|
|
Post by gee on May 11, 2022 22:10:44 GMT
This youtube guy Andrew is a Beatles 'expert' without question, and I really enjoy his many detailed informative postings where he goes into tremendous detail concerning many aspects of The Beatles catalogue and their story which is never less than fascinating...
He has done a Beatles v Hollies albums compare posting - to be fair he clearly likes and rates The Hollies and recommends their albums which is great....however he does the time honoured bigging up of The Beatles as if sun gods bestowing us with their glory on vinyl....and by compare the mere mortal Hollies are out of their depth etc - a bit of an exaggeration on my part maybe but he admits he only got into The Hollies later on and obviously The Beatles are his first love - no problem there, tho' he does only look at the sixties Hollies work chiefly the Nash years
I do think he makes a few rather dismissive judgments however re Hollies music - bearing in mind they had nowhere near the studio time afforded The Beatles while one might ponder (as Bobby has) how much George Martin might have pushed The Hollies...and equally with no disrespect how much might Ron Richards have held The Beatles back..? (not any dig at Ron but the fact is he clearly wasn't anywhere near as enthusiastic about The Hollies and their songwriting...or had the same forward thinking ideas as GM had re The Fab Four - remember it was Ron not George who dumped Ringo off 'Love Me Do' !)
While Lennon-McCartney clearly were mega prolific ...as Clarke-Hicks-Nash quickly became over 1966-67...and most people (maybe a bit brainwashed by the pop media perhaps ?) were Beatles mad, The Hollies songwriting was pretty imaginative and from 1965 notably they wrote some impressive songs about self confidence, intimidation,social issues, social class awareness, even death itself with historical references (''I've Got A Way of My Own', 'Don't Run And Hide','Too Many People', 'Hard Hard Year', 'What's Wrong With The Way I Live', 'High Classed' etc....)
...while they created rather unusually structured with key and tempo changes songs such as 'Come On Back', 'When I Come Home To You', 'Oriental Sadness' (a title never mentioned in the lyrics)... the perverse non rhyming lines of 'Peculiar Situation' ...and whoever heard of a song called 'Pay You Back With Interest. ?
Due to their cheerful happy go lucky innocent image (or lack of any major image or problems re image) people always took The Hollies for granted thus probably saw them as mere pop lightweights...but while this suited most of the group members the fact is songs such as 'Stop Stop Stop' and even 'Carrie Anne' ('then you played with older boys and prefects...') plus album track 'The Games We Play' ('...are you sure were getting away with this...?) had a direct "riskay" (for the times) angle that most Beatles singles songs never had - while even in 'Norwegian Wood' Lennon ends up sheepishly sleeping in the bath !
The Hollies use of unusual instruments such as vox flying phantom guitar, Banjo, glockenspiel, bells, the direct miking up of Bobby's drums, plus even sound effects (pre Beatles) prove they were at least working along the same innovative lines as The Fab Four
The Hollies and Beatles did cross over a few times style wise - but I can only think of about half a dozen Beatles songs that utilise full on three part harmonies as the featured vocal performance ('This Boy', 'Tell Me Why', 'Yes it Is', 'If I Needed Someone', 'Nowhere Man'....and later on 'Because')...however they differ as groups musically alot too with most Beatles songs featuring one singer and some with two plus backing vocals if used - also The Hollies had a 'jazzy' styled edge to them re some instrumental approaches like Bobby's drumming on 'I'm Alive', his outro on 'Interest'...the for the time quite lengthy Hicks / Alan Hawkshaw guitar / piano solo tradeoff on 'Put Yourself in My Place'
Eric Haydock's fast six string bass guitar runs were a key foundation of The Hollies that was unique to their style at that time
the way the two groups took 'A Taste of Honey' is so telling re their differences - and The Hollies had a clear folk music influence from artists such as The Kingston Trio and Peter Paul & Mary which became apparent over 1965-66
we all know how highly The Beatles rated the works of The Everly Brothers...and in turn The Everly Brothers rated the (non hits) original songs of The Hollies hence recording 'Two Yanks in England' in 1966 - so perhaps MORE critical respect and overdue acclaim ought to be afforded to The Hollies both as songwriters and musicians rather than just dismissing 'Hollies' (1965) and 'Would You Believe ?" as 'patchy' and no comparison to 'Revolver' as this guy does here ?
