|
Post by Stranger on Nov 2, 2013 10:13:11 GMT
I haven't got that far yet but the index says it is covered on a couple of pages. I can't believe the amount of drugs CSN we're doing from day one!
|
|
|
Post by agneta on Nov 3, 2013 20:25:16 GMT
I have read Wild Tales, and I enjoyed it, although I sometimes found it painful to read about the deep drug related problems that David Crosby had. (Now my mother, 86, is reading and enjoying the book!) Yes, Graham mentions the reunion with the Hollies, and the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. He found it hard to believe that Tony and Bobby couldn't cancel their concert, so that they could be there for the ceremony. Perhaps they should have, but I guess I'm glad they didn't, as I was at the Hollies' concert at the London Palladium that night.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 4, 2013 10:35:13 GMT
My guess is that after umpteen years of 'bittersweet' experiences in the USA Tony & Bobby decided to put their British paying customers FIRST ! apprently the American TV company wanted them for THREE DAYS rehearsals (why ?) at very short notice and that would have meant cancelling a couple of UK tour dates including the presigious London Palladium show - and one concert that I saw and very much enjoyed !! - and I think Tony and Bobby, quite understandably, might well have felt that after all the years of The Hollies being given a rather "indifferent" response from certain unkind sections of the American music press - NOT so the American general public or showbiz media in general which always welcomed The Hollies warmly - but a few rather 'up themselves' know all American music writers, including some internet 'geeks' (one guy in particular) who continually wrongly painted The Hollies as a rather inferior second rate outfit normally (inaccurately) forever comparing them to The Beatles purely in order to then duly cite them as 'second best' etc... ....that this sudden American (music press based) recognition was all coming a bit 'late in the day' for them to justify just dropping everything at the last minute, leaving their British paying public feeling 'second best', and rushing over to the USA to be belatedly given some kind of 'papal blessing' by a very 'politically biased' self important American music press - as any organisation that continues to 'snub' influential artists such as: Chicago, The Moody Blues, The Zombies, Jethro Tull, and many others ....how many records and concert tickets have they sold between them...? simply can't be taken very seriously ....can it ?? Jeez they only recently inducted their own massively influential guitar band The Ventures into the Rock & Roll Hall of Shame....!!! - yet a number of nowhere near as influential or much loved and deeply respected, but simply 'flavour of the month' artists got inducted yonks ago ! so, please excuse the rant, I suspect Tony and Bobby simply were not that worried about missing the event as they quite rightly put their British paying punters who had pre-booked to see them beforehand FIRST.... ....and going by the fiasco that then played out onstage during the induction show itself, I'd guess they were, in retrospect, very glad indeed that they made the decision to keep on doing their already organised UK tour instead !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 12:40:43 GMT
I suspect the London gig was also a convenient excuse not to share the stage with Terry and Eric!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Nov 4, 2013 14:59:36 GMT
I think it would have looked very poor on Tony and Bobby's part to drop their current Hollies commitments for a one-off night with 'the real Hollies'. Doing so would just have added fuel to the fire that today's group is nothing more than a tribute band. So I believe they made the right decision at the time.
Interesting to hear the 'three day rehearsal period'. That really does make it appear as though Terry Sylvester was definitely snubbed. In hindsight, I wish neither Clarke or Sylvester had attended. The blowup that kiboshed any future reunions (like a proper 50th?) could have been avoided, and Graham Nash could have had the whole stage to himself.
Even if Hicks and Elliott had taken the bait, I think the RRHOF night would still have ended in chaos.. With Nash, Clarke, Hicks and Elliott and their hired ringers onstage, Sylvester, Calvert and Haydock were expected to cheer them on from the cheap seats. That was a recipe for disaster, and the end result would have been the same (Terry charging the stage). So while Graham, Allan and Terry have been awash in controversy ever since, Tony and Elliott neatly side-stepped the fiasco and rightly stayed true to their current band and fans. Kudos for them. As for the RRHOF, I thought it was a bad joke long before The Hollies induction. Now I wouldn't visit it if you paid me. And that's a shame, because we all could use a proper Hall, where entrants were selected on merit, not political correctness and cronyism.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 6, 2013 23:08:35 GMT
I've finished the book so beware of "spoilers" ahead.
I found it pretty enjoyable overall, Graham comes over as a pretty fun loving, likeable guy if occasionally pretentious. But he seems genuine and committed and as I say "fun".
I suspect the book was edited down a good bit so certain reference don't go anywhere, for example he mentions that he decided to do the reunion album and tour but then doesn't give any info on the tour despite saying how relaxed it is to work with the Hollies compared to CSN&Y.
