awards America

[anthony]

Hi All,

I would imagine this was done in the past.  

Why did Bobby and Tony shun the Rock and Roll Hall of fame?

As we know they had shows on in the UK at the time, I don't know how hard it is to cancel shows and reschedule, who knows, but if they really wanted to attend I'm sure something could have been done.

Did they really want to go, did it mean that much to them, we all know at times the Hall of Fame awards can be cringe worthy, The Hollies are up there with the best in that department.

I think it meant more to Graham, Allan, Terry and Eric. Who knows to what underlaying ill feeling there is among members of the Hollies over the years too.

Then they would do a few songs, well who would be involved in that.  Even tho Terry made a spectacle of himself he could have been included in one of the songs, who chose to exclude him?

. Funny recent interviews I've heard from Allan I was shocked when he said he didn't want Graham back in the group for the 1983 reunion album,

and he said it was a mistake that Bobby and Tony didn't attend,  obviously there was a lot more to this that meets the eye.

In all honesty I was shocked when the Hollies did make it to the Hall of fame, think its really because of Graham Nash. Don't really think the Hollies hit the real heights in the UK, the fact Tony once wanted to know if the audience came in the same Taxi, that kinda says it all.

Hey maybe we will find out the real reason in the book,

[baz]

Hmmm. That was one strange occasion and it does feel like there was more going on beneath the surface. I recall Graham saying he had to try and explain to Tony and Bobby what the R+RHOF meant and it is true it doesn't mean as much in the UK as it does in America. It was suggested given how that evening and events panned out that Tony and Bobby were probably wise and relieved to have avoided the whole shebang. But given The Hollies are renowned chiefly for their amazing harmonies it was funny how the event showed more disharmony than anything else. I do recall an interview with Bobby during that era where he said he felt the time was coming for Graham to work with them again on something and of course nothing of the sort has happened. I think Bobby and Tony angered Graham in two ways - not attending the ceremony and their then recent awful "remix" of "King Midas In Reverse" on hits compilation number 79. There was bad blood about that songs "failure" in 1967 leading to the events of 1968 then Allan, Tony and Bobby objected to Ron Furmanek's remix of the song for the early 90's anniversary project but thought nothing of adding a lame drum part for a 2010 hits compilation... So, no further reunion with Graham nor any more tracks unearthed from the vaults from his era since then that I know of.

Then of course there was the Eric Haydock business, having sued him a few years before and unsubtly removing him from vintage pics in tour programmes and CD liner notes. On the other side of the coin is Graham who can never seem to remember Bernie Calvert's name. I'm certain he never mentioned Bernie in his autobiography and in interviews and liner notes always refers to Bernie as "the bass player". Just what is THAT all about? Graham praised Eric at the ceremony and has written and talked about him but Bernie?

On the stage at the ceremony accepting the awards all seemed fine if a bit predictable with Graham basking in the glory and taking a longer speech but it was that performance of "Long Cool Woman" which Terry gatecrashed and what we heard shortly after about him being snubbed by Allan and Graham that plunged the whole affair into soap opera status to the degree Terry still won't live it down.

I guess we'll never know the full story, wheres, whys and whats behind that evening as it suggested bad feeling underneath the surface on various levels and one thing Bobby and Tony has always done and had is complete control over The Hollies' PR and managing to keep any gossip and dramas buried.

Finally, coming back to the fact that the R+RHOF means less in the UK, is it any wonder when a certain Hank B. Marvin has never been recognised or acknowledged by that organisation? Hank not only had an incredibly successful long career and tons of hits with Cliff Richard and The Shadows but many of the big name guitarists who are in the HOF have cited Hank not only as an influence but also a major reason behind why they developed as the guitarists they became. That the R+RHOF refuse to acknowledge that along with many other legendary British acts hasn't endeared them to many of us Brits.

[JamesT]

I hope I'm not tempting fate by saying this, and I would imagine the answer is 'yes' at some point, but have The H cancelled a gig at any point with the current lineup?

I wondered if legal action against Eric Haydock in the past was enough to keep Tony and Bobby away? Like you too, Anthony, I hope it'll be in the book.

