Thoughts on new material from the current Hollies

[cameron]

I'm not starting a whole "Clarke vs Howarth" thread, because that's been done to death and irrelevant now, but some observations of mine about why I think the Hollies' fan-base seems split down the middle on the current incarnation of the group...

I was thinking about it because I was playing the Monkees' 'Summer of Love' compilation LP from 2017 today. All the tracks are from 1966-68 with the exception of one from their 2016 album 'Good Times'. Yet, it's completely not out of place, in fact, quite the opposite, it blends beautifully with this material. On reflection, it has all the key ingredients of a Monkees song: passionate vocals from Michael Nesmith and Micky Dolenz, his slightly "off-beat" drumming (not in a bad way, but it's his style), jangly guitars, prominent percussion etc... even the recording itself has vintage charm with a lovely warm bass sound and a tight sounding drum kit - even some of the vocals are purposely slightly distorted in places, just as the original recordings were. 

I pulled out my copy of 'Good Times', as it's been a while since I've played it and began to read about how it was created. I had no idea that such attention to detail had gone into it: a selection of un-issued demos from the Monkees' songwriting teams that they frequently used back in the 1960s were used in addition to some newer contributions from contemporary writers. Great care was taken to preserve what we all identify as the "Monkees Sound": plenty of jangling guitars, a tight drum sound, a deep powerful bass sound, lots of percussion etc... 

This brings me onto my point: the Hollies were always trapped with a "singles band" image, and they often felt a victim of their own success - ie, weren't free to progress musically because the public expected "bubblegum pop" from them. On reflection, I think this is absolute nonsense as show me another group other than the Beatles that went as far from their first single sound to their last big hit over such a long period of time. Even during the commercially unsuccessful Rickfors years, that "Hollies Sound" was there: really strong three-way harmonies (if anything, they boosted Tony's harmony during this era), Bobby's characterful drumming, Bernie's deep-sounding but restrained bass playing and of course, Tony's completely unique guitar playing. The fact that the singer had changed was irrelevant and in fact, this is a real golden era for the Hollies for many of us, despite them missing one of the best lead singers ever! 

One of my first introductions to the Hollies was the superb compilation 'Hollies' Finest', which features songs from all but the Carl Wayne fronted Hollies. What struck me on listening back then, long before I knew about the line up changes, was that the last track, 'Let Love Pass' was completely like nothing else from the album. I even wondered if the CD had stopped and my Hi-Fi turned onto the radio, which some used to do, because this song just didn't sound like the rest of the album to me. It's a shame, because it's a beautiful song, sung really well by Peter. But I actually perceived it to be quite cheesy compared to the rest of the ageless material. 

Do you think the Hollies' fan base would be more receptive of new material if they took a tried-and-tested approach to it? As we know, they extremely controversially replaced Bobby with a drum machine on a couple of tracks on 'Staying Power'! Sort out a powerful loud high harmony singer, resort to Bobby's infamous dry drum sound, Tony's infamous guitar tones (such as his mellow Gibson or jangly Rickenbacker or even the piercing Vox Phantom V) and used some of their unissued demos or re-visit some old songs like Allan Clarke has done with his latest solo effort? They could even find some un-used Graham Gouldman tracks or ones by Chip Taylor etc... I really enjoy 'Then Now And Always' for Bobby's songwriting and Tony's vocal. But otherwise, to me, the current Hollies' new material could be absolutely anyone. Lots of it is quite nice, but it doesn't scream "Hollies" to me. Irrespective of Peter Howarth's voice (as mentioned above, this wasn't an issue during the Rickfors years), there's just too much of the typical "Hollies Sound" that's not there. Do you think, like the Monkees, the Hollies are held in such high regard as a nostalgia act, that a new album of "more of the same" of their old material would be really welcomed by the fan-base? I think we've reached the point where we don't want anything "new" and "progressive" or even "contemporary", we just want more of the same at this point. 