I was surprised on the details he gave about leaving the Hollies basically that he didn't tell anyone got Ron Richards to do it and then didn't see the Hollies again until the reunion. Does this square with the facts though? Doesn't Terry or somebody reference him meeting the band and hearing their stuff around the time of Hollies Sing Hollies and I'm sure Allan in the early '70s mentions meeting him or seeing them. Perhaps all the drugs have clouded the memory a bit.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 7, 2013 10:40:17 GMT
like the Graham Gouldman 'young 14 year old boy next door' nonsense DON'T take everything as being 100% Gospel...!
Nash DID meet up with them in 1970, as Terry Sylvester (then all friends) reported Graham listened to 'Hollies Sing Hollies' then, per Terry, said;
'WHY wern't we recording material like that two years ago ?...I'd never have left !'
Nash also reportedly urged Allan Clarke to go with him to the USA in 1969 but Clarkey had a wife & kid (Nash had then just split up with his first wife Rosemary 'Eccles' Nash, thus was a free agent)
Nash has had holidays in the UK, perhaps significantly staying not with his oldest friend Allan Clarke but with Tony & Jane Hicks (and them likewise with Graham & Susan in both Hawaii & California for holidays)
Nash also visited the UK circa 1977 - and probably met up with the guys then if they were in the country - a time when his impressions of a wet wintery Manchester inspired his CSN song 'Cold Rain'....and probably he visited Salisbury Cathedral too hence his CSN song; 'Cathedral'
Nash while having no say in what 'The Hollies Limited' does nevertheless still gets money from his past recordings with The Hollies while Terry Sylvester has spoken of also still having 'business associations' with the company too.
a few years back a UK Sunday paper ran a 'nonsense' story with Nash apparently speaking of a 'long ongoing feud' with The Hollies where none of them would speak to him etc....pure piffle !! (but it makes better reading and sells more papers than just a boring; 'yeah were still pals...' etc)
over the years they have had their 'issues' but just 'normal band stuff' per Nash in the past, as far as I was aware they ALL knew the 'Save Rave' charity show at the London Palladium on 8 December 1968 would be Graham's last gig with them (David Crosby stirred things up backstage & Allan Clarke got upset with him) but per articles in the music press then titled; 'Hollies - Why Graham Nash is going...' - Tony Hicks was very 'matter of fact' wishing Nash all the best for the future, and Clarkey was o.k. if a bit 'embittered' saying things like; 'all of Graham's new songs are very slow and very boring...' etc (including worldwide hit 'Marrakesh Express' ?) - all this was before Terry Sylvester was even recruited.
Bobby Elliott has told me that 'Survival of The Fittest' first recorded in August 1968 references Nash's issues and the fact that they all knew then each party would now have to 'survive' on their own merits, thus the entire band was aware Nash would be going while they were still recording in late summer of 1968.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 7, 2013 14:11:08 GMT
'WHY wern't we recording material like that two years ago ?...I'd never have left !' You gotta wonder about that quote! Interesting stuff Gee it seems like they had consistent contact through the '70s then. On Cathedral it was actually about Winchester Cathedral and he'd been working on it consistently from '71 or something until he felt it was right!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Nov 7, 2013 15:41:36 GMT
Perhaps Graham's memory is fading with time or excessive drug use has taken its toll, or perhaps he's correct : he didn't see The Hollies (as a group, all 5 members together) between December '68 and August '81. He definitely saw certain 'Hollies' individually or in pairs.
In addition to Gee's above info, there was the December '73 meeting of Clarke and Nash. Allan, while vacationing in Montego Bay, jetted in to L.A. to catch a Nash concert, and spent some time afterwards with Graham. It's interesting to hear Clarke's impression of Nash at the time:
"I spent a couple of days with him. Still as spaced out as ever. But he seems to have got it all together, he's a happy man." Later in the conversation Clarke adds: "Doesn't look well. He's the only guy I know that has to run round in the shower to get wet. Really, I was quite surprised when I knocked on the door and he opened it. He was like a white Biafran baby. So thin and white and pale. He must be an owl that guy, comes out at night. He's got moonburn. But he's happy. He's not ill, I mean he eats."
