A Crazy Steal - diggin' into it!

[irelandcalling4]

Reading the excellent SteveHoffman forum discussions on the three CD box sets recently, the 'Head out of Dreams' discussion currently ongoing, has reminded me how amazing the back catalogue is. I'd always gone to 1976 as the last year they made albums I loved, lately I rediscovered A Crazy Steal and its actually better than I remembered.

I love the jazzy tunes, Caracas and Let It Pour. Amnesty, Boulder, and Writing on the Wall are beautifully played and sung ballads.

Hello to Romance I always felt was too schmaltzy, but lately I have found its beauty. Burnout and Crossfire very good too (I know, Crossfire a B Side).

The album is nowhere near the classic albums, but I have to say upon revisiting it was much better than memory said it was. Any fans of it out there?

[cameron]

Apr 11, 2020 12:48:39 GMT irelandcalling4 said:

Any fans of it out there?

Erm... no. The Hollies themselves don't even like this album. 

[albatros]

Yes, it was a good album - betetr than any other ones. I don`t like HOLLIE SING HOLLIES or WHAT GOES AROUND and the BUDDY HOLLY LP. And the first 2 or 3 albums are not so my taste.
Boulder To Birmingham, Feet On The Ground, Hello To Romance, Caracas and Amnesty - good songs. It`s an album maybe you like or you hate. If the Hollies don`t like it - wh< did tehy release it ??

[knut]

Not convinced The Hollies do not like it. It is a great album. But the cover? Oh no!

[JamesT]

Had a listen to some of the tracks from the album this morning, the first time in quite a while. I've always thought Writing On The Wall, What Am I Gonna Do and Feet On The Ground are the standout tracks. In particular, the closing track is a truly superb in my eyes. I'm afraid Amnesty and Hello To Romance, albeit with great vocal performances, are my least favourite tracks, together with Clown Service.

[irelandcalling4]

I know Bobby and Allan didnt rate it very highly, I read that on this excellent forum previously. How are the Hollies not as mythologised or eulogised as much as the Beatles, Beach Boys etc. I listened to the albums 1965-1970 last week, knocked out again by the sheer quality on display. All of the Non-Album tracks I compiled into albums for the ipod and they are all filled with top class material. So many books examining every song by other acts; finding info on Hollies when first discovering them was AllMusic and this forum.

I played Sgt Pepper and Evolution last week, and even though I do prefer the Hollies to the Beatles, I thought Evolution was much more compelling. Subjective, I know. Everytime I hear Evolution I find it more compelling, sign of a great work. That run of albums from Hollies (1965) to Distant Light is quite amazing.

[baz]

Apr 12, 2020 9:40:36 GMT irelandcalling4 said:

How are the Hollies not as mythologised or eulogised as much as the Beatles, Beach Boys etc.

A good question and my guesses are lack of a decent image and press agent. The Beatles had Tony Barrow then Derek Taylor as press agents, hyping and talking away and Taylor dealt with The Beach Boys during the crucial 1966/1967 era which gained tons of press - Brian is a genius, Pet Sounds, Smile etc which generated tons of excitement which remained in place when The Beach Boys' success sank for a while... they could always mention "Smile" - instant interest. The Hollies had Graham Nash doing all the talking in public but even he struggled as the rest of the band were happy to sit back and get on with being "normal". The public perception of The Hollies was they were this wonderful hit singles factory. They were dependable in that department but sadly, the public wouldn't take a chance or take them seriously as an albums act which frustrated Graham enormously because he knew they needed that market to be taken more seriously and gain more credibility. They were revered as a live act as well, but they lacked that extra something... there were no scandals and image wise, one only has to look at the flower power era photos to see the problem - all but Graham looked ill at ease so it didn't wash with the public.

The Hollies were too "safe" and "normal" - when most bands began dressing casually, they went into polite white suits and cabaret. Totally unhip and in spite of Graham playing a big part in that move, he used that ammunition against them when he mocked The Hollies after he left so to the "hip" crowd, The Hollies were anathema, totally square and uncool. Terry's arrival generated some press, the hits continued and managed a hit album with the Dylan project but after that, they were back to square one - singles sold well, albums ignored. The albums tell their own story - they were progressing and coming up with great material fitting for the era, but the public just wanted more catchy hit singles. They fell into this trap and were unable to find a way out out of it then when the hits dried up, they had nothing to fall back on but a loyal fan base. They couldn't generate headlines and kinda faded from view. So, I think the lack of decent press went against them and they weren't that dynamic or concerned enough to deal with it. They've also remained secretive as there have been a few "dodgy" situations that went down but it was all covered up which preserved their safe image. The Beatles, Beach Boys, Rolling Stones and more had scandals and speculation about them which helped enhance their standing and legends whereas The Hollies had none of that. The Hollies were pretty much taken for granted.

