Rickfors biography

[ransford]

Ok, it’s quite boring here, but here`s some new info. Rickfors is releasing a biography this month. Sorry to all of you who doesn’t speak swedish, but maybe we can can help you with some translated highlights. Hope he’s got some things to tell about his Hollies-period.

[knut]

Ordered my book today.

[Stranger]

I once bought an Italian autbiography through Google Books or Amazon and was able to translate as I went on my iPad... that was dedication!

[knut]

Got the book. Several interesting chapters on the Hollies. Some of which we have read before, but also some new info.

[gee]

What new info Knut ? anything surprising ?

I always felt Mike Rickfors was the 'George Lazenby' of The Hollies story !

in retrospect BOTH actor and singer certainly had the required talent and could have given so much more to the respective roles they briefly held

I understood Mike was somewhat embarressed re his short stint as Hollies lead singer over 1972-73 (he had no reason to be) - hired then fired in under two years - seen by many as failing to last on stepping into Clarke's shoes

- again like the soon departed George Lazenby only to be duly replaced by the returning famous well established figure he'd taken over from !

with both figures Rickfors and Lazenby perhaps much more appreciated years later in retrospect

Mike wrote 'Sailors of The Heart' re his Hollies experience - and at least went on to enjoy success back in Sweden

Mike took some rather nasty critical flak in the UK music press when 'Romany' came out - one headline was;
'Allan Clarke RIGHT to leave Hollies !'

I feel The Hollies themselves also were perhaps later a little unkind  in often making much of his accent shining through (I never noticed it to be honest), him struggling with certain songs, recording times - and costs - being increased, the comments about his so called shyness onstage etc

it says everything that years later when Carl Wayne wanted them to wake up 'The Baby' for concert use Tony Hicks was openly saying onstage;
'we'd pretty much FORGOTTEN ever doing it...!'

the other band members remarks were a little unkind too;

Bobby's infamous; 'that was a BLAND period for The Hollies' comment

and Terry Sylvester's; 'The Americans wanted Allan but we just didn't sound like that anymore...'

also Bernie Calvert's remark in the Radio Hollies Story;
'Tony and Terry then just tried to create as much of The Hollies sound as they could...'

hardly would have made Mike feel very appreciated !!


Mike in return once spoke of having to sing 'silly pop songs' such as 'Bus Stop' while in The Hollies - indicating he had some perhaps understandable lingering bitterness too

[knut]

He does not sound bitter at all now.His book features several colour photos including two PC singles with him in The Hollies.

[ransford]

Tonight there was an interesting interview with Rickfors on swedish television, including how he met The Hollies and how/why he quit. No hard feelings at all.

And of course it would be nice to hear Bamboos recording in London with Tony Hicks as producer. Has anyone here a copy or a suggestions on where to find it?

[alexpark]

Where can you buy this book, in Swedish?

[ransford]

You can buy it on www.adlibris.com. Today you can find it on their HomePage first page.

[ransford]

Forgot to tell you that you can listen to a new, nonrealesed song performed by Mikael Rickfors on Youtube. The song is called Reason Why. What do you think of it?

[greengoddess]

Not quite on the theme of this thread but I could never understand why Allan wasn't a solo success. The Hollies have had several different lead singers and all of them good in their own way but it was always Allan's voice that Hollies fans really wanted so why didn't his solo efforts sell?

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2017 17:04:04 GMT greengoddess said:

Not quite on the theme of this thread but I could never understand why Allan wasn't a solo success. The Hollies have had several different lead singers and all of them good in their own way but it was always Allan's voice that Hollies fans really wanted so why didn't his solo efforts sell?

I suspect that at least some of it was due to half-hearted promotion. I don't know about press ads etc, but certainly there were no solo concerts and very few TV appearances.

