|
Post by scousette on Jan 9, 2014 5:00:22 GMT
I believe that in Graham's memoir Wild Tales, and in other interviews, he mentions Marrakesh Express as a song he proposed that the Hollies record, and was met with rejection.
Here is a demo of the song by CSN.
Was Graham so disillusioned by his personal life and professional progress with The Hollies that, even if the Hollies had agreed to record this song he would have left?
I'm thinking that, by this time, King Midas would not have risen up the charts like other Hollies releases. The band may not have been keen to continue in Graham's direction.
The rendition on the first CSN LP is one of the highlights, and met with some commercial success. Had Allan sung lead, would it have been a hit for the Hollies?
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jan 9, 2014 12:10:28 GMT
Allan is very unlikely to have sung the sole Lead vocal on any Hollies version - arguably possibly one reason he was not very keen on them doing it...?
Ron Richards (as later with LCW in 1971 to Allan's upset) was not happy about The Hollies doing it as he felt it 'wasn't THEIR kind of song'
I do suspect a part of the rejection by Ron Richards was due to the 'Marrakesh' reference which clearly pointed towards a (then) VERY "riskay" drugs connection (hence: not 'THEIR' kind of song !)
Allan Clarke might also have objected there too as he was 'A Beer & Skittles man' (groan...how 'naff', untrendy and 'grandfatherly' did that comment look in the sixties pop music press... ?)
can you er 'Imagine' John Lennon or Mick Jagger saying they were 'Beer & Skittles' men...?
- Nash was meeting this 'wall' of resistance to his more album orientated and often more 'personalised' songs more & more it seems, Ron had apparently been 'proved right' re doubts about the suitability of Nash's 'King Midas' (itself inspired by Nash's feelings at having his ideas/musical adventure being resisted) as that had stalled in the UK chart at no.18
Ron Richards clearly saw the 'Bus Stop' / 'Jennifer Eccles' / 'Listen To Me' /'Sorry Suzanne' style pop orientated Hollies as being a guaranteed bet for chart hits - so WHY change a winning formula the public clearly loved ?
'Hollies Greatest' duly made no.1 in the UK where as 'Butterfly' failed to chart at all (tho' in retrospect probably came too hot on the heels of 'Evolution' which HAD charted !) - thus Richards argument plus Mickie Most's advice re pop dartboards etc would have made sense in many ways thus Allan Clarke (at that point) sided with Ron (much like Davy Jones initially at least sided with Don Kirshner against Mike Nesmith at around the same time re The Monkees situation in the USA)
Bobby Elliott says he was ALL FOR them doing 'Marrakesh Express'...and Tony Hicks apparently raised no objections at the time, so it was a Richards/Clarke against Nash thing (Mike Love was similarly against Brian Wilson & Van Dyke Parks re 'Smile' songs in The Beach Boys around this time too) - these are probably no co-incidences are they...?
The Beatles were 100% all adventure while 'Satanic Majesties' was something of a failure for The Stones (despite yeilding at least three classic songs on it)
So in 1967 Nash's situation was rather 'shaky' re his ideas after the chart failures of both 'King Midas' & 'Butterfly' as Richards/Clarke seemed right and thus all the Hollies did was cut an unrecognisable backing track version of 'ME' minus even a guide vocal, before they abandoned the song...
How A Hollies version of Marrakesh Express MIGHT have sounded:
HAD they been more confident about 'ME' I think it might well have been something like; 'Away Away Away', 'Postcard', & 'Everything is Sunshine' in style but with with Clarke-Hicks-Nash featuring vocally and maybe putting some vocal 'do-do-do-do...' passages on the keyboard opening section (think Nash singing harmony on Steve Stills' 'Love The One Your With' - itself inspired by The 'Hallies' as Steve would say, hit I'm Alive' vocal intro)
Nash then taking the verse lead vocal and perhaps Clarke joining in part way and then Clarke singing the; 'I've Been saving all my money just to take you there..' bridge section with Nash-Clarke then singing 'I Smell the garden in your...Clarke-Hicks-Nash concluding: 'Hair...'
