|
|
Post by cameron on Aug 24, 2022 20:39:04 GMT
I know I've been saying this now for as long as I can remember, but I recently find myself in the unthinkable position whereby leaving an abusive relationship meant that I couldn't take my prized record collection with me. Over 20 years of collecting gone. I had over 70 Hollies LPs in just about every variant possible and they were all pretty much mint/time capsule copies. I also had most of the CDs, though luckily I did copy these to my laptop, so I'm not entirely without.
This leads me onto the subject of starting again... The Hollies' back catalogue in its original format isn't actually officially available to buy now and hasn't been for quite some time. I can freely buy the three CD boxsets that round off everything from 1963 - 1988, but it's hardly an audiophile experience compared to the original LPs and of course doesn't present things in their original order. The 'Clarke Hicks and Nash Years' especially has appalling quality control from the mixes used to the mastering of the new tracks included to even the CDs themselves, with two copies I've had even now having scratched/unplayable discs, which we will all recall from the time it was released.
Raiding some local record shops and record fairs has managed to turn up most of the 1970s stuff in decent enough condition, but the 1960s stuff is incredibly difficult to find in decent condition. Discogs I've found to be unreliable, and eBay can be prohibitively expensive.
The lovely 2017 'Evolution'/'Butterfly' audiophile LPs are now out of stock and beginning to fetch more money than the originals in some cases. I actually think that this release would have sold much better if it was just the mono mixes and released on Record Store Day. You can sometimes find the 2019 re-pressing of '20 Golden Greats', but it's £27 in HMV, but it's also a staple of £1 charity shop bins for a mint first pressing. It's actually easier to find the bootleg Record Store Day 'Shake With The Hollies' than ANY of their official vinyl reissues. The CDs of the albums in their original format are out of print totally, the best you can expect is some overstock of the 'Classic Albums Series', which takes you from 1963 - 1969 only and gives you flimsy little cardboard sleeves and a real mixed bag of mastering and mixes.
WHY OH WHY when every other British band from the 1960s is getting lavish remastering/reissue campaigns, are the Hollies completely neglected? This is SO frustrating to me now that I find myself in this position. If money was no object, I could EASILY get my hands on the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, Who and Manfred Mann (pre-Mike D'Abo) on both CD and Vinyl from the last decade or so, with many other leading artists from the 1960s available entirely on one format or the other. The ONLY other major British band with a similar predicament is the Bee Gees for their 1960s output, but that part of their catalogue did at least get a REALLY top-notch deluxe reissue treatment in the last 20 years, even if it's all out of print now and very expensive to collect.
Come on Parlophone, do something with this amazing back catalogue of which I'm very sure that there's a wider demand for!
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Aug 24, 2022 22:36:31 GMT
Never
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 24, 2022 23:24:58 GMT
It's a combination of poor attitudes from several key sources I think....
Tony and Bobby just do not seem that bothered - the same attitude both Graham Nash and later Terry Sylvester met leading to each 'walking' from the band...!
EMI, I do suspect,were never 'that bothered' much either - possibly due to that 'leasing back' deal in 1966 - hence no 'Evolution' on pink EMI album innersleeves in 1967 (when Mrs Mills, and Ivor Novello got on)...that 'leasing back' deal was a chief reason The Shadows later left EMI in 1980 when they couldn't get a similar deal - and no doubt made Lennon & McCartney sit up - so in many ways The Hollies probably annoyed EMI as their deal caused others to want a better return ...only 'Hollies Greatest' and later 'Twenty Golden Greats' which EMI had a better return interest in got proper promotion otherwise EMI largely played it cool it seems
- I recall getting a rather terse letter back from an EMI guy saying how 'Hollies fans have been well catered for...!' when I asked about a further 'Rarities' set once - he seemed to think The Hollies were not that important a band
later when Warners aquired the rights they seem to feel The Hollies were not that serious a band beyond just putting out the basic albums and tracks - we were probably lucky to get what we did - sadly the Polydor re-issue series stalled mid way through due to the take over - but besides the freelance Tim Chacksfield was there anyone that interested in The Hollies in any kind of key role at Warners ?
