|
|
Post by irelandcalling4 on Apr 29, 2020 16:59:34 GMT
Seeking information on this album, precious little written about it online.
I heard it once a few years ago, didnt take to it. Listened again recently, some tracks I did enjoy, but overall it is very far from the band I know. Are Bobby and Tony even on most of these tracks?
I read Tony does the guitar solos but no rhythm guitar? Drum machine instead of Bobby on most tracks?
Casualty, Take the Money and Run, Something not Right (love the guitars!), Stop in the Name - all good tracks.
Any thoughts or info on this would be most welcome
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Apr 29, 2020 17:28:18 GMT
I feel that they were trying too hard to be too 'contemporary', 'too modern' etc... hence the over use of keyboards and the drum machine etc
they added new Clarke-Hicks-Nash vocals and re-utilised Mike Batt's 'If The Lights Go Out' backing track from 1980, Brian Chatton's 'Take My Love And Run' backing track slightly amended from the final Polydor single of 1981, and the earlier Alan Tarney number 'Somethin' Ain't Right' from 10 September 1981 on which an intially watching Graham Nash sang backup vocals
Bobby does do some drumming, notably on 'Stop in The Name of Love'
they used Paul Bliss songs, some were o.k. some rather bland for me and none were really outstanding
a rather insipid re-cut of 'Just One Look' which might have been o.k. live in an 'unplugged' style but the studio re-cut just sounded tired and weak for me compared to the dynamic 1964 hit version
a mere ten short tracks which left a very large 'run out' groove on the vinyl LP looked very poor value for 1983
a nice version of 'Let Her Go Down' with strong Clarke-Hicks-Nash vocal harmonies and a fine Hicks guitar solo was totally wasted as just an overseas New Zealand 'B' side and really should have been included along with the o.k. 'Musical Pictures' UK 'B' side to pad out the very short album rather more
the complete lack of any new original material by the group was striking and a clear drawback hinting the reunion might not have been as properly planned as it might have been
To feature four of their own songs they could have at least cut new 1983 'Hollies versions' of Allan Clarke's USA chart singles; 'Shadow in The Street' and 'Slipstream' plus Graham Nash's CSN(Y) songs; 'Wasted On The Way' and 'Teach Your Children' which The Hollies WERE performing in concerts both with Nash and thereafter with Alan Coates on high harmony vocals, guitar - all four songs featuring Clarke-Hicks-Nash harmonies and surely would have been more interesting than a tired re-trudge through 'Just One Look' etc...
more electric and acoustic guitars, REAL drums less synth's would have made for a fresher more geniune instrumental sounding Hollies album and gone well with the distinctive vocals and harmonies, but we must remember it was recorded back in 1983 and they were presumably here attempting to sound very '80s' and 'relevant' - The Searchers did likewise on their 80's album 'Hungry Hearts'
a revised longer track listing dropping 'Just One Look' and maybe 'I Got What I Want' adding 'Let Her Go Down', maybe 'Musical Pictures' plus those two Clarke and two Nash songs with more emphasis on guitars and real drums together with a fresher production sounding a bit more 'urgent' as to me the album sounds a bit half hearted as if they don't fully believe in all of the material and are rather going through the motions a bit...