Nash would likely have sung the verses with Nash-Clarke vocal sections, and Clarke-Hicks-Nash singing: 'Don't ya know were ridin' on the Marrakesh Express...' etc Nash concluding; 'Their taking me to Marrakesh...'
with Nash doing calls of 'All on Board...' and Clarke-Hicks-Nash ending: 'The Train...'
and a fadeout of Clarke-Hicks-Nash repeatedly harmonising; 'All on Board...The Train'
Bernie Calvert featuring on keyboards & bass with brisk acoustics by Hicks & Nash plus some electric guitar by Hicks and brisk Elliott percussive support
It would have been a more commercialised sound than the lighter 'hippier' CSN version I think...(compare the two versions of 'Man With No Expression')
...and VERY POSSIBLY...a Hit !! (tho' whether the public would have accepted The Hollies version is debatable - tho' the carefree 'singalong' nature of the song was more instantly appealing & commercial than the complex structured 'King Midas' that ironically MANY Hollies fans now rate as a fav Hollies song !)
we DO know that the CSN version WAS hit material as a single....don't we ?
Clarke later found himself in exactly the same situation re LCW of course as Ron Richards complained he couldn't hear/understand what Clarke was singing...and asking where were the obligatory vocal harmonies ? (at least 'ME' had those !!)
I think The Hollies would have done a typically 'carefree Hollies' version of 'ME' if only there had not been such 'conservative' intransigence within the band - something Nash, later Clarke, and even later Sylvester each came to face...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 13:15:00 GMT
Whatever the arrangement, I couldn't imagine them releasing it as a single.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jan 9, 2014 21:48:28 GMT
well of course that's also true of the harmony less album track 'Long Cool Woman' too
- they NEVER released it, Epic & EMI did .....and look how that fared notably in the USA compared to their chosen release for their new record company 'Magic Woman Touch'
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 10, 2014 20:36:17 GMT
If 'Marrakesh Express' had been released as a Hollies single, I wonder if Graham Nash would have been credited as sole songwriter(remember 'Jennifer Eccles' was not 'Clarke/Hicks/Nash', Hick's name being absent, as he wasn't involved in the songwriting). If so, another reason why Allan Clarke would not be over-enthusiastic about the song. I agree with Geoff: I think Nash would have taken the lion's share of the lead vocals, and of course harmonies as well. I believe Clarke saw himself during this period being edged out of the limelight on record, and if things had carried on in this vein,on stage, while still keeping his front and centre 'striker' position, becoming a part-time lead singer, part-time man waiting for the bus, a la 'Butterfly'. Not a healthy group situation.
Nash was very unimpressed by The Hollies lethargic backing track for 'Marrakesh'. I think it must have become very obvious to him at this time, that The Hollies couldn't, or perhaps wouldn't, follow his lead anymore. They tried that with 'King Midas ' and the Butterfly LP, and the results were disastrous on both sides of the Atlantic. Their music was fracturing them as a group by late '67: their output consisted of either Graham Nash songs or Hollies songs, and the wheels were quickly coming off The Hollies cart.
Not sure I buy Bobby Elliott's latter day claim that he, among the other Hollies, was enthused about doing Graham's new material. Graham always talks about that period as being alone, isolated from the rest of the group, smoking dope and writing songs that would face rejection by the others. Can't picture Nash and Elliott sharing a joint while Graham runs through his new material, and Bobby saying, "Brilliant! Heavy, dude! Those songs are just so cool, man!" I think it far more likely Elliott would be down in the hotel bar with his other 'beer and skittles' Hollies, having 'a pint wit' lads int' pub'.
'Marrakesh' reached #28 on U.S. charts. When one considers the massive popularity of CSN at the time, and the fortune thrown into promoting the group, 28 was hardly a heady number. However, it must be remembered that the vast majority of CSN fans were album-oriented, and wouldn't stoop to buy the 45 ( in their minds singles being the province of 12-year-old kids: See The Hollies). Besides, they already had said track on the LP. However, considering the massive airplay it received, sales lagged badly.