Allan Clarke and Graham Nash besides not having any real say over Hollies tracks now, seem to both be 'cool' re Hollies - more so Terry Sylvester - so there is no real artists force to push Tony & Bobby into doing anything re the 'classic' Hollies
- indeed I recall 'Carousel' fanzine came under pressure (from within Hollies management circles) to ONLY feature the later (current) Hollies - utterly crazy !!!
Besides Malcolm C. Searles really well researched book nobody has bothered to properly tell the band story before or take any deeper interest in them beyond a 'singles band' outside their fanbase - a few music magazines did show some interest a while back and 'Record Collector' mag always treated them with respect....however with Tony & Bobby 'not that bothered' and Allan, Graham & Terry each having some 'issues' and no immediate access there just is no one to really CALL for a proper Hollies back catalogue overhaul and re-issue programme
whatever happened to the Ron Furmanek 'archive' project...??
more 'Greatest Hits' sets seem the only realistic future releases - the big irony being the rising prices on ebay etc for original Hollies albums proves there IS an interest and demand in their past works...
it does seem to me that so many, including early management, their long time producer, even some members of the group, just never took The Hollies anywhere near as seriously on an artistic level as the group actually deserved - both early on and later in the seventies and eighties when they were a regular recording outfit and it's the combination of that sort of 'half hearted' attitude from many key people that prevented the band being given a much higher critical respect and standing from many in the music industry outside their fanbase - hence why it took so long for them to be inducted into that Hall of Fame
which is ironic as they have outsold SO MANY 'more serious' groups and are such a loved group worldwide
my tip to Cameron is keep checking in charity shops, car boot sales, church hall sales and at record fares for the original vinyl albums and singles as they do still turn up, often quite cheap too
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Aug 25, 2022 10:46:13 GMT
Yes, I too hold Bobby and Tony responsible for this sorry state of affairs. As they effectively "control" The Hollies' affairs we have seen too many examples over the years of their apathy and indifference that have resulted in own goals. It's all very well wanting to peddle their current tribute show around the same places but not having anything to actually promote is utterly ridiculous. They have done nothing tangible to celebrate or exploit their rich legacy. As much as I still hope and desire for Ron Furmanek's rarities collection, it would make more sense if the original catalogue was available first. For instance, it is absurd that one could buy a collection of BBC sessions yet not the superior original Abbey Road versions. Rarities and BBC stuff should be supplemental to the core catalogue as that catalogue is what they built their name on. Sure, there should ALWAYS be a "greatest hits" collection available but it's stupid because any newbies who love such a collection... where do they go next to hear more? They're being forced to track down original albums or CD's and Bobby and Tony ain't getting a penny from that! Their lack of business sense leaves me feeling utterly exasperated.
What is desperately needed as outlined in the original post is a complete overhaul of the entire catalogue. Issue each album as double disc sets, one disc mono, the other stereo and feature all associated tracks from the relevant era on the relevant discs - remixes, outtakes, B sides, unique singles etc. All their tapes exist in pristine quality so there is no excuse. What we've been getting are jumbled compilations which may feature some original mixes, some remixes, mono tracks when there's no logic in a ragbag of "remasters" so you might get a fine sounding 1980's transfer followed by a dullened no-noised "remaster" from the 90's. Get that core catalogue out there as it originally sounded, how it should have sounded so it's all available in a tidy consistent manner...
No. Not ever gonna happen is it? Bobby and Tony simply couldn't care less. They could be enjoying a nice retirement fund from their work and we could enjoy and celebrate The Hollies' legacy how it could and should be heard but... sigh...