[Deleted]

I've always considered The R&RHoF pretty worthless outside the USA, and even there, from the very beginning the nominees have been strange (the original 1986 group included James Brown and Sam Cooke in favour of Bill Haley, Bo Diddley, Eddie Cochran and Gene Vincent - the last named wasn't inducted until 1998!). Of course, any British R&RHoF would have to include Lonnie Donegan, Cliff Richard, The Shadows, The Moody Blues, Status Quo, Slade, and dozens of more who have had notable influence and success world-wide - except in the USA.

Great though it would've been to see all key Hollies members together one last time (too late now that Eric has gone of course), I don't see why Tony and Bobby should've let down their fans at a prestigious London gig.

[cameron]

Around 2010 there was a huge spike in interest in the Hollies thanks to the press bought from the RRHOF induction and the LTAW documentary. However, the 'Midas Touch' compilation was released in the UK/Europe only, and no Hollies compilation would be officially released in America until '50 at Fifty' in 2014. There was talk of Allan and Graham getting together to "do something with the back catalogue", and nothing came of that. We know that around this time, an offer was made by the BBC for a one-off televised concert with the original lineup, which again, never materialised.

Allan said only in the last few months that Terry Sylvester was very cold towards him from the moment they got together at the RRHOF ceremony, and has continued the animosity since on Twitter, though Allan has rightly taken the high road in this and maintained the respect of the fans. Sadly, the same can't be said of Terry.

Tony and Bobby appeared on BBC Breakfast News to promote the RRHOF induction, though used it as a chance to plug the current lineup and expressed that they couldn't make the ceremony because they had a gig at the Royal Albert Hall within a day or so of the ceremony in the US. They explained quite matter of factly that they didn't want to cancel the UK gig and let their loyal fans down.

I expect the animosity is between Tony/Bobby and Eric Haydock, not Tony/Bobby/Allan and Eric, because Allan was out of the fold when the lawsuit happened. Either way, Eric seemed keen to work with them again when interviewed for Brian Southall's book. So I expect the "animosity" is pure speculation. Tony and Bobby strike me as guys who don't have time for that sort of thing.

Either way, my personal thoughts are that Tony and Bobby couldn't give a damn about an American award, and rightly so. They spent YEARS trying to get acceptance in America, and never got it. Europe remained loyal to them and welcomed the Hollies with open arms for the 30 years since their heyday. So why cancel on them to go to America all of a sudden?! As far as I know, just one concert with the current lineup was cancelled, and that was a couple of years ago when Peter Howarth collapsed before the show. We know that Graham Nash will have been blowing smoke up the ass of the RRHOF, as he's very much all about the accolades and the attention. I don't think his charms would have worked on Tony and Bobby, though I don't think either sides care enough or have enough to do with each other to cause a rift over it. You can probably count on one hand the number of times Graham Nash has spoken to Tony and Bobby in the last 20 years.

All that's come out of the whole thing is that the Hollies have a small memorabilia section at the RRHOF museum, their 'Midas Touch' compilation was their last big charting compilation to date, and in 2011, we finally got the 1968 Lewisham Odeon concert issued officially, as enough interest had been created by the Hollies to warrant them digging out the tapes and spending the time/money on them for release. The same pattern happened in 1988 with 'All The Hits And More', which sold really well, then 'Rarities' followed later on. History has a pattern of "testing the water" with a new Hollies product. I expect 2010/11 was the time to capitalise on it, and that ship has sailed now...

Having said that, the Hollies are allegedly going to America on tour next year, so obviously they deem there to be enough interest to fill the venues after their last rather disastrous tour there in 1983.