The situation being what it was at the time, I can't see The Hollies having much of a hit with 'Marrakesh', even if by some miracle, they worked up a releasable version. Their fans wanted the 'Sorry Suzannes', and at the time, that was the type of material the group was most adept at delivering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2014 20:29:21 GMT
Not sure I buy Bobby Elliott's latter day claim that he, among the other Hollies, was enthused about doing Graham's new material. Graham always talks about that period as being alone, isolated from the rest of the group, smoking dope and writing songs that would face rejection by the others. Can't picture Nash and Elliott sharing a joint while Graham runs through his new material, and Bobby saying, "Brilliant! Heavy, dude! Those songs are just so cool, man!" I think it far more likely Elliott would be down in the hotel bar with his other 'beer and skittles' Hollies, having 'a pint wit' lads int' pub'. That's the trouble when different band members are using different "drugs". Eric Burdon blames the disintegration of The Animals on the fact that by 1966 he and Hilton Valentine were taking acid while the others were getting drunk.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 12, 2014 14:32:48 GMT
Yes, the question becomes: How do you hold a group together when there are two distinct cultures, two distinct lifestyles actually, dividing the individual members? The short answer is of course, you don't. What with all the mutual derision and animosity both the 'drug' and 'drink' factions bring to the table, something's got to give. And as you say, The Animals and The Hollies and of course countless others, fractured because of it. Too often we look at a particular song, or album, that led to a split, without noticing the elephant in the room: dope vs booze.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jan 12, 2014 18:47:13 GMT
There's an instrumental track languishing in the EMI vaults for the track. If we know our Hollies, it will be a good quality instrumental track but nothing special on its own. I remember a TV documentary about Graham Nash a few years back that covered his years with the Hollies: the reason I mention this is because it had a 10 second snippet of an original 1967 demo of Graham singing "Marrakesh Express" with just his voice and acoustic guitar. To my mind, his acoustic demo will correspond with the Hollies' arrangement - wouldn't it be lovely to create a "complete" take by syncing the Hollies' backing track with Graham's demo? Graham kept all his tape demos and he has a large collection - he may even have an acetate of "Marrakesh Express" from when the Hollies recorded it. I'm sure it could be done if someone with authority could put this to EMI for inclusion on upcoming project. I'd LOVE a Beatles Anthology style set from the Hollies - studio chatter and alternative takes etc... it would be AMAZING! But that's for a whole new thread...
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 13, 2014 6:48:53 GMT
Thanks for the responses!
Geoff, your thoughts on the possible vocal arrangement are great.
stuball, it's interesting that ME "only" reached #28 on the US charts. Although CSN had a huge following among album-oriented fans, the single was played a lot on AM radio and I thought it had risen higher in the charts.
Cameron, your idea for putting that instrumental track with Graham's demo is terrific. I'd love to hear the result.
|
|
|
Post by Gralto on Jan 15, 2014 12:09:18 GMT
I can remember asking Tim Chacksfield, the project manager for many a Hollies reissue about The Hollies' version of Marrakesh Express and, though I had heard rumours that there was at least a decent guide vocal on the surviving take(s) over the years, he was quite adamant that the track was really just a bare bones backing with no guide vocals and simply not even remotely finished enough to be issued. Gee will know this story too.
Personally, I think all devoted Hollies fans would be desperate to hear whatever they recorded for ME, no matter how meagre and unfinished the track may be. As the most infamous Hollies outtake in existence - even non-Hollies heads know that the group had a crack at the song before Nash took his number elsewhere - to me, it is quite simply utterly baffling that whatever they recorded did not find its way onto the Long Road Home boxset or the Nash Years 6 CD set (or somewhere else for that matter).
Happy new year to everyone by the way! Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this board - the birth of a little boy in late October will do that sometimes! cheers and thanks to everyone for keeping this forum alive and well.