the album's mix was nothing special either with the keyboards rather drowning out alot of the band instrumentation, a fresh clearer mix bringing up the other instrumentation more might benefit the set
In truth I feel the vocal reunion of Clarke-Hicks-Nash was the real highpoint of the album overall with the vocal only bit on 'Stop in The Name of Love' showing how Nash just slotted back in as if he'd never been away ...but for me WGA... was a wasted oppertunity to at least come up with an even stronger set, a bit more original, less reliant on keyboards and Paul Bliss rather average new songs and an unwise inferior re-cut of a classic sixties Hollies hit
just my view
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 29, 2020 21:08:00 GMT
To feature four of their own songs they could have at least cut new 1983 'Hollies versions' of Allan Clarke's USA chart singles; 'Shadow in The Street' and 'Slipstream' plus Graham Nash's CSN(Y) songs; 'Wasted On The Way' and 'Teach Your Children' which The Hollies WERE performing in concerts both with Nash and thereafter with Alan Coates on high harmony vocals, guitar - all four songs featuring Clarke-Hicks-Nash harmonies and surely would have been more interesting than a tired re-trudge through 'Just One Look' etc... To me, the whole highlight of the reunion was those two live versions of 'Teach Your Children' and 'Wasted On The Way'. Their voices blend so seamlessly and the harmonies are HUGE because Tony sang such a low vocal part, which no one in CSN took on. You've got Graham who was a solid alto, Allan a tenor with a very wide range and Tony who sang a confident baritone line. In CSN, you had Graham as an alto and David and Stephen as two tenors, so that lower range is missing in their dynamic. Graham's voice has so clearly changed too, now with a nasally American twang. I actually think his vocals were affected by the fact that he had all his teeth replaced in the mid-1970s, and this is well known to change the timbre of someone's singing voice, that's why Freddie Mercury reportedly never fixed his teeth, and scientists have since proven that his protruding top teeth were part of the secret to his high range. Having followed a decade of Terry's seamless harmonies, Graham's seemed a bit of a step back to my ears by 1983. I think the whole thing was another missed opportunity - Allan had some excellent solo material circa 1980/81 and Graham was doing the lion's share of CSN's songwriting around this time, with 'Wasted On The Way' returning them to the charts, though the music press saw them as deeply uncool by that time. Allan has been very dismissive of their 1980s reunion quite recently, and I think he's right. I think the Hollies danced to Graham's tune, and his heart wasn't invested in it. The Hollies should have pushed on and told Graham that he was either fully invested in the project or not - not simply let him add his vocals and fly out to the US to his chosen studios to do it. Though I expect that at that time, with the band a completely directionless force, they welcomed Graham's return to hopefully try and raise their profile once more. |
|
|
|
Post by baz on Apr 29, 2020 22:24:05 GMT
I bought this album as a cut out for £1 in early 1988. I'd been getting into The Hollies classic works and hey, a reunion album with Graham? This had to be worth acquiring. Oh dear oh dear. It even sounded dated in 1988 and with it's very 80's production values and over-reliance on synths, I found it a real struggle to stomach as 1985 was when I turned my back on "current" music in favour of my parents record collection full of 60's and 70's gems as I despised how plastic music was sounding. Absolutely nothing stood out on this album. All I could hear was the ghastly production. The "hit" from the album "Stop In The Name of Love" might had been pleasant to hear once or twice on the radio back in 1983 but come on... they took a wonderful vibrant Motown classic and sucked all the life out of it rendering it into something blandly anaemic.
I've revisited it a few times since then and it's like an endurance test I can never pass as it now sounds like their most dated album. The direction The Hollies embraced in the 80's was unfortunate as they went all out to sound as contemporary as possible and one can certainly understand why but come on, the songs weren't really there and no amount of tarting up with technology was ever gonna convince most from thinking of them as an "old" band. This album is just blandsville to my ears, a truly wasted opportunity. The fact Clarke, Hicks and Nash didn't write any new material and relied on forgettable Paul Bliss numbers was telling and proved the reunion was not a true joint effort. And how many producers are listed?!?! And how can Graham be counted twice as a producer as hey, wasn't he supposed to be a member of The Hollies who are listed in the production credits? Too many cooks which goes to show nobody really cared or had a clue.
The galling thing was it would be their final album for 23 long years and when the next finally arrived... well... that's for another thread and time.
|
|
|
|
Post by irelandcalling4 on Apr 30, 2020 10:44:27 GMT
Thanks very much for the input lads, great stuff. The only place I could really read about this with any detail was AlansAlbumArchive review.
There are a few songs with rhythm guitar at beginning or running through a track - is that Tony? Or did he only supply the actual solos?
The album is decent, I like about half the songs - but - decent in an early 80s pop album respect. As an album by the Hollies, it is lacking. Simply does not sound like them instrumentally.
The other songs from the 80s after thi album I compiled on the ipod as Hollies In the 80s - I really do not like those songs much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2020 11:28:09 GMT
Some other artists such as The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney quickly moved on from the bombast of the mid '80s (compare 1986's 'Dirty Work' and 'Press To Play' to 1989's 'Steel Wheels' and 'Flowers In The Dirt'), but The Hollies simply stopped recording albums... until the further horrors of 2006's 'Staying Power'! While it is also far from perfect, Allan's 1990 'Reasons To Believe' is more enjoyable than WGA in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by irelandcalling4 on Apr 30, 2020 12:48:06 GMT
I've not heard the 2006 Hollies album, for me the Hollies last album was "What Goes Around"; and quite a few singles and b sides through 80s and into the 90s.
Peter, you mentioned Steel Wheels there, thats an album I was rediscovering last week. Very underrated I think. Lots of good stuff on there.
