Depressing songs

[anthony]

Hi all, I’ve been playing a lot of the Sylvester era Hollies songs lately, gee they had some real depressing numbers. 
Lucy, I’m down, Samuel, Son of a rotten gambler.  Funny I thought they were a bit more upbeat until I heard a lot of songs in a short space of time. 

[Tony Wilkinson]

Jul 18, 2023 8:37:48 GMT anthony said:

Hi all, I’ve been playing a lot of the Sylvester era Hollies songs lately, gee they had some real depressing numbers. 
Lucy, I’m down, Samuel, Son of a rotten gambler.  Funny I thought they were a bit more upbeat until I heard a lot of songs in a short space of time. 

They all have their place in the history of the band, like 'em all personally .. !!

[thejanitor]

Yeah, Lucy is the one that gets me, super depressing song.

I don't want to speculate on the subject too much out of respect for Allan and his family, but did Jenni have her first case of cancer around '75? Perhaps the song is about that? Again, I apologise if this comes off as distasteful.

On a lighter note, maybe they'd just caught the Seasons In The Sun bug and were trying for their own big ballad(s) of gloomy tales during the mid 70s?

[gee]

Their songs could be moody and atmospheric both sixties and seventies

'Fifi' while laughable is nevertheless a tragic tale, as were 'Clown', 'Crusader', 'Stop Right There' - all have a sombre theme

the folky 'Too Many People' and 'Hard Hard Year' are surprisingly stark deeper themed serious songs for the time  (which always spring to my mind when I read or hear some guys on youtube going on about how far ahead The Beatles songs were to the pop music of The Hollies over 1965-66)
 
Allan & Graham's gem 'Wings' is wistful with a pleading quality to it

their take on Bob Dylan's 'I Shall Be Released' was very dramatic in approach with that trumpet backing...

Allan's 'Marigold' is another song very tinged with sadness, also all three of his laments re Graham departing his life ('My Life is Over With You' / 'Goodbye Tomorrow' / 'Separated') while Tony's 'Too Young To Be Married' and Terry's 'Cable Car' are likewise reflective laments,

'What A Life I've Led' was a rather cold opener for 'Distant Light' also the unexpected cover of David Ackles 'Down River' had a clear sadness

Terry's 'Mr Heartbreaker' (co-written with Marmalade's singer Dean Ford) was another downbeat reflective ballad 

they did do a number of downbeat themed songs in the later seventies as stated above while 'Writing On The Wall followed by 'What Am I Gonna Do' made for a rather slow indeed somewhat sluggish  themed opening to 'A Crazy Steal' album as if you throw too many slow songs together it becomes something of a blur for listeners as each song is never quite allowed to really standout and shine as it might if it were the exception as opposed to 'more of the same'

'Amnesty' for example stands out far more if used in alternation to a few faster livelier songs around it 

several of the tracks on 'Five Three One..' had a rather downbeat atmosphere about them too plus of course the tragic theme of Mike Batt's 'Soldier's Song'despite Allan's powering lead vocal

I think 'Can't Lie No More' was another lament atmospheric track

the fact these songs were downbeat in nature didn't mean they wern't enjoyable or expertly played and sung

a few possible reasons the later seventies tracks often veered that way were; Tony repeatedly opting for melodramatic ballads, them seeking a more mature deeper song content (maybe in contrast to many of their very bright cheerfully sung uptempo sixties hits they still had to perform live which possibly they felt were the songs/hits of their youth and now they had grown up... etc) plus Terry's more emotive pathos tinged high harmony voice ideally suited such lament style ballads

- so maybe those factors pointed them to going more 'serious' as time went on, installing a mindset within the group, and might have well been a factor in the powering guitar rockin' tracks like 'If The Lights Go Out', 'Laughter Turns To Tears' etc being discarded in favor of slow melodramatic ballads instead (??)

[Stranger]

The whole thing gets slightly depressing from 1975! Not that I don't enjoy a lot of it but there's a dullness in the production to my ears.

[Mevrouw Bee]

Jul 18, 2023 22:13:39 GMT Stranger said:

The whole thing gets slightly depressing from 1975! Not that I don't enjoy a lot of it but there's a dullness in the production to my ears.

To be fair, a lot of late 70s production is too dull and sterile for my ears.

[baz]

Jul 19, 2023 8:27:50 GMT Mevrouw Bee said:

Jul 18, 2023 22:13:39 GMT Stranger said:

The whole thing gets slightly depressing from 1975! Not that I don't enjoy a lot of it but there's a dullness in the production to my ears.

To be fair, a lot of late 70s production is too dull and sterile for my ears.