[gee]

re Allan's somewhat half hearted solo career

Allan unexpectedly quit in late 1971 partly to try to grab some success like Nash was enjoying (he had 'friends' telling Allan he WAS The Hollies) and also because, like Nash earlier, he began having clashes with Ron Richards re material and - I suspect - he might have found having Tony Hicks in charge (by their mutual agreement in 1969) was grating a bit by late 1971 re the band he'd co-founded

plus many frontmen were going solo around that time at the close of the sixties too - Carl Wayne, Dave Dee etc, while Steve Marriott had left the Small Faces, Manfred Mann broke up etc

trouble was Allan Clarke (initially) had no recording contract or producer, or backing band, when he left The Hollies !

unlike Nash who in early 1969 had CSN formed and a deal in place with Ahmet Ertegen of Atlantic once his Epic records severence was cleared

RCA Victor picked Allan up as a soloist on a 'one off' option deal  and a 'cream' of top UK musicians helped him (tho' no regular backing group was put together despite guitarist Ray Glynn helping out), later EMI signed him but he self produced at first and maybe that was in retrospect a mistake ?

the chief issues were a confused musical direction - rockers, acoustic folk, pop, bluegrass, etc you name it Allan had a bash at it - all fine but maybe too varied a mixture of styles ?

Allan also, like the newly 'solo' Beatles then were also doing, determined to  'distance' his earliest solo recordings firmly from his old band  The Hollies by opting to largely not feature any harmony vocals on them - thus supressing the 'Hollie' within himself, a part of himself, and tried to sound very 'serious' and solo singer/songwriter-ish at first...

hence that cover of 'Arold' was meant to depict a 'new re-birth' of Allan the solo artist duly emerging from the waters etc...

EMI re-signed him and in 1973 'Headroom' was probably his strongest early/mid seventies solo album being more 'rock' focused

but then he switched styles to a more commercial approach from 1974-76 with two solo albums solely of covers, but somewhat uneven covers where Bruce Springsteen, Janis Ian, Chinn-Chapman, Junior Campbell and Randy Newman covers all sat rather unevenly together...

plus he never toured, did only a scant solo TV show feature, and seemed to think just making albums would carry his solo career (it appeared)

choices of singles didn't help - EMI 'sat' on both 'Drift Away' and 'Born To Run' - both were then eclipsed by Dobie Gray and Springsteen's own versions

in retrospect his later 1978 era solo career as a more focused 'Americanised Rocker' worked better giving him a belated USA chart hit with 'Shadow in The Street' and a couple of stronger albums of mostly original Clarke-Gary Benson songs and a few covers like Pete Ham's 'Baby Blue'

Had Allan followed 'Headroom' (1973) style with 'I Wasn't Born Yesterday' (1978)- of more original songs of his own with maybe a closer focus of style than coming across as something of a 'jack of all trades master of none' (as a UK music paper reviewer bluntly put it re the 'I've Got Time' album) and bothered to tour and properly PUSH himself as a solo artist, allowing his own 'Hollie' self to feature (he revisted his 'Would You Believe' well on 'Headroom') and included some of his later own  Hollies songs such as; 'LCW','Hey Willy', 'Mad Professor Blyth'  'Marigold', 'Soldier's Dilemma', 'Perfect Lady Housewife', 'Hold On', 'Row The Boat Together'  etc along with his new solo album tracks in his solo concert show, then  Allan might well have done alot better as a solo artist 

tho' had he enjoyed any hint of earlier solo success it's doubtful Allan would have ever rejoined The Hollies - or stuck with them over the seventies etc

Terry Sylvester has spoken of; 'Clarke's annual threat to leave...'

I do wonder if Allan found having Tony Hicks as effectively his own band's 'chief' was a bit too much as time went on

- but Allan as with his lukewarm solo career only had himself to blame, unlike Nash or Hicks he by his own choice never led the band, being just content to be lead singer but be in Nash's shadow to an extent (by his own later admission),  and from the late sixties onwards  merely 'front' the band and happily take the 'star' frontman acclaim onstage  duly letting Tony Hicks do all the hard work of being the overall 'group manager' (later Bobby Elliott has become co-manager post Clarke era)

Allan Clarke certainly had the voice, the songwriting talent, and the public's affection, to make it - but it seems not the self confidence, determination, or the sheer risk taking 'DRIVE' that Graham Nash clearly had...

that said ALL of AC's solo albums have decent songs impeccably performed on them, and many terrific tracks too and are an important if apt  er 'side show' to The Hollies musical story !

