|
Post by moorlock2003 on Oct 11, 2022 14:27:25 GMT
To be honest I think the public may have thought the Hollies had had there day and we’re not cool anymore. The younger generation was looking for their own artists to follow, happens to all groups. How many 60’s groups were still hitting the charts mid 70’s, not many. I think we can over analysis things really. As I have heard the Hollies albums were never massive sellers anyway. A real shame but that’s how it was. The Hollies had made it into the album market and were selling more albums (and singles for that matter) in the USA during 1972-4 than anywhere else in the world. “Distant Light” was kept in print into the 1980s, and “Romany” had 3 different pressings. Hell, Terry Sylvester had a solo album in 1974 that wasn’t even released in England at the time! Why they abandoned the territory where they were most popular is truly baffling.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Oct 11, 2022 22:41:22 GMT
To be honest I think the public may have thought the Hollies had had there day and we’re not cool anymore. The younger generation was looking for their own artists to follow, happens to all groups. How many 60’s groups were still hitting the charts mid 70’s, not many. I think we can over analysis things really. As I have heard the Hollies albums were never massive sellers anyway. A real shame but that’s how it was. The Hollies had made it into the album market and were selling more albums (and singles for that matter) in the USA during 1972-4 than anywhere else in the world. “Distant Light” was kept in print into the 1980s, and “Romany” had 3 different pressings. Hell, Terry Sylvester had a solo album in 1974 that wasn’t even released in England at the time! Why they abandoned the territory where they were most popular is truly baffling. To be honest, not being American don't know what their likes are, but if the Hollies were as big as you say in the states at that time something should have come out of it, I do remember seeing a few clips that Simon put up a few years ago of the Hollies on American TV shows around the time of Another Night. Maybe the Hollies felt safe in countries like Australia, I missed their tour here with Rickfors, a bit young sadly, did see them in '75 and 76. Who knows what the feeling was like within the band, Allan leaving then returning. so many unknowns really.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 11, 2022 23:32:16 GMT
Not ever concentrating on the USA when Allan rejoined was probably due to the time honoured problem of weak management
- plus I do wonder if Tony and Bobby were both somewhat 'lukewarm' towards the USA in general, re the matter of Nash's exit, their 'missing the boat' in the initial British Invasion period....and all the visa and musicians union problems they had back in the mid sixties....(??) then touring the USA without Allan....
they certainly wern't bothered about attending the USA 'Hall of Fame' induction show later on...
'The Air That I Breathe' had reached no.6 in the US in 1974 - a point where shops in the UK like EMI's HMV shop had a 'Hollies' album range and had 'Hollies' (1974), plus 'Distant Light' and both 'Hollies Greatest' and 'Vol 2' on display in windows...
'Hollies' (1974) charted in the UK reaching no.38 and no.28 in the USA besides reaching no.11 in Holland and no.42 in Germany while also charting in Australia so it all really hinged on the follow up single to 'The Air That I Breathe' to complete a 'comeback' in the UK public eye and consolidate the USA success....
The Hollies did appear and were well received on Mike Mansfield's ITV show 'Supersonic' circa 1975 - where that live performance of 'Long Cool Woman' comes from on 'Look Through Any Window' DVD
also they did a UK Special on ITV with guests R & J Stone, where they did 'Love is The Thing' among other songs so that was circa 'Write On' and it was screened around 9pm on a Saturday evening....so they WERE deemed 'cool' enough to be given a pretty prime time UK TV spot around 1976
The fact both 'Hollies Live Hits' reached no.4 in the UK in 1977 then '20 Golden Greats' made no.2 in 1978 proved there WAS still wider public interest in them at home in the later seventies
they massively 'blew it' re choices of singles then plus with 'A Crazy Steal' being so slow, melodramatic and indeed 'Tired' as Bobby put it - which could have been avoided had a couple of faster rockier tracks also been included offsetting the slower tracks more evenly
'Crossfire' might have made a decent 'A' side too....
even in 1980 'Soldier's Song' did manage to just scrape into the UK top fifty...with no promotion from Polydor and scant radio airplay - so IF they had chosen more wisely re the Polydor singles tracks at least showing a livelier guitar led outfit more typical of themselves and had with a few more earlier UK chart singles after 'Air That I Breathe' Polydor given them a bit more of a plug they could have retained a higher public profile
- 'The Woman I Love' reached no.42 in the UK as late as 1993 purely due to a few Disc Jockey's liking it and playing the single...