Which is partly why I can't listen to most Hollies stuff after 1974. It may be slickly produced, well sung and immaculately played but it has all the excitement of a blood transfusion. The fact that the band favoured slower songs makes matters worse as until then, their albums had a great variety of styles and tempos not to mention production ideas which are lacking on the post 1974 albums and as pointed out above, fill an album with slower songs, it becomes a blur. Oh, and the keyboards becoming ever more prominent makes matters worse. It's for those reasons I find post 1974 Hollies hard to stomach and enjoy... Bobby later claimed the Rickfors era was "bland" which is amusing as 1975 onwards is blandness central for me. There's still occasional flashes of greatness but compared to what came before, far less to enjoy for my ears. Lyrically a lot of songs may not be "depressing" but the funereal tempos and an over-reliance on them makes listening to that stuff intensely depressing to me. I like a bit of life and grit in my music and sadly I hear very little of it from 1975 onwards. Allan's solo albums are much more enjoyable.

[thejanitor]

I also think they were partly trying for another He Ain't Heavy by arranging quite a few of those ballads around the key of G major and at the same plodding tempo - original songs like I'm Down and Lucy, as well as covers like There's Always Goodbye and Boulder To Birmingham, but absolutely none of those songs can hold a candle Heavy, which was one of the great lightning in a bottle moments from their career.

[gee]

Hicks was obviously hoping for another 'Heavy' / 'Air' also 'I Can't Tell The Bottom From The Top' hence the increasing ballads on singles - but those songs are very rare indeed and do not come along often, they were lucky to grab three of 'em with the first two becoming signature songs for the group

a few slower tracks such as the romantic  'There's Always Goodbye', 'Hello To Romance', and the strong harmony led 'Amnesty' might have worked as singles had they been exceptions not the 'rule' in the mid to later seventies that is  if placed between more upbeat radio friendly brighter typically Hollies livelier songs on most singles - the sad fates of 'If The Lights Go Out' and 'Laughter Turns To Tears' says everything that was wrong

- and above all they badly needed a younger independent producer to take charge rather than producing themselves

truth is they got 'too set in their ways' (possibly a Ron Richards trait handed down to the band ?) and became 'too serious' too 'profound' in trying to be all dramatic with songs such as; 'Son of A Rotten Gambler', 'I'm Down', 'Boulder' etc, which despite their merits just were NEVER likely to chart at home in the UK or in the USA and this burst their singles bubble following 'Air' from which they only went ever further instead of pulling back to a rockier tougher style that might well have kept them higher in the public profile (in that the telling style change to a rather softer atmosphere was quite  noticeable in 1975 as the 'Another Night' album overall was somewhat a gentler themed album than the overall punchier 'Hollies' 1974 set had been, despite a few electric guitar led tracks on the 1975 album)

- when they wern't being all overly dramatic on the mid to late seventies singles they instead did reggae, mock disco etc again on mostly slowish paced songs that were not really UK or USA chart orientated which suggested the group's musical directors members had little idea re what would work on singles then (it happened again in the 80's on those sporadic singles too proving no lessons had been learned in the slightest from the previous decade of singles chart failures)
 
I don't agree it all got 'bland' after 1975 - I think both 'Write On' and 'Russian Roulette' were fine underrated albums with plenty of excellent Hicks guitar, powerful Clarke lead vocals and strong harmonies with Sylvester standing out as co-lead / high harmony vocalist with a sense of group unity but after 'Air' in 1974 the fact is they repeatedly put out songs as singles that were just not powerful or memorable enough to reach mass appeal which as time went on with them absent from the singles charts made them less relevant to the singles market

having said that the fact 'Soldier's Song' in 1980 and even 'The Woman I Love' in 1993 DID each reach the lower end of the UK singles chart - plus 'Holliedaze' in 1981 then the two re-issues charting at home  in 1988 - suggested they were not completely spent as a UK chart act (even with new material) if only their general singles had been more instantly appealing after 'The Air That I Breathe' in 1974

I feel the 'production line' approach on albums really set in from 1978 with 'A Crazy Steal' and that has some decent songs but overall was a heavy going affair with something of a 'more of the same' approach too often - and the following album then repeated the slow plodding approach in 1979

Allan's solo albums began well with two strong largely original efforts, but I feel he rather wasted the following two albums over the key 1974-76 period in just doing covers of material which often were probably just too far apart in style to hold together purposefully - Allan has admitted he allowed himself to be over dominated by each producer then and should have insisted a few of his own songs were included (tho' I would have settled for his cover of 'Born To Run' instead of the inept 'Finale' to close his 'I've Got Time' album)

After this diversion Allan got back on track with the following two solo sets that mostly featured his and often co-writer Gary Benson songs and pointed towards that Rockier style I referred to that The Hollies ought to have explored much more

I think the 'Clarke'....and 'Hicks / Elliott' divide was the biggest ever increasing weakness in the Hollies group re musical direction in the later seventies & eighties

[cameron]

I think 'He Ain't Heavy' being a surprise hit pushed them in a more mature ballad direction, certainly for the resulting 'Confessions of the Mind' LP which was equally as lavishly orchestrated. But then they deliberately moved away from that sound to a more prog rock vibe for 'Distant Light' and 'Romany', but neither album spawned a single that recaptured the success of 'He Ain't Heavy' until 'Long Cool Woman' became an accidental un-planned hit a year after it was first included on the album. 

