 60s group with one hit in the 70s. (The Air). It is absolutely astonishing that you would like to erase this pivotal period. It actually stuns me. You have no appreciation for Mikael Rickfors’ musicianship, not only as lead singer on stage but playing harmonica, congas, and lead guitar (Long Dark Road). Long Cool Woman flopped in the UK. That’s one for the history books. Long Dark Road hit the Top 20 in many cities but it didn’t even get a UK release. Another sore spot for UK fans. How about being overjoyed they had another hit?! No, if it didn’t happen in England it doesn’t count. I have a DVD called Long Dark Road which has many Hollies clips including the entire In Concert performance and it is the only thing I watch from it because that is when the band was at its most rocking and most exciting. The audience was pumped for a good time and The Hollies delivered. It’s all there on tape to see and hear. THE BAND’S HISTORY DOES NOT SOLELY REVOLVE AROUND ENGLAND AND ALLAN CLARKE. They did go to other countries, and that matters in any band’s success, but this is a fact they seems to escape many of you in the UK. You must not get out much is the conclusion I draw from it. The band’s error was not getting out on England often enough! Imagine if they had toured the US in ‘74 the way they should have. No, instead they were their usual lazy selves and shot themselves and their career in the foot by staying home. WHAT A FATAL MISTAKE. Their international status as a hit band collapsed from then on. Yes, AMERICA mattered a whole lot to The Hollies’ career the same way it did for The Beatles. Remember them? Oh and one more thing; f&(: the moldy Raspyberries.
|
|