|
Post by cameron on Apr 16, 2020 9:11:29 GMT
You may have seen the "Hollies' Official YouTube Channel" that over the years has sporadically posted something like a Christmas message from the Hollies etc... I spotted that this week, various old music clips have been uploaded to the channel. However, I'm not sure if this is a legitimate thing? The channel only has just less than 50 subscribers and none of the videos have many views. The new music clip uploads are generally very bad quality, obviously ripped from YouTube. Is this channel actually official, or has a fan just made it? I aways assumed it was a legitimate channel, but posting these clips in this manor is a breach of copyright law and I can't imagine for a second that the Hollies would want to be embroiled in that. www.youtube.com/channel/UCT2rklx1sP3c1VDjjGB05Qw/videos
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 9:29:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 16, 2020 9:52:27 GMT
I'm surprised at this. It comes off as really unprofessional to me. We're in a new territory now where YouTube is taking over. It's even rivalling the music steaming services, probably because the monetisation for the artist/publisher/cinematographer is much better than streaming services. The time for people to cash in on it is NOW, before it gets really popular and absolutely everyone is doing it and the monetisation rate inevitably gets reduced, as iTunes did. For every full advert that someone watches, the publisher of the video gets eight pence, once they've hit 1000+ subscribers. That's an incredibly high amount compared to what an artist gets paid from Spotify or even iTunes. That said, there's some superb music channels on YouTube from some artists. I've mentioned it before on this forum, but the Sweet's Official Channel is just about the best I've seen. They've got virtually every Sweet promo video ever filmed in the absolute best quality possible, carefully edited and sometimes with a new clean audio track synced up. Many of their videos have millions of views, and they've got 163k subscribers at this point. Andy Scott will be absolutely raking it in from this channel. He's obviously invested in the rights to the footage and the processing of the films, but it's now paying off. The Sweet's latest hits package is constantlyappearing on the supermarket shelves, thanks to YouTube, they're remaining in the spotlight. He's in charge of the Sweet's legacy, the fans get all their clips to watch in the best quality possible, and the Sweet are getting compensated financially for it - everyone is a winner. Andy Scott goes one further and uploads rare videos with his filmed intro giving the back story or sharing new details about newly discovered footage. There's also rare Sweet studio tracks, demos etc... that are easier to upload on YouTube than they are to get a physical release through a record company. There's just no downside for the artist and the fans to making the most of YouTube. www.youtube.com/user/OfficialSweetChannel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 10:01:33 GMT
The Sweet's channel certainly sets the standard, though another really good one is Cliff Richard's: www.youtube.com/channel/UCk-zULhX5gDvt9kTDeJaubAEverything on there seems to be taken from the master tapes rather than off-air broadcasts, and some of the rarities that have been dug out are truly breath-taking. Here's a great example: A test film featuring Cliff Richard And The Shadows which was recorded by Gerry Anderson and provided to the puppeteers to choreograph the band’s appearance in the 1966 feature film “Thunderbirds Are Go”. An absolute rarity, the film was found in the collection of a retired cameraman.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Apr 16, 2020 10:36:08 GMT
Yes... Cliff and Sweet have set a very high standard. Andy Scott is very vigilant and protective, actively getting duped and unauthorised clips taken down. I was impressed last year when the 1972 "Lift Off" footage became known about and Andy was quick to get a copy to share with everybody which for almost all of us was our first glimpse of the newly recovered footage... yes, rough quality but the only copy that exists and was great to see it. Cliff's channel has unearthed tons of material unseen since original transmissions and clearly from master copies where available and have enjoyed going through those... a particular fave being his impersonation of Hank Marvin in 1961, with Cliff playing "Apache" with The Shadows on Hank's legendary guitar.
Am surprised to see The Hollies channel resorting to recycling YouTube rips. A shame as I love that 1967 French TV clip which boasts a unique mix of "Have You Ever Loved Somebody" which is missing most of Tony's guitar work so sounds more spartan than the released version. What Graham's bow and arrow gesture is about, goodness knows!