So when 'The Air That I Breathe' managed to recapture the success of 'Heavy', you can sort of forgive their logic for sticking with ballads when they'd tried to recapture the success of 'Heavy' with various different styles of song and it would be another ballad that would do it. 

However, they really did fall off the wagon, musically speaking, after 1975. Every album has a feeling of "going through the motions", which I guess they were. Was this around the time of the "six months on, six months off" work pattern starting? I was actually listening to 'Write On' before work this morning and it's the first time I'd heard it in a while. It feels like a very bland album after 'Another Night', but still far from the worst for that era. For me, Allan's solo stuff starts to overtake the Hollies' albums around this time. 'Allan Clarke (1974)' is a more memorable and diverse overall than 'Another Night', IMO, and 'I Wasn't Born Yesterday' certainly is more exciting than the Hollies' 1977-78 era material. It makes me wonder - how much of a say did Allan have over material for the group after his return? We know that the group were all writing less material themselves after 1975. Was it a case of Tony calling the shots by this point? 

Massively frustrating all-round really. They had the potential, but not the material. I guess they suffered the same fate as the Beach Boys in this era where their stage act was attracting big crowds for their back catalogue but no one wanted to hear their new material and to be fair to their audiences, the band's respective newer material wasn't up to the standard of their earlier stuff either. 

[Stranger]

Jul 20, 2023 10:21:39 GMT cameron said:

It makes me wonder - how much of a say did Allan have over material for the group after his return? We know that the group were all writing less material themselves after 1975. Was it a case of Tony calling the shots by this point?

I get the impression from Bobby's book that Allan's solo career was his priority in the later 70s and he might have jumped ship if he'd had a few solo hits. Maybe he wasn't giving his best to The Hollies or maybe they wouldn't let him. It's hard to know.

A Spencer Proffer produced Hollies record in 1978 would have been a real shot in the arm though !

[moorlock2003]

The 1974 reunion album with Clarke set the bar high, with every track a gem, it’s baffling why their albums got spotty after that. There are great tracks such as Draggin my Heels as well as maudlin mush like Lucy. I think Feet on the ground, Time Machine Jive, and Star are superb. I’m not inclined to listen to entire albums from this time other than the calculator album. I think it is a fine listen from start to finish. It is held together by its lush production. Ron Richards’ last hurrah with the band proved they needed a guiding hand.

[cameron]

Another thing to consider is that their albums post-1975 feel quite rushed to me. I think the fact that there are live versions of 'Star', 'Draggin My Heels' and 'Daddy Don't Mind' that are SIGNIFICANTLY more exciting than the LP versions would support this theory - ie, they improved the arrangements over time. Back when I was first getting into the Hollies, I had 'Write On' from Magic Records and the 'Live Hits' version of 'Star' was a bonus track and hearing the two side-by-side on the same CD was a real ear opener. Dodgy synthesiser aside, the energy that the live versions had is exactly what's missing from those late 1970s albums. 

I also agree with Stranger; a Spencer Proffer produced Hollies album would have been great. I think they lacked the confidence to self-produce. Kudos to Allan who knew to get someone in to help with his solo stuff to get the best out of him. More often than not, they did. I think producers - or lack of them - are the main issue with the music industry today. We've moved from multi-talented musicians acting as producers who had a very diverse background in music, to people who can programme a computer and turn the sound of someone bashing on a bin into a snare drum. It's not the same. A producer should be someone who will guide an artist and sculpt their ideas into being the best version of them that they can be. 