[cameron]

It's funny, we talk of the tensions between Allan and Tony early on, but they would really come to the fore later into the 1970s. Tony had a lot of respect in the music industry. He made a lot of unusual/daring song choices when he'd frequent the publishers for songs for the Hollies to perform, which invariably paid off. His pushing for "Hollies Sing Dylan" paid off massively in 1969, shooting to almost the top of the charts and being their second highest charting studio LP after "Stay With The Hollies" in 1964. He continued to lead the way through the "Confessions Of The Mind" era, but Allan was feeling the air of change toward more Americanised Rock (which he would prove to be right) and subsequently clashed with Tony over the direction of "Distant Light".

Ironically, as Nash had left the Hollies to 'mature' as an artist and it would prove that the Hollies matured more instead, leaving Nash to chant "Teach Your Children" and bob along to "Marrakesh Express" before embarking on 30 years of bitter feuds and childish fallings out with his bandmates. Allan left the Hollies to chase his heavier take on their artistic direction, and it would be the Hollies who would produce the sophisticated "Romany" with its strong AOR sound. Talk of history repeating itself!

As Allan and Tony admitted in the 1980s, there was too much ego involved back then. I think Tony was far too headstrong, insisting that he knew what was the right thing to do. He certainly comes across that way in interviews from the late 1960s onwards. I read one once from 1968 where he lets some pretty strong views on the Monkees and the Troggs be known!

I don't really understand why Allan's solo career didn't take off. "Headroom" is one of my favourite albums, there's not a bad track on it. Sometimes his Western/Americana vibes needed toning down a bit, that's where he needed the Hollies. But I still maintain that after 1978's "I Wasn't Born Yesterday", Allan's solo LPs overtook the Hollies' studio LPs in terms of quality. Irrespective of how many covers were featured, which is what the Hollies were doing anyway around then. Had the Hollies released "Legendary Heroes" in 1980, I think their progressive career would have carried on, instead of relegating them to the 'oldies' circuit. Again, "Reasons To Believe" was another nice late LP, that again could have given the Hollies more credibility.

It seems that it wasn't just Allan who lacked self-belief or determination.

[gee]

'Headroom' sadly got little promotion and radio airplay, with no TV work on it by Clarke or any live concerts, hence many people were probably unaware it came out...!

as for Nash' 'bitter feud' - well Graham and Susan Nash spent holidays with Tony and Jane Hicks, and vice versa, also Bobby was in regular touch still....so it must have been a part time 'feud' !

while but for ALL the sophistication the fact was 'Romany' FLOPPED in the UK , and got poor reviews ('Allan Clarke RIGHT to leave Hollies' was one prominent UK music paper review)   plus only reached no.84 in the USA on the back of the two Clarke sung Hollies recent hit singles there - and the second Rickfors Hollies album was left unissued in both UK and USA in 1973....

while Nash was also singing 'Chicago' - which became something of an anthem - and CSN were major successes at Woodstock then CSNY with 'Deja Vu' and 'Ohio'plus 'Four Way Street' were major hits too and over 1970-74 Nash was making more money than in all of his time as a 'Hollie' plus was seen as mega cool (something his old band never were....sadly)

so we have to get things into proper historical context re the wider public success even if you or I might be a Hollies fan first...

also 'Romany' WAS very influenced by CSN style - right down to the blend of acoustic and electric music - compare 'Wooden Ships' and 'Touch' (also later 'The Last Wind') re the acoustic guitars, and underlying electric guitarwork plus close harmonies

Tony Hicks 'Blue in The Morning' is very CSN-ish and Tony has openly admitted they were an influence on him then - his 'Confessions of The Mind' piece twists and turns not unlike Steve Stills 'Suite; Judy Blue Eyes'

Allan said his song 'Wings' was influenced by his hearing Neil Young's 'Expecting To Fly'

so Nash's 'post Hollies' work with CSN should never be dismissed as it certainly influenced both the 1969-71 Clarke fronted Hollies and the Rickfors Hollies, even if some Hollies fans don't care to admit it

while later dismissed as a 'joke' by some the fact is over 1969-74 CSN (& Y) were a MASSIVE headline act in a major league worldwide