(But whatever has happened to Moorlock? He appears not to have made it across from the old Elevated Obeservations site - perhaps he decided he had reached his nirvana when that audience Rickfors tape turned up a year or two back!) cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jan 16, 2014 2:25:08 GMT
(But whatever has happened to Moorlock? He appears not to have made it across from the old Elevated Obeservations site - perhaps he decided he had reached his nirvana when that audience Rickfors tape turned up a year or two back!) And in addition to Moorlock, whatever became of Baz, James, Garagenik, Mrs. Dude and a handful of others, whose contributions added a good deal of spice to our discussions. A shame they're no longer with us. It doesn't quite seem the same without them.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by poco on Jan 16, 2014 13:22:13 GMT
Moorlock is alive and well. Talked to him before Christmas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 16:55:02 GMT
(But whatever has happened to Moorlock? He appears not to have made it across from the old Elevated Obeservations site - perhaps he decided he had reached his nirvana when that audience Rickfors tape turned up a year or two back!) And in addition to Moorlock, whatever became of Baz, James, Garagenik, Mrs. Dude and a handful of others, whose contributions added a good deal of spice to our discussions. A shame they're no longer with us. It doesn't quite seem the same without them. I spoke to James a couple of days ago, he said he's occasionally read this forum but hasn't got around to registering yet as he's busy.
|
|
|
Post by roots66 on Jan 18, 2014 13:48:56 GMT
(But whatever has happened to Moorlock? He appears not to have made it across from the old Elevated Obeservations site - perhaps he decided he had reached his nirvana when that audience Rickfors tape turned up a year or two back!) And in addition to Moorlock, whatever became of Baz, James, Garagenik, Mrs. Dude and a handful of others, whose contributions added a good deal of spice to our discussions. A shame they're no longer with us. It doesn't quite seem the same without them. Never fear, Garagenik is right here! Roots66 (a.k.a. Deena, Signed D.C., what have you) is just my usual online handle.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jan 24, 2014 19:34:51 GMT
Congratulations re your son Simon !
Re 'Marrakesh Express' - yes Tim Chacksfield told me the same as Simon says above re it just being an unrecognisable instrumental 'run through' backing track
I think Bobby once said Graham MIGHT have sung a 'guide vocal'....which later was taken as Nash 'DID' do one...!
there was one photo of Nash singing one of his 'new songs' to the rest of The Hollies - Tony & Bernie both looked interested, but Allan did NOT...looking bored stiff...while Bobby was applauding ! (so maybe he DID like what he heard - who knows ?)
I agree that it was possible Clarkey felt he was being 'sidelined' a bit circa 1967 ....with Nash taking initial lead on 'On A Carousel' and his 'King Midas...' plus each taking a verse on 'Carrie Anne' (a song which was largely an almost completed 'Hicks-Nash' effort until Allan belatedly chipped in with the bridge section) - Nash on that doing all three chorus harmony voices
On 'Butterfly' Nash alone sang his four songs...even Hicks alone sang his 'Pegasus' too while it was either Clarke-Nash on a few of Allan's chiefly composed songs or the entire group featured with full harmonies behind Allan's 'Would You Believe ?'
Nash alone featured vocally on his 'Everything is Sunshine' as well
even on 'Listen to Me' in 1968 Nash sings THREE vocal parts (part co-lead vocal, high harmony vocal, and the wistful 'counter vocal' part; 'Please Listen...Listen To Me' and does the 'ge-ge-ge-ge...' vocal bits with Hicks & Clarke on the intro & outro) - considering it's known to be Nash's swansong single with them he could not have been more heavily featured vocally ...yes ?