[gee]

Tony Hicks was really 'calling the shots' much earlier than many think

- Tony and Graham were pretty much the two chief Hollie members in the sixties as Tony was the main studio musician (even telling Ron Richards he would add his solo later on 'Yes I Will' in 1965) a co-songwriter and was their key chief song finder ('Just One Look', 'I Can't Let Go' later of course 'He Ain't Heavy') hence Tony had alot of 'clout' from the word go getting a higher band wage, even tho' Graham Nash was chief 'public Hollie' and their main spokesman and figurehead

photographer Karl Ferris thought Tony was the lead singer / main figure hence put him in central position on 'Evolution' cover while Henry Diltz had Nash and Hicks positioned at the front alongside with Clarke between but standing behind them on 'For Certain Because...' the year before which points to how these photographers saw the group member's standing then - Tony is in prominent position on the 'FCB...' back cover shot too, and he's top central in the individual photos  

Nash and Haydock - two co-founder members - were outvoted over 'If I Needed Someone'in 1965 despite 'the biggest argument we ever had' (as Haydock later observed) suggesting Hicks & Eliiott had some sway re group decisions along with Ron Richards of course

Tony was the main one rather 'cool' to Nash's psychedelia adventure and following King Midas / Butterfly failing it was Hicks who then opted the band away from that direction and suggested the Dylan project instead in late 1968

so it was always a case of Tony having a major say and once Graham opted out Hicks pretty much assumed control (while central figure Allan had always been happy to sing lead he never seemed that interested in leading the band, Hicks-Nash co-led with Clarke happy to go along and he admitted he allowed Nash to over dominate him hence 'Lullaby To Tim')

Tony effectively became their group manager once Nash was gone - largely as no one else wanted the job - while Robin Brittan was the personal manager for the band

Tony and Bobby forced Allan out in late 1971, Tony admitted he made an error in refusing Allan's offer to do the USA tour 'LCW' got them ...and it was Tony who asked Mike Rickfors to step aside and Allan to return in 1973...

later it was Tony who told Terry Sylvester to either 'shut up or you know where the door is...' in 1981 (Tony had ignored Bruce Welch suggestion to ditch Bernie Calvert), then advised Allan it was time to retire in late 1999

so Tony Hicks was a 'co-leader' earlier and effectively the main 'Hollie' certainly from 1968 but he always carefully kept a low profile to the public unlike Graham Nash

this probably explains why they were never that public orientated after Nash departed besides just the music, and NO 'dirty washing' could be made public

Allan's solo career was virtually a 'no go' area for The Hollies besides the odd recording like an unissued 'Born To Run' or at the time shelved 'Sanctuary' which again pointed towards a 'distance' existing (note also how Clarke and Hicks largely parted as songwriters following Nash's exit until later in 1974 when Sylvester reunited them)

Allan was probably reduced to third voice in their 'committee' of the first two brothers-in-law Hicks-Elliott-Clarke...and when they did follow his 'Buddy Holly' album idea it flopped badly probably weakening his position (as 'Son of A Rotten Gambler' had probably weakened Ron Richards standing in 1974)

A later idea of using Allan's song 'Too Many Hearts Get Broken' in 1985 proved fruitless....while Allan has since revealed he was at first none too happy about reuniting with Nash in 1983, but obviously he was overruled there which again shows he was not the one leading them at that time

Terry has spoken of; 'Clarke made his annual threat to leave..' while we know it was  Allan's wish to apparently stop touring (??) in 1981 - crazy if so as the records wern't selling...and note they NEVER did stop touring then (in retrospect was that proposal a ruse just to upset Terry so the 'trap door could be sprung' as Bobby later rather bluntly put it....?)

while I suspect had Allan achieved just one decent sized solo hit he would have quit the band to follow his solo career...he now says he never wanted to leave in 1971 but this doesn't really tally with Terry's remark, and Tony & Bobby appear to have had the view Allan was ready to drop them as Nash had if any solo success came along..

whatever clearly all was not well within the band hence Tony's remark;
'there were a lot of things wrong the public never knew...'

add to that record company issues and it's not surprising they lost direction, clearly they were not all pulling together focusing on playing to their core strengths as songwriters, re group direction and Allan's second brief exit in 1978 would only have exacerbated the situation followed by Terry's and Bernie's departures not long after..tho' I still feel it became more 'production line' circa 1978 not 1975

An independent decent producer was badly required to get the best out of them but we learn Alan Parsons never got paid for 'Boulder' in 1976 so maybe that points to why they opted to produce themselves besides the one off reunion with Ron Richards in 1979.

[moorlock2003]

I think it is obvious that the band’s budget move to do without a producer was a major error. Whether it was John Boylan, Spencer Proffer, or someone else, the band might not have drifted off the charts had they agreed that they needed a producer to create hit product. Allan was more interested in his solo efforts and I don’t think he cared one way or another whether the band succeeded or not. This makes me think he should have been replaced and permanently exiled from the band. Clarke was troublesome and non-committal, and it is clear to me that for the band’s sake he should have been given the boot. If Clarke had exited after the calculator album we might have been spared the awful Buddy Holly album. Then, in 1983, it was Nash who was non-committal. There might have been a follow up to What Goes Around (Atlantic OKed a second album) this time with songs THEY WROTE and without the wonky production (and with a hit producer.). But apparently the band was ho hum about it too, content in playing chicken-in-a-basket gigs in England. Just plain laziness in thinking and action once again prevailed.