[thejanitor]

While their exhibitions look amazing, their induction agendas seem to be a mess. Two of my biggest problems with the RRHOF are their growing inclusion of *HIP-HOP* acts in recent years, as well as the whole Jann Wenner vs The Monkees fiasco. You're the single person on the committee holding a group back from entering because they were assembled for a TV show (why should they be judged on that?) and the majority of their music was made using session musicians, yet the iconic music of past RRHOF inductees from the mid-late 60s Laurel Canyon scene also featured The Wrecking Crew to a large extent. Come on! 😒

I hate to be bringing up the Terry situation yet again and I hope this is the final time, but how he allegedly did not receive complete details to the rehearsals (according to a YouTube comment on one of the ceremony parts) and consequently went on to embarrass himself on the night just to get a moment in the musical spotlight, worsening his personal distrust of Allan and Graham in the process, could perhaps provide a look into the RRHOF's treatment of members to-be based on US popularity. After all, they reached out to one-time already inductee Graham first who then contacted Allan.

Regarding Tony and Bobby, I am a little disappointed they turned down the offer to be at the ceremony, but I guess their choice shows their own way of dedication to the group legacy. They rather continued to humbly play the classic hits with the present line-up on tour, free of hype and controversy (perhaps they foresaw the latter with certain members reuniting) and not disappoint their biggest fan base at home by cancelling.

[Stranger]

They cancelled a gig in Castlebar, Ireland in 2006 due to very poor sales and an injury to Ray's hand.

[johnt]

Feb 2, 2020 14:05:49 GMT cameron said:

Tony and Bobby appeared on BBC Breakfast News to promote the RRHOF induction, though used it as a chance to plug the current lineup and expressed that they couldn't make the ceremony because they had a gig at the Royal Albert Hall within a day or so of the ceremony in the US.  

It was actually at The London Palladium (14th March 2010).

[stuball]

Once you come to realize the whole RRHOF Hollies induction was nothing more than Jann Wenner's celebratory rewarding of longtime pal Graham Nash, and that 'the rest of the group' were invited as little more than background scenery for Graham's ego, everything falls into place. True, although Graham did disguise it somewhat, by seemingly making it about Nash & Clarke, it was really all about him. It always is. And remember, Nash and Wenner, long time buddies, share a love of the same music and the same left-wing politics and causes. It is the basis of their friendship. And of course, I've no doubt Graham loved sharing the spotlight with Allan, giving him a wee taste of what superstardom is all about.

The wheels first began to come off the wagon when Tony and Bobby, wisely in my opinion, stayed home and stayed true to their commitments with the 'current Hollies'. I think they both knew this would be 'The Graham Nash Show', with them reduced to playing 'extras' in that production. Conversely Terry Sylvester, his career at low ebb, grabbed onto the chance of major publicity with both hands. And had he played his minor role of telling a lame joke, along with a tip of the hat to Robin Britten, all may have gone smoothly. But by rushing the stage and, let's be honest here, embarrassing himself, he did manage to take the spotlight from 'the fabulous superstar and his guest'. No doubt, it largely ruined that evening for Graham and Allan, although I'm sure they would vehemently deny that.

It was an embarrassing performance all around. I don't think any of them can regard to RRHOF fiasco with any pride. Kudos to Tony and Bobby for giving it a wide berth. But sad for 'The Hollies' reputation.

[baz]

Feb 3, 2020 16:13:50 GMT stuball said:

Once you come to realize the whole RRHOF Hollies induction was nothing more than Jann Wenner's celebratory rewarding of longtime pal Graham Nash, and that 'the rest of the group' were invited as little more than background scenery for Graham's ego, everything falls into place. True, although Graham did disguise it somewhat, by seemingly making it about Nash & Clarke, it was really all about him. It always is. And remember, Nash and Wenner, long time buddies, share a love of the same music and the same left-wing politics and causes. It is the basis of their friendship. And of course, I've no doubt Graham loved sharing the spotlight with Allan, giving him a wee taste of what superstardom is all about.

Sadly I think yer right. I remember an interview with Graham around that time where he bragged about getting in twice... then rubbed it in by saying he thinks he deserves to be in for a third time as a solo artiste.

