|
Howarth
Jan 27, 2019 17:32:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 27, 2019 17:32:25 GMT
I just watched some of a performance with Howarth. Honestly I can't stand him! He would be better suited as a quiz show host than a singer in a world famous band. Awful! The band's name is being dragged through the mud now.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by poco on Jan 27, 2019 17:46:45 GMT
Moorlock, Please say what you mean and stop beating around the bush ! LOL
|
|
|
Howarth
Jan 27, 2019 17:59:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 27, 2019 17:59:28 GMT
How anybody can defend this rotten version of the band is beyond me. Is that more to the point poco?
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 27, 2019 21:34:00 GMT
with respect to you Moorlock can you give it a rest. The Hollies are nothing but an oldies band these days. What are you wanting from this band 55 years into its career. Luciano Pavarotti was unavailable at the time so they went for Peter Howarth. I'm sure Pavarotti could have hit those notes Allan did before his voice let him down, hey he could have done a great version of the Baby and Magic women touch too. Maybe I'm the broken record trying to defend this line up, but you know something, they tour Australia and I'm sure many happy people will leave the shows enjoying the experience. the funny thing is they have been playing two Rickfors songs in their recent concerts. So they are remembering a very short lived line up of the band.
|
|
|
Howarth
Jan 27, 2019 22:36:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 27, 2019 22:36:26 GMT
Rock bands are prone to personnel changes and fans will champion one lineup over another. Yes, Deep Purple, Mott the Hoople, and numerous others have fans of lineups that only lasted an album or two. So longevity means very little. It's about music that happened at a certain moment in time and how it affects you personally.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 27, 2019 22:58:38 GMT
I think longevity does mean a lot, shows they are still doing something right, really I don't care if you don't like Howard, I'm surly not his PR man, if I was I'm still waiting for that pay cheque to come. I just can't see why it seems necessary to have a dig at every moment you can. I remember seeing Carl Wayne with the Hollies and for the first few numbers I felt this is strange no Allan Clarke, then I really got into the concert, its the music, the hits plus it gives a lot of pleasure to people. Looks like we have to disagree re this present line up, but that's Ok. Ok just a question, have you seen the Hollies live, any era apart from Rickfors.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by poco on Jan 28, 2019 1:54:49 GMT
Anthony,
Moorlock has seen them twice with me in 1975 and 1983 at the Bottom Line with me and my wife in 1983.
|
|
|
Howarth
Jan 28, 2019 2:06:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 28, 2019 2:06:21 GMT
....and in '83 I travelled alone by bus to Saratoga Springs in upstate New York and saw them for the last time.
|
|
|
Howarth
Jan 28, 2019 4:30:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Jan 28, 2019 4:30:00 GMT
The Carl Wayne lineup was interesting to me and I wanted to see them but at the time I was out of work and couldn't. They did a few shows on the east coast of the country.