[cameron]

I think the real reason for all of this is that the Hollies by the 1970s viewed the band as a job rather than a creative outlet. Turning up to play live gigs paid well, and records could pay well if they were selling in the numbers that they'd been used to in the 1960s. I think Graham's ego actually helped the Hollies to remain at the forefront of pop music in the 1960s. Even without the music, Graham was often appearing in the music press spouting his opinions about his contemporaries, in addition to being a prominent part of the London scene circa 1966-68. He kept the band relevant and current. 

The rest of the group had been happy to follow his ideas, record the songs, but go home at the end of the day to their wives/girlfriends and even start families in some cases. You can see why the chasm opened up between the rest of the group and Graham. Graham was in the band to make art and push the envelope, which history will remember him for doing. That's not to say that the other guys didn't contribute, we know that Allan got very involved in their "flower power bit" as Bobby puts it, but I believe that their motivations were always success and money - hence constructing some of the best pop songs of the era around 1966-1968. You can't argue with their logic, after all, being in a band is ultimately about money. The Hollies made it pay better than anyone else during that era, taking cues from Dave Clark very early on. 

After having a worldwide hit with 'Sorry Suzanne' and an even bigger hit with 'He Ain't Heavy', you can see why the group were happy to use other writer's work. It had been Tony who'd found all the hits in the publisher's offices and he was well-known for having a commercial ear. With Graham's departure clearly shaking their collective confidence, the group weren't as willing to take risks as they'd done before, especially after the rocky path along the psychedelic garden the year before. It's just a shame that, artistically, the group would suffer in the long run as a result of that. They'd crossed the threshold from being a creative force to being a group that would always have a new album out for Christmas (figuratively speaking).
I think the interpersonal problems between Allan and the rest of the group were that Allan seemed to really wake up to the music scene in the early 1970s and get very passionate about how his music should sound, how he would perform it and even the song choices themselves, more so than he'd been before. He was most likely feeling creatively frustrated as Graham had done previously, but at the same time, he was one of the group who'd contributed to Graham not feeling artistically fulfilled during that era. So it was a case of history repeating itself as Allan's attitude towards music shifted over time whereas the Hollies' collective attitude to it remained the same. Once they'd become a "golden greats" act by the mid-1970s, they'd lost control of the situation. You can't fault Allan's logic behind the 'Buddy Holly' album in that vein, but perhaps it was let down by the execution. 

There's a lot of parallels with the Hollies and the Beach Boys in that respect. Brian Wilson wanted to do his own thing regardless of trends (much like Graham) and ultimately lost interest, occasionally being tempted into the studio to record a hit record that would sell and/or the odd song that he was passionate about. As the Beach Boys lost their creative director, Carl and Dennis Wilson stepped up to lead the group. The Beach Boys' run of albums from 1970-1973 were fantastic, but massively overlooked for many years and sold poorly on release. When the 'Endless Summer' compilation was released and cemented the group as an oldies live act, Mike Love and Bruce Johnston (and to a degree Al Jardine) were happy to run with it, leaving the remaining Wilson brothers creatively frustrated, which I feel is exactly what happened with the Hollies when it comes to Allan versus Tony, Bobby, Bernie and Terry. The live gigs paid the bills and supported their lifestyles, but were the creative death of each band respectively. 

[gee]

The Beach Boys story also differs a fair bit - Brian never merely 'lost interest' he rather 'lost it' completely - cracking up on a plane under the stress he was under as early as late 1964 and they had to get in touring replacements first Glenn Campbell then Bruce in 1965 (Carl mentions Brian not doing all the shows in his note on 'Summer Days' album)

'Pet Sounds' rear sleeve pics also show Brian at home rather than on tour in Japan with the group in 1966

Carl stepped up, so too Alan over that 1965-70 period along with Mike as main singles lead vocalists / band figureheads and while I agree they made fine music over 1969-73 there were some big problems then - and not just musical but behind the scenes figures involved

Brian's erratic lifestyle and increasingly fragile state saw him cut back on those key albums 'Sunflower', 'Surfs Up', 'Carl and The Passions', and 'Holland' while Bruce left after 'Surfs Up' for several years - they had bassist Blondie Chaplin (who sang 'Sail On Sailor')and future  'Rutle' Ricky Fataar on drums

