|
Post by cameron on Feb 6, 2020 10:16:12 GMT
I guess it ultimately depends on what you take away from the record, but to me, 'Myself At Last' tries way too hard to be poetic to the point where it's just very vague and I'm left wondering what the song is even about. On the one hand he's reeling off how dismal and dark his life is but then it's all tied off with the line about how he's himself at last - surely that's a positive thing? When you actually look at the lyrics, it's just a bunch of emotive lines tied together but it doesn't quite make sense. What exactly is he trying to say? That was my take off from it anyway.
Allan tries to be very emotively poetic in a similar way on 'Journey of Regret', which I think he pulls off much better than Graham. The whole thing comes together on the first listen, lyrically explaining how the world keeps on turning and you have to keep making choices while essentially not having certainty either way: "you're on your way to somewhere, down a road that has no sign" and this can lead you to having regrets about your decisions along the way, but ultimately, it's not your fault because you didn't know the outcome at the time. I got all that on the first listen, despite starting with some very beautiful but non-sensical lyrics. The way he sets the scene with "blistering sands are shifting, across an ice-cold moon. A blind man stands there swaying, singing out of tune" has me absolutely intrigued at the very start, but the rest of the song starts to make more sense immediately after. He draws you in with the poetry, but then explains those lines in the rest of the song. Allan IS the blind man, who can't see where the future takes him. To surmise, I feel that Graham strings together his non-sensical opening lines to create a whole song of ambiguous meaning that doesn't really hit you as hard.
I felt a strong Joni Mitchell-esque vibe on Graham's album, like this was supposed to be his version of 'Blue'. Joni went for the same eerie feel to her album, which makes it also the sort of thing you'd listen to in the dead of night to hear the ambient fragility to her music. But Joni entwines her very poetic lyrics in memorable melodies, which make them easier to understand and digest. I feel like that was missing from 'This Path Tonight', it's like Graham is just talking about his life set to music in a way, I lost what he was trying to say overall, I have to admit.
On the other hand, much of Allan's album is just what the Hollies did best - great songs based on love or stories about characters that were just full of catchy hooks and very singable. I completely understand why you like Graham's album, because even if I'm not getting the message, he is trying to convey one. Allan is just trying to show that he can still write a great tune, which he absolutely can - ten of them, in fact. I can get lost in Joni Mitchell's 'Blue' or Neil Young's 'Harvest' any time, so I get what you're saying about Graham's 'This Path Tonight'. I'm just trying to say that personally, I think he falls short of the mark because he's trying too hard. The beauty of his first solo LP, 'Songs For Beginners', was that every song is very literal. You get the message on the first listen, and he has an awful lot to say. It's not shrouded in the pretence that David Crosby's 'If I Could Only Remember My Name' was, and conversely, Graham makes the most emotive CNSY related solo LP from that prolific 1971/2 period. I feel like with 'This Path Tonight', he's trying to be David Crosby or Joni Mitchell, and that's not his strength. Every song on 'Songs For Beginners' is unique and well crafted, with very catchy melodies and instantly grabbing hooks. 'I Used To Be King' grabbed me so much on a first listen that I played it three times before listening to the rest of the album. So Graham has it in him, he's just wandered down a different path...
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Feb 6, 2020 20:53:38 GMT
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a recognition of worldwide popularity. It was disgusting to me that Tony and Bobby failed to show up. It was an important event and they blew it. Terry is lead singer of Long Cool Woman. He sang it live when it counted, in 1972. He should have sung it at the ceremony, but of course Allan wouldn't go for that. There is so much disharmony among the members of this once harmonious group. Sad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 21:05:10 GMT
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a recognition of worldwide popularity. It was disgusting to me that Tony and Bobby failed to show up. It was an important event and they blew it. Terry is lead singer of Long Cool Woman. He sang it live when it counted, in 1972. He should have sung it at the ceremony, but of course Allan wouldn't go for that. There is so much disharmony among the members of this once harmonious group. Sad. No it is not. They often choose US acts that mean absolutely nothing in most countries, while ignoring many world-wide giants.