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 25, 2022 11:53:34 GMT
It would be nice if those very basic early (& cheap !) EMI stereo mixes of 'In The Hollies Style', 'Hollies' (1965), 'Would You Believe', and 'Evolution' were revamped centralising the vocals and giving a proper true stereo mix of the instrumentation at least
together with a sonic overhaul for all the albums plus maybe a definitive 'B' sides (mono & stereo versions 2 CD set including the later stereo seventies 'B' sides too)
A proper CD new improved mix of 'Out On The Road' with relevant 'bonus' tracks too
also 'Write On' and 'Russian Roulette' with 'bonus' tracks
and then the question of rarities, live vintage concert recordings etc can be addressed
Tony and Bobby could at least liase with one of the concerns who have undertaken such projects for other bands and let them do all the hard work, having the final approval themselves (tho' that of course would cost...and their 'approval' might well be a stumbling block given what Graham Nash has advised before...)
in a perfect world......but don't hold your breath for it !
|
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 26, 2022 16:18:56 GMT
I know I've been saying this now for as long as I can remember, but I recently find myself in the unthinkable position whereby leaving an abusive relationship meant that I couldn't take my prized record collection with me. Over 20 years of collecting gone. I had over 70 Hollies LPs in just about every variant possible and they were all pretty much mint/time capsule copies. I also had most of the CDs, though luckily I did copy these to my laptop, so I'm not entirely without. This leads me onto the subject of starting again... The Hollies' back catalogue in its original format isn't actually officially available to buy now and hasn't been for quite some time. I can freely buy the three CD boxsets that round off everything from 1963 - 1988, but it's hardly an audiophile experience compared to the original LPs and of course doesn't present things in their original order. The 'Clarke Hicks and Nash Years' especially has appalling quality control from the mixes used to the mastering of the new tracks included to even the CDs themselves, with two copies I've had even now having scratched/unplayable discs, which we will all recall from the time it was released. Raiding some local record shops and record fairs has managed to turn up most of the 1970s stuff in decent enough condition, but the 1960s stuff is incredibly difficult to find in decent condition. Discogs I've found to be unreliable, and eBay can be prohibitively expensive. The lovely 2017 'Evolution'/'Butterfly' audiophile LPs are now out of stock and beginning to fetch more money than the originals in some cases. I actually think that this release would have sold much better if it was just the mono mixes and released on Record Store Day. You can sometimes find the 2019 re-pressing of '20 Golden Greats', but it's £27 in HMV, but it's also a staple of £1 charity shop bins for a mint first pressing. It's actually easier to find the bootleg Record Store Day 'Shake With The Hollies' than ANY of their official vinyl reissues. The CDs of the albums in their original format are out of print totally, the best you can expect is some overstock of the 'Classic Albums Series', which takes you from 1963 - 1969 only and gives you flimsy little cardboard sleeves and a real mixed bag of mastering and mixes. WHY OH WHY when every other British band from the 1960s is getting lavish remastering/reissue campaigns, are the Hollies completely neglected? This is SO frustrating to me now that I find myself in this position. If money was no object, I could EASILY get my hands on the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, Who and Manfred Mann (pre-Mike D'Abo) on both CD and Vinyl from the last decade or so, with many other leading artists from the 1960s available entirely on one format or the other. The ONLY other major British band with a similar predicament is the Bee Gees for their 1960s output, but that part of their catalogue did at least get a REALLY top-notch deluxe reissue treatment in the last 20 years, even if it's all out of print now and very expensive to collect. Come on Parlophone, do something with this amazing back catalogue of which I'm very sure that there's a wider demand for! As for the band “not being taken seriously”, they themselves are partially to blame. No matter what someone’s personal opinion is about them, two big mistakes were made; “If I Needed Someone” and the Dylan album. I know some people (including my good friend Mark Ritucci) like it, while others site its UK chart performance, in the scheme of things the Dylan project was as bad an idea as covering The Beatles for a single. These two errors did not do the band’s legacy any favors. They contributed to the impression that they couldn’t write adequate material for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 26, 2022 16:21:02 GMT