'Carl and The Passions' initial album had a rather cold 'distant' mix uncharacteristic of them and they often sounded a bit 'quiet' besides coming to life on 'Marcella'- a later CD version mix sounded alot better I felt

like Carl Dennis began writing some great songs from 1970 onwards, but his wild lifestyle then a very savage beating that almost destroyed his vocal chords saw his once key harmony voice never the same - his 'You Are So Beautiful' is now being featured in a UK TV commercial re eating disorders for women

those albums had some superb music but never sold like the early BB albums had

I think as Brian gradually got himself together 'post Landy' they had little choice than to create more typically sixties style BB music after 'Endless Summer' / '20 Golden Greats' did to them what such sets did for The Hollies and as two main members passed away, Brian departed they turned into Mike's nostalgia Beach Boys big band !

re The Hollies a massive issue in retrospect was Allan never leading the band with Graham and Tony from the start...or even after Nash departed he seemed content to let Tony lead and just be the central onstage figure - a couple of years later by 1971 when Allan wanted to get more involved in the band's musical direction he found Tony & Bobby had him outnumbered 2 to 1 - hence he was out of the band for those two vital years and missed out on the success of LCW

I do think there WAS some mileage in Tony & Bobby's fears if he was successful Allan would 'be off again' (as he was in 1978) so telling was Terry's remark;

'Clarke made his ANNUAL threat to leave...'

it seems neither Nash or Clarke were fully 100% Hollies orientated - Nash after he'd visited the USA and met Crosby ('my life's never been the same') and Clarke once he began to believe what some were telling him that he really WAS The Hollies and; 'if Nash can make it so can you...' which led him to quit the band without any backing band, producer or record deal in place in late 1971

However much one may love Allan's solo works...the sad fact is he had scant overall success as a solo artist  - his third solo album 'Allan Clarke' in 1974 was deleted by EMI in less than a year after it's release...

Terry Sylvester; 'Clarke returned with his tail between his legs...'

the frustration Nash, Clarke...and by 1981 Sylvester too all felt (and even Mike Rickfors was on the point of handing in his resignation too in mid 1973) can't be just co-incidence ...these four were all musical artists in the band and each in turn at various points became frustrated re the group musical direction which was chiefly and increasingly governed by Tony Hicks supported by his brother-in-law Bobby and they held the overall balance of power in the band once 'King Midas' / 'Butterfly' were chart failures

If Allan Clarke had properly co-led the band he co-founded with Graham and Eric Haydock (who was himself forced out back in 1966) he would have been in a far stronger and more confident  position to guide group musical direction later on.

[moorlock2003]

The band was really on a high with the 74 album that it is puzzling why their writing started to falter after that. I can’t help but wonder why they went from a mostly upbeat and creative mood in 74 to the mostly somber tone of Another Night. It’s no wonder the public was hesitant to buy their albums. Like Terry said once, the singles were different from the albums and people never knew what to expect on a Hollies album unless you actually played it. It is unfortunate that the band got tagged with being a ‘ballad’ band in the UK, influencing their decisions. Younger flashy bands were all the rage but The Hollies come up with “Boulder to Birmingham”, a nice enough tune but nothing the kids would want.

[Mevrouw Bee]

Jul 25, 2023 22:35:37 GMT gee said:

The Beach Boys story also differs a fair bit - Brian never merely 'lost interest' he rather 'lost it' completely - cracking up on a plane under the stress he was under as early as late 1964 and they had to get in touring replacements first Glenn Campbell then Bruce in 1965 (Carl mentions Brian not doing all the shows in his note on 'Summer Days' album)

'Pet Sounds' rear sleeve pics also show Brian at home rather than on tour in Japan with the group in 1966

Carl stepped up, so too Alan over that 1965-70 period along with Mike as main singles lead vocalists / band figureheads and while I agree they made fine music over 1969-73 there were some big problems then - and not just musical but behind the scenes figures involved

Brian's erratic lifestyle and increasingly fragile state saw him cut back on those key albums 'Sunflower', 'Surfs Up', 'Carl and The Passions', and 'Holland' while Bruce left after 'Surfs Up' for several years - they had bassist Blondie Chaplin (who sang 'Sail On Sailor')and future  'Rutle' Ricky Fataar on drums

'Carl and The Passions' initial album had a rather cold 'distant' mix uncharacteristic of them and they often sounded a bit 'quiet' besides coming to life on 'Marcella'- a later CD version mix sounded alot better I felt

like Carl Dennis began writing some great songs from 1970 onwards, but his wild lifestyle then a very savage beating that almost destroyed his vocal chords saw his once key harmony voice never the same - his 'You Are So Beautiful' is now being featured in a UK TV commercial re eating disorders for women

those albums had some superb music but never sold like the early BB albums had

I think as Brian gradually got himself together 'post Landy' they had little choice than to create more typically sixties style BB music after 'Endless Summer' / '20 Golden Greats' did to them what such sets did for The Hollies and as two main members passed away, Brian departed they turned into Mike's nostalgia Beach Boys big band !