Your thoughts...? 

[cameron]

PS, I will add... 

In many ways, Allan Clarke's new album is more of a Hollies' album than the Hollies' own current albums. Voice aside, there's all the ingredients of a Hollies record: a varied selection of styles/brash and quieter songs, a very strong but simple bass throughout, confident harmonies, guitar licks all over the place, orchestrations, use of piano and acoustic guitars to build on the texture of a song, Allan Clarke's very vivid songwriting that is as strong as ever on this album etc... Even the Hollies song that he re-visits is a "deep cut" that deserves re-visiting. I think his re-make of 'He Ain't Heavy' is less successful for this reason; it's a firmly established classic. I think it's good to breathe new life into a song that should have got more attention the first time around.

Okay, the overall production is very contemporary, but I find that I really enjoy this album and it's been constantly on play every week since it was released for me personally, I play it as much as any Hollies album, I daresay more than any of Allan's previous solo efforts. It's the "more of the same" that we've been hankering after for years. I feel that the Hollies themselves could have the same effect with some mindful production and artistic decisions if they were to record another new album. 

[cameron]

I've been thinking earlier about how Tony finished off 'Schoolgirl' back in 1997. The vintage recording blended wonderfully with his new guitar solo, but then again, when they re-did Bobby's drums on 'King Midas', it was awful. I think here differs the approach: to finish off something that was never finished or didn't see the light of day to warrant comparison is okay, but to go back and re-record history is not.

Perhaps for the Hollies' 60th Anniversary in 2022/3, they could cut another album, put pride aside (asking the impossible here, I know!) and do a 'Good Times!' style career closer and call it a day as far as new output is concerned or perhaps use it as an opportunity to "retire" officially. Tap into their archive of unfinished recordings, finish some, add some more, find ways of involving ALL the Hollies (perhaps have Peter handle the higher harmonies and bring Allan back into the fold in the studio only?) and finish on a really high note. Perhaps re-visit a couple of popular album tracks as well that never got the exposure that they deserved at the time. Use some of those Nash/Clarke tracks that they've supposedly been collaborating on, Bobby will no doubt come up with something as wonderful as 'Then, Now & Always' or 'Skylarks' and pick up on some un-used demos from their old tin pan alley regulars. Re-record some of that 1980s material with a more 1960s/early 1970s timeless sound - heck, even get Elton John to play piano on one track for old times' sake!

I can dream, can't I?

[thejanitor]

I personally think Would You Believe and FCB are the two albums that best represent the classic Hollies sound and if the current group were to make another album, I'd recommend them to go for a similar sound to those - solid pop/rock/R&B as well as some fun and unique folk and world music influences thrown in. I would also really like to hear the current group experiment more with non-love songs lyrically in terms of new material. The environmental and nature theme of Skylarks and the reflection on the band's early years on Then, Now, Always (Dolphin Days) are two great examples of how they have and can do this.

[cameron]

I agree, the more "mature" sound of 1969/70 would be the era of the Hollies that I'd put forward, but combine it with the energy and excitement of 1966. Bobby's dry but sharp drum sound, Tony's warm Gibson guitar, prominent acoustic guitars and a DI on the bass to get that really fat sound of that era. I'd also say to use a real orchestra, as the computerised one on 'Skylarks' just doesn't cut it for me at all. It's a nice song, a big departure from the norm for the Hollies, but spoilt I feel by the recording which sounds cheap to me. Even 50 years on, there's STILL no substitute for the real thing when it comes to orchestrations.

[anthony]

The Hollies new Material, the songs that stand out for me is Weakness, to me that's right up there with all the other Hollies material, brilliant live, harmonies etc. I know when it comes up in the shows I get that real excitement, plus live some of the old classic hits, Here I go again, Sorry Suzanne, Yes I will its like they are just going through the motions. Another one that I loved is Let love pass and loved their version to end the shows with, sadly they stopped singing it. I really like On Touch too. But it is a different Hollies sound,

[Deleted]

The only new Hollies album I'd get excited about is a reunion. Not completely inconceivable, as Allan and Graham plan things together. They could easily invite Tony and Bobby, and look how pleased Allan was to see Bernie at the R&RHoF...