BUT...did they all really want it ??
...or were the bulk of the band merely happy to just 'chug along' doing well attended concerts of old fav hits and some covers....they hardly ever played much then 'new' material from a latest album in UK concerts....
we know Allan Clarke MOANED about being recognised again in shops when 'He Ain't Heavy' was number one in the UK in 1988 - The Searchers in concert chat joked how 'miserable' The Hollies had looked on BBC's 'Top of The Pops' then
- 'we would be over the moon if we had a chart topping single...!' they commented
they had a point there too...Tony was always 'first away' from concerts if he could...!
I recall being told how when The Hollies had a fan convention organised by 'Carousel' fanzine bods it was significant how ex- members Graham Nash and Terry Sylvester sent memorabilia and best wishes messages....while The then current Hollies (Clarke, Hicks, Elliott) sent nothing...!
so this attitude seems to explain some thing of what went wrong, and it's no co-incidence that key figurehead members Nash and Sylvester each 'walked' from the group in frustration - much of which was re musical direction
Tony commented; 'there were alot of things wrong the public never knew...' - and certainly it looks as if they were never all pulling in the same direction (the same problem Nash had encountered back in the sixties) even years later by the late seventies...
|
|
|
Post by baz on Oct 12, 2022 9:57:38 GMT
Some of the facts being pointed out in this thread along with various key moments where the band failed to capitalise or progress all add up to one word that describes their predicament perfectly - Apathy. Never have I encountered a band quite like The Hollies when one looks at what could and should have been and what actually did transpire. Their penchant for making illogical choices and moves sure knows no bounds and proves just how much they lost when Graham quit as he was pointed at at the de-facto "leader" of the band then once he was gone, they clearly struggled to keep the band afloat on an even keel though it wasn't until Allan quit in 1971 that the problems truly raised their head as Allan's departure shifted the power within the band to Tony and Bobby so when Allan returned he didn't have the same say or clout anymore. Then for Allan to quit and rejoin AGAIN a few years later says it all, especially given it wasn't even publicised and who was doing press in his absence? Terry - not Tony or Bobby. For all the years of drunken sniping and bitching on Twitter - mostly aimed at Allan and Graham - when one reads between the lines, one could tell that Terry cared and had passion for The Hollies but seemed to be the only member to feel that way during his last years with them but he was kept in his place as the "hired help" and little wonder he finally snapped and quit as he was fighting a losing battle.
Something was seriously wrong at the core of the band and sadly, Tony and Bobby have to shoulder and accept much of the blame. Some of their actions since Allan left for the final time has been very questionable - replacing Carl Wayne so swiftly did not go down well with many who felt it was in undignified taste, tossing off "Staying Power" with programmed drums, snubbing the Hall of Fame event, and right now they don't seem remotely bothered about the fact that their catalogue is now virtually out of print. Remember the day after the Hall of Fame, Allan and Graham had some meeting with record company execs about a new compilation? Whatever happened to that? I suspect Tony and Bobby couldn't be bothered to work with them on that as any such project couldn't happen unless Tony and Bobby agreed to be involved. As it was they'd unleashed hits compilation number 108 in the UK with that awful "remix" of "King Midas In Reverse" and I'll bet Graham was most p***ed about that given how much the song means to him, how The Hollies stated many times that releasing it as a single was a mistake yet still had the nerve to desecrate it with a new pointless drum overdub!
The Hollies could and should have been a much bigger act. They had the talent, they had the fanbase... it makes it very hard to show any interest in the fact they're "celebrating" their 60th anniversary touring the same old venues with the same old show and ooh, they're doing a cruise boat thing alongside a bunch of other long washed up acts. Big deal. It can be pretty exasperating being a Hollies fan!