- of course we all know the strengths of 'Revolver' (tho' - dare I say it ? - I would have dropped the children's song 'Yellow Submarine' replacing it with 'Rain', and for me only 'Taxman' of George's three songs I'd rate as a true Harrison classic...while John's 'Dr Robert' is fine but not outstanding by his high standards - unlike say 'She Said' or 'I'm Only Sleeping'.... and I have never been overly mad on 'For No One' to be honest compared to say 'Here There and Everywhere' - but that is just my views of course)
like The Animals, Searchers, Spencer Davis Group even Rolling Stones The Hollies were at something of a crossroads in late 1965 / early 1966 with various factions within the group unlike the far more 'all together now' Beatles and their producer & team at EMI - often they were rushed in the studio and fighting to get THEIR own songs on a album (Ron had insisted they cut 'That's My Desire' in 1965 !) and that needs to be borne in mind .....so a direct compare with 'Revolver' is wrong and unfair, however there WAS enough creativity in the four original songs (one dating from 1965) plus in how they mixed Buddy Holly and The Byrds on 'Take Your Time' and covered the Paul Simon song to show how they were moving forward...while some conservative factions within and around the group saw them retain a safer stance on some Rock & Roll and soul covers VERY popular at that time
so maybe Andrew needs to read Malc's book (that is if he hasn't yet) to understand The Hollies set up and situation circa 1965-66 ...and not make direct comparisons to Beatles works which is really unfair I feel
He goes no futher than 1969...so 'Confessions' / 'Distant Light' and the Rickfors era onwards are not part of his overview of Hollies album works which again he ought to address I feel if he has not yet done so
But I would reiterate he IS pretty positive re alot of Hollies album work which is good to see...he rates 'Evolution' and 'Butterfly' very highly while many youtube replies are DELIGHTED to see him cover The Hollies on his Beatles based channel...which might have surprised him at little maybe...?
I can recommend this guy tho' overall - his excellent postings are FULL of information but he has a very fine style never coming across as any kind of 'know all' just objective and interesting...!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on May 12, 2022 14:44:55 GMT
I agree...Apples and oranges. The Beatles didn't show that much brilliance in their Decca audition tapes, imo. Or as much energy at the Hollies did in their early recordings. It took mentoring and the gift of studio time by George Martin to help them fulfill their potential. If the Hollies had that? Well, imo, our boys were equal if not superior musicians. And considering their relative lack of studio time, mentoring and add in crap luck with visas, really rose above it all and accomplished amazing things.
Might add in a bit of pragmatism on the band's part...they usually kept their feet on the ground (Nash excepted), balancing stardom and family/personal lives. Or maybe they had the freedom to do that, unlike the Beatles? I mean, if they were in the level of superstardom like the Beatles, would Bernie and Terry segued into butchering and real estate after leaving the Hollies or would they have totally fallen apart?
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on May 12, 2022 16:36:07 GMT
I've always said this... the Hollies got to where they did on their own merits. There was no "shark" manager causing controversies like the Stones had, no investor willing to pull strings like the Beatles had with Brian Epstein buying enough singles of 'Love Me Do' to get it into the national charts... The Hollies were on their own, and after 1966, barely even had EMI on their side, who put very lacklustre effort into promoting one of their best-selling acts across the world thanks to that 'Hollies Ltd' business deal.
Likewise in the studio, Ron Richards pretty much left them to it. He was interested in what they bought to the table but was quite abrupt with his opinions of what was a hit and what wasn't. Thankfully, later on, he couldn't tell the Hollies what to do, which lead us to some great stuff that we otherwise wouldn't have got, particularly 'Long Cool Woman', from what I've heard of his comments about the track. I think perhaps the Hollies' secret weapon was Peter Bown who was interested in getting a good sound onto tape, and worked with the band - particularly Bobby - to accommodate their wishes.
