|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 20, 2022 20:16:18 GMT
Was it ever revealed why exactly The Hollies felt compelled to rush out a cover of a Beatles song? I feel this was one of the poorest, most ill-conceived decisions the band ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Jun 20, 2022 20:28:37 GMT
A major mistake. Full stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Wilkinson on Jun 20, 2022 22:51:53 GMT
Up there amongst the best.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 21, 2022 12:37:44 GMT
I like it. But it was unnecessary considering their own songwriting talents.
|
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 22, 2022 13:53:48 GMT
From what I’ve gathered, George Martin handed the demo over to Ron Richards for The Hollies to record it, to see if a Harrison tune would chart. So The Hollies were Guinea pigs for the bigwigs.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Jun 25, 2022 12:59:56 GMT
I don't dislike this one and if truth be told, I prefer it to The Beatles' takeich feels ploddy by comparison. A reasonable song but Allan is easily the better singer.
I'm guessing it was Ron Richards still calling the shots as he and the band had decided to stay away from original material for A sides so Ron thought he'd be clever by getting The Hollies to rush out an exclusive Beatles cover only for it to backfire commercially!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 25, 2022 13:22:35 GMT
Coincidentally, somebody tweeted this yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by knut on Jun 28, 2022 17:07:13 GMT
It was withdrawn in the USA, and copies are now extremely rare. One went for GBP 1700 the other day
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jun 29, 2022 13:21:40 GMT
It was withdrawn in the USA, and copies are now extremely rare. One went for GBP 1700 the other day Which proves that the Hollies are still considered valuable to somebody! |
|
|
|
Post by thejanitor on Jul 3, 2022 18:08:49 GMT
It's not amazing, but I don't think it's as bad as it's often made out to be. As the song was more personal to him, I enjoy George's delivery more, plus Tony's lead guitar on the Hollies version sounds a bit tacky to me, but their harmonies are still top notch on it as always!
|
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Jul 31, 2022 1:00:01 GMT
I never understood at all why George took umbrage at it. Marmalade later had a singles 'hit' covering The Beatles' Obladi-oblada, and The Silkie with You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, and there were others... at least they were on the same label with The Hollies and had met them, not sure about some of the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Jul 31, 2022 13:06:26 GMT
I never understood at all why George took umbrage at it. Marmalade later had a singles 'hit' covering The Beatles' Obladi-oblada, and The Silkie with You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, and there were others... at least they were on the same label with The Hollies and had met them, not sure about some of the others. I've never been completely convinced that it wasn't a publicity stunt to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Aug 1, 2022 19:44:07 GMT
I've never been completely convinced that it wasn't a publicity stunt to be honest. I can see that, a Beatles and Hollies feud could get a lot of headlines, but that doesn't seem like a Ron Richards or Brian Epstein kind of move somehow... definitely a lot of other promoters did work that way (Stones, The Move). |
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Aug 2, 2022 5:23:17 GMT
And if it was a publicity stunt for the 45 then it backfired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 2, 2022 12:06:00 GMT
I've never been completely convinced that it wasn't a publicity stunt to be honest. I can see that, a Beatles and Hollies feud could get a lot of headlines, but that doesn't seem like a Ron Richards or Brian Epstein kind of move somehow... definitely a lot of other promoters did work that way (Stones, The Move). Ron was the record producer, not a manager or promoter. Brian wasn't above sneaky stuff at the beginning of the Beatles' career. |
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 2, 2022 12:07:20 GMT
And if it was a publicity stunt for the 45 then it backfired. The Hollies' too often succeeded despite marketing and promotion attempts...which says a lot for their talent. |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 2, 2022 14:23:10 GMT
I never understood at all why George took umbrage at it. Marmalade later had a singles 'hit' covering The Beatles' Obladi-oblada, and The Silkie with You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, and there were others... at least they were on the same label with The Hollies and had met them, not sure about some of the others. The Marmalade got flack for doing Obla di, and the record became an albatross around their necks. Thankfully Reflections of my life came along to alleviate that hangover, which is exactly how the band viewed the situation. They made better tracks for CBS that’s for sure. Man In a Shop, Mr. Lion, I See the rain, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Aug 6, 2022 19:09:08 GMT
The Marmalade got flack for doing Obla di, and the record became an albatross around their necks. Thankfully Reflections of my life came along to alleviate that hangover, which is exactly how the band viewed the situation. They made better tracks for CBS that’s for sure. Man In a Shop, Mr. Lion, I See the rain, etc. Didn't know that though I do have a mini box set of Marmalade; many great tracks! |
|
|
|
Post by rokinrobinoflocksley on Aug 7, 2022 16:40:43 GMT
FYI, after The Beatles "Rubber Soul" LP was released, it seemed everyone was trying to record those songs. Here are the ones that made the UK charts at the time:
Nowhere Man - Three Good Reasons (#47 RR, #44 MM)
Michelle - The Overlanders (#1 on NME, RR, MM, Disc)
Michelle - David & Jonathan (#9 NME, #11 RR, #13 MM, #7 Disc)
Girl - St. Louis Union (19, 11, 14, 17)
Girl - The Truth (16, 27, 18, 18)
If I Needed Someone - The Hollies (24, 20, 23, 24)
I don't remember hearing The Hollies version of IINS at the time, was it played on Top of the Pops? So I was 'raised' on The Beatles version, which I prefer. The Hollies version just seems a tad rushed, as in faster tempo, plus it sounds louder, or slightly distorted harmony vocals. But I see no problem with them releasing it, and it most likely would've been a bigger hit if George Harrison hadn't trashed it in the media. And thus lost songwriting royalties for himself as well, when he was trying to ramp up his songwriting and acknowledgement. Oh well...