Also it should be noted that  the Hollies followed Nash's lead after he left them, after 'Dylan' (which got critical flak and did nothing in the USA despite the UK public enjoying it) they went on to do self composed more mature songs (as Nash had been urging them in 1967-68) and got more in tune with the times with both image and music from 1969 onwards which set them up for the next decade

maybe they ought to have kept it more mature and 'rockier' later as opposed to going disco (wiggling wotsits), mock reggae, rather poppier in places ('Sass E. Frass & Joe D. Glow' etc) and becoming obsessed with melodramatic ballads etc...

the resorting to ballads (listen to CD Four of 'Head Out of Dreams' set- talk about 'heavy going' plodding songs when all grouped together) and covers of Buddy Holly songs but mostly done not in the expected style (imaginative but not widely commercially popular - copies were quickly found in 'deletion' bargain bins for just 50 pence !) proved to be unsuccessful when instead keeping to a more  serious mature song based electric and acoustic harmony led outfit in the style of say The Eagles, America, Bread etc might have seen them even stronger and even more popular ....(?)

- we know they were perfectly capable of doing it and their musical policy certainly was one of Terry Sylvester's major simmering issues with them that was a key part of what led to his exit in 1981

- Clarke too was unhappy re 'A Crazy Steal' in 1978 so it seems a very 'blinkered conservative' almost dogmatic attitude was enforced over the later seventies / early eighties and we can guess where that came from...

Greater artistic freedom as first Nash and later Sylvester urged saw them produce some of their strongest works and in truth probably was their best way forward, despite the success of certain hit ballad records like 'He Ain't Heavy' / 'Air' etc (which still could have been released but as exceptions rather than the rule once the sixties were over)

Lacking a later successor to Ron Richards in the form of a younger sharper producer, plus imprisoning themselves after 1967 in a too rigid too predictable style with initially very lightweight 'pop' songs and later slow melodramatic ballads and current trends (disco, mock reggae, lightweight pop) and repeating it again and again was chiefly their biggest aspects of artistic decline I feel which was something both first Nash and later Sylvester each attempted to prevent

that said they were always competent and professional in their work and kept their standards of work up, with the right song they were still impressive too but too often they seemed to pick 'lesser' songs ('This is it', 'Hard To Forget', 'Baby Come Back' etc) over (often their own) stronger ones  to put out as singles, and you often felt they were never all pulling in the same direction re musical policy as a unit, that key issue began back in Nash's era but continued long after his exit (and other key members) from the group.

[cameron]

Re Nash's feuds, I was meaning CSNY. Although he did go to some disappointing lengths to distance himself from the Hollies' image in the early 1970s. CSN managed one colossal LP as a trio, and one colossal LP as a quartet. Followed by one live LP of old and new material. Then that was it. They spent too long fighting and falling out to get it together and keep consistently turning out great albums. "CSN" in 1977 was okay but a bit of a flop commercially and critically, and "Daylight Again" and "Allies" were pretty much panned by the critics. This is where the Hollies impress me. Whether they were commercially successful or not, you can't deny that they kept up an incredible standard of studio albums from 1966 to around 1977. Even when they had fallings out or members departed, they kept working as a strong tight unit. It seems almost unfair that they are overlooked, but they didn't seem to believe in themselves enough to really push what they were doing and promote it. Even by 1975, their live setlist was largely the hits plus one or two tracks from the current LP.

Tony is very to the point and succinct. He hasn't got time for messing around. It's probably his work ethic that spurred the Hollies on to do as much as they did as quickly as they did. He's not one for looking back and dwelling on things, and is always looking forward to the next thing.

I think the Hollies are in danger of being lost to the next generation as their music isn't in your face all the time. Look at how the Beatles or the Rolling Stones have high profile reissues, YouTube channels with their official music videos, lots of merchandise... they know how to promote themselves and raise their profile. Maybe it's because "Hollies LTD" are just working for themselves? There's no record company to make money for, so to speak. They're happy with their lot and that's that it seems to me. The Hollies enjoy touring and still sell out some ever increasingly impressive venues the world over, so the potential is there for them to be as revered as other key 1960s groups. I mean, look at the Zombies, for example. They were by and large a forgotten group by 1968. "Odessey And Oracle" became a hit way after they'd disbanded and it gained notoriety with the mod revival in the late 1970s. Now they're fronting a huge social media campaign to get into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. I seem to remember that two key Hollies members didn't even want to go! Regardless of what we think of the RRHOF, today's generation talk in accolades, awards, statistics... that's the measure of success now.