I know I've been saying this now for as long as I can remember, but I recently find myself in the unthinkable position whereby leaving an abusive relationship meant that I couldn't take my prized record collection with me. Over 20 years of collecting gone. I had over 70 Hollies LPs in just about every variant possible and they were all pretty much mint/time capsule copies. I also had most of the CDs, though luckily I did copy these to my laptop, so I'm not entirely without. This leads me onto the subject of starting again... The Hollies' back catalogue in its original format isn't actually officially available to buy now and hasn't been for quite some time. I can freely buy the three CD boxsets that round off everything from 1963 - 1988, but it's hardly an audiophile experience compared to the original LPs and of course doesn't present things in their original order. The 'Clarke Hicks and Nash Years' especially has appalling quality control from the mixes used to the mastering of the new tracks included to even the CDs themselves, with two copies I've had even now having scratched/unplayable discs, which we will all recall from the time it was released. Raiding some local record shops and record fairs has managed to turn up most of the 1970s stuff in decent enough condition, but the 1960s stuff is incredibly difficult to find in decent condition. Discogs I've found to be unreliable, and eBay can be prohibitively expensive. The lovely 2017 'Evolution'/'Butterfly' audiophile LPs are now out of stock and beginning to fetch more money than the originals in some cases. I actually think that this release would have sold much better if it was just the mono mixes and released on Record Store Day. You can sometimes find the 2019 re-pressing of '20 Golden Greats', but it's £27 in HMV, but it's also a staple of £1 charity shop bins for a mint first pressing. It's actually easier to find the bootleg Record Store Day 'Shake With The Hollies' than ANY of their official vinyl reissues. The CDs of the albums in their original format are out of print totally, the best you can expect is some overstock of the 'Classic Albums Series', which takes you from 1963 - 1969 only and gives you flimsy little cardboard sleeves and a real mixed bag of mastering and mixes. WHY OH WHY when every other British band from the 1960s is getting lavish remastering/reissue campaigns, are the Hollies completely neglected? This is SO frustrating to me now that I find myself in this position. If money was no object, I could EASILY get my hands on the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, Who and Manfred Mann (pre-Mike D'Abo) on both CD and Vinyl from the last decade or so, with many other leading artists from the 1960s available entirely on one format or the other. The ONLY other major British band with a similar predicament is the Bee Gees for their 1960s output, but that part of their catalogue did at least get a REALLY top-notch deluxe reissue treatment in the last 20 years, even if it's all out of print now and very expensive to collect. Come on Parlophone, do something with this amazing back catalogue of which I'm very sure that there's a wider demand for! As for the band “not being taken seriously”, they themselves are partially to blame. No matter what someone’s personal opinion is about them, two big mistakes were made; “If I Needed Someone” and the Dylan album. I know some people (including my good friend Mark Ritucci) like it, while others site its UK chart performance, but in the scheme of things the Dylan project was as bad an idea as covering The Beatles for a single. These two errors did not do the band’s legacy any favors. They contributed to the impression that they couldn’t write adequate material for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Wilkinson on Aug 26, 2022 18:54:32 GMT
Totally disagree, the Dylan album was a brilliant concept and I love their take of 'If I needed someone'.......
|
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Aug 26, 2022 19:55:27 GMT
Totally disagree, the Dylan album was a brilliant concept and I love their take of 'If I needed someone'....... Disagree. I cannot listen to the Dylan album AT ALL. As for if I needed someone what a completely unnecessary recording. Tasteless and tacky, running with the demo and attempting to beat The Beatles at their own game. Harrison was right. Bad. Some fans such as yourself would accept The Hollies farting for an hour and call it brilliant, the current lineup coming to mind. By the way, you missed the point. The question is were those two recordings good for their career? I say emphatically NO. |
|
poco
Junior Member
Posts: 86 
|
Post by poco on Aug 26, 2022 20:47:54 GMT