Stones Undercover and Dirty Work were their real 80s albums but didnt go the synth and keyboard overkill route of "What Goes Around". They do have plenty of 80s sounds though, particularly Undercover, though Undercover is an album I love. So groovy, dancey and raunchy, it is of the 80s but Stones DNA through and through. The title track single still as fiery and hard hitting today as it was back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Apr 30, 2020 13:06:16 GMT
While it is also far from perfect, Allan's 1990 'Reasons To Believe' is more enjoyable than WGA in my opinion. I completely agree. Whilst it still has an over-reliance on 1980s synths, it has aged much better than 'What Goes Around'. The biggest issue with 'What Goes Around' is that the Hollies side-lined two of their biggest assets: Tony and Bobby. The ONLY lead guitar work of any notable description is on 'Take My Love And Run', which had already been a single two years earlier, with a better, more cohesive production. In fact, it's the single version that gets favoured on virtually all Hollies compilations. And for the first, and only time in the Hollies' entire career, there's rhythm guitarists on the album who weren't members of the Hollies. There's even tracks that feature a DRUM MACHINE. Can you imagine? A drummer as good and well-respected as Bobby Elliott arrives at the session and they tell him they're putting a machine in his place... I'm amazed that he didn't really elaborate on this in his book, he probably didn't want to end the book on a sour note. Paul Bliss arranged 'Just One Look'... need I say any more... Overall, the standout tracks for me are 'Take My Love and Run' (but the earlier version is better), 'If The Lights Go Out' has a better mix here, 'Say You'll Be Mine' and 'Something Ain't Right' are okay. The rest is forgettable, even that lacklustre cover of 'Stop In The Name Of Love'. Allan Clarke recently has said how the whole reunion with Graham didn't sit right with him and he'd have preferred it had the Hollies found their own feet, though at the time, he felt like it would be a positive thing to have him back. Graham's never really spoken about the album retrospectively, nor has Tony and Bobby just kind of acknowledges it without going into much detail. The fact that Graham Nash is credited as a producer separately to the Hollies just goes to show that it wasn't really a reunion. The fact that Graham made the three of them fly out to America to finish it, shoot the cover and promote it again shows that it wasn't really a proper reunion. They should have been out in Europe promoting it, which is where their loyal audience had stuck with them. I think Graham used them to distance himself from the unravelling facade that was CSN at that particular time. I do think that 'Staying Power' is actually more listenable than 'What Goes Around'. But that too feels like a vehicle for Peter Howarth; none of it screams "this is the Hollies" to me. In many ways, those few tracks that the Hollies did with Kenny Lynch sound more like the Hollies than the two latest albums do. I really like 'So Damn Beautiful', 'Emotions' and 'Let Love Pass', they're the three stand-outs to me. Tony's guitar is all over that album and Bobby has his mojo back with drumming in a way that we hadn't really heard since 'Another Night' way back in 1975. He definitely toned back his style in the late 1970s onwards, which was the trend at the time. I think if the harmonies were stronger and more prominent, I could let it pass as a Hollies record. That's what carried them through the Rickfors years, the harmonies were stunningly tight and crisp. To me, 'Staying Power' and 'Then Now and Always' sounds like a tribute band singing some very quiet and unsure falsetto harmonies in the background to try and add to it. It's not the power trio that was Allan/Graham/Tony, Allan/Terry/Tony, Mikael/Tony/Terry and Allan/Tony/Alan. The common thread with all those line ups was that the high harmony singer was a true alto, all the current high harmonies are falsetto, so significantly less powerful sounding. I think they could have gone one further with the new albums and included some re-workings of Hollies hits like they do in their live shows, but I can understand why they didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by baz on Apr 30, 2020 14:30:45 GMT
While it is also far from perfect, Allan's 1990 'Reasons To Believe' is more enjoyable than WGA in my opinion. There's even tracks that feature a DRUM MACHINE. Can you imagine? A drummer as good and well-respected as Bobby Elliott arrives at the session and they tell him they're putting a machine in his place... I'm amazed that he didn't really elaborate on this in his book, he probably didn't want to end the book on a sour note. That's also what made "Staying Power" difficult to stomach and comprehend as the drums on that album were all programmed. I recall reading some blog piece on the official site back in the day where Ray Stiles went into detail about making that album which confirmed it. I was incredulous with disbelief - you have one of the greatest drummers, but sideline him for programmed rubbish! Also sure Ray said it was a "budgeting" decision, but still downright insane and a waste. My thoughts on the results on that album are similar in tone to "What Goes Round"! |
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Apr 30, 2020 16:10:37 GMT
Sadly not a big fan of the song choices on what I've heard of this album at all. I respect that with Graham (now an even bigger household name than when he was originally a Hollie) back with them, as well as the moderate UK chart success of "Holliedaze" thanks to their TOTP appearance, they thought there could be the potential for their popularity to be revived. However, with the exception of the vocal reunion and (in my opinion) "Something Ain't Right" and "Stop In Name of Love", this album to me seems to stray far from the kind of pop music you expect from The Hollies. I mean from the get go, the lyrical subject of "Casualty" sounds very serious, yet here's a bouncy upbeat backing track that comes with it! At least with "Something Ain't Right" and SITNOL, the synths are a little tamer on both compared to a lot of the other album tracks ("Casualty" or the "Just One Look" remake) where they tend to dominate.