Additionally, most people in the UK have never even heard of The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and those few that have tend to dismiss it for the reasons above.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 6, 2020 21:46:30 GMT
The "Hall of Fame" to me is like some elitist club. Whilst The Hollies are rightfully in there I doubt they would have been considered had Graham not been a member. I find it absolutely ridiculous that The Dave Clark Five are in, but The Shadows are not as the latter influenced far more bands and guitarists than the DC5 ever did but because The Shadows mean virtually nothing in America, they won't ever be considered. Their American counterparts The Ventures were inducted many years ago and of course they meant very little here in the UK... ask Brits to name three songs by them, they'll manage two at most. Sure The Ventures were huge in Japan but the HOF won't even care about that so that's a ton of acts immediately ineligible. It's also ridiculous that Terry Sylvester is just one of 5 Scousers in there given the many great names that came out of Liverpool. If the DC5 are eligible then why not Herman's Hermits who were just as successful in the States and had as many hits? Nah... Herman's Hermits are looked upon in a similar way to The Monkees, a fake pop band who didn't play on most of their records which isn't quite true. I could go on...
As mentioned before, given what happened when The Hollies were inducted, I'm sure Tony and Bobby were relieved not to have been involved and frankly I wouldn't blame them!
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 6, 2020 22:18:47 GMT
Plus has the Hall of Fame really got any credibility, They didn't want to induct Danny Laine into it with the Moody Blues, hadn't they ever heard of Go Now. Good point with the Shadows baz, why aren't they there? What about Cliff Richard, big all around the world. Why would they want the Hollies really, for the most America shunned them too, they wouldn't put their hands in their pockets to buy a ticket to see them live. Well done Tony and Bobby.
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Feb 6, 2020 22:39:33 GMT
I believe one of the actual agendas to be considered for the RRHOF is American popularity. How they can completely ignore the influence The Shadows, Lonnie Donnegan and other pre-Beatles British rockers had on many of their big names worldwide, as well as overlooking many great acts from The Merseybeat scene like Gerry and Billy J is just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 6, 2020 23:04:31 GMT
I believe one of the actual agendas to be considered for the RRHOF is American popularity. How they can completely ignore the influence The Shadows, Lonnie Donnegan and other pre-Beatles British rockers had on many of their big names worldwide, as well as overlooking many great acts from The Merseybeat scene like Gerry and Billy J is just ridiculous. so being popular worldwide doesn't count. What about Gerry and the Pacemakers, didn't their first 5 singles go to number 1. Hall of Shame is just a joke, just have a look at this. especially after 4 and a half minutes.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 7, 2020 0:16:06 GMT
Having collected the music of many artists over 50 years or so, I have little interest in institutions such as the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame and The Grammys and Australia’s ARIA awards. Whether the artists I love have been “recognised” by a selection committee is of no relevance to me. I have never referred to these organisations to seek validation of my musical purchases nor have they influenced me to seek out artists.
The greatest recognition an artist can receive is for the public to buy their recorded work and to attend their concerts and to have other musicians admire their work. I admit that some lovely albums and singles have sometimes passed by without huge popularity, but these are normally the exception to the rule.
There are many Australian artists from the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, who were hugely successful locally and influential on up and coming Aussie musicians, who are not in the RRHOF and never will be. Does this matter? No.