Come to think of it moorlock I feel a little bloated and irregular. Oh by the way the Mono "Hollies Sing Dylan" with Pro cover art is going out next week to you among other things. Buy some Tums ! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by gee on Aug 26, 2022 23:42:44 GMT
Interesting the resort to personal insults and crude talk when someone ventures an alternate opinion - the mark of a troll I guess
and an inaccurate troll too - 'Hollies Sing Dylan' was not only a very successful chart album for The Hollies in the UK but broke new ground in as smuch as it was one of the first if not the first 'tribute set' devoted to one specific artist by a vocal group
Duane Eddy had done an instrumental Dylan tribute (not entirely full of Dylan numbers) while The Four Seasons split a tribute set between Bacharach & David and Bob Dylan - but in 1969 no specific one artist set had been done before
both McGuinness Flint ('Lo And Behold' in 1972) and later Bryan Ferry each followed The Hollies lead in doing a Dylan tribute set - even CBS later compiled a 'Byrds Play Dylan' album again copying what The Hollies had already done back in early 1969
today such 'tribute' sets are the norm - Rod Stewart and others have done them....so in that sense The Hollies were right at the foreground of breaking in a new type of album project since adopted by many - John Lennon, Paul McCartney and David Bowie each did tribute sets devoted to types of music and eras later on...while bands such as Chicago (Big Band and christmas albums) did specific themed albums too
Graham Nash had actually NOT been against the project to begin with - he had 'Sung Dylan' as early as 1966 with the group and again twice in 1968 - had the arrangements been more to his artistic view he might well have gone along however the big band approach and almost 'ragtime' take on 'When The Ship Comes In' proved to be the final straw...and besides it gave him his perfect excuse to depart on artistic grounds for his already in place new CSN outfit (and their in place record deal with Ahmet Ertegen at Atlantic)
so Nash' 'great horror' - he had earlier quite happily sung the final verse of 'Times They Are A Changin' - might well have been duly 'bigged up' to suit his own aims in 1969 (??)
whatever the importance of 'Sing Dylan' to The Hollies career...is actually CONSIDERABLE not a low point - whatever some Americans might convince themselves of...!
besides having two no.3 singles that year - spaced apart - the fact the band minus Graham Nash achieved a top three UK album (following the number one 'Hollies Greatest' of summer 1968 - which many had assumed was their 'swansong' when Nash quit) achieving their best album chart placing with a non compilation set since their debut album way back in early 1964 with 'Dylan' ensured the general public knew there was indeed 'life after Nash' for the group, a successful and just as recognisable Hollies group regardless of Nash's exit (which completely wrong footed a number of music press writers who had been fast to 'dismiss' the group minus Nash beforehand)
Also the ready made songs were a perfect intro for new boy Terry Sylvester and the 'mark 2' Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester harmony sound - with added pathos as on 'I Shall Be Released' but still dynamic ('Wheels On Fire') and a direct comparison of the two identical backing tracked versions of 'Blowin in The Wind' proved just how mega tight Sylvester was as Nash had been and that the band were 'still' The Hollies
As Terry Sylvester was then an inexperienced songwriter...plus minus Nash Allan and Tony rather 'drifted apart' as composers to a noticeable extent - doing a set of well known (plus a few not so commonly known numbers for many) Bob Dylan songs both covered any initial songwriting shortcomings (temporary it transpired) while Allan took young Terry under his wing....and gave the public a set of songs with the new harmony team presented in full - establishing quickly the 'mark 2' Hollies vocal sound
'Dylan' thus was a pivotal album for the revised Hollies and ensured the 'mark 2' Hollies were both a successful albums and singles group in 1969 ....and as a result with Terry Sylvester firmly established as the high harmony voice of the group we would not only get the following many great (and original) 'mark 2' Hollies recordings...but also with Terry an increasing asset, composer, and band figurehead we would also get 'The Rickfors Hollies' too...!
and you must go by WHAT DID happen...not 'what ifs'
so in essence here Moorlock, besides insulting other forum member (whose opinions are perfectly valid of course) is in fact deriding the first key 'mark 2 Hollies' album...a big UK chart success that ensured continuing Hollies success with first EMI after Nash departed, and in due course a couple of years on ensured the 'Rickfors Hollies' very existence....