You're right Gee about The Hollies and Allan's lack of promotion. The last set "Head Out Of Dreams" was announced on Facebook about six weeks before it hit the shops, the Hollies' website and had a couple of featured reviews in music magazines geared towards older music and that was it. It was so bad that a couple of days after its release, I went to HMV to buy it and HMV weren't even aware that they were getting it in! And when they looked on the system, the distributor was sending them just ONE copy! Madness! You can go into any HMV store in the country and find the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who etc... and rarely anything by the Hollies other than a few hits packages and maybe one of the three recent six CD boxsets. Even their 1999 CDs have stopped being stocked by HMV now, cited as being discontinued. The "Evolution" vinyl reissue was carried by HMV then discontinued and "Butterfly" never made it, it seems to be an Amazon only purchase. If the next generation of fans can't access their music, how is their legacy supposed to live on?

[gee]

CSN (1969) made no.6 in the USA and was in the American album charts for 107 weeks while Nash's 'Marrakesh Express' made no.28 but charted in the UK too

CSN (Y) albums were in the USA charts for quite a long time too - 'Deja Vu' made no.1 and was in the American album chart for 97 weeks and to date has sold over 8 million copies in the USA alone, Nash's 'Teach Your Children' made no.16 and his 'Our House' made no.30 while their cover of 'Woodstock' reached no.11 in the American singles chart also 'Ohio' made no.14 in 1970

'4 Way Street' also made no.1 during a 47 week stay in the American album chart

- that 1977 CSN album wasn't something of a commercial flop at all - in fact quite the reverse !! - it actually made No.2 in Billboard it outsold their 1969 debut album and has been certified quadruple platinum ! - check it on wiki

Nash's song 'Just A Song Before I Go' made no.7 as a hit single too
later 'Daylight Again' made no.8 in 1982 charting for 41 weeks - Nash's 'Wasted on The Way' reached no.9 too

CSNY's 'American Dream' even made no.16 in 1988 during a 22 week stay on the American chart

Nash often penned their most commercial singles and many of the tracks they are remembered for

re The Hollies - I suspect Tony and Bobby still 'get a buzz' out of playing the old hits and a few other songs in concerts and enjoy the tours - we can probably expect more 'hits' compilations from time to time as EMI activate their back catalogue of artists too

but besides that (and I HOPE I am wrong here) I can't honestly see alot now UNLESS EMI/Warners demand more product - I get the impression besides enjoying playing live fronting 'their' post-Clarke touring successful Hollies Tony and Bobby are not that bothered re any great historical importance of the band

as you said neither bothered re the R & R Hall of Fame show (they were probably glad in retrospect) and Nash seems to have more interest in them as a sixties band in historical terms than either Hicks or Elliott re 'plugging' the old band

the fact relations between the various 'camps' of; Nash and Clarke / Hicks & Elliott / Sylvester etc seem divided obviously doesn't help matters and they seem to have little interest in further exploring the unissued material (probably as finishing off tracks in the studio costs money...increasingly so)

IF Tony had more interest and the 'drive' of a Graham Nash re his band we might well see alot more Hollies product both by the current version of the band and the 'classic' Hollies of old and their critical standing might be far stronger

- they grew in wider critical  'respect' after the Hall of Fame induction almost in spite of themselves not due to anything they did ! (like when 'He Ain't Heavy' topped the UK charts in 1988 - thanks to a beer TV commercial not in any way down the band themselves at all...) but seem happy to just let things coast now

so they happily chug along doing well attended shows singing songs largely from sixties/seventies with the odd song or two from 2006/2009 (and surely they could do a few more of those more recent album tracks by now ?) and while they enjoy doing that things will probably remain as they are

Tony and Bobby don't need the money or feel they have anything more to prove now having 'survived' post-Clarke

so I can't see anything much changing, but as I said I really do hope they prove me WRONG ! lol

[distantlight]

Nov 16, 2017 16:53:12 GMT ransford said:

Forgot to tell you that you can listen to a new, nonrealesed song performed by Mikael Rickfors on Youtube. The song is called Reason Why. What do you think of it?

What a nice surprise. Listening for the second time now and it's quite a lovely little folk song. Is there a new album coming?