While apparently Clarke was VERY unhappy about Hicks being positioned central on the 'Evolution' cover photo (as the photographer Karl Ferris believed Tony was the lead singer !!) - interesting that Clarke was annoyed about that but supposed 'big head' Nash (per some "Anti Nash" fans - who probably have never met him !) was perfectly happy to have Tony in pole position
I got to learn of this as much later Clarkey was again VERY unhappy about Tony again being central foreground figure in the cover photo on 'The Long Road Home' box set I was involved with helping Tim & co on... 'Evolution' HAD charted in 1967 - and was Radio Caroline's 'album of the week' (Kenny Everett loved it & notably loved 'Lullaby To Tim' !) ...thus I think to just 'dismiss' the psychedelic Hollies as being largely unwanted by the wider public is not quite accurate, I suspect 'post Nash' era the band might have let that impression be taken as the accepted view too...but back in 1967 it actually wasn't as they were then seen to be very much a part of the changing times - while other acts like say The Dave Clark Five and Hermans Hermits etc looked a bit 'out of the loop' and were doing songs like; 'Everybody Knows' and 'There's A Kind of Hush' etc that were massively successful but nowhere near psychedelia or 'flower power' etc ...
'Butterfly' actually missed the 'summer of love' coming out in the autumn of 1967 (a year where the times were a changin' at phenominal speed..) but was only released about 15 or 16 weeks AFTER 'Evolution' (issued in June 1967) and I think that might be a crucial factor as alot of classic material was coming out then (The Beach Boys 'Pet Sounds' duly suffered accordingly sales wise in 1966 as 'Best of...' was also just issued & given the bigger promotion by Capitol) and I would not be at all surprised if many felt they had 'already got their Hollies album' for that year... (The Beatles on the other hand had made everybody really wait for 'Sgt Pepper' - hence EMI had put out that 'Beatles oldies' compilation in 1966...and then made us wait for The 'White Album' in 1968)
The 'Butterfly' cover was striking and innovative BUT back in 1967 might have confused some people as for the FIRST time no group photo or image was featured on the front sleeve unlike ALL their preceeding albums - in later years this was nothing unusual at all ('Distant Light' etc) but possibly in 1967 it was not actually of help in pushing the product (??) - most agree 'Confessions...' had a dreadfully weak cover, significantly it's notable that the band WERE in cover photos on both 'Hollies Greatest' (UK No.1) & 'Sing Dylan' (UK No.3) the next two albums released immediately following 'Butterfly'.... so that COULD have been yet another contributing factor in the album's poorer sales at the time...(?)
Many people do say 'King Midas...' is either their fav Hollies song or one of their favs, while the alternately sung 'Carrie Anne' is another very big fav Hollies song, so perhaps Clarkey WAS feeling his position under threat somewhat in 1967 - note he sang ALL leads on 'Dylan' and Terry Sylvester, besides the odd line, never got a proper full solo vocal feature until 1971 (this 'hogging the vocal leads' was later something of a problem and probably overall contributed to Allan's later sad vocal chords decline...)
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jan 29, 2014 10:39:09 GMT
I just found this snippet of information about the track from an article about the "Long Road Home" boxset: A disappointment for many Hollies fans will be the absence of the long-rumored Hollies version of "Marrakesh Express," a Nash song that originated with the band but which became a hit for his next group, Crosby, Stills and Nash, after Nash quit the Hollies over musical disagreements in late 1968. "There's not enough of it there to warrant [inclusion]," says Elliott. "It's a bare rhythm track that stops towards the end -- things weren't going too well. Graham was always singing it and I loved it, but [producer] Ron Richards didn't seem to like it." Nash adds, "At that time I was leaving and everything was a little tense to say the least. The Hollies just didn't want to record the song with the spirit that showed up later on the Crosby, Stills and Nash version." Read more: www.rollingstone.com/music/news/hollies-celebrate-long-road-20031126#ixzz2rmaQLk4j
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jan 29, 2014 10:59:52 GMT
Yes it seems Ron Richards was the chief 'Anti' factor re them doing the song...tho' Allan Clarke clearly was 'cool' to them doing it
Possibly the drug references re the line; 'blowin' smoke rings from the corner of my mouth...' may have put Ron off it - remember the controversy over The Beatles 'A Day in The Life' and 'Lucy in The Sky...' while a few Small Faces songs had raised some eyebrows around that time, and perhaps after they had 'got away' with some sexually themed songs like 'Stop Stop Stop', 'Carrie Anne', 'The Games We Play' etc....and they had sung; 'Trippin' Trippin' in the sunshine..' on 'Wishyouawish' Ron might have felt this song openly re visiting Marrakesh - a known drug centre of the would - would be asking for a BAN (on the BBC at least) thus likely making it a 'no hoper' as a hit single after 'King Midas...' had just flopped was simply asking for trouble - yes ?
it's possible to understand Ron Richards views here - at THAT time - of course we now all know that CSN enjoyed a hit with the song, but in 1968 in the UK it probably would have seemed an untypical song for The Hollies when you consider songs like; 'Listen To Me', 'Sorry Suzanne' etc - safe guaranteed chart hits...