An example of a possible inductee is the 1960’s Aussie band The Easybeats. They made many innovative and dynamic recordings during 1965-66 prior to their world-wide hit “Friday On My Mind”. They were very exciting musically and as performers. Two members of the band, George Young and Harry Vanda then went on to write many Top 40 hits in Aussie and, importantly, produce the 1970’s albums by AC/DC. The Easys are revered in Australia. That is what is important.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 7, 2020 0:24:09 GMT
Plus has the Hall of Fame really got any credibility, They didn't want to induct Danny Laine into it with the Moody Blues, hadn't they ever heard of Go Now. Good point with the Shadows baz, why aren't they there? What about Cliff Richard, big all around the world. Why would they want the Hollies really, for the most America shunned them too, they wouldn't put their hands in their pockets to buy a ticket to see them live. Well done Tony and Bobby. Yes.... I do remember Terry Sylvester kicked off about Denny Laine not originally being on the list of Moodies members to be inducted. The Shadows is the biggest sore point for me because so many legendary guitarists, some of whom are in this "hall" have cited Hank Marvin as a huge influence and inspiration. Before The Beatles came along most local bands would race to learn the latest Shadows record to add it to their setlist as Hank's genius was in not being overly flashy and could be copied though nobody else had his distinctive sound. Oh, and he was the first owner of a Fender Stratocaster in the UK thanks to Cliff buying one for him as an expensive import so he definitely popularised that as well. He's still loved here as his last solo album charted high. An iconic giant in so many ways but the hall of shame treat him as if he nor Cliff ever existed and their places in music history are as secure as The Beatles. Jann Wenner's version of music history is a complete joke!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Feb 7, 2020 0:55:01 GMT
The Hollies made The Rock And Roll Hall of Shame...erase that!.....Hall Of Sham, for one reason alone: Crosby and Stills both had 2 Awards ( for CSN and for their previous group, The Byrds and Buffalo Springfield, respectively). Nash had only one Award (for CSN). He took a lot of teasing from the others on that score. It seemed only fair to even it up for Graham, so... Wenner held his nose and allowed a mere undistinguished 'pop group' to be nominated and voted in. But not on The Hollies merits! Merely as a sop to Graham.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 7, 2020 5:46:47 GMT
The Shadows is the biggest sore point for me because so many legendary guitarists, some of whom are in this "hall" have cited Hank Marvin as a huge influence and inspiration. Before The Beatles came along most local bands would race to learn the latest Shadows record to add it to their setlist as Hank's genius was in not being overly flashy and could be copied though nobody else had his distinctive sound. Let's not forget that The Beatles paid homage to The Shadows with the Harrison-Lennon song, "Cry for a Shadow". Significant recognition by the biggest group of them all! The Shadows were also huge in Australia during the Sixties and they had the same influence on Aussie guitarists as they did in the UK. Of the international groups at that time, only The Beatles surpassed them in longevity on our charts. The Beatles stayed in the Top 40 for 586 weeks, The Shadows 268 weeks and The Rolling Stones 256 weeks. Herman's Hermits managed 246 weeks. Our beloved Hollies lasted 180 weeks but they did add to their tally in the Seventies. The Shadows also had a number of hits with Cliff Richard these being arguably Cliff's best singles of that era. Yes, The Shadows would be worthy inductees indeed.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 7, 2020 10:49:35 GMT
The Shadows is the biggest sore point for me because so many legendary guitarists, some of whom are in this "hall" have cited Hank Marvin as a huge influence and inspiration. Before The Beatles came along most local bands would race to learn the latest Shadows record to add it to their setlist as Hank's genius was in not being overly flashy and could be copied though nobody else had his distinctive sound. Let's not forget that The Beatles paid homage to The Shadows with the Harrison-Lennon song, "Cry for a Shadow". Significant recognition by the biggest group of them all! The Shadows were also huge in Australia during the Sixties and they had the same influence on Aussie guitarists as they did in the UK. Of the international groups at that time, only The Beatles surpassed them in longevity on our charts. The Beatles stayed in the Top 40 for 586 weeks, The Shadows 268 weeks and The Rolling Stones 256 weeks. Herman's Hermits managed 246 weeks. Our beloved Hollies lasted 180 weeks but they did add to their tally in the Seventies. The Shadows also had a number of hits with Cliff Richard these being arguably Cliff's best singles of that era. Yes, The Shadows would be worthy inductees indeed. The Shadows got along with The Beatles as well as legend has it on their first meeting, The Beatles did an exaggerated parody of their famous steps movements and encouraged them to explore more vocal numbers. Bruce Welch loaned his Portugese holiday home to Paul McCartney, so much respect between them and like you say, what higher recognition can The Shadows have? Thanks for the Australian perspective. I knew they were liked down under, but never had any idea of the scale of their popularity. I know Hank emigrated there over 30 years ago. A true legend and always nice to see the love and respect for him, Cliff, and The Shadows.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 7, 2020 11:54:20 GMT
Talking of the Australian perspective - the Seekers were one of the best-selling groups in the world in the 1960s, with many of Australia's highest honours bestowed upon them. They've never even been considered for inclusion. It took them until 2012 to induct Donovan, who was at THE forefront of the counter culture - especially in America - in the mid-1960s. Even the Beatles were inspired by him on many occasions and thought of Donovan, Bob Dylan and perhaps Brian Wilson for a while as being artistically ahead of them amongst their contemporaries.