[stuball]

Feb 3, 2020 16:26:42 GMT baz said:

Feb 3, 2020 16:13:50 GMT stuball said:

Once you come to realize the whole RRHOF Hollies induction was nothing more than Jann Wenner's celebratory rewarding of longtime pal Graham Nash, and that 'the rest of the group' were invited as little more than background scenery for Graham's ego, everything falls into place. True, although Graham did disguise it somewhat, by seemingly making it about Nash & Clarke, it was really all about him. It always is. And remember, Nash and Wenner, long time buddies, share a love of the same music and the same left-wing politics and causes. It is the basis of their friendship. And of course, I've no doubt Graham loved sharing the spotlight with Allan, giving him a wee taste of what superstardom is all about.

Sadly I think yer right. I remember an interview with Graham around that time where he bragged about getting in twice... then rubbed it in by saying he thinks he deserves to be in for a third time as a solo artiste.

Some egos know no bounds. I suppose when the fawning press has told you 'you're a superstar!' over and over again, you start to genuinely believe your press clippings. Sad!

[cameron]

Graham Nash was always my favourite Hollie... until I read his autobiography. I had tremendous respect for him, and his "quitting everything and following his dream" was an inspiration to a few key points in my own life, with 'Songs For Beginners' as my backdrop around that time. I loved his drive and his ambition with the Hollies, and felt rather smug for him that he was considered the "lightweight of CSNY" by the music press, but at the same time wrote all their most successful hits.

But it's all very well preaching one thing and then doing another. It's all "peace and love" until a pretty young 1960s dreamer got involved and Graham "followed his dream" yet again. I don't think that's a cool or impressive move. He's even been bragging about his sex life in some interviews recently. It just reassured my realisation that he's all about himself and his ego, which was evident in the book. It was all going so well until he gets onto around 1974, then it becomes all about David Crosby and a good 2/3rds of the book was about lame drug exploits and fights. His stories from the 1960s were way more interesting, even if he still can't remember Bernie Calvert's name... And this constant milking of CSNY as their archivist seems ridiculous when he's distanced himself so much from his much more prolific era with the Hollies. There's only so many times you can listen to CSNY sing the same pool of 40 or so songs.

Even his press trail to promote the book was excruciating. It's as if he's become some robot to the system, with a multitude of standard responses to serve up ad nauseam. He's all for "sticking it to the man" and standing with the protesters on Wall Street, but he's milking that cash cow as hard as possible at every other moment in the day. The two don't go in hand in hand. I just feel like it's an act because that's what we expect from a "1970s hippie". His two stresses in interviews were "keeping my wife and David Crosby happy - that was my main concern" and he's since split from both of them!

He's still trying to be political and progressive, but to me comes across as angry and bitter. Music fans don't care for it. There's a growing trend in artists today turning political and fans switching off. We don't want that any more, it isn't 1970. We want an *escapism* from all that, we get enough of it the rest of the time with all that's going on in the world. Heck, if the US Senate is battling to impeach Donald Trump with the courts and US Constitution on their side, a three minute pop song by some old hippie isn't going to make much of a splash either. 'This Path Tonight' lasted for a couple of spins for me, it just felt too cliche and false. But that PR machine worked well, and the album was a success. Even though I feel like Allan Clarke has a much better album with 'Resurgence'. Much stronger songwriting and a stronger voice, with far more fleshed out and contemporary arrangements, Allan's album didn't seem to make an impact in the same way that Graham's did. Just goes to show you that it's all about the PR and the right exposure.

I felt like Graham making a big fuss of Allan at the RRHOF and sort of shading the rest of the Hollies was his own way of trying to make amends to Allan for leaving all those years ago. Perhaps there's still a small bit of resentment there somewhere, Allan said recently how he didn't want Graham to return in 1983 and he felt like Graham didn't add anything to the group at that point. I feel that nowadays, Allan tells it far more like it is than Graham and now is the main one keeping it real. Graham was always the Hollie that was comfortable with being famous, we know the rest of them aren't interested whatsoever. They must be the highest profile/most successful 1960s group with the lowest individual profiles as far as the general public are concerned. They like it that way, which is fair enough. All the interviews about the RRHOF appearance have all said that Graham approached the other Hollies, firming up the comments above about it being another springboard for Graham - why weren't the other Hollies dealt with by the RRHOF people first? 