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Oct 12, 2022 11:13:32 GMT
Some of the facts being pointed out in this thread along with various key moments where the band failed to capitalise or progress all add up to one word that describes their predicament perfectly - Apathy. Never have I encountered a band quite like The Hollies when one looks at what could and should have been and what actually did transpire. Some good points Baz, it's almost amazing how successful the Hollies were in spite of their management and to me, it was largely a problem of management. That they didn't wind up like the Searchers or something speaks to their fundamental talent. Even if the hits were over by 1975 I still think they could have positioned themselves as "Britain's Band", like the Beach Boys re-invented themselves as "America's Band" at the same time. Maybe they could have become a bigger touring act with the occasional Top 40 keeping them in the public eye. Just looking over Malc's book I see they didn't play London between 1969 and 1976, so, there goes that strategy! On the Hollies cracking the states post 1974 when they were riding high. I think that's easy to answer: First, they made something of an extra push in the US with Another Night but when it didn't really go anywhere they and Epic obviously got disheartened. Second, they weren't as young at that point and obviously weren't going to slog it around the US to build up a fan base - again look at the lifestyle in Bobby's book, you get on Concorde and somebody hands you a drink. Why would you "work" the US? Third, according to Bobby's book Allan blew off the big US chance with a new record deal that came a few years later. It seems he was far more focused on this solo career?
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Oct 12, 2022 14:31:38 GMT
Some of the facts being pointed out in this thread along with various key moments where the band failed to capitalise or progress all add up to one word that describes their predicament perfectly - Apathy. Never have I encountered a band quite like The Hollies when one looks at what could and should have been and what actually did transpire. Their penchant for making illogical choices and moves sure knows no bounds and proves just how much they lost when Graham quit as he was pointed at at the de-facto "leader" of the band then once he was gone, they clearly struggled to keep the band afloat on an even keel though it wasn't until Allan quit in 1971 that the problems truly raised their head as Allan's departure shifted the power within the band to Tony and Bobby so when Allan returned he didn't have the same say or clout anymore. Then for Allan to quit and rejoin AGAIN a few years later says it all, especially given it wasn't even publicised and who was doing press in his absence? Terry - not Tony or Bobby. For all the years of drunken sniping and bitching on Twitter - mostly aimed at Allan and Graham - when one reads between the lines, one could tell that Terry cared and had passion for The Hollies but seemed to be the only member to feel that way during his last years with them but he was kept in his place as the "hired help" and little wonder he finally snapped and quit as he was fighting a losing battle. Something was seriously wrong at the core of the band and sadly, Tony and Bobby have to shoulder and accept much of the blame. Some of their actions since Allan left for the final time has been very questionable - replacing Carl Wayne so swiftly did not go down well with many who felt it was in undignified taste, tossing off "Staying Power" with programmed drums, snubbing the Hall of Fame event, and right now they don't seem remotely bothered about the fact that their catalogue is now virtually out of print. Remember the day after the Hall of Fame, Allan and Graham had some meeting with record company execs about a new compilation? Whatever happened to that? I suspect Tony and Bobby couldn't be bothered to work with them on that as any such project couldn't happen unless Tony and Bobby agreed to be involved. As it was they'd unleashed hits compilation number 108 in the UK with that awful "remix" of "King Midas In Reverse" and I'll bet Graham was most p***ed about that given how much the song means to him, how The Hollies stated many times that releasing it as a single was a mistake yet still had the nerve to desecrate it with a new pointless drum overdub! The Hollies could and should have been a much bigger act. They had the talent, they had the fanbase... it makes it very hard to show any interest in the fact they're "celebrating" their 60th anniversary touring the same old venues with the same old show and ooh, they're doing a cruise boat thing alongside a bunch of other long washed up acts. Big deal. It can be pretty exasperating being a Hollies fan! That the "official" Hollies Facebook and Twitter quoted some journalist yesterday saying the Hollies never had a "real front man" and not challenging it is rather telling. The band is a job to them, nothing more. Show up, play "Bus Stop", gimme the paycheque, buh-bye...