There's more to it but a basic summary from that angle which I think is why The Hollies are not as revered as they should be.

[gee]

I think with A Crazy Steal they were required by Polydor to come up with an album and rather threw a few songs together

in retrospect ACS coming in between the TV promoted 'Hollies Live Hits' making no.4 (and soon after 'Twenty Golden Greats' reaching no.2 in the UK) the putting out of this rather complied sounding effort with such a ghastly cover photo was sheer madness from a marketing angle blowing the chance to capitalise on the wider public interest in the band at home at that time


- THREE singles, ('Boulder' from as far back as February 1976) were included while 'Burn Out' and 'Caracas' the only two uptempo songs stand out like palm trees in a desert of slow often rather sombre numbers that whilst in themselves had their merits - notably strong vocals and fine instrumentation - all bunched together made for an uncharacteristic rather downbeat overall set of melodramatic numbers bar just those two livelier tracks that made for heavy going overall

leaving off the 1976 Boulder, adding the terrific guitar led 'Crossfire' to open side two duly moving 'Amnesty' (with a glorious vocal only intro, strong harmonies and a great Hicks guitar solo) on up after 'Caracas' to third track and perhaps inserting the then unreleased 'Tip of The Iceberg' as track three on side one to inject more life into the set, giving six songs on the first side might have boosted ACS up to a better balanced mixture of styles enabling the slower numbers to shine more being better punctuated by at least FOUR uptempo more upbeat songs

.. together with a proper cover photo !!!!

[irelandcalling4]

Great responses, thank you gents (and ladies; in case any of the nom de plumes are female!)

I only really discovered the band 6 years ago; have loved the Stones, Who and Kinks since early 90s, pretty big Beatles fan also, but besides some uber hits, had not delved into Hollies. June 2013 the 'Look Through Any Window' doc was on SkyArts1, and by the end of that 2.5 hours I was hooked! So many great songs, I had to hear more. Went through the catalogue chronologically - Clarke, Hicks and Nash set, compiled the volume into the respective studio albums, with bonus albums of all non- album tracks, and began with that first studio album. 'Talkin Bout You' was a revelation; Track One, Album One, I loved it - the harmonies, tempo, instrumentation. By Xmas I was onto Distant Light having immersed into the full Nash Years boxset. The Hollies were up there with the Stones even at that point as one of my favourite acts.

The post-Nash was a revelation too; Sing Hollies, Confessions, Distant Light - they progressed, as like the best acts of the 60s, into quality 70s albums. How did I miss this band when first discovering music late 80s/early 90s. Sing Hollies still a big fave - besides one or two lightweight numbers, some amazing, artistic tracks with supreme high points.

Only heard their last 3 albums, 1979-1983, once each maybe, but to 1978 know tge catalogue very well and see them as one of the very best. Am hoping Furmaneks Rarities collection comes to fruition soon for more unheard Hollies.

[cameron]

Apr 12, 2020 9:40:36 GMT irelandcalling4 said:

I played Sgt Pepper and Evolution last week, and even though I do prefer the Hollies to the Beatles, I thought Evolution was much more compelling. Subjective, I know. Everytime I hear Evolution I find it more compelling, sign of a great work. That run of albums from Hollies (1965) to Distant Light is quite amazing.

DJ Kenny Everett made 'Evolution' his Record of the Week before 'Sgt. Pepper' at the time. 

[cameron]

Bobby pretty much slates this album in his book, although takes credit for the cover. He pretty much alludes to it being a 'cobbled together' album to satisfy Polydor records, which we already worked out.

Meanwhile, there's an absolutely scathing interview with Allan at the time somewhere, just after he left the group for the second time shortly after the album was released, where he absolutely tears this album limb from limb, calling it unimaginative, boring and he even slags off the sleeve from what I remember. I get that his ramblings were probably a bit pre-loaded due to his struggles behind the scenes, but he kind of was saying what I had concluded myself before I even read that interview.