re The Hollies a massive issue in retrospect was Allan never leading the band with Graham and Tony from the start...or even after Nash departed he seemed content to let Tony lead and just be the central onstage figure - a couple of years later by 1971 when Allan wanted to get more involved in the band's musical direction he found Tony & Bobby had him outnumbered 2 to 1 - hence he was out of the band for those two vital years and missed out on the success of LCW

I do think there WAS some mileage in Tony & Bobby's fears if he was successful Allan would 'be off again' (as he was in 1978) so telling was Terry's remark;

'Clarke made his ANNUAL threat to leave...'

it seems neither Nash or Clarke were fully 100% Hollies orientated - Nash after he'd visited the USA and met Crosby ('my life's never been the same') and Clarke once he began to believe what some were telling him that he really WAS The Hollies and; 'if Nash can make it so can you...' which led him to quit the band without any backing band, producer or record deal in place in late 1971

However much one may love Allan's solo works...the sad fact is he had scant overall success as a solo artist  - his third solo album 'Allan Clarke' in 1974 was deleted by EMI in less than a year after it's release...

Terry Sylvester; 'Clarke returned with his tail between his legs...'

the frustration Nash, Clarke...and by 1981 Sylvester too all felt (and even Mike Rickfors was on the point of handing in his resignation too in mid 1973) can't be just co-incidence ...these four were all musical artists in the band and each in turn at various points became frustrated re the group musical direction which was chiefly and increasingly governed by Tony Hicks supported by his brother-in-law Bobby and they held the overall balance of power in the band once 'King Midas' / 'Butterfly' were chart failures

If Allan Clarke had properly co-led the band he co-founded with Graham and Eric Haydock (who was himself forced out back in 1966) he would have been in a far stronger and more confident  position to guide group musical direction later on.

Keeping in mind with Terry's snark that, according to Bobby's book, Robin Britten was playing Terry against Allan. 

[baz]

Jul 25, 2023 22:35:37 GMT gee said:

If Allan Clarke had properly co-led the band he co-founded with Graham and Eric Haydock (who was himself forced out back in 1966) he would have been in a far stronger and more confident  position to guide group musical direction later on.

Agreed, though some factors need to be borne in mind as it all began with Allan and Graham wanting to emulate the Everly Brothers where essentially they saw themselves as a duo. Don Everly was the "leader" as he did all the talking onstage and Graham kinda took the Don role whilst Allan was happy to be Graham's foil as Graham was the more dynamic character of the pair. Then things evolved as other musicians got involved and whilst Allan may had ended up as lead singer, Graham was still the "leader" and Allan was fine and happy with that. So, it was kinda set in stone from day one and Allan got used to his role, likely never imagining the fame and fortune that was to come and when it did, Graham did most of the talking. Then after a few years, Graham quit and we all know how it upset Allan as he lost his main ally and crutch in the band. The roles were so set that Allan wasn't prepared, equipped or comfortable taking on the leader role. The connection with Graham was very deep and even by 1968 they had been pals for over 20 years which is a very long time. Leading a band does demand special skills and qualities - I've been in 2 or 3 bands and it was clear I was very much like Allan - lead singer on stage but offstage, I didn't have the qualities demanded of a leader nor did I ever want to be leader.

It's one of those fallacies as whoever is at the front onstage doing the main vocals, people assume they're "the leader". A prime example of this came years later when Ronnie Dio replaced Ozzy Osbourne in Black Sabbath. In the eyes of many, Ozzy was irreplaceable and the band members feared there would be a backlash or bad reactions from fans. Dio to his credit told them not to worry because the fans would take their hatred out on HIM not the other members because Dio was "leader" onstage. Guitarist Tony Iommi was the real leader of the band, but Dio being the focal point got the flak and many assumed had taken over the band.

Tony had been quietly getting involved with Graham determining musical directions and when Graham's gambit on the psychedlia direction failed, that was when Tony assumed control with the Dylan project and as Graham wanted no part of that, Allan went along with it as he would have done had Graham suggested it which gave a bit more power to Tony as did Tony finding "He Ain't Heavy". The pivotal moment/decision in my eyes was getting rid of Eric Haydock. Bernie was an old pal of Bobby and Tony so in spite of Bernie being a hired employee, those old bonds would have created a power shift in the balance of the band so when the psychedelia came under question, Bernie would have sided along with Tony and Bobby effectively outvoting Graham and Allan... one only has to look at a mere handful of 1967 flower power photos to see that Bobby, Tony and Bernie were uncomfortable with that image so naturally they were gonna jettison it as soon as they could at which point, Graham understandably felt his talents would be better appreciated elsewhere whilst Allan was caught somewhere in the middle as even he began to agree maybe Graham had gone too far and disliked the songs he was writing in 1968.