The Beatles vs Hollies comparison isn't fair. People see a musical year as being linear in the 1960s, but the "summer of love" didn't kick off until 1st June 1967 when 'Sgt. Pepper' dropped. By that reckoning, 'Evolution' was WAY ahead of the curve. Most popular artists who are remembered for great psychedelic albums didn't put out their response to 'Sgt. Pepper' until the END of 1967 or even as late as mid-1968 in the case of The Move and the Small Faces. In early 1967, following 'Revolver', the Rolling Stones were putting out the perfect pop album with 'Between The Buttons', which was dismissed by the band themselves more or less immediately. Ditto the Small Faces self-titled debut for Immediate records around the same time, only hints at their full blown flower power potential later in the year... Credit where credit is due, 'Revolver' WAS ahead of the curve for its time, though its a sum of parts for me. There's a lot more filler on that LP than there is on 'Rubber Soul', IMO. And lots of artists at the time in Britain were busy taking their lead from 'Pet Sounds', which was a different direction entirely...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on May 28, 2022 12:41:10 GMT
The Hollies were writing deeper songs than The Beatles were in 1966. “For Certain Because” is the best album by a British band in that year. The Beatles were still writing mostly simple girl/boy love songs. Well, that makes me look at Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Yellow Submarine, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Doctor Robert and Tomorrow Never Knows in a whole different light... |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on May 28, 2022 18:21:31 GMT
The Hollies were writing deeper songs than The Beatles were in 1966. “For Certain Because” is the best album by a British band in that year. The Beatles were still writing mostly simple girl/boy love songs. Well, that makes me look at Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Yellow Submarine, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Doctor Robert and Tomorrow Never Knows in a whole different light... I’ve just seen a face, You won’t see me, What goes on, Girl, Run for your life, Michele, Drive My Car Smarty pants . What’s wrong with the way I Live ALONE has more depth and meaning than anything on Rubber Soul or Revolver. Go to a Beatles site if your such a fan. What are doing here? |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on May 28, 2022 19:01:53 GMT
Well, that makes me look at Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Yellow Submarine, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Doctor Robert and Tomorrow Never Knows in a whole different light... I’ve just seen a face, You won’t see me, What goes on, Girl, Run for your life, Michele, Drive My Car Smarty pants . |
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on May 29, 2022 13:40:53 GMT
Well, that makes me look at Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Yellow Submarine, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Doctor Robert and Tomorrow Never Knows in a whole different light... I’ve just seen a face, You won’t see me, What goes on, Girl, Run for your life, Michele, Drive My Car Smarty pants . What’s wrong with the way I Live ALONE has more depth and meaning than anything on Rubber Soul or Revolver. Go to a Beatles site if your such a fan. What are doing here? Tell Me To My Face, Suspicious Look In Your Eyes, High Classed, What Went Wrong, Don't Even Think About Changing, Pay You Back With Interest, It's You, Peculiar Situation. Anyway, I'm not of the school that thinks boy-girl songs are less deep or meaningful. Without love, none of us would be around, after all. Rubber Soul is from 1965, not 1966. And loving the Hollies doesn't mean hating the Beatles. Have a nice day, Moorlock. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 3, 2022 14:29:36 GMT
Love the Hollies, but the Beatles were the greatest, you can’t compare. The Beatles had the full package,
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 4, 2022 22:48:40 GMT
There is an argument - and I know some who feel it - that The Beatles were really just mostly a pop group NOT a rock or blues outfit like say Cream, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Fleetwood Mac, Yardbrids, Jeff Beck Group, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers (featuring Mick Taylor) Ten Years After etc...'serious groups' not just pop music
certainly as time went on in the sixties The Beatles both in look and musical style moved towards the likes of The Rolling Stones,THE Who,The Pretty Things etc...than ever the other way around...
The Beatles never broke out of the standard love songs format until late 1965 - while say Ray Davies was writing songs about class distinction and social structure ('A Well Respected Man') , Pete Townshend was writing about the inequalities of life ('Substitute') and the frustrations of youth ('A Legal Matter', 'My Generation'), even The Hollies were writing about social issues and the inevitability of death itself in 1965...