It's just a symbol of the completely lacklustre effort that the Hollies were making as a group around this time. Bobby's book confirms all the internal struggles behind the scenes around the time of this album. Re-grouping with Ron Richards for '5317704' was supposed to get them all back together and on the same page - though I expect none of them were prepared for the state of Ron's drinking habit when the reunion actually happened, resulting in another not very exciting album with a very mucky production. Some of the lyrics are inaudible because the mix is that muddy! I felt like 'Buddy Holly' was a bit of a better step in the right direction, but all three albums pale significantly when pitched against Allan's solo 'Legendary Heroes' from around the same period, leading me to think that perhaps Allan wasn't the problem. Though allegedly, 'Buddy Holly' was his idea, which Terry was dead against. Shades of Graham Nash vs 'Hollies Sing Dylan' back in 1968...

I think fans find the last three Polydor albums frustrating because we KNOW that the Hollies were capable of much better things. They proved it again and again before. The musical progression from 'Stay With The Hollies' through to 'Distant Light' when their contract with EMI expired was comparable with that of the Beatles. Even the Rolling Stones had kind of gone back to their blues roots at that point. The Hollies just kept pushing forward and giving us exciting new albums. They had one of the tightest rhythm sections in the business, tightest front line vocals who could turn up the heat in a live setting, a guitarist as talented as Tony (who's by and large pushed to the back for those last three Polydor albums) and a lead singer as iconic and capable as Allan Clarke. Plus you've got the public who were obviously hungry for the Hollies - in 1977 'Live Hits' was riding at No.4 in the UK and the following year '20 Golden Greats' was at No.2 despite an abominable cover and even worse TV advert. I personally blame management. Robin Britten seems better as a tour manager. They needed a shark who was good with PR, and he evidently wasn't. Virtually no money was thrown at promoting the Hollies until the album or single began to sell well on its own, and they had no industry shark wanting to exploit them by giving them great opportunities and fiddling sales figures like pretty much every other big name in the business in the 1970s. The nice side to all that is whatever records the Hollies sold, sold on their own artistic merit and that alone.

[Deleted]

Apr 12, 2020 10:31:24 GMT baz said:

Apr 12, 2020 9:40:36 GMT irelandcalling4 said:

How are the Hollies not as mythologised or eulogised as much as the Beatles, Beach Boys etc.

A good question and my guesses are lack of a decent image and press agent. The Beatles had Tony Barrow then Derek Taylor as press agents, hyping and talking away and Taylor dealt with The Beach Boys during the crucial 1966/1967 era which gained tons of press - Brian is a genius, Pet Sounds, Smile etc which generated tons of excitement which remained in place when The Beach Boys' success sank for a while... they could always mention "Smile" - instant interest. The Hollies had Graham Nash doing all the talking in public but even he struggled as the rest of the band were happy to sit back and get on with being "normal". The public perception of The Hollies was they were this wonderful hit singles factory. They were dependable in that department but sadly, the public wouldn't take a chance or take them seriously as an albums act which frustrated Graham enormously because he knew they needed that market to be taken more seriously and gain more credibility. They were revered as a live act as well, but they lacked that extra something... there were no scandals and image wise, one only has to look at the flower power era photos to see the problem - all but Graham looked ill at ease so it didn't wash with the public.

The Hollies were too "safe" and "normal" - when most bands began dressing casually, they went into polite white suits and cabaret. Totally unhip and in spite of Graham playing a big part in that move, he used that ammunition against them when he mocked The Hollies after he left so to the "hip" crowd, The Hollies were anathema, totally square and uncool. Terry's arrival generated some press, the hits continued and managed a hit album with the Dylan project but after that, they were back to square one - singles sold well, albums ignored. The albums tell their own story - they were progressing and coming up with great material fitting for the era, but the public just wanted more catchy hit singles. They fell into this trap and were unable to find a way out out of it then when the hits dried up, they had nothing to fall back on but a loyal fan base. They couldn't generate headlines and kinda faded from view. So, I think the lack of decent press went against them and they weren't that dynamic or concerned enough to deal with it. They've also remained secretive as there have been a few "dodgy" situations that went down but it was all covered up which preserved their safe image. The Beatles, Beach Boys, Rolling Stones and more had scandals and speculation about them which helped enhance their standing and legends whereas The Hollies had none of that. The Hollies were pretty much taken for granted.

There's more to it but a basic summary from that angle which I think is why The Hollies are not as revered as they should be.

Two more possible reasons why The Hollies aren't seen as cool:

(a) They stayed around far too long, and (b) Their best known 2 songs, at least in the UK, are (albeit excellent) middle of the road ballads.   

If they'd have split at the end of 1968, and there'd been a sympathetic reissue campaign featuring cool circa 1965-1966 photos, then I'm sure they would be as highly regarded as The Small Faces and The Kinks. 