We also know Terry Sylvester was similarly frustrated in his later years in the band as unfortunately he realised he was powerless as he was another employee hired by Bobby, Tony and Allan so had no choice but to go along with whatever they - generally Tony and Bobby, with occasional concessions given to Allan - wanted so he either had to "put up and shut up" or walk away. Allan's "annual threats" to leave would have been fuelled by his own frustrations and perhaps the only way he could assert his role in the band as he knew he was crucial as lead singer... the fact they didn't replace him the second time he quit says it all. So, I think Allan was trying to regain some kind of power but it was always doomed as the templates had been set years earlier.

It's a rather complicated situation involving many factors but its unsurprising that Allan didn't step up to leadership role. When push comes to shove, one has to be "pushy" as a leader - Graham and Tony had it, Allan didn't.

[gee]

Very true - indeed many must have assumed Mike Smith was 'Dave Clark' at first - Dave just drumming, smiling and harmonising while Mike clearly was the major figure onstage / onscreen

likewise Paul Jones often was called 'Manfred' by people early on in Manfred Mann !

who would have guessed rhythm guitarist John McNally had founded The Searchers ? - surely Chris Curtis or lead singer Tony Jackson were the leaders ? (Chris later decided he was - but they carried on regardless after he left)

Graham Nash was happy to 'sing Dylan' in 1966 and 1968 on 'The Times They Are A Changing' and was NOT entirely opposed to the Dylan album project...until he learned of all the very varied arrangement ideas they had which was his reason for opting out and a perfect musical excuse to quit the group....as Crosby and Stills (plus a record deal with Atlantic) all awaited him stateside - something very carefully NOT disclosed prior to Nash's exit at all...and even then a deal had to be quickly sorted with Epic Records to whom Nash was signed as a member of The Hollies...

Allan was indeed far too modest in the sixties - however as time went on he changed alot from that and became both frustrated and it has to be said could be somewhat difficult at times - more than one venue manager had 'issues' to discuss with Tony re Allan - the guy in charge at a venue in Peterborough I know told a mutual lady friend of mine - who informed me - that  there was NO WAY he'd have The Hollies back with Allan Clarke (tho' with Carl they did return later on), and apparently Ray Stiles was given a rather hard time by Allan on occasions despite vocally bailing him out onstage...

They were going to replace Allan the second time in 1978  - Procol Harum's Gary Brooker was set to come in, hence 'Harlequin' (the unissued version sung by Brooker) and were also looking at the singer in Arrows who passed away a while back - Gary Brooker of course opted instead to run a pub...!


it seems they knew Allan was coming home - 'with his tail between his legs' per Terry Sylvester -  hence just awaited his return again for work on '5317704' (and Terry got his by then rare two lead vocals in order to save studio time) so maybe Tony & Bobby would have been quite happy to get in somebody new had Allan remained in the USA ?

[nashfan076]

I thought I was the only one that felt this way about this period of the band lol. I admit I do like the songs but they are downers alot of them. Beach Boys also went this route in the 70s. It seems like it was a time for downbeat dramatic ballads during that time.

[gee]

My guess is the main issue later was Tony Hicks being dogmatic and 'set in his ways' in that seventies period, and re musical direction forever attempting to repeat the chart successes of the ballads
'He Ain't Heavy.../Can't Tell The Bottom.../Air that I Breathe'


- the fact He Ain't Heavy' made number one in the UK later in 1988 would have presumably enforced his attitude all the more while self producing was another factor presumably done to save costs

tho' it has to be said the 'depressing' theme had set in earlier in their songs;

- 'My Life is Over With You', 'Marigold', 'Goodbye Tomorrow', 'Man Without A Heart', 'Separated', 'Little Girl', 'Too Young To Be Married', 'Frightened Lady', 'What A Life I've Led', 'Look What We've Got', 'Pull Down The Blind', 'Cable Car','To Do With Love', 'Little Thing Like Love', 'Oh Granny'....later 'Don't Let Me Down', 'Lucy' etc

and in the Rickfors era - 'The Baby', 'Romany', 'Down River', 'Mr Heartbreaker', 'They Don't Realise I'm Down'....

hardly bright happy cheery Hollies of the earlier sixties


and  even then  'So Lonely', 'Hard Hard Year', 'Fifi', 'Clown', 'Stop Right There','The The Heartaches Begin', 'Heading For A Fall',  'Crusader'  etc were all quite depressing themed songs but of course that does not mean any of them were poor songs