Also The Beatles used session players for things like the flute whilst groups like Manfred Mann, The Moody Blues had flute players and in the case of The Manfreds more skilled vibes, saxophone, trumpet, double bass players etc
Mike Hugg of Manfred Mann was writing songs about racial prejudice in 1966 ('Mr, You're A Better Man Than I') and The Yardbirds writing songs about everything from suicide ('Farewell') to nuclear destruction '('Shapes of Things') in 1966
many artists were moving in areas The Beatles never ventured into before 1966...yes they were among the innovative crowd but were not the FIRST to do everything as they get credited with doing
whilst The Beatles love songs were pretty much the standard tales of love with the victim of a poorly acting partner other writers like say John Sebastian ventured into the deeper angle of a totally inaccessable relationship in 'Younger Girl', and took the opposite view on a broken relationship in 'Didn't Want To Have To Do it' than say Paul took in 'You Won't See Me' - when Sebastian's song was from the viewpoint of the one ending the relationship BUT hating breaking her heart...not just walking away from a bad relationship as in so many songs
The Hollies songs such as 'I've Got A Way of My Own', 'Don't Run And Hide', 'Whats Wrong With The Way I Live', 'Hard Hard Year', and 'High Classed' explored social issues and even a form of bullying from others breaking someone's confidence - all quite deep tho' they never get much recognition for it.
even The Four Seasons were doing social comment songs about the unemployed such as 'Beggars Parade' in 1966 - another idiom are The Beatles never ventured into as first and foremost they mostly kept a popular style even when they became more adventurous with songs like 'Hey Jude' full of La La La La...
|
|
|
|
Post by madprofessorblyth on Jun 5, 2022 0:11:21 GMT
I understand a bit of what you're saying there Gee, but with all due respect I think what you mention is a part of the Beatles' universal appeal and a part of what makes them so important with the innovations that they did make. As an example, of course like all of their peers, the first two Beatles LPs were mostly 'love songs,' but I think we could likely all agree that their sound had already hugely shifted between 'Please Please Me' and 'With The Beatles,' in that they sound even more confident and skilled in their playing and their songwriting. While the actual lyrical content might be more about boy/girl situations, the distinctive melodies and shocking chord changes put them in a special field: their music was fresh and available to be appreciated by both the teenyboppers in school as well as the 20-somethings who would be peers with the members of these groups. The fact that recordings like 'Ask Me Why' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' were made in the same year is pretty amazing in ways, that they'd already come so far. While most people would say there aren't any 'obscure' Beatles recordings left, there are still some great nuggets like 'Not A Second Time' which in some ways are very simple but also have distinctive elements (like that unexpected chord change) which make them quite unique and memorable. I love all of those other groups you mention, including the Hollies of course, and firmly believe they are all underrated in their own way, but I don't think that judging exclusively on lyrical content makes them any more 'ahead' or 'behind' the Fabs. To play 'devil's advocate' a bit, perhaps some people were looking more for a 30 minute musical escape from their weary worldly circumstances rather than yet another song describing and commiserating the dreariness that they and their families were dealing with day-in and day-out. I'm not sure we can equate the Beatles' output with examples like 'A Well Respected Man' and others, when those groups too got to those topics after getting popular with their own boy/girl love songs - for example's sake, the Kinks, who I absolutely adore, sure built their early career on many of those- and they too had some covers which didn't enhance their prowess, especially that abysmal 'Louie Louie'! And even after those early flirtations with those songs, they still had 'Till The End Of The Day,' and cuts like 'I'm On An Island' which isn't any more culturally relevant than a Beatles track like 'The Word' which is pretty ahead of its time as a pre-'Sunshine Superman' track of expanding horizons...! As we've all discussed here many times (including already a bit within this thread), unfortunately in many ways the Hollies were the ones responsible for holding themselves back (Sweet Little Sixteen as previously mentioned being a prime example of what *not* to do!) - I of course agree with the wish that the various 'critics' would give them more of the respect which they rightfully deserve - but they've never been their own advocates in terms of promoting their reputation (or lack thereof). I'm not sure trying to compare any of these groups, especially with specific examples which might remove some of the context, really does *any* of these groups justice... they're all a piece of the puzzle that makes that era so great, fascinating, and full of brilliantly crafted pop music. However, the Beatles were the zeitgeist and not just another talented pop group for a whole host of reasons - which can't be captured in a casual or short fashion (surely would be a voluminous undertaking!) Just my thoughts  |