a viewpoint that brings to mind Blowin' in the wind indeed....!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Aug 27, 2022 12:29:19 GMT
I know I've been saying this now for as long as I can remember, but I recently find myself in the unthinkable position whereby leaving an abusive relationship meant that I couldn't take my prized record collection with me. Over 20 years of collecting gone. I had over 70 Hollies LPs in just about every variant possible and they were all pretty much mint/time capsule copies. I also had most of the CDs, though luckily I did copy these to my laptop, so I'm not entirely without. This leads me onto the subject of starting again... The Hollies' back catalogue in its original format isn't actually officially available to buy now and hasn't been for quite some time. I can freely buy the three CD boxsets that round off everything from 1963 - 1988, but it's hardly an audiophile experience compared to the original LPs and of course doesn't present things in their original order. The 'Clarke Hicks and Nash Years' especially has appalling quality control from the mixes used to the mastering of the new tracks included to even the CDs themselves, with two copies I've had even now having scratched/unplayable discs, which we will all recall from the time it was released. Raiding some local record shops and record fairs has managed to turn up most of the 1970s stuff in decent enough condition, but the 1960s stuff is incredibly difficult to find in decent condition. Discogs I've found to be unreliable, and eBay can be prohibitively expensive. The lovely 2017 'Evolution'/'Butterfly' audiophile LPs are now out of stock and beginning to fetch more money than the originals in some cases. I actually think that this release would have sold much better if it was just the mono mixes and released on Record Store Day. You can sometimes find the 2019 re-pressing of '20 Golden Greats', but it's £27 in HMV, but it's also a staple of £1 charity shop bins for a mint first pressing. It's actually easier to find the bootleg Record Store Day 'Shake With The Hollies' than ANY of their official vinyl reissues. The CDs of the albums in their original format are out of print totally, the best you can expect is some overstock of the 'Classic Albums Series', which takes you from 1963 - 1969 only and gives you flimsy little cardboard sleeves and a real mixed bag of mastering and mixes. WHY OH WHY when every other British band from the 1960s is getting lavish remastering/reissue campaigns, are the Hollies completely neglected? This is SO frustrating to me now that I find myself in this position. If money was no object, I could EASILY get my hands on the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, Who and Manfred Mann (pre-Mike D'Abo) on both CD and Vinyl from the last decade or so, with many other leading artists from the 1960s available entirely on one format or the other. The ONLY other major British band with a similar predicament is the Bee Gees for their 1960s output, but that part of their catalogue did at least get a REALLY top-notch deluxe reissue treatment in the last 20 years, even if it's all out of print now and very expensive to collect. Come on Parlophone, do something with this amazing back catalogue of which I'm very sure that there's a wider demand for! As for the band “not being taken seriously”, they themselves are partially to blame. No matter what someone’s personal opinion is about them, two big mistakes were made; “If I Needed Someone” and the Dylan album. I know some people (including my good friend Mark Ritucci) like it, while others site its UK chart performance, in the scheme of things the Dylan project was as bad an idea as covering The Beatles for a single. These two errors did not do the band’s legacy any favors. They contributed to the impression that they couldn’t write adequate material for themselves. Just a tech hint: You don't need to post everything twice. We saw it the first time, moorlock.  Have to agree that they themselves are partially to "blame" but then they have to want it as much as we do. That being said, I think your examples aren't the reasons at all. I think their rep would have been better served if they didn't rely on the cabaret circuit in the UK and perhaps became more involved in festivals where their peers graduated to in the late 60s, early 70s. As a result, they stayed a singles band when they had the talent to break out of that and prove to the rock crowd that they had more up their sleeves. Their early 70s albums proved that, as did Allan's solo projects. But then, they prioritized family and personal life stability over rock cred, which isn't really a bad thing. Although it sucks for their legacy beyond the "Bus Stop" cruise ship fans. |
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Aug 27, 2022 14:47:28 GMT
I wonder if their biggest mistake was not supporting their biggest selling album with a proper full scale concert tour of the UK. If I'm remembering they didn't do an actual UK tour with Terry until 1974?