The live set from this era though is for the most part great, packed full of gems. I love the extended LCW jam, plus those two CSNY tunes work surprisingly very well with a Hollies treatment and I really wish they had done studio versions of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Apr 30, 2020 20:25:21 GMT
There's even tracks that feature a DRUM MACHINE. Can you imagine? A drummer as good and well-respected as Bobby Elliott arrives at the session and they tell him they're putting a machine in his place... I'm amazed that he didn't really elaborate on this in his book, he probably didn't want to end the book on a sour note. That's also what made "Staying Power" difficult to stomach and comprehend as the drums on that album were all programmed. I recall reading some blog piece on the official site back in the day where Ray Stiles went into detail about making that album which confirmed it. I was incredulous with disbelief - you have one of the greatest drummers, but sideline him for programmed rubbish! Also sure Ray said it was a "budgeting" decision, but still downright insane and a waste. My thoughts on the results on that album are similar in tone to "What Goes Round"! And all the flack that Staying Power got! The album was then followed up by Then, Now, Always which addressed some of the issues that made so many of us unpopular for raising! |
|
|
|
Post by eric on May 1, 2020 1:25:14 GMT
I wonder why Tony (and Bobby) did not recruit a "true alto" singer as the high harmony singer for the current line-up? |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 1, 2020 1:35:18 GMT
To be honest I don't mind What goes round apart from the slow boring remake of Just one look. You can't blame the Hollies for trying to have a more modern sound
With staying Power I think Weakness is a brilliant song and sounds even better live and I really love Let love pass also and was sorry when they cut that from their set list.
|
|
albatros
Full Member
albatros
Posts: 108
|
Post by albatros on May 1, 2020 10:44:21 GMT
The best Hollies album of the last 30 years is the solo album by ALLAN CLARKE - REASONS TO BELIEVE from 1990. Unfortunately only published here in Germany. The album contains some great songs. My favorite is REASONS TO BELIEVE IN. That could have been a Hollies album. On the WHAT GOES AROUND album there are songs that seem like filler material to me. JUST ONE LOOK - sorry.
An album that I always enjoy listening to is CLARKE's 1978 album. I WASN`T BORN YESTERDAY. There are great songs on this album: I Wasn`t Born Yesterday, I`m Betting my life .. Shadow In The Street and so on. The LP is much better than the 5317704 one, released by the Hollies afterwards in 1979. For myself this Clarke LP could have been a better Hollies album.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 1, 2021 11:13:39 GMT
Just finished reading Ken Scott's book. Ken of course was the young Abbey Road engineer in the 60's who then made a name for himself in the 70's after he moved to Trident Studios and worked with David Bowie during the Ziggy Stardust era. Right near the very end of his book he came out with a very interesting piece of information about The Hollies and this reunion project that casts an interesting shade on it and the bands' attitude. Ken said it was his biggest disappointment in his career. Ken said he was involved with one session with them and Graham in the States and that it had gone well and then asked to be involved with the reunion project. Ken began scouting round and found some good songs which he would send to the band and they said they liked them and sessions were arranged. Two weeks before they were to begin The Hollies' manager rang him to tell him the sessions would have to be delayed as Allan had to go away for two weeks with his family on holiday. Not much of an issue so the sessions were put back a fortnight. Just before they were to begin, another phone call from the manager and this time, Tony Hicks was now taking HIS family on holiday for 2 weeks. Ken suspected something was up and had a meeting with Graham Nash and his manager where they concluded that The Hollies weren't that interested in the project and dropped it.