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 7, 2022 20:32:18 GMT
I don't remember hearing The Hollies version of IINS at the time, was it played on Top of the Pops? They performed it just once on TOTP on the final edition of 1965 broadcast 30th December 1965. What I find interesting about this debacle was how one year later, it was the reverse situation as there were quite a few acts doing Clarke-Hicks-Nash covers. For a few months in late 66 and early 67 there were various covers of their recent songs as there seemed to be a push to get their own songwriting in the spotlight. There was a clean wipe of the slate once the "Would You Believe" album was out the way and Eric had left the band. It promised so much... we got three excellent self-penned albums, some racking singles then "King Midas" supposedly "flopped" as did "Butterfly", Nash and Clarke wrote "Jennifer Eccles" as a joke and that was it as Nash drifted away. One could also say they tried again with the run of albums from "Hollies Sing Hollies" to "Hollies 74" but too much had changed by then. |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 8, 2022 17:07:59 GMT
FYI, after The Beatles "Rubber Soul" LP was released, it seemed everyone was trying to record those songs. Here are the ones that made the UK charts at the time: Nowhere Man - Three Good Reasons (#47 RR, #44 MM) Michelle - The Overlanders (#1 on NME, RR, MM, Disc) Michelle - David & Jonathan (#9 NME, #11 RR, #13 MM, #7 Disc) Girl - St. Louis Union (19, 11, 14, 17) Girl - The Truth (16, 27, 18, 18) If I Needed Someone - The Hollies (24, 20, 23, 24) I don't remember hearing The Hollies version of IINS at the time, was it played on Top of the Pops? So I was 'raised' on The Beatles version, which I prefer. The Hollies version just seems a tad rushed, as in faster tempo, plus it sounds louder, or slightly distorted harmony vocals. But I see no problem with them releasing it, and it most likely would've been a bigger hit if George Harrison hadn't trashed it in the media. And thus lost songwriting royalties for himself as well, when he was trying to ramp up his songwriting and acknowledgement. Oh well... I see a HUGE problem with them releasing it. This was a critical time when they were establishing themselves as hit songwriters. This very lame decision of pulling a fast one and attempting to upstage The Beatles irritates me to no end. Would The Kinks have done the same? The Who? That poor decision put them on a level with Herman’s Hermits. |
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Aug 8, 2022 19:46:47 GMT
If Ron Richards hands along a demo of a just out of the studio Beatles track, which they aren't going to release as a single themselves, and The Hollies have the idea that George Martin and The Beatles actually want them to have a crack at it to show how Harrison could have an A-side hit, I can easily understand. Harrison blowing up about it, in public, was obviously a shock to them, and still nobody seems to know why he said the negative stuff he did about it. It's no better than the original though neither is it awful, same as with the Marmalade single, undistinguished and who wouldn't much prefer the original (singles buyers of the time I might suppose, couldn't fit a 12" on their bedsit room Dansettes?).
The Who did do Shakin' All over based on some confusion with the Canadian group who had covered the Kidd & Pirates classic, and they even did the Batman theme (and excellently)... The Kinks did music for a sitcom among other commercial opportunities that crossed Ray's path. I wouldn't have covered anything The Beatles would be releasing, but it's possible they even thought before they did it that it was only going to be a demo as many of the early Lennon-McCartneys had been (and even later with Paul's If You Want It that went to Badfinger).
I don't know that it single-handedly did them a lot of damage, they had successes after it artistically and commercially, more of a another notch toward Graham leaving in pursuit of his own songwriting that had hit walls where he was and within The Hollies.
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 8, 2022 21:55:46 GMT
UK Music writer Alan Smith caught George just before going onstage in Glasgow - never a good time for a musician - and asked him if he had written IINS especially for The Hollies ?
this seems to have annoyed George who replied not and then went on to say he disliked how The Hollies had done the song (rocking it up as a commercial number when George had written it inspired by The Byrds 'Bells of Rhymney' as a gentler Rickenbacker style Byrds-ish album track)
George PROBABLY thought he was speaking 'off the record' just chatting etc and unwisely went on to be unfairly derogative re The Hollies whom he saw all heading off to the pub with Ron Richards and assumed they were just like 'souless sessionmen' doing a job
George DID also say 'The Hollies are very good at what they do...' - which no one ever bothers to note !