As for Graham Nash, I still really enjoy his work with the Hollies, particularly 1966 through to 1968 when he led the band to new heights. His contributions are interesting, catchy and have aged well. It's far better for me to just enjoy the music of the Hollies rather than get bogged down with the personalities and politics. That's why I liked the Hollies in their first place, their music was just fun and unpretentious.

[Deleted]

I've long learned to separate the music from the personality. I used to be a huge fan of Jerry Lee Lewis (I still am to an extent), but after meeting him a couple of times in the late '80s, I decided I didn't like him very much. But this didn't make any difference whatsoever to me still going to his concerts and enjoying the records, I just kept away from the backstage area and hotels!

Other musical heroes of mine are (or were) deeply flawed, such as Chuck Berry, and I still stand by my belief that Gary Glitter rivalled Slade in releasing half a dozen or so of the greatest singles of the Glam Rock era. So, it doesn't bother me the slightest what type of person Graham Nash might or might not be, and I certainly don't care how old or young the person he's sh*gging is.

[anthony]

Feb 3, 2020 16:13:50 GMT stuball said:

Once you come to realize the whole RRHOF Hollies induction was nothing more than Jann Wenner's celebratory rewarding of longtime pal Graham Nash, and that 'the rest of the group' were invited as little more than background scenery for Graham's ego, everything falls into place. True, although Graham did disguise it somewhat, by seemingly making it about Nash & Clarke, it was really all about him. It always is. And remember, Nash and Wenner, long time buddies, share a love of the same music and the same left-wing politics and causes. It is the basis of their friendship. And of course, I've no doubt Graham loved sharing the spotlight with Allan, giving him a wee taste of what superstardom is all about.

The wheels first began to come off the wagon when Tony and Bobby, wisely in my opinion, stayed home and stayed true to their commitments with the 'current Hollies'. I think they both knew this would be 'The Graham Nash Show', with them reduced to playing 'extras' in that production. Conversely Terry Sylvester, his career at low ebb, grabbed onto the chance of major publicity with both hands. And had he played his minor role of telling a lame joke, along with a tip of the hat to Robin Britten, all may have gone smoothly. But by rushing the stage and, let's be honest here, embarrassing himself, he did manage to take the spotlight from 'the fabulous superstar and his guest'. No doubt, it largely ruined that evening for Graham and Allan, although I'm sure they would vehemently deny that.

It was an embarrassing performance all around. I don't think any of them can regard to RRHOF fiasco with any pride. Kudos to Tony and Bobby for giving it a wide berth. But sad for 'The Hollies' reputation.

Agree with you 100% stuball. I really believe it doesn't really mean that much the Rock and Roll hall of fame, hey it sounds nice tho. A bit like the world series baseball that is only played in America.

It was really an embarrassment, I'm sure Bobby and Tony really know what to expect and wisely stayed home.

Graham hasn't always been very kind about the Hollies in past interviews, almost happy to tell the reporters not interested in the Hollies its all about CSN. Never seen Graham on stage but how many songs does he do in his set, two I believe. That kinda says it all.

The Hollies were never about individuals its always been the group. 

[anthony]

Feb 3, 2020 22:38:59 GMT peterc said:

I've long learned to separate the music from the personality. I used to be a huge fan of Jerry Lee Lewis (I still am to an extent), but after meeting him a couple of times in the late '80s, I decided I didn't like him very much. But this didn't make any difference whatsoever to me still going to his concerts and enjoying the records, I just kept away from the backstage area and hotels!

Other musical heroes of mine are (or were) deeply flawed, such as Chuck Berry, and I still stand by my belief that Gary Glitter rivalled Slade in releasing half a dozen or so of the greatest singles of the Glam Rock era. So, it doesn't bother me the slightest what type of person Graham Nash might or might not be, and I certainly don't care how old or young the person he's sh*gging is.

Hi Peterc,

That can be true, never meet your hero's. Funny met Bobby Elliott a few time, very nice guy.