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Jul 31, 2022 1:08:08 GMT
Making things that don't need to be a competition into one is what some seem bent on doing with everything. However, if The Hollies are failed Beatles that could make The Beatles failed Hollies just as easily. Well, obviously The Beatles paved the path as it were for many others up north, including neighbouring Hollies, but let's just enjoy the music?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 31, 2022 13:31:59 GMT
Making things that don't need to be a competition into one is what some seem bent on doing with everything. However, if The Hollies are failed Beatles that could make The Beatles failed Hollies just as easily. Well, obviously The Beatles paved the path as it were for many others up north, including neighbouring Hollies, but let's just enjoy the music? THANK YOU! Ugh, I don't get this competition thing either. I've unfollowed and blocked so many guys on Twitter who insist on pitting one act against another or one artist against another. Why does EVERYTHING need to be rated??! Just listen to the damned music and be glad it will still be out there long after our artists have passed on... |
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 19, 2022 22:21:34 GMT
You are quite right there Bee - this was why Andrew's Hollies v Beatles posting whilst quite complimentary about The Hollies overall did irritate me a little bit as it was indeed a case of 'Apples and Oranges' as was stated above very aptly..
The Beatles did of course open up the door for many UK groups - but they do often get credited for doing many things FIRST when other artists actually had done the thing credited to them beforehand !
and The Beatles themselves WERE influenced by many artists too - and in that it's quite interesting in that say; Elvis, Buddy Holly,Carl Perkins,Roy Orbison, the Motown soul artists, Bob Dylan etc are 'accepted' influences...
...yet the likes of say; Tommy Steele, Lonnie Donegan, The Vipers, Duane Eddy, Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Joe Brown, The Tornados (& producer Joe Meek), Johnny Kidd & The Pirates, Billy Fury, etc...are seldom if ever credited as having any kind of influence on The Beatles and their music...but each did have some influence in one way or another
Increasingly I see people posting on youtube etc how ONLY The Beatles did this, that, whatever first...and were increasingly light years ahead of EVERYBODY ELSE...!
such blinkered blind adoration is not a good thing, and does The Beatles no favors really....a balanced view with a proper sense of perspective needs to be retained - it's fascinating to see how the artists back in that fifties / sixties era duly influenced each other so much and their respective music was all the better for it..
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Oct 19, 2022 23:17:35 GMT
...yet the likes of say; Tommy Steele, Lonnie Donegan, Duane Eddy, Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Joe Brown, The Tornados (& producer Joe Meek), Johnny Kidd & The Pirates, Billy Fury, etc...are seldom if ever credited as having any kind of influence on The Beatles and their music...but each did have some influence in one way or another Increasingly I see people posting on youtube etc how ONLY The Beatles did this, that, whatever first...and were increasingly light years ahead of EVERYBODY ELSE...! such blinkered blind adoration is not a good thing, and does The Beatles no favors really....a balanced view with a proper sense of perspective needs to be retained - it's fascinating to see how the artists back in that fifties / sixties era duly influenced each other so much and their respective music was all the better for it.. I've spent the last 20 years reassembling my music collection in a way where I can now listen to everything chronologically and the main reason I did this was so I could gain a much better insight and understanding on how the music of the 50's and 60's evolved. The whitewashing of history that implies The Beatles invented everything just makes me retch and I count myself as a huge Beatles fan. Hang about... there's that photo of John Lennon getting Billy Fury's autograph in 1960, Mike McCartney's sneaky shot of George Harrison posing with Joe Brown's guitar in 1962 and the wonderful accounts of when The Beatles and The Shadows met for the first time with The Beatles parodying the famous Shadows' walk and became good pals. And those guys meant nothing to The Beatles? Yeah, right. Oh, what was John heard humming on the big Abbey Road set before a take of one of their songs... oh... "Man Of Mystery". The Beatles knew ALL those artistes works and took some inspiration whether it be musical or visual. For goodness' sake, Paul McCartney went on a date and saw Frank Ifield... an amusing story as he was dating Ifield's girlfriend... and oh, they covered his big hit "I Remember You"! All we ever hear is how they plundered American 45's... of course they did, they were always looking for material other British acts hadn't yet found in order to try and stand out but to assume that was all they were influenced by is ignorant and nonsensical. They soaked up music from all genres... they devoured it because it was educational and inspirational. Hey, Bruce Chanel's latest record has a harmonica on it, let's get