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 16, 2020 13:31:13 GMT
Am surprised to see The Hollies channel resorting to recycling YouTube rips. A shame as I love that 1967 French TV clip which boasts a unique mix of "Have You Ever Loved Somebody" which is missing most of Tony's guitar work so sounds more spartan than the released version. What Graham's bow and arrow gesture is about, goodness knows! Absolutely perfect quality copies of most of the material that's been uploaded to the Hollies' Official Channel so far exist. That version of 'Have You Ever Loved Somebody' is poignant because it was performed nearly four months before 'Evolution' was released, and about a week before Bobby's appendicitis incident. I've seen a much better quality version of the clip before, plus they also performed 'On A Carousel' on the same show. It would be the Hollies' first European outing in 1967 I believe. Many of the clips they've shared so far are also available to licence from Reelin' In The Years, so I bet it won't be five minutes before money-grabbing David Peck is knocking on their door with a cease and desist. I hope not, because he's not making most of the clips available himself officially. Perhaps with him being in the US, he has no jurisdiction over the UK. A smart move would be to team up - show the Hollies' clips with a watermark on them somewhere fairly discreet (like the Sweet and Cliff Richard do) so that it doesn't spoil the clip (unlike the ones that Reelin' In The Years put up) and promote the RITY archive at the end or the Look Through Any Window film. Many of these people involved seem to be completely unaware of the advantages of YouTube and how they can really maximise their own profits by making better use of social media. Historically, people sit on their archives and wait for them to be exploited to maximum effect. YouTube kind of goes against that logic because you have to give out something first. I don't know why the Hollies don't ask the fans for help, either. Between us we must have all the surviving clips of the band, many examples in way better quality than what's on YouTube. These clips have been trading privately amongst fans since the 1980s at least.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Apr 17, 2020 3:01:22 GMT
I tried to listen to the current group doing Long Cool Woman. Why the piano? It ruins the song. Sometimes added instruments give a song more punch, but in this case, no. I've tried and tried to warm up to the sound of the band now, but it just comes across as cheap. I can't listen and not cringe.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Apr 17, 2020 6:17:56 GMT
Going right back to the 70s, the addition of keyboards to LCW has detracted sonewhat from the song. The 'sparse' nature of the original is lost.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Apr 17, 2020 13:25:26 GMT
Going right back to the 70s, the addition of keyboards to LCW has detracted sonewhat from the song. The 'sparse' nature of the original is lost. Correct. Their biggest hit and they muck it up. No wonder I'm stuck on the Rickfors lineup. And how cool is it that Terry sings lead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 14:38:09 GMT
To my ears the single version of LCW is one of their most overrated singles, and little more than a CCR rip-off. With added piano, and the occasional harmonies/backing vocals (Tony and Alan sung the "Pair of 45's" part in the latter Clarkey years) it realised its potential.
Although 'The Day that Curly Billy...' is an inferior song, I much prefer the production and arrangement for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 14:39:12 GMT
Going right back to the 70s, the addition of keyboards to LCW has detracted sonewhat from the song. The 'sparse' nature of the original is lost. Correct. Their biggest hit and they muck it up. No wonder I'm stuck on the Rickfors lineup. And how cool is it that Terry sings lead? Terry really mucked it up, something he has continued to do throughout the years.
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Apr 17, 2020 16:45:34 GMT
Correct. Their biggest hit and they muck it up. No wonder I'm stuck on the Rickfors lineup. And how cool is it that Terry sings lead? Terry really mucked it up, something he has continued to do throughout the years. Always the smartass, eh Peter? I was talking about 1972, OK? How hard is that to understand? Go back to hawking your crappy books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 19:57:10 GMT
No need for rudeness. A polite "I disagree" should suffice.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 17, 2020 20:31:07 GMT
Terry as the best singer of 'Long Cool Woman'?! Don't make me laugh! It's ALLAN'S song and always will be. More so than just about any other song in the Hollies' catalogue. He wrote it, he sang it by himself and he played guitar on it. I don't get the CCR "rip off" jibe either, Allan was in a whole other league vocally to John Fogerty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 20:50:14 GMT
Terry as the best singer of 'Long Cool Woman'?! Don't make me laugh! It's ALLAN'S song and always will be. More so than just about any other song in the Hollies' catalogue. He wrote it, he sang it by himself and he played guitar on it. I don't get the CCR "rip off" jibe either, Allan was in a whole other league vocally to John Fogerty. OK, "sound-alike" is perhaps a better description, though I certainly agree that Allan was a far superior singer to John Fogerty. But each to their own of course. Others are dismissive of The Hollies' lighter pop songs, but for me it is LCW, at least in the studio. It only really came alive on stage (with Allan of course!).
|
|
|
Post by allanangel on Apr 18, 2020 0:16:13 GMT
OMG, I couldn't disagree more! Thank you, Cameron, for recognizing the brilliance that is Allan Clarke!!!