|
|
|
Post by baz on Oct 12, 2022 15:26:08 GMT
That the "official" Hollies Facebook and Twitter quoted some journalist yesterday saying the Hollies never had a "real front man" and not challenging it is rather telling. The band is a job to them, nothing more. Show up, play "Bus Stop", gimme the paycheque, buh-bye... Exactly. No real passion for what they're doing or how they serve their legacy. Not standing up for Graham Nash nor Allan Clarke as both acted as front men (and Mikael at a push as "front men" are usually regarded as whoever is fronting them at the main microphone onstage) once again proves they don't really care as if they were just another mere "hired help". Well, I can state from many conversations I've had with people over the decades that in their eyes Allan was firmly the leader and focal point - they remember what he looked like and his voice. Sure in 1969 he was uncomfortable fronting the band but he didn't do too badly did he? "He Ain't Heavy" sold nicely thanks to Allan giving a great performance.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Oct 12, 2022 15:29:02 GMT
Third, according to Bobby's book Allan blew off the big US chance with a new record deal that came a few years later. It seems he was far more focused on this solo career? Allan made no secret of the fact he felt "bitter" about Graham's departure from the band so when he was forced to leave in late 1971 to do his solo album, basically pushed out of the band he had formed with Graham, I suspect he also felt bitter about that... definitely so over the "Long Cool Woman" debacle the following year. Hence when he returned to the band, chances are high he felt grudging resentment towards Tony and Bobby taking over the band so simply did whatever they asked of him so little wonder he would be more interested in his solo projects where at least he could do whatever he liked. It would be interesting to find out Allan's real feelings throughout the mid to late 70's as The Hollies spiralled downwards on the dreary ballads path. I'd imagine he was as frustrated as Terry was.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 12, 2022 21:59:00 GMT
Graham Nash AND Tony Hicks were pretty much the co-leaders of the group from around 1965 onwards...
Hicks as 'songfinder' ('Just One Look', 'I Can't Let Go' and of course later 'He Ain't Heavy') was the chief musician in the group - even telling Ron Richards he wasn't going to play a solo on a particular take as studio chatter reveals...
Graham began leading them re their own songwriting and more and more dominated their artistic direction BUT with Hicks agreement...and even 'co-leader' Nash and co-founder Haydock were both 'out voted' re 'If I Needed Someone' in 1965 while a couple of years later it was Hicks, after 'King Midas' and 'Butterfly' both flopped, who then decided they had to pull out of the direction Nash urged re more personalised songs not always requiring vocal harmonies...and get back to giving the public what they expected from The Hollies (commercial pop songs with harmonies such as 'Listen To Me' and 'Sorry Suzanne' etc...)
Hicks of course came up with the 'Dylan' album project idea in late 1968...
Allan Clarke ? - OUGHT to have been right there alongside Nash and Hicks as the third 'co-leader' of the group being lead vocalist, central onstage figure and a major songwriter for the group over 1964 to 1968 (and later of course)
however...Allan appeared happy to 'follow Nash' lead as an artist and Hicks re musical judgement along with Ron Richards studio expertise
Clarke, like the third group co-founder Eric Haydock from early on seemed happy to quietly just go along with the other band figureheads Nash and Hicks trusting their judgement as he did that of Ron Richards
as Tony and Bobby became closer with Bobby getting together with Tony's sister Maureen...over time it evolved into Nash-Clarke & Hicks-Elliott and after Haydock made a stand re their management he was fired and this continuing two sides equal balance suited them well until Nash through growing frustration decided to relocate stateside
this left Hicks-Elliott...and Clarke as the three longtime group members plus the two newer recruits of 1966 and 1969
The notable parting almost totally of Clarke and Hicks as songwriters after Nash left was further evidence of a 'gap' in the band between them
After Clarke's two year exit it was an even more clear case of Hicks-Elliott 'owning' the group pretty much thereafter from mid 1973
Allan no doubt came to regret his never being the third 'co-leader' early on, but his relying on Nash and Hicks to pretty much run the band was something he only had himself to blame for
this is why Nash's exit hit Allan far harder than it should have done (look at him sweating onstage at Golders Green Hippodrome in February 1969 when having to do the onstage 'PR' stuff minus Nash - despite then his having five years at the top actually looking far more uneasy than the 'new boy' young Terry Sylvester !)
Had Allan been more self confident as he was when singing in his overall attitude and been more of a general band spokesman than he was they would not have been as thrown by losing Nash on a group balance level as they clearly were - they were both musically and vocally still in great shape in 1969...yet Allan later spoke in that 'Look Through Any Window' DVD of Nash's leaving as; 'being the END of The Hollies' (!!) which surprised us all...
So really while some of the public assumed Allan was always their main figure as lead singer, both Nash and Hicks had more influential roles re group direction which Allan was happy with for most of the sixties, but of course not later on...