I only go on the way I do because The Hollies are my favorite band and I hate to see the group's reputation for quality being flushed down the crapper as it is now. The songs are not being done justice to now, it's as simple as that.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by poco on Jan 28, 2019 5:46:56 GMT
Moorlock,
That's right, I saw the Wayne line up also at the Casino. I forgot about that one. It was a good show. I talked to him after the show for about 15 minutes
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 28, 2019 9:24:57 GMT
The Carl Wayne lineup was interesting to me and I wanted to see them but at the time I was out of work and couldn't. They did a few shows on the east coast of the country. I only go on the way I do because The Hollies are my favorite band and I hate to see the group's reputation for quality being flushed down the crapper as it is now. The songs are not being done justice to now, it's as simple as that. I like a person with Passion, I just think it would be better to say you don't like this line up of the band, just think personal attacks are over the top. And in the end its your opinion. Funny another topic on this site is a crazy steal, In my opinion its one of their worst most boring albums, full of slow crappy ballads, just the pits, but I prefer to keep those opinions to myself as I don't want to be over negative to the band. I just feel that its very easy to knock under the over of a false name in the shadows. For all I know you may be Terry Sylvester. I am pleased you got to see the band in 1983, I also did but Graham Nash didn't come to Oz that tour. lets be positive, Ok you are not keen on a game show host fronting the Hollies, who would you feel right now would be the best front man to lead the Hollies. not Allan at his best in 1971, a person right now to lead the group, maybe others have a thought or two. You know one thing Moorlock, I think you and I would have a brilliant conversation face to face, we are both passionate. Funny most times I put anything up nobody is interested, at least I know we can have a debate.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jan 28, 2019 12:03:16 GMT
We all know that the current version of the band did not create the magic of the 60's and 70's that made The Hollies enormously successful and highly respected. None the less, I will be going to the Adelaide, South Aussie, concert on 17th February simply to hear the Hollies’ material performed live by a very high quality band and most importantly, to see Tony Hicks and Bobby Elliott perform. I was never going to miss this concert as I fear that their touring days may be coming to a close.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 28, 2019 17:01:26 GMT
Of all the issues that divide Hollies fans on this site (Nash vs Sylvester, Clarke vs Rickfors, the RRHOF induction etc.), there is one heated debate that towers above them all: and that is opinion on the Howarth-led Hollies. There seems to be no middle ground here. You either love or hate the current lineup. And the remarks reflect those strongly-held opinions.
I am one of those who has no time for the Howarth-fronted group. And I am not alone. Conversely, there are a lot of people here who enjoy and support the current group. So be it.
But I'm of the opinion that half of the friction here is taking others opinions far too seriously. Taking it to heart. That, plus not being able to recognize when someone is just yanking your chain to get a reaction.
I suppose, if there is an upside to all this, it's the huge spike in viewers: 234 at the moment! Is that a record?
|
|
|
Howarth
Jan 28, 2019 19:10:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by knut on Jan 28, 2019 19:10:05 GMT
My wife prefers Peter Howarth's voice to Allan Clarke. She also loves Graham Nash
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jan 28, 2019 20:06:57 GMT
I suppose, if there is an upside to all this, it's the huge spike in viewers: 234 at the moment! Is that a record? I bet that comes from the team running the Hollies' PR and Website, drafting up a list of members from this thread that they'll never allow onto the 'official' forum.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jan 28, 2019 20:17:35 GMT
People tend to love giving Peter Howarth a bad report, when they actually ignore the real elephant in the room, which is my issue with the current line up: the vocal harmonies. That's THE Hollies sound. Clarke-Nash-Hicks, Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester, Hicks-Sylvester-Rickfors, Clarke-Hicks-Coates... they all had really tight far apart harmonies with the very clear soaring high harmony. All you hear with the current line up is a very strained falsetto, not a soaring tenor/alto voice. This is despite having four harmony singers for the first time in the group's history. I think I would enjoy Peter Howarth singing more if he had a confident high harmony singer working with him. Tony was always the quiet singer of the three, so it's almost as if it's Peter Howarth and the Hollies backing him, not a unified sounding group as it always was.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jan 28, 2019 21:16:38 GMT