Imagine touring with a recent Top 3 album and maybe He Ain't Heavy... in the charts.
|
|
|
|
Post by lulubell on Aug 28, 2022 21:00:27 GMT
I know I've been saying this now for as long as I can remember, but I recently find myself in the unthinkable position whereby leaving an abusive relationship meant that I couldn't take my prized record collection with me. Over 20 years of collecting gone. I had over 70 Hollies LPs in just about every variant possible and they were all pretty much mint/time capsule copies. I also had most of the CDs, though luckily I did copy these to my laptop, so I'm not entirely without. This leads me onto the subject of starting again... The Hollies' back catalogue in its original format isn't actually officially available to buy now and hasn't been for quite some time. I can freely buy the three CD boxsets that round off everything from 1963 - 1988, but it's hardly an audiophile experience compared to the original LPs and of course doesn't present things in their original order. The 'Clarke Hicks and Nash Years' especially has appalling quality control from the mixes used to the mastering of the new tracks included to even the CDs themselves, with two copies I've had even now having scratched/unplayable discs, which we will all recall from the time it was released. Raiding some local record shops and record fairs has managed to turn up most of the 1970s stuff in decent enough condition, but the 1960s stuff is incredibly difficult to find in decent condition. Discogs I've found to be unreliable, and eBay can be prohibitively expensive. The lovely 2017 'Evolution'/'Butterfly' audiophile LPs are now out of stock and beginning to fetch more money than the originals in some cases. I actually think that this release would have sold much better if it was just the mono mixes and released on Record Store Day. You can sometimes find the 2019 re-pressing of '20 Golden Greats', but it's £27 in HMV, but it's also a staple of £1 charity shop bins for a mint first pressing. It's actually easier to find the bootleg Record Store Day 'Shake With The Hollies' than ANY of their official vinyl reissues. The CDs of the albums in their original format are out of print totally, the best you can expect is some overstock of the 'Classic Albums Series', which takes you from 1963 - 1969 only and gives you flimsy little cardboard sleeves and a real mixed bag of mastering and mixes. WHY OH WHY when every other British band from the 1960s is getting lavish remastering/reissue campaigns, are the Hollies completely neglected? This is SO frustrating to me now that I find myself in this position. If money was no object, I could EASILY get my hands on the entire back catalogue of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Small Faces, Who and Manfred Mann (pre-Mike D'Abo) on both CD and Vinyl from the last decade or so, with many other leading artists from the 1960s available entirely on one format or the other. The ONLY other major British band with a similar predicament is the Bee Gees for their 1960s output, but that part of their catalogue did at least get a REALLY top-notch deluxe reissue treatment in the last 20 years, even if it's all out of print now and very expensive to collect. Come on Parlophone, do something with this amazing back catalogue of which I'm very sure that there's a wider demand for! |
|
|
|
Post by lulubell on Aug 28, 2022 21:01:30 GMT
Sorry about your abusive relationship, Cameron. Hope you are ok!
|
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Sept 16, 2022 0:15:35 GMT
Also wish to express solidarity on the abuse mentioned! I could only offer '70s LPs, and North American ones at that; I've never even seen in-person any '60s Hollies UK albums (unlike Stones, Beatles, Shadows and others). I think there really is still a lack of Bear Family style chronological sets. A demarcation of post-Graham Nash seems a logical breakage area though I would want the Terry Sylvester and Mikael Rikfors era I know there are a fair number who don't. So two sets for the complete '60s studio recordings with a few rarities and demos, and at least one '70s set as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gralto on Oct 2, 2022 11:12:41 GMT
Totally disagree, the Dylan album was a brilliant concept and I love their take of 'If I needed someone'....... Some fans such as yourself would accept The Hollies farting for an hour and call it brilliant, the current lineup coming to mind. This sort of “your opinion is worthless” stuff is unacceptable. Please desist from getting personal. I don’t want people leaving the forum due to this level of baiting. Thank you. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Oct 2, 2022 12:38:46 GMT
Some fans such as yourself would accept The Hollies farting for an hour and call it brilliant, the current lineup coming to mind. This sort of “your opinion is worthless” stuff is unacceptable. Please desist from getting personal. I don’t want people leaving the forum due to this level of baiting. Thank you. Simon Thanks Simon. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 2, 2022 23:32:34 GMT