No one else is in his league. LCW a light pop song? It is the greatest rock song ever! That opening riff that ALLAN came up with is in another world. I know some excellent guitar players who have made music their sole careers and they CANNOT play it!
As for Terry singing it better, NO. Just NO! No one can even come close to Allan's singing ability and his unique twang.
I hurt for Allan that one of his greatest accomplishments is rarely acknowledged as HIS song, HIS creation.
All this coming from those who profess to be real fans...boggles the mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 5:27:09 GMT
Who on earth said LCW is a light pop song? Certainly not me.
I just prefer at least 40 other Hollies songs to it, almost all from the Nash era.
Incidentally, I'm also a huge Jerry Lee Lewis fan but I've never liked 'Great Balls of Fire' much, and I know several Rolling Stones fans who aren't keen on 'Satisfaction'. I don't get how a person can't be a "real" fan if he/she isn't keen on some big hits (though having said that, LCW was only a minor hit in The Hollies' homeland).
|
|
|
Post by gee on Apr 18, 2020 11:57:10 GMT
Peter Checksfield does NOT write 'crappy books' - his works are painstakingly well researched and put together and we could do with MORE writers making the detailed efforts Peter does
- look what a 'skip through' error strewn telling of part of The Hollies story Brian Southall did
also it might be a good idea if Simon put an 'ignore' function on here like Steve Hoffman has
then I could put a certain pillock on 'ignore' and not have to skip through the SAME OLD endlessly repeating twaddle he attempts to pass off as facts that he's been spouting on Hollies forums for over a dozen years insulting genuine Hollies fans and preventing other genuine fans from making posts out of trepidation this online bullying idiot will come flying in to 'have a go' at them !
I for one would FAR sooner have the contributions of those genuine Hollies fans - I know of three longtime Hollies fans who are very decent folk never rude to others etc, who tell me in messages they just look in and do not ever bother to post on here despite being members due to the same one unpleasant individual
so how about putting an 'ignore' function on here Simon ?
|
|
|
Post by gee on Apr 18, 2020 12:29:31 GMT
re LCW - Pter has a point in that it is an untypical Hollies single - as Ron Richards felt in 1971 - and we all know The Hollies only saw it as an album track with it getting a release purely due to radio airplay....
LCW was never envisaged as a single release by anyone at the time....
then after charting stateside it got a belated UK release but with no Allan Clarke in the band to promote it indeed the UK public only just getting used to Mike Rikfors as new lead singer in the band, it not surprisingly stalled at no.32 and that only on the strength of UK radio airplay
minus any harmonies and a lean guitar sound plus echoed lead vocal and drumming LCW - a salute to the sound of early Elvis records on SUN rather than any CCR influence (tho' CCR in turn covered 'My Baby Left Me' in their own salute to Elvis)- was a radical departure for The Hollies as a single same as 'He Ain't Heavy' had been re a slow reflective ballad with orchestra /choir and young Reg Dwight on piano
most Hollies singles up to 1969 were rather carefree singalong type numbers that many found instantly appealing and memorable
He Ain't Heavy and LCW proved exceptions could work brilliantly BUT as exceptions as far as the overall public beyond the group's fanbase saw it....however I suspect Tony Hicks dogmatically attempted to emulate 'Heavy' later re choices of songs on the later Polydor singles after 'Air That I Breathe' compounded the style in Tony's mind
LCW was and always will be Allan Clarke's masterpiece, his song, his lone voice, his lead guitar, his production style ...backed up by Tony, Bobby and Bernie
the fact Allan resumed singing LCW upon his return to the band in 1974, as on 'Hollies Live Hits' etc says everything re who's song and vocal performance LCW really was
....and don't let any fool tell you otherwise !! lol
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Apr 18, 2020 14:53:18 GMT
Am I the only one who thinks LCW doesn't sound remotely like Credence? And that Clarkes vocal is nothing like John Fogerty?