one of them things... and the harmonica was an important part of those first three Beatles singles. Everybody was influencing each other, taking a little from this, a touch of that and creating something different and fresh with their own identity stamped upon it. NOBODY was genuinely 100% original though many records sounded original because of the changing technology and new sounds. A classic example for me is The Kinks' "You Really Got Me" - that was a startling bolt out of the blue as nobody had heard guitar played like THAT before though the structure is very derivative of American blues. Sure, The Beatles thought they were being original with the final chord of "She Loves You" and whilst George Martin thought it sounded odd, he realised it was very Glenn Miller so perhaps the Fab's unconsciously "borrowed" from Glenn Miller as well... it didn't really matter where those touches or chords came from... they'd have heard them before and used them in new ways. It's always great to see any mention of Johnny Kidd and The Pirates these days as they were criminally under-rated and now unfairly forgotten... they were loved by practically everyone that saw their live show and by goodness some of those singles were absolute killers and I like to think Lennon channeled a bit of Kidd in his vocal style. Lennon readily admitted that the first British rock and roll record that meant something was Cliff's "Move It" and I'm sure he would have loved "Please Don't Touch" and "Shakin' All Over" as well. I do wonder if he was aware of Vince Taylor's sublime "Brand New Cadillac" as EMI dumped that one away on a B side! |
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Oct 20, 2022 12:48:41 GMT
The result of the Beatle hyperbole is, of course, the pushback. There are some real Beatle haters out there amongst younger people, in part because history is lost on them--music is now a spotify playlist with no curation and the generation gap is alive and well-- but also because we boomers shove them down young people's throats as the epitome of everything. So even I've become sick of them, sadly.
Ironically it was my millennial son (who admits respect but little love for the Beatles) who turned me on to the Trash Theory YouTube channel based in the UK, particularly this video about British rock and roll pre-Beatles. A very good overview for newbies I think...
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 20, 2022 21:40:14 GMT
Re 'You Really Got Me' by The Kinks released in 1964 with that rasping 'fuzzy' guitar sound...
bear in mind that Ray Davies has said he was a massive fan of The Ventures...
and 'The 2000 Pound Bee' single was released in 1962 - note the backup guitar sound here on 'part one' which then takes over as the lead guitar for 'part two'
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 20, 2022 21:57:38 GMT
Re The late great Johnny Kidd & The Pirates - whom both The Hollies and The Who also have acknowledged as big influences on them
- I believe Bobby and Allan were among the guests at the wedding of Johnny Kidd (Freddie Heath) who was so tragically killed in a car smash in late 1966
Paul McCartney invited legendary Pirates guitarist Mick Green (who was also in The Dakotas over 1964-67) to play guitar for him on his album 'Run Devil Run' and to play alongside Dave Gilmour on guitar at his Return To The Cavern Club' first show in 1999
Wilko Johnson was a massive fan too - his group Dr Feelgood took their name from the 1964 Johnny Kidd & The Pirates single not the figure himself, and covered another Kidd single 'I Can Tell'(1962) which had featured Mick Green on guitar on an early album
- Wilko and Mick wrote 'Going Back Home' together which both Dr Feelgood and the reformed Pirates recorded in the seventies
|
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Oct 20, 2022 23:44:29 GMT
I Can Tell was an original recording by Bo Diddley, although the Pirates and Kidd do a really good job with it. Anywhere you look there will be someone before most firsts, even before the 2,000 Pound Bee there was Train Kept A Rollin' by Johnny Burnette Trio and Rumble by Link Wray... but the Beatles succeeding with writing original material on top of The Shadows, Meek associated artists and others' originals, did change things, crack the door open a bit further for new material, light a fire for Jagger-Richards/Davies/Townshend etc. to give it a try, even The Shadows to do some vocal numbers sans Cliff, which they did quite well too even if no big hits like with the instros. They brought back a sort of skiffle aspect of doing it all yourself I would say too, The Beatles. Didn't have to be photogenic lead singer and mostly interchangeable backing musicians under a The _______s name. They were an oddity and against the grain going by the Pop Weekly magazines circa 1982-63 I have, and The Stones that little bit further out (no uniforms). Both The Shadows and Kidd & The Pirates played The Cavern. The Shads had some problems with the acoustics and with Jet Harris and Johnny Kidd had some trouble with his cutlass prop (which was a bit too solid for a prop). I'm not knocking Beatles as a thing or a person or whatever it's supposed to be, I'm just saying someone was probably first more often than not but now it's turned into all this! If you get the mushy peas at the takeaway chippie it's more a proper dinner, so all I'm saying is give peas a chance! 