I agree that finishing incomplete older recordings would be a good idea.

[Tony Wilkinson]

Aug 10, 2020 10:22:41 GMT cameron said:

I'm not starting a whole "Clarke vs Howarth" thread, because that's been done to death and irrelevant now, but some observations of mine about why I think the Hollies' fan-base seems split down the middle on the current incarnation of the group...

I was thinking about it because I was playing the Monkees' 'Summer of Love' compilation LP from 2017 today. All the tracks are from 1966-68 with the exception of one from their 2016 album 'Good Times'. Yet, it's completely not out of place, in fact, quite the opposite, it blends beautifully with this material. On reflection, it has all the key ingredients of a Monkees song: passionate vocals from Michael Nesmith and Micky Dolenz, his slightly "off-beat" drumming (not in a bad way, but it's his style), jangly guitars, prominent percussion etc... even the recording itself has vintage charm with a lovely warm bass sound and a tight sounding drum kit - even some of the vocals are purposely slightly distorted in places, just as the original recordings were. 

I pulled out my copy of 'Good Times', as it's been a while since I've played it and began to read about how it was created. I had no idea that such attention to detail had gone into it: a selection of un-issued demos from the Monkees' songwriting teams that they frequently used back in the 1960s were used in addition to some newer contributions from contemporary writers. Great care was taken to preserve what we all identify as the "Monkees Sound": plenty of jangling guitars, a tight drum sound, a deep powerful bass sound, lots of percussion etc... 

This brings me onto my point: the Hollies were always trapped with a "singles band" image, and they often felt a victim of their own success - ie, weren't free to progress musically because the public expected "bubblegum pop" from them. On reflection, I think this is absolute nonsense as show me another group other than the Beatles that went as far from their first single sound to their last big hit over such a long period of time. Even during the commercially unsuccessful Rickfors years, that "Hollies Sound" was there: really strong three-way harmonies (if anything, they boosted Tony's harmony during this era), Bobby's characterful drumming, Bernie's deep-sounding but restrained bass playing and of course, Tony's completely unique guitar playing. The fact that the singer had changed was irrelevant and in fact, this is a real golden era for the Hollies for many of us, despite them missing one of the best lead singers ever! 

One of my first introductions to the Hollies was the superb compilation 'Hollies' Finest', which features songs from all but the Carl Wayne fronted Hollies. What struck me on listening back then, long before I knew about the line up changes, was that the last track, 'Let Love Pass' was completely like nothing else from the album. I even wondered if the CD had stopped and my Hi-Fi turned onto the radio, which some used to do, because this song just didn't sound like the rest of the album to me. It's a shame, because it's a beautiful song, sung really well by Peter. But I actually perceived it to be quite cheesy compared to the rest of the ageless material. 

Do you think the Hollies' fan base would be more receptive of new material if they took a tried-and-tested approach to it? As we know, they extremely controversially replaced Bobby with a drum machine on a couple of tracks on 'Staying Power'! Sort out a powerful loud high harmony singer, resort to Bobby's infamous dry drum sound, Tony's infamous guitar tones (such as his mellow Gibson or jangly Rickenbacker or even the piercing Vox Phantom V) and used some of their unissued demos or re-visit some old songs like Allan Clarke has done with his latest solo effort? They could even find some un-used Graham Gouldman tracks or ones by Chip Taylor etc... I really enjoy 'Then Now And Always' for Bobby's songwriting and Tony's vocal. But otherwise, to me, the current Hollies' new material could be absolutely anyone. Lots of it is quite nice, but it doesn't scream "Hollies" to me. Irrespective of Peter Howarth's voice (as mentioned above, this wasn't an issue during the Rickfors years), there's just too much of the typical "Hollies Sound" that's not there. Do you think, like the Monkees, the Hollies are held in such high regard as a nostalgia act, that a new album of "more of the same" of their old material would be really welcomed by the fan-base? I think we've reached the point where we don't want anything "new" and "progressive" or even "contemporary", we just want more of the same at this point. 