Don't know what Graham's lifestyle was like in the early '70's, or how much he really remembers from this era, but Clarke's concern for his friend, although lightheartedly expressed, make me think that perhaps things weren't the best for Graham at this time. Perhaps our CSN&Y aficionados can comment on this period of Nash's life.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Nov 7, 2013 16:18:57 GMT
'WHY wern't we recording material like that two years ago ?...I'd never have left !' You gotta wonder about that quote! Terry Sylvester remarked on Graham's visit to Allan's house where the three of them sat and listened to the product of the latest Hollies sessions, 'Hollies Sing Hollies'. Terry on Graham: "He basically said, 'If we'd been doing stuff like that, I wouldn't have left'." I don't know if he really meant that, but he was saying how good the songs were, and maybe he got a little bit over-excited!" It must have been strange for Graham to be listening to the latest Hollies vocals, instrumentals and songwriting, in which he had played no part. The fact that it sounded so good obviously impressed him, although I doubt that he would seriously want to be writing and recording that sort of material himself. However the fact remains that he was taken aback by how impressive the 'new' Hollies sound was in late '69.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 7, 2013 16:28:52 GMT
Sorry I meant Winchester Cathedral not Salisbury !! Re The 'mark Two' Hollies: - actually in singing ANTI War songs ('Soldier's Dilemma'), plus solo acoustic reflective items like 'Marigold' (which Nash had pioneered with his; 'Fifi The Flea' then 'Clown', 'Stop Right There' etc) , and the self examining number he knew he had inspired; 'My Life is Over With You' (Clarke writing about his own life as Nash first had in 1966 & CSN then did), plus Tony Hicks taking a rare lead vocal - as Nash had insisted Tony do on his own 'Pegasus' on 'Butterfly' - on the nature inspired Clarke-Sylvester number; 'Look at Life' (again a subject Nash had written of with Clarke earlier in; 'Signs That Will never Change' an early ecology themed number) ...with another self examining more mature life song Tony's 'Don't Give up Easily' (written for Clarkey re his 'problems' of that time ?) featuring early use of a synth', and a country flavoured item; 'Please Sign Your Letters' featuring Tony's banjo again, plus even a gospel rock number in 'Why Didn't You Believe', together with Terry's first number; 'Gloria Swansong' & Bernie's mood music instrumental; 'Reflections...' ....all taking the band into more experimental new musical avenues with only a few numbers such as;' You Love Cos You Like it' and 'Please Let Me Please' plus the standard fare early seventies disco-ish 'Do You Believe in Love ?' being a more easily recognisable & expected poppish Hollies approach...no doubt must have impressed Nash that AFTER his exit they had duly adopted much of the very thing he'd been urging back in 1967-68, by writing their own songs about things that mattered to them ...EXPERIMENTATION and a more mature stretching of their er...'Wings' ! which held The Hollies in good stead to keep going strong with their albums in the seventies....while Nash was in his element across the pond in with CSN(Y) Re Nash himself, a couple of years on he seemed to be physically struggling - if you look at the cover photo of his 'Wild Tales' album he looks very gaunt & unwell. Never anything other than slim by 1973 Nash looked really rough ! He has spoken of trying to match Crosby by taking; 'as many drugs as David' maybe that was the result ? whatever I recall him in a BBC show that era , 'Old Grey Whistle Test' (?) where he was briefly interviewed then sang a song (I think from 'Wild Tales') he looked dreadful as if he was 'on the way out...' !! Luckily he looked MUCH better by 1975 and the cover photos of Crosby & Nash's album 'Wind on The Water', so we must assume whatever his issues were he'd recovered from them but his gaunt, ageing, eyes staring, bearded long haired appearance around the time of 'Wild Tales' was the worst by far that I've ever seen Nash look...
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 7, 2013 17:40:02 GMT
Don't know what Graham's lifestyle was like in the early '70's, or how much he really remembers from this era, but Clarke's concern for his friend, although lightheartedly expressed, make me think that perhaps things weren't the best for Graham at this time. Perhaps our CSN&Y aficionados can comment on this period of Nash's life. There was some much commented on photograph of Graham around this time that appeared in Rolling Stone in which he didn't look particularly well. I think it was a period in his life when just looked particularly bad. I don't think he ever went near heroin, just coke but I could be wrong. The night owl comment very much tallys with Graham's description of the hours he keeps in Wild Tales.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 7, 2013 17:42:51 GMT
There's another comment in the book that has sprung into my mind. Pre-split he announced to the group that we wanted to make a solo album to which he was told No, you are in or out! Echoes of Allan's situation there. But haven't they also said in interviews that they offered to "put up the bread" for a Graham solo album to appease in and keep him in the band? Maybe that offer came about after he'd already made up his mind to leave.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Nov 7, 2013 21:28:02 GMT
Graham obviously told the other Hollies that he was going - it was all over the music press for a start! Allan recounts how they all sat down and had a "business meeting" and at the end Graham agreed to go and leave them to it - it worked both ways! I think Nash's tale in the book was exaggerated for effect.