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 20, 2022 23:55:31 GMT
Re The Shadows - they composed their own numbers - like 'F.B.I.', 'Gonzales, ' 'Shadoogie' and quite a lot of their hits including the 1963 UK chart topper 'Foot Tapper' - they also wrote hits for Cliff Richard including his UK Chart toppers; 'Please Don't Tease' and 'Summer Holiday' - and later wrote hits like 'Sam' and 'Please Mr Please' for Olivia Newton John
They also set up their own music publisher - 'Shadows Music'
The Beatles did 'Cry For A Shadow' in Germany early on which was clearly a parody of The Shads
Tony Barrow namechecked The Shadows in his linear notes to the UK cover of 'Please Please Me' in 1963 and of course The Beatles invited The Shadows to Paul's 21st birthday party...where they watched John Lennon attack DJ Bob Wooller and be pulled off and restrained by Billy Hatton of The Fourmost !
The Shadows had two UK vocal hits with 'Mary Anne' and 'Don't Make My Baby Blue' in 1965 (which got to number ten in the UK and drew compliments from George Harrison) while another vocal single 'I Met A Girl' charted in the UK in 1966...and their Eurovision Song 'Let Me Be The One' reached no.12 in the UK in 1975
In 1966 Paul offered the melody of 'Here There And Everywhere' to The Shadows at Abbey Road..then took it off and wrote lyrics for it and used it himself !
The Beatles core instrumental line up evolved to that of The Shadows of lead, rhythm, bass guitar frontline - with three vocalists singing in harmony, plus Drums as did quite alot of Merseybeat and 'Beat Boom' outfits - including The Hollies
fellow merseybeat group The Swinging Blue Jeans covered two Shadows vocal tracks 'That's The Way it Goes' and 'Don't it Make You Feel Good' on their album 'Blue Jeans A Swinging' in 1964 so the influence was quite wide on merseybeat outfits - something some UK music writers later tried to deny
The Shadows used strings, brass, and played Greek instruments before The Beatles did by a few years tho' I have seen The Beatles being credited as doing all of that first...!
The Beatles have been credited as using Greek instruments on 'Girl' in 1965 before anyone else ever did
The Shadows earlier had played Greek instrumentation on their instrumental composition 'All Day' back in 1962 (the 'B' side to UK chart topper 'Dance On')
|
|
|
|
Post by johnt on Oct 21, 2022 14:20:23 GMT
The result of the Beatle hyperbole is, of course, the pushback. There are some real Beatle haters out there amongst younger people, in part because history is lost on them--music is now a spotify playlist with no curation and the generation gap is alive and well-- but also because we boomers shove them down young people's throats as the epitome of everything. So even I've become sick of them, sadly. Ironically it was my millennial son (who admits respect but little love for the Beatles) who turned me on to the Trash Theory YouTube channel based in the UK, particularly this video about British rock and roll pre-Beatles. A very good overview for newbies I think... Thanks for posting this YouTube video. I hadn't seen it before. One of my favourites from the pre-Beatles era was Joe Brown who surprisingly wasn't mentioned in the video. If I remember correctly, The Beatles supported Joe and a few others on a package tour back in 1962 and appeared at my then home town in Mansfield, Notts. Joe was riding high in the charts with A Picture Of You. My older brother went to see the show but, as I was only 10 years old at the time, I missed out. I've since learned that George Harrison was a big fan of Joe: harrisonstories.tumblr.com/post/95229598003/it-was-george-harrison-who-was-joe-browns |
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Oct 21, 2022 17:59:15 GMT