Your thoughts...? 

While you make some good points, forget it, not for me, I'm too unforgiving.......

[Tony Wilkinson]

Aug 10, 2020 13:08:56 GMT cameron said:

I've been thinking earlier about how Tony finished off 'Schoolgirl' back in 1997. The vintage recording blended wonderfully with his new guitar solo, but then again, when they re-did Bobby's drums on 'King Midas', it was awful. I think here differs the approach: to finish off something that was never finished or didn't see the light of day to warrant comparison is okay, but to go back and re-record history is not.

Perhaps for the Hollies' 60th Anniversary in 2022/3, they could cut another album, put pride aside (asking the impossible here, I know!) and do a 'Good Times!' style career closer and call it a day as far as new output is concerned or perhaps use it as an opportunity to "retire" officially. Tap into their archive of unfinished recordings, finish some, add some more, find ways of involving ALL the Hollies (perhaps have Peter handle the higher harmonies and bring Allan back into the fold in the studio only?) and finish on a really high note. Perhaps re-visit a couple of popular album tracks as well that never got the exposure that they deserved at the time. Use some of those Nash/Clarke tracks that they've supposedly been collaborating on, Bobby will no doubt come up with something as wonderful as 'Then, Now & Always' or 'Skylarks' and pick up on some un-used demos from their old tin pan alley regulars. Re-record some of that 1980s material with a more 1960s/early 1970s timeless sound - heck, even get Elton John to play piano on one track for old times' sake!

I can dream, can't I?

Nooooooooooooooooo

[baz]

Aug 10, 2020 13:08:56 GMT cameron said:

I've been thinking earlier about how Tony finished off 'Schoolgirl' back in 1997. The vintage recording blended wonderfully with his new guitar solo, but then again, when they re-did Bobby's drums on 'King Midas', it was awful. I think here differs the approach: to finish off something that was never finished or didn't see the light of day to warrant comparison is okay, but to go back and re-record history is not. 

The new "Midas" drum part wasn't just awful, it was completely pointless and unnecessary!

[sandy]

Have to say, even with old style drums and guitar from Bob,and Tony, what would we be looking for in any new material from the band?
Work on unfinished previous tracks? But with a totally different lead vocal style, and harmonies which are pleasant but don’t have the magic dust anymore? I don’t think there would be any point in that, personally.
For them to write as a band again? We’ll Bob and Peter are writing, but not in the 'old Hollies ' style. Again, pleasant but just not special.Tony seems totally disinterested, and happy to play and live his lovely Henley lifestyle.
At this point, why would they want to record a new album? The last one was already. years ago, and I would bet predominantly bought by people at the concerts, who are ' new Hollies' followers. Financially, it can’t have been profitable at all.Would it really be worth their effort, only a couple of years,if that, before they must surely be calling it a day? If they did, their market would only be those fans who go today and build up a rapport and relationship with the band as a lot of us did in a previous era.I would say that those who don’t go to see the band now, would not buy into any new Hollies album, no matter what they did.The loyalties to the songs and the loyalty which fans who go regularly these days feel, keep their audience at the moment, but it is still very limited.You only have to look on their fan pages to see how much the ' new Hollies' fans are outnumbered by those loyal to Allan’s era, and even Graham’s.
If I thought they could down the road of something like ' Laughter turns to tears', pure power pop at it’s best, with the same vocal strength, I would look forward to it, but then you cannot possibly overstate the central part played by Allan’s unique voice ,and those golden harmonies of old.Its just not there anymore for me. .
And I personally would not dream of a reunion of any kind . Far too much water under the bridge, and I don’t think any of them would go for that. They are, and always were very different people, even more so now, and add to that the task, in the nicest possible way, of trying to sort out egos, let alone arrangements...?!?!
I ,for one, as someone else said, am totally satisfied in my Hollies’ cravings, by Allan’s latest album, and hear what may well have been where the Hollies of this era may have gone, had Allan been able to continue......but then there’s that old Clarke magic ,which actually is just him, and that’senough for me👌👌👌🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶