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Oct 13, 2022 14:04:26 GMT
That the "official" Hollies Facebook and Twitter quoted some journalist yesterday saying the Hollies never had a "real front man" and not challenging it is rather telling. The band is a job to them, nothing more. Show up, play "Bus Stop", gimme the paycheque, buh-bye... Exactly. No real passion for what they're doing or how they serve their legacy. Not standing up for Graham Nash nor Allan Clarke as both acted as front men Oh, the "official" social media will use Graham when it suits them, in a "Hey! The Hollies are important because an international rock legend was a founding member" kind of way. I remember a Mother's Day post a couple of years ago on Facebook in which they preferred to post a photo of Graham with a very pregnant Susan...instead of one of many available photos of Allan, Jeni and the kids. So I posted one myself in the comments...captioning it that here is a happily married man of 55 years with his wife and kids (who are still talking to him, I thought, but didn't say!) It just seemed to be an obvious snub against Allan. I'm not dissing Graham and his life decisions, but the lengths the "official" social media goes to to minimize Allan's importance to the band is just too obvious, imo.
|
|
|
Post by becca67 on Oct 14, 2022 20:17:48 GMT
Tony and Bobby obviously seem to love performing enough to keep it up for so long. It's not like there was laziness that way. I think they fared better than many, The Beatles broke up permanently while a Hollies group kept going along with a Stones and a Kinks (and all had changes in line-up). Should they have been bigger? Imperial as a label didn't help them much in America, but would a Capitol early on have paid much attention to them? Or what if they'd started on Epic which did support the Dave Clark Five well. In the first half of the '70s they were in the top on North American radio quite often, but then they failed to find the same high quality of material in the second half, but you can't record what isn't there and they've always been at best 50/50 in terms of group compositions hitting to outside finds. The Bee Gees had more in-group songwriting plus three part harmonizing vocals, and still they sank in the early '70s before going Miami (even had an entire album their label refused to release after Life In A Tin Can album fared poorly).
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 14, 2022 21:43:12 GMT
Both The Hollies after 'Air That I Breathe' from 1974 and earlier The Bee Gees from 1973 lost direction with their singles...in the Bee Gees case only for a couple of years...and as a result interest beyond the fanbases tailed off re any albums accordingly due to it
The Hollies
- set upon a run of slow, melodramatic numbers on singles that NO WAY would appeal to the average seventies singles buyers...
songs such as; 'Son of A Rotten Gambler', 'I'm Down', 'Boulder..', and later on; 'Something To Live For', 'Heartbeat' were just simply not that memorable as singles to register with many people
even better songs such as; 'Sandy', 'Hello To Romance' and 'Amnesty' suffered as they simply sounded like more of the same when following many flops - and on the three occasions they did swap styles in the UK it was reggae, slow paced disco, and a song not helped by a trombone solo that sounded a bit out of place (plus suffered from 'teen' lyrics being sung by a by then visibly ageing Allan Clarke)
yet their stomping guitar fronted version of Buddy Holly's 'That'll Be The Day' in 1980 was almost identically copied by Status Quo who got a 'modern' sounding UK hit out of their cover of Dion's 'The Wanderer'a couple of years after...while Clarke's powering vocal did help 'Soldier's Song' to just chart in the UK minus any promotion by their label or the group !
The fact 'Stop in The Name of Love' charted Stateside in 1983...then 'The Woman I Love' a decade after that reached no.42 in the UK proved there WAS still commercial mileage in the group if only they had got the song choices better...and crucially on the two singles following up 'Air That I Breathe' when wider public interest in them had reawakened
for IF they had consolidated that 1973-74 two UK chart hits 'comeback' (when their 1974 studio album also charted at home and in the USA) then the chances are the mid seventies 'Another Night' album would have fared much better both at home and in the USA
in the end Ron Richards choice of 'Son Of A Rotten Gambler' was the BIG mistake, sadly followed by 'I'm Down' at home at least...
The Bee Gees
- did a 1972 song 'We Lost The Road' which proved so very apt - that album 'To Whom It May Concern' did at least include a fine ballad hit 'Run To Me'...but in 1973 they were somewhat lost for direction and a bit 'splintered' again - Barry went 'country' while Robin and Maurice were less inclined and 'Life In A Tin Can' was a very confusing affair re musical direction despite a couple of fine tracks like 'Saw A New Morning', and 'My Life Has Been A Song' otherwise it was curiously flat by their high standards
After the unreleased album 'A Kick In The Head' which included the very diverse songs; 'King And Country', 'Eliza' and 'It Doesn't Matter Much To Me' crucially they liased with new producer Arif Mardin who produced the then rather overlooked but better 'Mr. Natural' in 1974 which saw them getting a new musical direction together and even if you dislike the disco stuff (which largely was some tracks on just a couple of albums' songs over the 1975-77 period) they always featured other style songs such as 'Charade', 'Come On Over', 'Edge Of The Universe', 'Songbird', 'Love Me', 'The Way it Was', 'Rest Your Love On Me' etc to retain some sense of their musical roots ('Bee Gees First', 'Horizontal' and 'Idea' all had Bee Gee harmonised ballads on them back in the sixties)
- The Bee Gees managed to appeal throughout even if the image given them then was quite absurd as neither Robin or Maurice had the looks or hair to be 'sex symbols' !!