[baz]

I have read tons of rock biographies and autobiographies and there's no getting away from the fact that a good few of my musical heroes are not exactly the nicest of human beings but that doesn't change how I enjoy their musical works. I could create a very long list of such people or bands with dodgy histories and personalities. Gene Vincent was by all accounts a frightening bloke to be around but that still doesn't stop me from thinking "Be Bop A Lula" is one of the greatest records ever made... and so the list and examples can go on and on. Graham Nash... what matters to me is what he created during his time with The Hollies and his 1966 to 1968 contributions remain my favourites as he took The Hollies into interesting territories. David Crosby is also a much hated figure but I still enjoy his work with The Byrds. Kinda funny as I still cannot warm to CSN or CSN+Y or the various permutations that came out of that.

Generally I think the personalities of stars ultimately mean little to the average listener. In the last year or so, Elton John has been enjoying a resurgence in popularity... I love the music from his 1969 to 1974 era but as a person, not one I can ever like or warm to at all... and still people keep on enjoying and buying his music.

[Deleted]

I've had the pleasure (mostly!) of meeting dozens of pop and rock stars over the years, (a) due to the fact that I often had a backstage pass to Jerry Lee Lewis concerts and UK festivals he was involved in, and (b) because I worked at a local theatre / music venue for several years. Van Morrison was predictably obnoxious, Jerry Lee Lewis could change with the weather, and Robert Plant clearly didn't want anyone bothering him. Otherwise, nearly everyone have been fine. Brian May is very approachable, Jimmy Page is a little shy, Little Richard is fine once you get past his constant bodyguards, Terry Hall of The Specials is a gentleman, Tanya Tucker is a fun flirt, P.J. Proby is far better since he quit drinking in the early '90s. Brian Poole, Tony Crane, Billy Kinsley, Sandy Newman, Frank Allen, Bruce Foxton, the late Chas Hodges, Billy Ocean, Chris Montez, the late Bobby Vee, Chris Farlowe, Alison Moyet... ALL have been great.

I haven't met any Hollies (or former Hollies), but I can imagine Bobby being more approachable than Tony, and I suspect Terry is also fine when meeting fans. 

[stuball]

Feb 3, 2020 23:26:56 GMT baz said:

I have read tons of rock biographies and autobiographies and there's no getting away from the fact that a good few of my musical heroes are not exactly the nicest of human beings but that doesn't change how I enjoy their musical works. I could create a very long list of such people or bands with dodgy histories and personalities. Gene Vincent was by all accounts a frightening bloke to be around but that still doesn't stop me from thinking "Be Bop A Lula" is one of the greatest records ever made... and so the list and examples can go on and on. Graham Nash... what matters to me is what he created during his time with The Hollies and his 1966 to 1968 contributions remain my favourites as he took The Hollies into interesting territories. David Crosby is also a much hated figure but I still enjoy his work with The Byrds. Kinda funny as I still cannot warm to CSN or CSN+Y or the various permutations that came out of that.

Generally I think the personalities of stars ultimately mean little to the average listener. In the last year or so, Elton John has been enjoying a resurgence in popularity... I love the music from his 1969 to 1974 era but as a person, not one I can ever like or warm to at all... and still people keep on enjoying and buying his music.

Yes, I very much agree! Strange as it may seem, it is very possible to love the artist's work and yet despise his character.

Your mention of Nash and his Hollies contributions of 1966 thru 1968 struck a chord with me. I loved Nash's compositions and especially his songs where he took the lead vocals. It played as lovely counterpoint to the Clarke-led Hollies' tunes that were the group's bread and butter: a tried and true formula. I'd rush home from high school in the late '60's, and listen to 'Stop! Stop! Stop!, 'Evolution' and 'King Midas/Dear Eloise' over and over again, until Mom called me to supper! Thought the world of Graham back then!