[cameron]

I think new Hollies material has been lacking special magic since the late 1970s! I think we all came to realise that Tony/Allan/Graham and Tony/Allan/Terry were great songwriters in their own right. They just lost confidence along the way. 

For me, Allan's 'Resurgence' had the magic again. More so than 'Reasons To Believe' did. 'Legendary Heroes' before that in 1980 also had that magic, the Hollies should have recorded that whole album instead of 'Buddy Holly'. Allan has a very unique writing style, he's particularly good with hearing the unexpected in his choice of melody and his lyrics are like poetry - he's very good at telling a story. Although his voice has aged, I'm so surprised at just how well he sings now. There's no moment during the album where I think "poor Allan, a shadow of his former self"; he would sing at the bottom of his register quite often back in the day. I think his latest offering comfortably rubs shoulders with his old stuff - the voice is very much still there, more so than he gives himself credit for. 

I think the weakness of new Hollies material is it's all by and large "lovey-dovey" in a way that the Hollies weren't really known for. It's very emotive but very lightweight. And the production makes it even worse. The dynamic of the original Hollies was that they could record something as lyrically soppy as 'The Air That I Breathe' but Allan's voice just lifted the whole thing to another level with his vocal power and tone. The confident, strident harmonies again lifted the whole production to something identifiably unique. Couple that with a great sound in the studio (until the synths took over!) and you're onto a winner. 

Although I completely understand Sandy's point of view, I just thought, in a perfect world, it would be nice if they bowed out like the Monkees did, with a satisfying career closer LP that in one fell swoop renews interest in their back catalogue and also somehow undoes the damage of a few poor albums in the 1970s-1990s because they proved again that they could equal what they did in their heyday. 

It's also poignant that a co-producer on the Monkees album was Andrew Sandoval, who isn't known for producing new material, but an expert activist, music historian and Monkees fanatic with several books and reissue projects to his name. He intimately knows their music, and I think bringing him on as a co-producer was a clever move to ensure that what was released was 100% the Monkees sound as we know it. Their main producer worried about the strength of the material and the arrangements and I'm guessing Andrew's job was mainly quality control and ensuring that the authentic 1960s sound came across. I've often wondered why the Hollies never got him on board to work with their catalogue as he's done some of the best reissue packages on the planet for the Monkees, Kinks (just done two superb boxsets), early Bee Gees albums etc...  

[sandy]

Aug 11, 2020 17:05:44 GMT cameron said:

I think new Hollies material has been lacking special magic since the late 1970s! I think we all came to realise that Tony/Allan/Graham and Tony/Allan/Terry were great songwriters in their own right. They just lost confidence along the way. 

For me, Allan's 'Resurgence' had the magic again. More so than 'Reasons To Believe' did. 'Legendary Heroes' before that in 1980 also had that magic, the Hollies should have recorded that whole album instead of 'Buddy Holly'. Allan has a very unique writing style, he's particularly good with hearing the unexpected in his choice of melody and his lyrics are like poetry - he's very good at telling a story. Although his voice has aged, I'm so surprised at just how well he sings now. There's no moment during the album where I think "poor Allan, a shadow of his former self"; he would sing at the bottom of his register quite often back in the day. I think his latest offering comfortably rubs shoulders with his old stuff - the voice is very much still there, more so than he gives himself credit for. 