In retrospect it clearly pointed towards the departure of Nash from The Hollies and Nash could reflect on the vast success he then had with CSN (& Y) thereafter...beginning with a 1969 hit about a train ride to Marrakesh..
then by 1971 a song like 'Long Cool Woman' Ron Richards again felt was not 'Hollies' material...and that actually pointed towards Ron himself duly parting with the group...
tho' Ron then, for all his being 'too set in his ways' and 'unadventurous' could equally point to the hits they had WITH him...and the very few hits (plus all the 'flops') they then had WITHOUT him...
'Marrakesh Express' & 'Long Cool Woman' were each pivotal songs in their history...
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Jan 29, 2014 11:32:49 GMT
There is a contemporary article posted on this blog about the failure of King Midas with reference to plans to record Marrakesh Express and even how it might be arranged: fuckyeahthehollies.tumblr.com/page/2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 14:46:32 GMT
Whose blog is that? It's great!
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Feb 3, 2014 22:19:27 GMT
Whose blog is that? It's great! Got to agree - so far got to page 100 and there's a huge number of photos I've never seen before. Brilliant stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Gralto on Feb 13, 2014 12:34:40 GMT
Whose blog is that? It's great! Got to agree - so far got to page 100 and there's a huge number of photos I've never seen before. Brilliant stuff. Yep, this is without question the number one place on the WWW for Hollies pics. I've only looked through about 40 pages but the colour casual shot of the band with original drummer Don Rathbone on the park bench is a real highlight. Never seen that one and I'm sure Don doesn't have it either.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Feb 2, 2015 11:38:51 GMT
I agree with the comment about Butterfly being a poor seller because of the cover. I've always favoured the German Hansa records cover which uses the photo from the rear of the UK sleeve.
Another issue, around late 1966, the Hollies formed "Hollies LTD" whereby they owned their own recordings, record rights etc... and effectively gave EMI permission to use them. This must have angered EMI as they instantly lost a lot of money, but as the Hollies were in the top five in terms of biggest record sellers, EMI couldn't tell them to go elsewhere as there was still quite a lot of money to be made for them. But this showed when "Evolution" was released with NO advertising from EMI. It amazingly charted as high as 13 on the UK chart and was missing any singles; unlike their previous albums which had a habit of tagging the big hit at the end - I think "Carrie Anne" would have fitted nicely at the end at the expense of one of the weaker tracks such as "Ye Olde Toffee Shoppe" etc... But anyway, it charted thanks to the album being album of the week on Radio Caroline and also thanks to Hollies LTD arranging a big press release which was covered extensively by NME (featuring Graham in his kaftan "dress"). When Butterfly came along, Radio Caroline had just been outlawed a month or two earlier and EMI gave it no promotion again whatsoever until early 1968 when they featured it on their 45rpm single sleeve - on the back I will add.
It astounds me to this day that "Dear Eloise" was not issued as a single in the UK. It's perhaps one of the Hollies' best recordings and it has so much energy. Again, another part on the Hollies story where a great opportunity was missed. Back to the main point of this thread, "Marrakesh Express" would have presumably been an album track on the 'lost' 1968 LP? I don't think there was ever talk of releasing it as a single. On that basis, other than the drugs reference in the lyrics, I can't see why there was a big objection. Perhaps the Hollies weren't feeling it musically? Ron Richards always maintained that they could play what they wanted so long as they were confident that it sounded good. Perhaps, like a few long unissued tracks, they weren't really digging it and as a result, the recording is a bit flat and lifeless - much akin to the various takes of "Poison Ivy" from 1963.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jul 11, 2015 10:08:53 GMT
It's interesting re-reading this article having now had chance to hear the track!