[anthony]

Hi All, not a fan of Crazy Steal or any of the later 70's albums, I found them very boring, all ballads not that many highs. Thought the last good album of the 70's was Russian Roulette, also think their choice of singles was very poor and maybe they were just thought of as a 60's band with no hard edge.

[dirtyfaz]

Not a fan either but a few good songs on it. For me my liking of entire albums seemed to diminish after Another Night. Remember getting Write On and Russian Roulette when they came out and think at the time may have played both on twice. Neither grabbed me sufficient to come back to them although over the years I continually give them another try but nothing happens for me.
It doesn't matter who I am listening to I am an albums person and even today I still basically only play entire albums. I listen to a lot of music other than The Hollies and if that LP doesn't grab me I find I may never come back to it.

[thejanitor]

I have A Crazy Steal in my Hollies vinyl collection but haven't heard the full album or played my copy yet. However, I've listened to "Hello To Romance" and "Boulder To Birmingham" online and I think both are particular highlights among their late 70s output.

The latter song is a great choice of cover, Allan really puts his heart and soul into the vocal and there's some pretty orchestration on it too, but my only problem is I suspect they were trying too hard here to channel a "He Ain't Heavy"-esque sound with it. It could just be me, but also I think this same thing about earlier songs such as "Lucy" and "There's Always Goodbye".

"Hello To Romance" on the other hand, I can understand why some would dislike it, but I think it's a decent enough pop ballad and has some well-written lyrics, not exactly hit-material though.

[eric]

I too have not been a great lover of the mid to late 70’s albums commencing with “Write On” and finishing with “5317704” However, last year I decided to give these albums another go after not playing them for a very long time.

I was pleased to rediscover some great songs, glorious harmonies, passionate vocals by Allan Clarke and superb guitar work by Tony Hicks. I also listened to the band’s other recordings from 1975-79 in the process. In doing so, I formed the view that The Hollies recorded some high quality music during those years and that their albums in that period were not assembled as well as they could have been.

I then compiled several playlists with songs from 1975-79 in order to try to bring this music “back to life” for me. I had three main criteria when making my song selections; the first one being that the song had to be interesting and, two; the songs had to be placed in general chronological order and, three; an emphasis was placed on selecting songs featuring guitar parts by Tony Hicks. I wanted to hear more guitar from Tony!

My new playlists (below) have now replaced the official albums for my listening experience. Importantly, I am no longer reluctant to play Hollies music from this era.

Playlist 1: Best 1976-77 (34 mins) - Boulder To Birmingham – Daddy Don’t Mind – My Love – Russian Roulette – Lady Of The Night – 48 Hour Parole – Draggin’ My Heels – Burn Out – Writing On The Wall

Playlist 2: Best 1977-79 (32 mins) – Amnesty – Crossfire – Feet On The Ground – Satellite Three – Sanctuary – Say It Ain’t So Jo – Harlequin – Soldier’s Song

Playlist 3: Rest 1977-79 (34 mins) – There’s Always Goodbye – C’mon – Hello To Romance – Let It Pour – Caracas – What Am I Gonna Do – Lovin’ You Ain’t Easy – Something To Live For

(For completeness, I should state that I have included the following songs from 1975-79 on other playlists: Samuel – Thanks For The Memories – Wiggle That Wotsit – Narida – I Won’t Move Over – Love Is The Thing – Here In My Dreams)

[Stranger]

I've said this before but I kinda like this album because some of the tracks on it have a certain atmosphere that no other Hollies songs do. It just has a "sound".

What Am I Gonna Do is one of my all time favourite Hollies songs, it has that "sound" and the novelty of a sort of falsetto from Allan. And it's a good song!

[endric]

I really enjoyed all the ballads on A Crazy Steal, especially Feet on the Ground is one of my all-time favourites. I don't care much for the faster songs on the album and find myself skipping them when playing the CD. It was great to finally have Boulder to Birmingham on an album even though I felt it was a little out of place on this one. For me the 70's Hollies were a fantastic ballad band with absolute highlights like- Too Young to be Married, Touch, The Air..., Don't Let me Down, I'm Down, Sandy, Lucy, There's Always Goodbye, and most of the A Crazy Steal ballads. The ballads (as the other songs) on the albums Russian Roulette and 5317704 were unfortunately a bit of a disappointment for me. I thoroughly understand that you can't always create great songs but fortunately the Hollies did make enough beauties!

[moorlock2003]

There is good production on this album. Feet on the ground and Caracas are my favorites. I don't have it on vinyl though. I dumped some of their vinyl LPs from my collection. Can't keep everything.