Sorry about your abusive relationship, Cameron. Hope you are ok! Thank you, I am bouncing back. I've started my Hollies collection again and now have some LPs that I didn't even have before plus a few in better shape than what I had before. I'm slowly getting there. Back to the original point - I see that the Beatles are issuing a very enticing looking boxset to cover their 'Revolver' era. I can't tell you how much I'd love the same kind of thing for 'Evolution' and 'Butterfly'. There's enough rarities, singles and oddities for both to fill a bonus LP, plus the need for a new mix of 'Evolution' and there's a bunch of unreleased songs from both sessions. I know I'm dreaming at this point though... Has anyone been able to see the reissue of 'For Certain Because' on vinyl that came out this year on the Endless Happiness label? I've not yet been able to come across a copy. All stockists use generic photos of the album cover, without showing the pressing itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Malc on Oct 3, 2022 8:12:39 GMT
Sorry about your abusive relationship, Cameron. Hope you are ok! Thank you, I am bouncing back. I've started my Hollies collection again and now have some LPs that I didn't even have before plus a few in better shape than what I had before. I'm slowly getting there. Back to the original point - I see that the Beatles are issuing a very enticing looking boxset to cover their 'Revolver' era. I can't tell you how much I'd love the same kind of thing for 'Evolution' and 'Butterfly'. There's enough rarities, singles and oddities for both to fill a bonus LP, plus the need for a new mix of 'Evolution' and there's a bunch of unreleased songs from both sessions. I know I'm dreaming at this point though... Has anyone been able to see the reissue of 'For Certain Because' on vinyl that came out this year on the Endless Happiness label? I've not yet been able to come across a copy. All stockists use generic photos of the album cover, without showing the pressing itself. Yes, I picked up a copy of FCB - but (yes, I know..) I haven't actually gone around to unsealing it yet !  |
|
|
|
Post by knut on Oct 4, 2022 18:01:54 GMT
Just ordered a copy now
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 4, 2022 20:41:29 GMT
I've finally seen a copy of it; they've put the inside cover with the tracklist on the back and moved the original back cover inside the gatefold. No comments on the pressing quality though.
|
|
|
|
Post by knut on Oct 18, 2022 13:17:28 GMT
Listening to FCB on Endless Happiness (Polish label?) now. Discogs states it is in Mono, but that is wrong, except for the bonus tracks. The original FCB tracks clearly are in stereo. They have added 3 bonus tracks, After the fox, Bus Stop and Don't run and hide. The sound is crisp and clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz on Oct 22, 2022 11:11:24 GMT
Working my way through the new Beatles "Revolver" ultra-dultra extra virgin deluxe set that follows a few other similar excavations made me wonder if ever The Hollies 1966-1967 era could ever be put under a similar microscope.
Just imagine it - FCB, Evolution and Butterfly and relevant singles all newly remixed, properly remastered original mono mixes, alternate takes, early mixes, snippets of studio chat, any demos etc. We know that almost all their tapes exist from then and given that trio is regarded as the first classic "trilogy", such a set would be heaven for a great many of us.
How annoying then knowing the potential for such a set is there BUT hey, certain folk can't be bothered so it ain't gonna happen. It's all very well doing another vinyl version of FCB but what are they playing at when you have the album in stereo then three bonus tracks in MONO when they exist in stereo? The same old sort of messy inconsistent situation back in the old EMI days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Oct 22, 2022 12:40:40 GMT
Working my way through the new Beatles "Revolver" ultra-dultra extra virgin deluxe set that follows a few other similar excavations made me wonder if ever The Hollies 1966-1967 era could ever be put under a similar microscope. Just imagine it - FCB, Evolution and Butterfly and relevant singles all newly remixed, properly remastered original mono mixes, alternate takes, early mixes, snippets of studio chat, any demos etc. We know that almost all their tapes exist from then and given that trio is regarded as the first classic "trilogy", such a set would be heaven for a great many of us. How annoying then knowing the potential for such a set is there BUT hey, certain folk can't be bothered so it ain't gonna happen. It's all very well doing another vinyl version of FCB but what are they playing at when you have the album in stereo then three bonus tracks in MONO when they exist in stereo? The same old sort of messy inconsistent situation back in the old EMI days. I've often has the same thought Baz but I think the band would really need to make a deal with the likes of Cherry Red Records or similar for someone to really get their teeth into such a project. |
|