I think the weakness of new Hollies material is it's all by and large "lovey-dovey" in a way that the Hollies weren't really known for. It's very emotive but very lightweight. And the production makes it even worse. The dynamic of the original Hollies was that they could record something as lyrically soppy as 'The Air That I Breathe' but Allan's voice just lifted the whole thing to another level with his vocal power and tone. The confident, strident harmonies again lifted the whole production to something identifiably unique. Couple that with a great sound in the studio (until the synths took over!) and you're onto a winner. 

Although I completely understand Sandy's point of view, I just thought, in a perfect world, it would be nice if they bowed out like the Monkees did, with a satisfying career closer LP that in one fell swoop renews interest in their back catalogue and also somehow undoes the damage of a few poor albums in the 1970s-1990s because they proved again that they could equal what they did in their heyday. 

It's also poignant that a co-producer on the Monkees album was Andrew Sandoval, who isn't known for producing new material, but an expert activist, music historian and Monkees fanatic with several books and reissue projects to his name. He intimately knows their music, and I think bringing him on as a co-producer was a clever move to ensure that what was released was 100% the Monkees sound as we know it. Their main producer worried about the strength of the material and the arrangements and I'm guessing Andrew's job was mainly quality control and ensuring that the authentic 1960s sound came across. I've often wondered why the Hollies never got him on board to work with their catalogue as he's done some of the best reissue packages on the planet for the Monkees, Kinks (just done two superb boxsets), early Bee Gees albums etc...  

Totally agree re Allan and his writing/ performance.
But Allan certainly doesn't want to revisit sixties sounds, and don't think the current incarnation does either?
Maybe we will be fortunate enough to get a strong Hollies' harmony sounding album of a slightly different slant to satisfy the full circle desire.....but it may well be more likely to be from Graham and Allan, and not the Hollies.....??🤞🤞🎶🎶😉

[Deleted]

I doubt whether The Hollies have made any real money from a new album since at least 1983, and that probably didn't earn them much. So, any new album would be largely for artistic gain, and perhaps to refresh the live setlist.

Frank Allen stated in his autobiography that the sum total he earnt from The Searchers' acclaimed 1979/1981 Sire albums and 1989's 'Hungry Hearts' was a big fat ZERO! 

[cameron]

I guess it's horses for courses - with less than 10,000 streams across 'Resurgence' on Spotify, I doubt that Allan/BMG have made much out of the album, unless his core fan base are more than making up for the low streaming count with physical copies - I know I bought it twice over on CD and vinyl. 

But there's great revival albums that sold well - Cream's 'Live at the Albert Hall' reunion album was absolutely huge, as was the aforementioned Monkees' last effort, which charted at #29 in the UK, #20 in Australia and #14 in the US - allegedly it hit #1 on the US vinyl chart. Which points the finger to my original point: if the Hollies' did a new album of "more of the same", just like these two aforementioned albums, then it would sell. Although the Hollies/Allan/Graham etc... want to progress and do something NEW, fans around the world are still obsessing over their 1960s and 1970s output. Graham Nash isn't selling out tours based on 'This Path Tonight', audiences want to hear his core CSN stuff. His 'Through The Years' set drastically outsold his latest solo album when you look at chart performance. Like the Hollies, there's two new songs at best in the set, the rest is all from their heyday. I think the Monkees were really smart in making the link and delivering an album of material that comfortably rubs shoulders with the rest of their heyday material. 

The Searchers' Sire albums, though very strong, were artistically a world away from what they were known for. Likewise the Tremeloes did a few great studio albums in the 1970s. I think the Hollies were more successful than most at bridging the gap with their early output and later output. But each member had such a unique musical fingerprint, that it was difficult to hear it as anyone other than the Hollies, even to a casual fan. The Byrds were a similar group that no matter how much the line up changed or what style they took on, they retained an identifiable sound. Again, Allan Clarke's voice is the key most likely: It was so unique and identifiable, he had a voice like no one else and as soon as he sings a note, you know it's him. Not many singers can claim that. 