This is very interesting. Ken reckoned he was approached "in the late 70's" and admits in his intro that his memory isn't brilliant but he could only be referring to the "What Goes Round" project and this suggests why the final result was so awful - The Hollies weren't THAT interested in it. I'd always been baffled why they leaned on a host of lame songs by Paul Bliss and not bother to seek out better material and also why Graham didn't contribute any writing... now I get a better idea as to why, and why that reunion project didn't come off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 1, 2021 14:55:11 GMT
Just finished reading Ken Scott's book. Ken of course was the young Abbey Road engineer in the 60's who then made a name for himself in the 70's after he moved to Trident Studios and worked with David Bowie during the Ziggy Stardust era. Right near the very end of his book he came out with a very interesting piece of information about The Hollies and this reunion project that casts an interesting shade on it and the bands' attitude. Ken said it was his biggest disappointment in his career. Ken said he was involved with one session with them and Graham in the States and that it had gone well and then asked to be involved with the reunion project. Ken began scouting round and found some good songs which he would send to the band and they said they liked them and sessions were arranged. Two weeks before they were to begin The Hollies' manager rang him to tell him the sessions would have to be delayed as Allan had to go away for two weeks with his family on holiday. Not much of an issue so the sessions were put back a fortnight. Just before they were to begin, another phone call from the manager and this time, Tony Hicks was now taking HIS family on holiday for 2 weeks. Ken suspected something was up and had a meeting with Graham Nash and his manager where they concluded that The Hollies weren't that interested in the project and dropped it. This is very interesting. Ken reckoned he was approached "in the late 70's" and admits in his intro that his memory isn't brilliant but he could only be referring to the "What Goes Round" project and this suggests why the final result was so awful - The Hollies weren't THAT interested in it. I'd always been baffled why they leaned on a host of lame songs by Paul Bliss and not bother to seek out better material and also why Graham didn't contribute any writing... now I get a better idea as to why, and why that reunion project didn't come off. I have no idea where I read this, but somewhere I got the impression that Jeni's first diagnosis with breast cancer was around this time. If it's not just a rumour, perhaps plans had to be scaled back considerably. I've been posting a daily track from this album on Twitter for the past week, doing a deep listen and trying so hard to like it, but the keyboards and synths...gah. The biggest mistake of the 80s was using them to simply replace traditional instruments unlike the synth pop bands of the time such as Yazoo and Depeche Mode and all that: the juxtaposition of warm, soulful vocals with a cold instrumental back up. Not sure a veteran band like the Hollies could pull that off--it just seems more suited to a younger, more cynical act-- although Colin Blunstone with Dave Stewart did an awesome job with "What Becomes of the Broken Hearted." Anyway, totally agree with the consensus here on what the best tracks were. Allan was in fine voice as always, but I couldn't even tell that Graham was there except on the "Just One Look" remake. It was all just so phoned in...And then they put a lump in my throat with their live rendition of "Wasted On The Way" and it makes me so sad...such lost potential... |
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Jul 1, 2021 16:50:03 GMT
Interesting to read that background, and it does indeed explain a
lot.
It sounds like dollar signs being chased by executives wanting to put this together on the back of the ' stars on 45 type single, with no real interest by anyone else? Allan said in an interview, quite honestly,as he usually is, that he couldn't understand why Graham wanted to do it at all?
To not really have any interest in choosing the songs shows on the results. As you say, almost an album by remote.