I think awards and ceremonies are all a bit of a joke anyway. Very political indeed. Not related to music, but a non-profit vehicle club I run lost out on the top prize at the UK's most prestigious classic car show last year. We fitted the theme better than anyone, both the visiting public and the classic car media agreed. But we didn't win the prize - why? The bland stand that won bought all their supplies from the event hosts and paid outrageous sums of money for carpet, lighting and display boards and we bought all our own. So if some comparatively insignificant classic car show awards ceremony can be full of politics like that, can you even begin to imagine how bad the RRHOF is behind the scenes?
As Eric points out above, music stands up on its own merits. I HATE it when you see something on TV now like the X-Factor or the Voice and they big-up the guest artists that you've never heard of because they've won a Grammy, had three number ones, won an MTV award... who cares? If the song doesn't grab me and isn't memorable, the awards mean absolutely nothing. That sort of thing got ridiculously out of control in the 1990s with the likes of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion having people fiddle the charts. Apparently many of Mariah's "no. 1s" counted on physical copies shifted, so they'd sell her singles at a cut-price or give them away with magazines. Apparently she's had almost as many number ones as the Beatles - but can you name five of them? I don't think so...
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Feb 7, 2020 16:50:32 GMT
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. Agree with most of the above. Yes, Graham, and every other musician (or citizen) of the free world, is thoroughly entitled to promote their political opinions, whether in concert, on record or in interviews. And I wouldn't have it any other way. But the downside from that, is that politics is always guaranteed to divide people along left and right lines, and never fails to engender bad feelings. And as a musician in the spotlight, I think you have to be aware of that. So many pop musicians' grasp of politics seems to be so very embarrassingly superficial, and what's worse, comes across as nothing more than obsequious 'virtue signalling'. And that's what I find so annoying. Highly successful musicians naturally have a huge platform to voice their opinions, but with that platform should come the responsibility to carefully consider your opinions and thoughts, and the resulting repercussions from voicing them. Case in point: I remember seeing The Hollies live in '83, and that concert was somewhat blighted by Nash's politics. What should have been a fun outdoor warm summer evening concert, ended up with an uneasy undercurrent due totally to Nash. They gave a great performance by the way, but it could have been a much better night if the politics had been left at the door. Music well played and sung, has so much potential to engender good feelings and bring people together. But introduce politics, that good vibe can quickly go south.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 7, 2020 21:19:49 GMT
It's funny, I actually agree with pretty much everything Nash says about politics, so it doesn't divide me personally at all. But it's the aggressive tone to it all. Yes, politics gets us all riled up and angry, but curb that anger and turn it into something productive other than just ranting and getting bitter. Educate the people by being warm and receptive. As soon as he gets going, I just shut off to him talking. He just spouts stories and facts with such scorn and disgust (rightfully so), but in my experience, you get people on side politically by breaking it down simply and having a casual conversation, cutting it off before it gets heated. The minute you raise your voice, you've lost.