George soon discovered that nothing is 'off the record' (John found that even more so re 'Jesus' not long after)and EMI would not have been too happy as George's remarks immediately caused The Hollies single to stall in the UK chart at no.20
- and during his forthcoming wedding press news conference was asked;
'will you be inviting The Hollies...?' (to press laughter)
a serious George replied; 'You mean regarding IINS...yeah I wish you had not said that...!'
The Hollies were told by George Martin it would be a good song for them to record and he was not sure The Beatles would be releasing it...Ron Richards and Allan Clarke were delighted but Graham Nash and Eric Haydock were totally opposed (Nash knew it would look like The Hollies needed Beatle songs for hits etc)....
Eric said 'it was the biggest row we ever had'
so for George to then slag off the cover must have really been galling for those two members !
George 'shot himself in the foot' both re royalties...but MUCH more important in that had The Hollies cover of his song continued climbing up the UK chart it would have massively boosted his status as a 'hit maker' songwriter alongside Lennon & McCartney
as it was The Hollies were first to put a George Harrison song into the UK Top Twenty in 1965...which George could not manage for himself until 'Something' later in 1969
John, Paul and George Martin each would have spotted that too - note that George then was allowed to open the next Beatles album 'Revolver' and got three songs included on it
I would guess the fact The Hollies cover single being released on the same day as 'Rubber Soul' was totally down to EMI Records...who probably were not even aware of the co-incidence !!
The Beatles gradually got more say re their releases as the sixties went on, but most groups like The Hollies would not have had much if any input re the actual release dates as that was Record Company business (remember early on there was even a lock on the ice box door at Abbey Road to stop the milk being stolen...!)
- EMI was run like the British Civil Service
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 9, 2022 12:58:02 GMT
FYI, after The Beatles "Rubber Soul" LP was released, it seemed everyone was trying to record those songs. Here are the ones that made the UK charts at the time: Nowhere Man - Three Good Reasons (#47 RR, #44 MM) Michelle - The Overlanders (#1 on NME, RR, MM, Disc) Michelle - David & Jonathan (#9 NME, #11 RR, #13 MM, #7 Disc) Girl - St. Louis Union (19, 11, 14, 17) Girl - The Truth (16, 27, 18, 18) If I Needed Someone - The Hollies (24, 20, 23, 24) I don't remember hearing The Hollies version of IINS at the time, was it played on Top of the Pops? So I was 'raised' on The Beatles version, which I prefer. The Hollies version just seems a tad rushed, as in faster tempo, plus it sounds louder, or slightly distorted harmony vocals. But I see no problem with them releasing it, and it most likely would've been a bigger hit if George Harrison hadn't trashed it in the media. And thus lost songwriting royalties for himself as well, when he was trying to ramp up his songwriting and acknowledgement. Oh well... I see a HUGE problem with them releasing it. This was a critical time when they were establishing themselves as hit songwriters. This very lame decision of pulling a fast one and attempting to upstage The Beatles irritates me to no end. Would The Kinks have done the same? The Who? That poor decision put them on a level with Herman’s Hermits. The Who released a single in 1967 with "The Last Time" as the a-side and "Under My Thumb" as the b-side in support of Jagger and Richards: "In 1967, after the imprisonment of Jagger and Richards on drugs charges, the Who recorded "The Last Time" and "Under My Thumb" as a single. The Who announced in an advertisement for the single: 'The Who consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have been treated as scapegoats for the drug problem and as a protest against the savage imposed on them at Chichester yesterday, The Who are issuing today the first of a series of Jagger/Richard songs to keep their work before the public until they are again free to record themselves.' The songs were rush recorded and the record appeared in shops in only one week. However, by the time the single was made available, Jagger and Richards had been released. As John Entwistle was away on his honeymoon he authorised the Who to do the record without him and bass parts were overdubbed by Pete Townshend. The UK-only release reached number 44 on the UK Singles Chart." Different reason, but they still did. |
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 9, 2022 14:37:43 GMT
Just thinking out aloud but it was also known that John Lennon was not at all a fan of The Hollies so when George's remarks were made public I can imagine Graham Nash feeling most indignant and mortified as he made no secret of his love of The Beatles but it seemed half of The Beatles didn't like The Hollies. George acknowledging The Hollies were "good at what they do" was no solace either as for example, Whitney Houston was technically superb at what she did but I despise her music! There was a spat between Graham and George in the press during that period which made matters worse.
I think what came out of this furore was for the best as I think it pushed them further into their own songwriting which became dominant between mid 66 and early 68. Unfortunately, they wavered off the path in 68 and given that Graham was against doing "If I Needed Someone", Clarke, Hicks, Calvert and Elliott should not have been at all surprised by how Graham reacted when they elected to do the Dylan album.
|
|