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jul 11, 2015 18:16:34 GMT
when you consider what The Beatles were putting out on EMI in 1967 - 'A Day in The life' / 'Lucy in The Sky' re real or supposed drug references etc ... ...plus 'I Am The Walrus' (with the word 'knickers' in the lyrics - gasp) ...it really seems quite absurd Ron Richards (who apparently loved 'Sgt Pepper') should find fault with 'Marrakesh Express' re supposed drug references...?
I think after 'King Midas' had 'flopped' (as Richards had predicted) and 'Butterfly' had flopped (largely including Graham's ideas - tho' in retrospect Allan's basic song idea re 'Try it' & a few Clarke-Nash co-writes like 'Elevated Observations ?' & 'Wishyouawish' suggest Clarkey too was indeed musically at least also 'trippin' if less so than Graham) the situation was that The Hollies were less than 100% sure about Graham's ideas....
Hence Allan's curt remark; 'ALL of Graham's new songs are very slow and very boring...' ('Marrakesh' ?, 'Horses Through A Rainstorm' ?)
Allan Clarke was writing 'Tomorrow When it Comes' in 1968 - is that song any less 'normal commercial Hollies' (i.e. Bus Stop/Carrie Anne/Jennifer Eccles/Listen To Me etc) style than Graham's 'Marrakesh Express' ??
I wonder IF they 'knew' Graham's heart just wasn't in being a 'Hollie' anymore (he had hinted to the press he had; 'almost left last year...') thus maybe a bit of "awkwardness" and 'too critical' attitude towards Nash's ideas and suggestions was creeping in by 1968 as a result of a certain feeling of unease within the band itself re Graham's future in the band duly began to grow ?
we do know that 'Clarke-Hicks-Nash' were by 1968 drying up as a full songwriting team ('Survival of The Fittest' was a case of Bobby making the trio pen one more number together in a Swedish hotel room - the lyrics say it all) otherwise they had just penned the two new songs used as the 'B' sides of their 1968 UK singles, and significantly Nash wrote 'Horses' with Terry Reid...
So I do wonder if re 'Marrakesh' Ron Richards was being too; 'remember King Midas / Butterfly ? - better keep it nice and commercial in future lads !'
- while Allan Clarke possibly just 'didn't WANT to like it...' (?) (maybe by then Allan feeling somewhat; 'My Life is Over With You' /'Goodbye Tomorrow' / 'Separated'-ish) and seeing his oldest schooldays friend about to drift out of his life therefore took the same 'steadfast' attitude towards Graham's new material as Mike Love was then also doing re Brian Wilson's new material during the 'Smile' era in The Beach Boys story across the pond...yes ?
If so that might well explain the respective attitudes of Ron Richards & Allan Clarke at the time towards Graham's new song 'Marrakesh Express' back in 1968, rather than any deep dislike of the song itself
Graham Nash WAS of course proved right about the song's worth as CSN enjoyed a International chart hit with the number in 1969... while a few years on Allan Clarke found himself in exactly the SAME position with Ron Richards re his 'Long Cool Woman' song...a case of Deja Vu indeed !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 18:33:39 GMT
To be honest, from the original run through I don't hear commercial "hit" material in the same vein as 'Carrie'Anne' or 'Jennifer Eccles' (or indeed 'Step Inside' or 'Open Up Your Eyes'), but I do hear the potential for a very good album track. I do wonder if even Graham didn't think it was THAT special at the time, hence why he didn't push a little harder to (at least) get a full take with vocals & lead guitar. Of course, he wouldn't admit that in retrospect!
Even if The Hollies had come up with the exact arrangement as CSN & it was released as a single, would the public have accepted this material from The Hollies? We'll never know.
Let's also remember that here in the UK the CSN version got to number 17 in the singles charts - just one place higher than 'King Midas In Reverse'. So perhaps Ron was right about it being another King Midas!
|
|