But when he left the group, and began his constant public belittling of The Hollies, I quickly grew to despise all things Nash. Yet I still loved his Hollies work and loved that distinctive high tenor of his. Even liked a fair bit of CSN, although I hated their politics and Nash's and Crosby's endless Hollies putdowns. I suppose you could say I was a charter member of the 'Shut Up and Sing!' school of thought! But I had to admit I still admired Nash's tune-smithing, as well as his distinctive voice. And for that matter, I never thought highly of Davd Crosby. Found him quite despicable, in fact far worse than Nash. But to this day, I have to admit I've always admired that wonderful tenor voice he possessed.

Sometimes, the less you know about your favourite artists, the better. But as long as you can separate the music from the man, you will always enjoy the music. And that's the bottom line for me: it's all about the music.

[johnt]

Feb 4, 2020 11:09:10 GMT peterc said:

I haven't met any Hollies (or former Hollies), but I can imagine Bobby being more approachable than Tony, and I suspect Terry is also fine when meeting fans. 

I've been to a few Hollies conventions in the 1990s and 2000s when the Carousel Fan Club used to organise them. There was an hour available to meet and greet the band. You had a few minutes with each band member to chat, have photos taken and sign memorabilia etc. before you joined the queue to see the next person. Everyone of them seemed to have time for their fans and all were approachable but some seemed to enjoy it more than others, shall we say. The chattyist (if there is such a word) was definitely Ray Stiles. Carl Wayne also came across very well at his first convention in 2000.

I remember being at Harrogate in 1999 where the convention was in the afternoon with the concert in the evening. During the convention, there was a charity auction of stage clothes and other items supplied by the band members. Allan and Tony had contributed some of their old stage suits whereas Bobby had donated the hat (still in its original box) he wore on the Hollies Sing Dylan album cover. Bobby also contributed signed drumsticks and a bagful of hats and caps he had previously worn on stage. During the evening concert, Tony remarked that someone on the front row was wearing his suit! (It wasn't me, by the way). 

[Deleted]

It doesn't surprise me that Ray is chatty and friendly. Mud were always a fun band who never took things too seriously.

[Stranger]

I met and chatted with Ray Stiles after a Hollies gig once. Very nice, seemed like a really "normal" guy.

[distantlight]

I'm not nearly as anti Nash as some here turn out to be. I think it is a brave move to share your political views with the world. Politics are what some people are inspired by. So saying that musicians should keep their views to themselves is not really appropriate. Nash has every right to voice his opinions just like everyone else and he wouldn't have made a lot of his music if it wasn't for his views on the world. You can't seperate the music from the content he is and was inspired by.

And sure - some people want music to be an escape from real life which I can totally understand. But there is so much music and some is an escape and some is about real life. There's no "collective we". Everyone has different preferences which makes it so great and necessary that there's so much different music out there. I saw Nash twice last year and he was absolutely great. He surely didn't seem like an especially nice person to me but he had a great drive and his voice was still incredible. He did play Bus Stop but it would have been nice to hear more Hollies songs. He also occasionally does On A Carousel and Carrie Anne. I talked with his guitarist Shane Fontayne after the show and he said that he's a big Hollies fan and one of his first concerts was a Hollies show. So he might be responsible for Graham having at least three Hollies songs in his current repertoire. Shane also told me he is sometimes playing "We're Through" with Graham in the tour bus or at sound checks.

I think Nash's last record was really pretty good and far better than Allan's. I wish they would record something together because I'm sure Nash would make sure it would sound like a high quality record and not this rather cheap sounding garage band thing. I still admire the drive behind Allan's album and I can understand why he did it this way but after the first listen I really didn't have the urge to listen to it again because it sounds too cheap. All the programmed beats and the random lead guitars. Nash had very tastefuly arrangements and his vocals are great, too. Some really good songs on it, too. His record really was in another league compared with Allan's regarding at least production quality.

[JamesT]

Wait 'till you hear Steve Lauri's solo offerings!

[cameron]

Can't say I agree with that comment about Allan's album at all. Allan offers such a mixed bag of styles and themes compared with Graham who's trying a bit too hard to be autobiographical without actually giving anything away at all. No lyrics on his album come anywhere near close to Allan's 'Don't Let Me Down', which is just pure poetry.