I don't know if I'm dreaming this, but I thought someone said once that he joined them on stage in the early 1970's to do an acoustic version of "King Midas In Reverse" - can anyone elaborate?
I found a lot of his tales about the Hollies to be incorrect or heavily altered. I'm a bit disappointed that he went into so much detail about the CSN recording sessions - which we've heard about time and time again - and merely glossed over the Hollies' sessions and outtakes etc...
Apparently "Survival Of The Fittest" was a title given to Graham, Allan and Tony by Bobby in an effort to get them to write another song together in late 1968. I believe it was actually the last song they wrote together. They wrote it on their final tour of Sweden with Graham and produced a demo on Bobby's tape recorder. I'm sure a few albums could be made out of all the Hollies' own demo tapes, someone needs to pester them for them!
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Nov 7, 2013 21:45:53 GMT
There's another comment in the book that has sprung into my mind. Pre-split he announced to the group that we wanted to make a solo album to which he was told No, you are in or out! Echoes of Allan's situation there. But haven't they also said in interviews that they offered to "put up the bread" for a Graham solo album to appease in and keep him in the band? Maybe that offer came about after he'd already made up his mind to leave. I definitely think Graham has that wrong. I've read numerous times that The Hollies had offered to pay for Nash's solo LP. Allan Clarke: "...he wanted to do a solo album, and we even offered to put up the bread." Allan Clarke in '71 was not granted the same offer however! Just speculating here, but I wonder if it wasn't Hollies manager Robin Britten who floated the idea of a Hollies-financed (A Hollies Production) Nash LP as an outlet for Graham's rejected songs, thus hopefully mollifying him and hence keeping him in the group. Perhaps a case of too little too late!
|
|
|
Post by agneta on Nov 7, 2013 22:23:17 GMT
Tony Hicks talking about Graham leaving the Hollies, 1970, short Swedish interview.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 8, 2013 9:38:42 GMT
I think it was Robin Britten's idea about them producing a Nash solo album of his 'unsuitable songs for The Hollies' tracks (presumably the likes of; 'Right Between The Eyes' etc)
it was also then mooted a possible Bernie Calvert solo album of 'mood music' instrumentals ( I assume along the lines of 'Reflections...' and 'Heather Moor' etc) - Bernie did that 'Bread and Beer Band' single with Elton John not long after so he clearly was working outside The Hollies format too...
I've noticed on the 'official' forum a few are 'sniping' at Nash over this book....yet we should remember the band rejected Nash's ideas re musical progression, and were rejecting his songs ('very slow and very boring' quote Allan Clarke) thus I for one can see Nash's viewpoint (no co-incidence by 1981 Terry Sylvester found himself in EXACTLY the same frustrated position...eh ??)
remember the recent rejection of Ron Furmanek's 'modern' mix of Nash's 'King Midas..' ??
the song 'King Midas...' tells us everything re Nash's position & feelings
I do think it a bit rich how some people are quickly feeling sorry for Clarkey tho' (re how hard Allan took it) and going on about Nash's 'sniping' at The Hollies - Clarke has made some DREADFUL comments re Nash onstage too (surprising & annoying Tony Hicks !) plus Nash was not 'Clarke's keeper' was he ? - IF Nash had the gumption to leave a major group and take a big risk in order to follow his dream...something Allan later TRIED to copy too...then it's good for him as far as I can see (which was Tony Hicks attitude too)
Eric Clapton quit The Yardbirds and Carl Wayne quit The Move to do likewise...no one ever criticised them !
yes it's sad Clarkey was upset at the time of course, (Nash must have felt sad at leaving his old friend behind too...) but it then gave Clarkey his big chance to then LEAD the band...instead he choose to just FRONT it & left it up to Hicks to lead the band...yes ?
the fact Allan Clarke later copied Nash in 'jumping out of the water'(like that fish on 'Distant Light' cover) first in late 1971 and did it again in 1978 (Terry Sylvester has said; 'Clarke made his annual threat to leave..') shows Allan was just as fast to cast off being a Hollie WHEN it suited him...
so the current 'sniping' at Nash on the 'official' forum is a bit unfair I feel, remember it was Nash who at least had tried to push The Hollies BEYOND just doing 'pop songs' and into new idioms ('Butterfly' & 'King Midas..' etc) and no doubt left a big artistic impression on both Clarke & Hicks (Tony has admitted that - CSN had a big influence on Hicks notably during the 'Rickfors Hollies' period) ...