I guess the biggest turn off for me about Graham Nash going on political rants is that an awful lot of his music isn't politically charged at all. Ranting about the Republicans for ten minutes and then launching into a light little ditty about getting on a train to Marrakesh just doesn't seem right. Especially so at a Hollies concert! There's a time and a place. When he gets to the bit in his set about 'Chicago' or 'Immigration Man', fair enough. But just tone it down a bit the rest of the time. David Crosby has been getting increasingly bitter and political at some of his concerts, resulting in a lot of people walking out. And you EXPECT that from David Crosby. Hollies fans just aren't bothered about politics at a Hollies concert because the Hollies aren't that kind of band. We've gone there to sing every word, have fun and dance our asses off while listening to some great musicianship. Sometimes people need an escape from politics.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Feb 7, 2020 21:36:45 GMT
I avoid politics like the plague! Here in the UK we've been suffocated by major political issues over the last few years to tedious effect and the last thing I want when I go to a concert is to be preached or ranted to in the name of politics. Nothing wrong with the odd song about such issues and comments made in interviews but onstage, it seems some use it like a pulpit to preach their views and sorry, I wanna hear some music and have a good time. I just want to try and enjoy what's left of my life without getting bogged down in political issues which in turn results in a downgrade in the quality of my life and moods. I guess that's one reason why I enjoy The Hollies' music - no political nonsense, just good basic pop/rock music everyone can enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Feb 7, 2020 23:23:32 GMT
I avoid politics like the plague! Here in the UK we've been suffocated by major political issues over the last few years to tedious effect and the last thing I want when I go to a concert is to be preached or ranted to in the name of politics. Nothing wrong with the odd song about such issues and comments made in interviews but onstage, it seems some use it like a pulpit to preach their views and sorry, I wanna hear some music and have a good time. I just want to try and enjoy what's left of my life without getting bogged down in political issues which in turn results in a downgrade in the quality of my life and moods. I guess that's one reason why I enjoy The Hollies' music - no political nonsense, just good basic pop/rock music everyone can enjoy. I remember on one of the more recent U2 tours to Australia a lot of people were complaining about Bono's and his political views at the concerts. I remember a John Denver concert and he started up about Australia needs to clean up their act, put me right off him. I want to hear songs and get away from the real world when I see a show.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2020 12:01:01 GMT
For fans of The Shadows, here is a link to Hank and the boys miming on an episode of Australian Bandstand in 1967. The show was titled "The Shadows Special". archive.org/details/BrianHendersonsBandstandTheShadowsSpecialThe show also features Aussie star (but Manchester, England born) Billy Thorpe, who does some decent covers of a few Cliff Richard songs. Thorpe is another revered Aussie artist who had a huge presence and influence Down Under for many decades. For those of you who are willing to explore an unfamiliar artist, here is a link to a different styled Thorpe appearing at our Sunbury festival in 1972.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 14:36:55 GMT
Billy's '60s albums are (mostly) great!
I particularly love his version of 'Take Out Some Insurance', blows away both the Jimmy Reed original and the cover by Tony Sheridan.
|
|
|
Post by distantlight on Feb 8, 2020 18:09:31 GMT
Thanks for your thoughtful answers about the Nash-politics theme, Stuball and Cameron.
I certainly agree, that especially if you rave about politics in concert it can become very superficial and slogan like. I think Nash doesn't come off too superficial, though. But Cameron, I think you hit the nail on the head about the aggresiveness with which Nash shouts out his views. I admire his enthusiasm and it certainly gives him an energy but especially if one doesn't agree it can become distracting.
And yes, political rants can and most certainly will divide people in a concert situation. I imagine he'd say that if you have a problem with him saying what he thinks you shouldn't go to see him, though. But besides that, I'm generally not a fan of too much stage banter in concerts because it very often takes too much away from the music. There are some people who are really good at it but mostly when someone is talking too much between songs - especially a problem when it's supposed to be funny - it can get pretty annoying.
But apart from that I must say again that the two shows of him that I have seen last year were really great and for me the closest thing I could come to see the essence of what I love about the Hollies without being distracted by contributions I don't like. At least as long as Allan doesn't play a show Graham is for me the most interesting act out of the Hollies camp at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Feb 8, 2020 22:15:12 GMT
Billy's '60s albums are (mostly) great! I particularly love his version of 'Take Out Some Insurance', blows away both the Jimmy Reed original and the cover by Tony Sheridan. Peter, it’s fantastic to know that you are familiar with these albums and that you like most of the music on them. They are some of the earliest albums that I acquired as a teenager back in the day and they are still in my vinyl collection. I agree that Billy’s version of “Take Out Some Insurance” is brilliant.
|
|