[JamesT]

Apr 12, 2020 15:28:57 GMT cameron said:

Re-grouping with Ron Richards for '5317704' was supposed to get them all back together and on the same page - though I expect none of them were prepared for the state of Ron's drinking habit when the reunion actually happened, resulting in another not very exciting album with a very mucky production. Some of the lyrics are inaudible because the mix is that muddy!

I'm curious about this comment, Cameron.  I know you've got a good bit more technical insight than myself, but having listened to the CD tracks on headphones, to my ears it sounds much better than 'A Crazy Steal' or 'Write On', both of which I had hoped would receive a 'sonic overhaul' had the remastered reissues series of about 13 years ago continued.   The orchestrations are certainly very prominent at times, but not dislikeably so for me, at least.   

On an aside, what exactly was done with 'Crossfire' for release on the 'Head Out Of Dreams' set?  The top end on this one seems to be missing, did they simply take it off vinyl à la Magic Records releases?  Likewise, what about the 'Out On The Road' tracks on the previous box set?

[cameron]

Apr 17, 2020 6:32:02 GMT JamesT said:

Apr 12, 2020 15:28:57 GMT cameron said:

Re-grouping with Ron Richards for '5317704' was supposed to get them all back together and on the same page - though I expect none of them were prepared for the state of Ron's drinking habit when the reunion actually happened, resulting in another not very exciting album with a very mucky production. Some of the lyrics are inaudible because the mix is that muddy!

I'm curious about this comment, Cameron.  I know you've got a good bit more technical insight than myself, but having listened to the CD tracks on headphones, to my ears it sounds much better than 'A Crazy Steal' or 'Write On', both of which I had hoped would receive a 'sonic overhaul' had the remastered reissues series of about 13 years ago continued.   The orchestrations are certainly very prominent at times, but not dislikeably so for me, at least.   

On an aside, what exactly was done with 'Crossfire' for release on the 'Head Out Of Dreams' set?  The top end on this one seems to be missing, did they simply take it off vinyl à la Magic Records releases?  Likewise, what about the 'Out On The Road' tracks on the previous box set?

If you listen to the Hollies' instruments on '5317704', Bobby's drums are so far back in the mix that they're practically not there. Take the opening track - it's all orchestra with the Hollies' vocals behind it and somewhere at the back is Bobby's drums. I can't actually make out the lyrics that Allan is singing once the orchestra comes in. Apparently Ron always personally balanced the mixes himself and got quite territorial about it - ie, the engineers knew to let him get on with it and leave him alone. 

'Crossfire' on the HOOD boxset is definitely a vinyl rip. The master tape will be there in the Hollies' vault, but it costs money to retrieve and copy it. For a "throwaway" B-side instrumental, just one of less than a handful of instrumentals that they ever recorded, I can't see them justifying getting the tape out. But the vinyl source they used doesn't sound that great. The same thing happened with 'Running Through The Night' on the CHNY boxset. The 'Out On The Road' tracks were definitely from the master tapes, they're clean and undistorted, but very lifeless, so it was probably just a flat transfer like the 1999 remasters were. The mastering that Hansa records gave the album made it sound much hotter than the 2014 CT boxset does. The best remasters they've had so far are without doubt those few 1972-1975 albums they reissued in 2007. Even comparing 'The Baby' from just the 2003 remaster from the 'Long Road Home' boxset, the difference/improvement is very obvious. 

[irelandcalling4]

As always, this forum an absolute wealth on information. Thanks to all for the input.

As an aside I currently have For Certain Because on, what an incredible album this is. Suspicious Look in Your Eyes - this is Pet Sounds good, as is the whole album. Wonderful.

[moorlock2003]

Apr 17, 2020 11:34:32 GMT irelandcalling4 said:

As always, this forum an absolute wealth on information. Thanks to all for the input.

As an aside I currently have For Certain Because on, what an incredible album this is. Suspicious Look in Your Eyes - this is Pet Sounds good, as is the whole album. Wonderful.

I rate For Certain Because as the best LP by a British band in 1966. They were writing deeper, more meaningful lyrics than anyone, including The Beatles.

[paul71]

I've always rated for certain because. Such a varied selection of songs. I think they were feeling confident at this time. Possibly partially because of the Everlys using their songs

[irelandcalling4]

I'm a massive Stones fan, big Beatles fan, and rate their respective 1966 albums After-Math and Revolver very highly. But For Certain Because, for me anyway, exceeds both. A sterling work, truly great. Magical stuff indeed. What came next equalled it in a run of three superb albums; Evolution and Butterfly.

Back to 1978, still diggin' A Crazy Steal