I've never gotten this whole thing!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Apr 18, 2020 15:55:02 GMT
Re Moorlock and his posts:
Yes, he can come across as rude, insulting, and repetitive, and yes, no one's in any doubt about his strongly-voiced opinions, but...I'm not in favour of censoring or banning anyone. Let's not forget there have been many times when this site has been all but moribund, and it has taken Moorlock's edgy remarks to kick-start it back into a flurry of activity. For that reason alone, he contributes a service, no matter how much we might abhor his tone and temperament.
And regarding his repetitiveness: sure he repeats his same core thoughts and beliefs again and again. But then we all do. If all of us could post anonymously, I'm sure I could tell a Peter from a Tony, and a Baz from a Gee, and a Cameron from a Distant Light, etc. We all have our own styles, our own prejudices and opinions, and we all tend to repeat the same thoughts and favourite themes: the old 'There he goes again!' And yes, Moorlock does go on in a loud, take-no-prisoners style: short, abrupt and often cutting. But once you begin banning certain Hollies fans, where does it stop?
Sometimes putting up with irritating opinions, stated in an abrupt, edgy way, is the price we pay for an rollicking, anything goes site. I'd hate to see this Hollies confab, in an earnest but misguided effort to make it 'nice', devolve into a politically-correct neutered site like the official Hollies forum. Once you begin 'banning individuals', it can become a slippery slope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 17:13:02 GMT
Am I the only one who thinks LCW doesn't sound remotely like Credence? And that Clarkes vocal is nothing like John Fogerty? I've never gotten this whole thing! I don't think it sounds like CCR either (and Allan sounds like Allan whatever he sings), but it is undoubtedly CCR styled, whether accidentally or by design. It is very easy to imagine John Fogerty singing the song in the same key and with a not too different arrangement... perhaps with added 'Green River'-like guitar licks. Then picture him singing 'Bus Stop' or 'King Midas in Reverse' or 'He Ain't Heavy'! Also, as Gee pointed out, the song was a BIG departure for The Hollies. So, if anyone used to The Hollies' harmonies and pop sensibilities was to dislike any song, then this is a good candidate, just as (say) 'Miss You' is by The Rolling Stones. I wonder what "real" fans would think of 'Wiggle That Wotsit' if it had become one of their biggest hits?! Gee, thank you! I think the many magazine reviews speak for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 17:15:16 GMT
Re Moorlock and his posts: Yes, he can come across as rude, insulting, and repetitive, and yes, no one's in any doubt about his strongly-voiced opinions, but...I'm not in favour of censoring or banning anyone. Let's not forget there have been many times when this site has been all but moribund, and it has taken Moorlock's edgy remarks to kick-start it back into a flurry of activity. For that reason alone, he contributes a service, no matter much we might abhor his tone and temperament. And regarding his repetitiveness: sure he repeats his same core thoughts and beliefs again and again. But then we all do. If all of us could post anonymously, I'm sure I could tell Peter from a Tony, and a Baz from a Gee, and a Cameron from a Distant Light, etc. We all have our own styles, our own prejudices and opinions, and we all tend to repeat the same thoughts and favourite themes: the old 'There he goes again!' And yes, Moorlock does go on in a loud, take-no-prisoners style: short, abrupt and often cutting. But once you begin banning certain Hollies fans, where does it stop? Sometimes putting up with irritating opinions, stated in an abrupt, edgy way, is the price we pay for an rollicking, anything goes site. I'd hate to see this Hollies confab, in an earnest but misguided effort to make it 'nice', devolve into a politically-correct neutered site like the official Hollies forum. Once you begin 'banning individuals, it can become a slippery slope. This is why a "mute" or "block" button is a good idea. That way no-one is banned, but those who find another member irritating doesn't see the posts while everyone else does.
|
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by poco on Apr 18, 2020 17:41:55 GMT
Pete, send Moorlock a private message and get his phone number. Call and talk to him. You will be very surprised. He is a good good guy. Instead of all this blocking talk, call to get a real feel as to what the guy is like. Stuball is dead on right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 18:08:29 GMT
Pete, send Moorlock a private message and get his phone number. Call and talk to him. You will be very surprised. He is a good good guy. Instead of all this blocking talk, call to get a real feel as to what the guy is like. Stuball is dead on right. Only if he buys my books!
|
|