Whether Graham was wanting to foray in to a more contemporary sound, and was testing the ground for his ' Innocent Eyes' period shortly after? The title track was written by Paul Bliss. And the rest sounds very much in the vein of ' What goes around' a couple of years before.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jul 1, 2021 17:37:27 GMT
Interesting to read that background, and it does indeed explain a lot. It sounds like dollar signs being chased by executives wanting to put this together on the back of the ' stars on 45 type single, with no real interest by anyone else? Allan said in an interview, quite honestly,as he usually is, that he couldn't understand why Graham wanted to do it at all? To not really have any interest in choosing the songs shows on the results. As you say, almost an album by remote. Whether Graham was wanting to foray in to a more contemporary sound, and was testing the ground for his ' Innocent Eyes' period shortly after? The title track was written by Paul Bliss. And the rest sounds very much in the vein of ' What goes around' a couple of years before. Graham's lack of input on the writing side is telling as lets face it, he's always got something to say but one now gets the feeling he probably had some songs for that project but their overcasual attitude and lack of interest in picking/writing songs likely led him to withdraw his songs since if they couldn't be bothered, then why should he? That's one of the biggest problems with this album as beneath the oh so trendy 80's trappings, the songs are nothing special and that was one of The Hollies' biggest strengths - their ability to either write or find great songs. Here, they didn't put in any effort at all... and it shows. Also it wouldn't be at all surprising if Graham was also remembering how they'd rejected some of his best songs the last time round... I do think Graham can take some of the blame for the overall sound as not only did "Innocent Eyes" suffer from the same syndrome but I recall the Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young album that came after also suffered accordingly. I remember an amusing Record Collector interview a couple of years after that where they were asked whose fault it was that the CSN+Y album sounded the way it did and Graham accepted and took the full blame for it. The interview ended with Crosby walking out in disgust calling Stills and Nash "poofs" as Graham recalled singing "Puff The Magic Dragon" with The Hollies and Stills said he didn't dislike the song... Crosby was not impressed! |
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 2, 2021 13:34:35 GMT
When did Nash stop using coke according to Wild Tales? Sometime in the 80s. I do subscribe to the Simon Napier-Bell theory of pop music (in the book Black Vinyl White Powder) in which he says that the popular drug at the time affects the musical trends at the time. In the early 60s, it morphed from speed to pot to LSD...and into the 70s and including the 80s, heroin and coke. I always thought the 70s California folk-rock sound degenerated because of coke...the soul was gone, replaced by ego and over-confidence, manifesting itself in blandness.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandy on Jul 2, 2021 14:59:18 GMT
When did Nash stop using coke according to Wild Tales? Sometime in the 80s. I do subscribe to the Simon Napier-Bell theory of pop music (in the book Black Vinyl White Powder) in which he says that the popular drug at the time affects the musical trends at the time. In the early 60s, it morphed from speed to pot to LSD...and into the 70s and including the 80s, heroin and coke. I always thought the 70s California folk-rock sound degenerated because of coke...the soul was gone, replaced by ego and over-confidence, manifesting itself in blandness. Very believable theory!! Then Ecstasy, cheap and mass produced gives rise to huge rave scene, huge gatherings dancing to music in huge venues, warehouses, fields etc. |
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jul 2, 2021 15:32:14 GMT
What Goes Around definitely has not aged well, what with it's synthesizer-dominated tracks, but to my ear, then and now, it has always been a disappointing exercise. Competent but uninspired. And today, most definitely dated, in a way their much older output is not.
The whole concoction has a phoned-in feel, from Paul Bliss's dime-a-dozen songs, to the lack of Hick's distinctive guitar work, and Elliott's seemingly robotic drum-machine percussion. Very early-80's and very forgettable.
I mentioned years ago on this site, seeing them live in Toronto back in '83, and that night at least, their performance, although competent, was off. It appeared to me the group was only going through the motions, and that all were looking forward to the end of the tour. I think Nash was miles apart from the others in attitude and politics, and the very bad chemistry that had led to their '68 split, had begun to take its toll. In other words, despite a 15 year interval, the same divisive issues were still there. Perhaps that's why there were no group-written tunes. Much safer to have a neutral outsider write some bland non-descript tunes, than deal with group egos and hurt feelings over rejected songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 3, 2021 13:36:51 GMT
What Goes Around definitely has not aged well, what with it's synthesizer-dominated tracks, but to my ear, then and now, it has always been a disappointing exercise. Competent but uninspired. And today, most definitely dated, in a way their much older output is not. The whole concoction has a phoned-in feel, from Paul Bliss's dime-a-dozen songs, to the lack of Hick's distinctive guitar work, and Elliott's seemingly robotic drum-machine percussion. Very early-80's and very forgettable. I mentioned years ago on this site, seeing them live in Toronto back in '83, and that night at least, their performance, although competent, was off. It appeared to me the group was only going through the motions, and that all were looking forward to the end of the tour. I think Nash was miles apart from the others in attitude and politics, and the very bad chemistry that had led to their '68 split, had begun to take its toll. In other words, despite a 15 year interval, the same divisive issues were still there. Perhaps that's why there were no group-written tunes. Much safer to have a neutral outsider write some bland non-descript tunes, than deal with group egos and hurt feelings over rejected songs. I was listening to "Carrie" from the Rarities compilation yesterday, amazed how a song from two-years previous sounded newer and fresher than anything from What Goes Around. |
|