The Shadows were much better known in Canada, they were very influential on some of our early '60s artists such as The Esquires and Randy Bachman (later of Guess Who and Bachman-Turner Overdrive). I've heard that those Cliff with Shadows movies were in our cinemas at the time as well. It was a cover of Kidd & the Pirates' Shakin' All Over which really got The Guess Who group off the ground in 1965-66 (and I've heard by way of that is why people started asking The Who to do it). I've seen photos of Joe Brown and Billy Fury with Gene Vincent and Eddie Cochrane on their 1960 tour. Early Cliff is really good rock & roll too. I'd say the biggest U.S. influence on The Beatles would be Buddy Holly and The Crickets. That they originated some of their best songs means something I think, Lennon was very interested in knowing about Buddy according to a DJ over here named Red Robinson, although Lennon hid his specs from the public unlike Buddy and Hank Marvin (and a couple Zombies and Manfred Mann). Sure The Beatles changed the world... but they forgot to burp it too!  They did help bring some more humour in, although again, The Shadows (and Peter Jay And The Jaywalkers) also had humour earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by knut on Oct 21, 2022 19:01:24 GMT
Remember that The Beatles - earlier The Beetles - got the idea fir their name from The Crickets
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 21, 2022 21:46:13 GMT
From the self sufficient songwriting angle artists in the UK such as Tommy Steele, Johnny Kidd, The Shadows,Billy Fury and of course Lonnie Donegen were important in that they were songwriters as well - while Lonnie with Tyler Music and The Shadows with Shadows Music also got into publishing their own works
The Beatles, Hollies, Stones, Who etc all later followed that important line
ironic but The Hollies lucrative 'leasing back' deal with EMI in 1966 saw them get a better return than John & Paul were getting from the Northern Songs deal...and was the chief reason The Shadows later left EMI in 1980 when they would not adopt a similar deal for them...
The Beatles appeared on Joe Brown's BBC Radio show and did a version of 'A Picture of You' sung by John Lennon (sadly lost from the BBC Radio archive)
- Joe of course would sing a version of 'Here Comes The Sun'...and then close an emotional 'Concert For George' with 'I'll See You In My Dreams'
A number of visiting American stars insisted on having the ever cheerful young Joe Brown as guitarist for their UK tours, and Joe was an in demand session guitarist besides his own career
'The Switch' (1961)
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 21, 2022 22:06:22 GMT
Here is young Joe Brown with 'The Bruvvers' playing live in the sixties on 'The Arthur Haynes Show' on UK TV
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Oct 22, 2022 12:49:15 GMT
The Shadows were much better known in Canada, they were very influential on some of our early '60s artists such as The Esquires and Randy Bachman (later of Guess Who and Bachman-Turner Overdrive). I've heard that those Cliff with Shadows movies were in our cinemas at the time as well. It was a cover of Kidd & the Pirates' Shakin' All Over which really got The Guess Who group off the ground in 1965-66 (and I've heard by way of that is why people started asking The Who to do it). I've seen photos of Joe Brown and Billy Fury with Gene Vincent and Eddie Cochrane on their 1960 tour. Early Cliff is really good rock & roll too. I'd say the biggest U.S. influence on The Beatles would be Buddy Holly and The Crickets. That they originated some of their best songs means something I think, Lennon was very interested in knowing about Buddy according to a DJ over here named Red Robinson, although Lennon hid his specs from the public unlike Buddy and Hank Marvin (and a couple Zombies and Manfred Mann). Sure The Beatles changed the world... but they forgot to burp it too! They did help bring some more humour in, although again, The Shadows (and Peter Jay And The Jaywalkers) also had humour earlier. This this this! Canadian radio was much more open to British artists before the US was . Cliff even had a few number 1s on the Toronto CHUM charts. I've heard that this might be the first Canadian music video...by the above-mentioned Esquires. 1963: |
|
They did help bring some more humour in, although again, The Shadows (and Peter Jay And The Jaywalkers) also had humour earlier.