You do know that Allan's album was demoed on GarageBand then re-recorded properly in a studio? And there's only one track with a programmed drum beat on it, though I agree it's the worst sounding element of the album. Graham's voice is just so strained and nasaly now, like he's almost talking but trying to put a bit of musicality into it. A lot of his songs have rather forgettable melodies, which is confusing as Graham's thing was always a good hook or chorus. Most of Allan's tracks grabbed me on the first listen, whereas it took me 10+ spins of Graham's album to get at least half of it vaguely into my head. Graham's album does have an overall nicer sound sonically. I know Allan raves about Francis Haynes, but I think he can find a more ambitious producer to amp the whole thing up a bit. Perhaps now he's up and running with a receptive audience, he might do. I think Francis did a great job of bringing Allan's demos to life, and not being obtrusive with his contributions. I actually thought the guitars were great, especially his grandson's solo spots on the album. Allan also still tears up that harmonica as good as he ever did. And there's a few forays into electronica with his backing, which sounds fresh. I think Allan's album is very fragmented, owing to the varied songs and arrangements, remembering that he just wrote a bunch of songs and it ended up as an album, whereas in contrast, Graham wrote 'This Path Tonight' with a clear theme and tone.

To me, Graham's album is wholly dark and moody. The songs are all somewhat "more of the same" with their arrangement, style and production - even a lot of the tempos are the same! The only variant is the lyrical content, which alternates between being autobiographical and observational, though I don't think he hits the heart as hard as Allan can do lyrically. The only time he mixes it up a little bit is the heavier sound of 'Fire Down Below' and the gentle but lavish 'Back Home', which is my favourite song from the album. He sounds particularly youthful, but I don't think Shane Fontayne is giving enough with his vocals. I can really hear a part for David Crosby there, which is a shame as we know that'll never happen. I can hear a duet there, and Shane seems reluctant to give his vocals at the same level as Graham, which is why Graham and David Crosby worked so well because they constantly eked out the best in each other and "competed" with their vocals.

I do think it would be great if Allan and Graham could work together again. They've got nothing to lose at this point. Write an album about growing old together and reflecting on their different paths in life. With Allan's knack for a beautiful emotive lyric and verse melody, plus Graham's knack for a catchy chorus and a quality sonic production, the two of them would be onto an absolute winner. I don't think Francis Haynes is pulling the very best out of Allan, and I don't think Shane Fontayne is pulling the best out of Graham. But put Graham and Allan together, and you might just have something truly magical.

[distantlight]

I see your point with Allan being more diverse and so to an extent more adventurous but in the end it's all down to different tastes. I don't think Allan has written a song as good as "Myself At Last" or "Encore" on his new record. "Don't Let Me Down" obviously doesn't count. And I can't really understand the comment about Nash's vocals. He also surely doesn't go for the most catchy melody all the time but he doesn't have to. Great music is not always about catchyness - it can be of course but his album just flows perfectly and is a really nice late period album that will stand the test of time. I mean in the end it is in a way a bit pointless to even compare those two records too much because they come from a really different place.

I think Francis Haynes didn't do a good job at all on Allan's album - yes, he didn't screw it up 100 % but the album has some of the same problems the last Hollies albums had. It tries to sound modern without understanding what that actually means. Or better put how you can use modern recording techniques to achieve a great and timeless sound that reflects the old recordings while still adding something new to them. To my ears there is no real drumsound on the whole album - on all the songs except the one you mention they try for a "real" sound but the drums are still programmed and sound lifeless. On Graham's record the drums sound great - real and earthy. The solos of Allan's grandson to me are pretty random guitar hero solos, that anyone who can technically play the guitar can play - no strong personality, pretty out of place and a far cry from what Tony did in his best years. I of course know why he let him do it and I see him being proud of it but I must admit I found those solos bland and uninspired.

So yeah - bring Allan and Graham together, let a real producer with ambitions produce it and see what happens. I think there is a lot of promise in Allan's album and it surely isn't all bad. A better producer could have made a good album out of these songs. Allan still has a really good voice and is able to use it. The talent is undeniably still there - what he needs is a good partner to get the best out if him.