We all know that the current version of the band did not create the magic of the 60's and 70's that made The Hollies enormously successful and highly respected. None the less, I will be going to the Adelaide, South Aussie, concert on 17th February simply to hear the Hollies’ material performed live by a very high quality band and most importantly, to see Tony Hicks and Bobby Elliott perform. I was never going to miss this concert as I fear that their touring days may be coming to a close. That sums it up perfectly Eric, better than I can put it, its a great quality performance with two of the Hollies legends still in the band. Weakness a newer song done live is not too shabby also. Roll on Melbourne 20th. Lets support a band that has given us so much pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 29, 2019 15:27:47 GMT
People tend to love giving Peter Howarth a bad report, when they actually ignore the real elephant in the room, which is my issue with the current line up: the vocal harmonies. That's THE Hollies sound. Clarke-Nash-Hicks, Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester, Hicks-Sylvester-Rickfors, Clarke-Hicks-Coates... they all had really tight far apart harmonies with the very clear soaring high harmony. All you hear with the current line up is a very strained falsetto, not a soaring tenor/alto voice. This is despite having four harmony singers for the first time in the group's history. I think I would enjoy Peter Howarth singing more if he had a confident high harmony singer working with him. Tony was always the quiet singer of the three, so it's almost as if it's Peter Howarth and the Hollies backing him, not a unified sounding group as it always was. Very well said, Cameron. And very perceptive. Howarth, as lead singer, does tend to take all the flak. But that extremely weak falsetto high harmony over his voice does him no favours.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 29, 2019 17:36:47 GMT
I suppose, if there is an upside to all this, it's the huge spike in viewers: 234 at the moment! Is that a record? I bet that comes from the team running the Hollies' PR and Website, drafting up a list of members from this thread that they'll never allow onto the 'official' forum. That's good! And I'm sure it's written only partially tongue-in-cheek! I no longer bother reading the rubbish over there. The vast majority of the posts sound so juvenile, yet I seriously doubt it's written by kids. Don't get me wrong. I don't expect pop music sites to be bastions of intellectual thought but geez, I'm done wasting my time on vacuous posts that make Sixteen Magazine sound profound.
|
|
|
Howarth
Feb 1, 2019 1:26:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 1, 2019 1:26:24 GMT
People tend to love giving Peter Howarth a bad report, when they actually ignore the real elephant in the room, which is my issue with the current line up: the vocal harmonies. That's THE Hollies sound. Clarke-Nash-Hicks, Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester, Hicks-Sylvester-Rickfors, Clarke-Hicks-Coates... they all had really tight far apart harmonies with the very clear soaring high harmony. All you hear with the current line up is a very strained falsetto, not a soaring tenor/alto voice. This is despite having four harmony singers for the first time in the group's history. I think I would enjoy Peter Howarth singing more if he had a confident high harmony singer working with him. Tony was always the quiet singer of the three, so it's almost as if it's Peter Howarth and the Hollies backing him, not a unified sounding group as it always was. Very well said, Cameron. And very perceptive. Howarth, as lead singer, does tend to take all the flak. But that extremely weak falsetto high harmony over his voice does him no favours. The Hollies, as they exist today, are downright sucky. It pains me to say it, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 1, 2019 22:10:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Feb 1, 2019 23:56:47 GMT
I have one of those tour advertising thingies. Never took any notice of the photo on the Road Is Long page. Only Tony and Bobby that stand out.
|
|
|
Howarth
Feb 2, 2019 0:39:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 2, 2019 0:39:16 GMT
I like the Tony/Bobby only flyer art.
|
|
|
Howarth
Feb 2, 2019 0:46:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 2, 2019 0:46:02 GMT
My wife prefers Peter Howarth's voice to Allan Clarke. She also loves Graham Nash I love porridge in the Winter but that doesn't change the fact that Howarth doesn't hold a candle to his predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by ransford on Feb 5, 2019 21:59:45 GMT
Moorlock, really sorry if you have some personal problems. But why spill it over on Peter Howarth?
Allan Clarke is the original and best Hollies-frontman ever. He’s outstanding. No 2 is is Mikael Rickfors. A brave decision to bring him on, but he contributed to change the hit- focused band to become an innovative super music act. The Rickfors- period is musically outstanding. Carl Wayne wasn’t a part of the band, it was a period of Carl Wayne show interrupted by some Hollies ingredients.
In my opion Peter Howarth is close to the Allan Clarke original, but of course it’s not Allan. First time I saw him with The Hollies was at Royal Albert Hall some 14-15 years ago. He was nervous and didn’t interact with the audience. I didn’t like it.
I’ve seen The Hollies at least 20 times since then. Now he’s a real professional entertainer. Love his soloacts, his way to perform and being a part of The Hollies-act! He’s a very professional and a skilled supersub for our Allan! He’s a Hollie!
Howarth is a superb Hollie today!
|
|