note how later the 'pretty boy bands' would plunder the far better known Bee Gees songbook for hits to cover...yet as Terry Sylvester observed songs such as; 'Hello To Romance'..plus 'Don't Let Me Down', 'Give Me Time', even 'Love Is The Thing' and 'Thanks For The Memories' might have taken off had a then in fashion young boy band covered those 'forgotten' seventies Hollies compositions...
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Oct 17, 2022 10:37:13 GMT
Here is an interesting quote from Allan from a few years ago:
You're right, it was very much a combination of not only the group but the people behind the group. What we used to do when we knew we were going to have to get an album together was meet with everyone for about three weeks prior to recording and start getting ideas together. We got into a rhythm of being able to write songs that we thought would be great for the albums. And, you're right, I did love the Another Night album, and I wish it would have been a bigger hit than it was because we really thought that that one was going to help us break through again in America and that we'd be touring here. It didn't really work out that way, but we enjoyed making the album and I think that a lot of that was because of Ron Richards and the ideas that he had for the songs that we wrote.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Oct 17, 2022 11:02:54 GMT
Re the 'Another Night' album....again they got it wrong !
I think the mega serious 'I'm Down' despite charting overseas in four countries - reaching no.4 in New Zealand - was simply the wrong choice as a UK single (especially following the flop 'Son of A Rotten Gambler' at home)
'Another Night' did chart as a single in the USA scraping to no.71 and even 'Lonely Hobo Lullaby' reached no.22 also in New Zealand, however I would have prepared a single mix of 'Time Machine Jive' with a slightly faster tempo than the album track version to increase the urgency of the number as lead off single from the 'Another Night' album c/w the non album song 'Hello Lady Goodbye' in a picture sleeve
- this might have picked up more UK and even USA radio airplay again being a more 'typical' sounding Hollies style track with strong vocals and a driving slide guitar featured
had that worked as a single then released 'Sandy' as next single from the album in the UK with 'Another Night' as released in the USA, both surely would have stood better chances...and any better singles success would of course have helped the profile of the 'Another Night' album at home and overseas....
|
|
|
Post by The Dude on Oct 17, 2022 16:44:54 GMT
I recommend getting the British/European versions of 'Another Night', 'Write On' and 'Russian Roulette' at least. 'A Crazy Steal' is pretty forgettable though. I feel like 'Another Night' was issued in the US? I could be wrong. Seems crazy to not issue it there, when the previous album comparatively sold well. For all my ramblings above, 'Write On' is an okay album and worthy of having. When I first got into the Hollies, I really liked it. But 'Russian Roulette' is probably a better return to form. Slightly stronger material overall and a little bit more exciting sounding, even if the album artwork is appalling! I'm also one of the folks that actually quite likes the first track 'Wiggle That Wotsit'! It may be cheesy, but it's at least quite catchy and upbeat. I love Russian Roulette so you are the other Hollies fan that likes Wiggle that Wotsit, hey it's a bit of fun, maybe a try into disco. I thought it was the last good album of the 70's wasn't impressed with the other offerings, way to many very slow ballads. Don't count me out. I like "Wiggle That Wotsit" too. Enough to buy the single when it was released here in NL.
|
|
|
Post by Mevrouw Bee on Oct 19, 2022 13:03:08 GMT
I love Russian Roulette so you are the other Hollies fan that likes Wiggle that Wotsit, hey it's a bit of fun, maybe a try into disco. I thought it was the last good album of the 70's wasn't impressed with the other offerings, way to many very slow ballads. Don't count me out. I like "Wiggle That Wotsit" too. Enough to buy the single when it was released here in NL. *BLOCK DIVORCE*
|
|