[Mevrouw Bee]

Aug 12, 2020 10:45:21 GMT cameron said:

I guess it's horses for courses - with less than 10,000 streams across 'Resurgence' on Spotify, I doubt that Allan/BMG have made much out of the album, unless his core fan base are more than making up for the low streaming count with physical copies - I know I bought it twice over on CD and vinyl. 

But there's great revival albums that sold well - Cream's 'Live at the Albert Hall' reunion album was absolutely huge, as was the aforementioned Monkees' last effort, which charted at #29 in the UK, #20 in Australia and #14 in the US - allegedly it hit #1 on the US vinyl chart. Which points the finger to my original point: if the Hollies' did a new album of "more of the same", just like these two aforementioned albums, then it would sell. Although the Hollies/Allan/Graham etc... want to progress and do something NEW, fans around the world are still obsessing over their 1960s and 1970s output. Graham Nash isn't selling out tours based on 'This Path Tonight', audiences want to hear his core CSN stuff. His 'Through The Years' set drastically outsold his latest solo album when you look at chart performance. Like the Hollies, there's two new songs at best in the set, the rest is all from their heyday. I think the Monkees were really smart in making the link and delivering an album of material that comfortably rubs shoulders with the rest of their heyday material. 

This is one household that has two CD copies of Resurgence! That being said, we're currently a split household with one in Canada and one in Holland...I confess I got tired of waiting till lockdown was over!

Btw...speaking of the Monkees, I read on Twitter yesterday that Micky Dolenz is doing an entire album of Mike Nesmith songs! That could be cool...

[The Dude]

Aug 10, 2020 10:22:41 GMT cameron said:

One of my first introductions to the Hollies was the superb compilation 'Hollies' Finest', which features songs from all but the Carl Wayne fronted Hollies. What struck me on listening back then, long before I knew about the line up changes, was that the last track, 'Let Love Pass' was completely like nothing else from the album. I even wondered if the CD had stopped and my Hi-Fi turned onto the radio, which some used to do, because this song just didn't sound like the rest of the album to me. It's a shame, because it's a beautiful song, sung really well by Peter. But I actually perceived it to be quite cheesy compared to the rest of the ageless material. 

That's just it. Both Allan Clarke and Mikael Rickfors have a voice with character, which easily stands out, even in close harmony. Same thing with Carl Wayne. But Peter Howarth's voice lacks such character... he is a good background vocalist but not a lead vocalist...

[cameron]

I've just realised that I have three copies of 'Resurgence' - a signed CD, non-signed CD and LP. I have to confess, I was a bit disappointed that Allan signed the inside page where his signature doesn't stand out so much. I wanted to frame the cover, but ho-hum. I'm genuinely excited to see where he goes next with his solo music, and the talk of reuniting with Graham Nash is even more exciting. As much as I like Graham, he was always a better harmony singer than lead singer in many cases. Lately his voice has taken a turn several semi-tones lower like everyone's does, but he sings with this annoying American twang now. I think being back with Allan will snap him out of it and the two voices will blend well, hopefully! 

I agree with The Dude's comments - Peter Howarth made his name as a backing singer, most notably with Cliff Richard. He's an immensely talented vocalist. His precision and control is amazing. But exciting? No. I guess it's that "X-factor" that made so many singers in days of old so exciting. Nowadays, everyone is highly trained, highly polished and if they're not quite up to scratch, auto-tuned in the studio. Would the Beatles have been as big as the Beatles if they could all read and write music and had a perfect understanding of musical theory? Almost definitely not. In fact, there's a whole bunch of singers and musicians from the 1960s who wouldn't "cut the mustard" today as far as record companies are concerned, but they had an excitement factor despite a few rough edges elsewhere. The only exception of course is the Hollies, who were just perfect all round...