remember too Nash was casting off his 'pop star' identity when he left them - Lennon did the same ('I don't believe in...Beatles') as did Cat Stevens in his 1970 song; 'Pop Star' - yes Nash made some 'belittling' and unkind digs at his old band, but if you had been 'banging your head against a brick wall' only to then get your efforts flung back at you...get told to stay in your dartboard segment, as your friends Lennon, Hendrix, etc are all being hailed as 'serious musical geniuses'...and while the jumped up music press forever tag you as being only a 'pop star' (the 'Ringo of CSNY' was one comment) while your old band has reverted to a very poppish image they seem pefectly happy with ('I'm truly Sorry Suzanne...') - well wouldn't you be keen to 'distance yourself' from all that too...?
I'm NOT excusing Nash's 'snipes' at The Hollies, but at the time I can understand how he must have felt...and I don't believe his 'digs' were anything personal against his former bandmates, but were aimed rather at the very safe indeed rather twee 'pop' image The Hollies, posed around a rocking horse etc, then firmly had adopted circa 1968-69 ('Blo-Blo-Blowin in the wind...') - indeed it was only with the following albums like; 'Sing Hollies', 'Confessions' and 'Distant Light' they matured and moved beyond the pop image to start progressing again...
Re 'Survival of The Fittest' - Bobby came up with that title & it was in a hotel room in Sweden that Clarkey, Nash, & Hicks (with an acoustic guitar) knocked the song into shape on Bobby's urging...
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 8, 2013 13:55:55 GMT
I'm very surprised no bootlegs from the '83 tour have surfaced given Nash's popularity. Apparently at the Bottom Line Clarke spent a lot of time digging at Nash, it would be interesting to hear what the atmosphere was like!
On Survival of The Fittest I thought they had already written the song which was unnamed and Bobby called it that to reflect their situation.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Nov 8, 2013 16:43:09 GMT
Rock stars as a rule tell so many contradictory stories, and alas, The Hollies are no exception to this. What is worse, they often in the process contradict themselves! So when it comes to Nash's departure, it's hard to know who or what to believe. That said, I tend to believe there's some truth to the piece below.
Allan Clarke's version of Graham's departure, from a '74 interview:
"That was another weird scene that was. I mean I was told in the streets that he'd got a new group. A guy comes up and he says 'Hey you heard about Graham? He's got a group in America. I said you're joking. He said 'No, he's joined two guys Crosby and Stills.' So I thought 'oh I must ask 'im about that'. When he did Nash told told him he'd been rehearsing "for the past year." Clarke was, not unnaturally, hurt. "I thought 'why didn't he tell me?" We'd been mates for about 25 years. I felt really bad about it then. If he'd told me I would've accepted it, but after a year rehearsing!"
Also, Clarke once again, this time from a 1971 article, concerning Nash's put down of The Hollies:
Why was it necessary for Graham to down the Hollies at the Fillmore during a week of sold out concerts? Graham had spread the word, the little children accepted it... Allan ventured a guess..."maybe he feels that he has to relate to the past to make himself accepted within the group he's in now. I don't think he's ashamed (but maybe he is) of being one of the Hollies... So what I think he is doing is saying, 'I'm sorry I used to be with a group called The Hollies and the hit commercialism; but now, accept me because I'm with Steven Stills, Crosby and Neil Young. Am I as good as them? You see, he's saying 'accept me for them. Please don't relate me to the Hollies because I'm not'.
Once again, I don't feel he's too far off the truth here. A lot of my pals, and for that matter critics as well, who were very big on CSN&Y back then, thought the only weak link in that group was Graham Nash. Graham must felt some of that surely, hence his Hollies put downs, distancing himself from the 'pop group' image that was dogging him.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 8, 2013 17:07:01 GMT
Stuball I think this does seem pretty accurate if you consider a few things. Nash certainly was trying somethings with Crosby & Stills for a while and he claims himself not to have been able to tell the group directly getting Ron Richards to do it. So, that does suggest that Graham wasn't the first person Allan heard the news from.
On the second part Graham freely admits to feeling inadequate and uncool during his first meetings with Crosby and Stills. I think Nash has/had more issues about the Hollies adequacy than Crosby or Stills ever had.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 9, 2013 13:08:20 GMT
Possibly you are 'making up your minds' here without knowing the complete situation...? (as none of us can for certain of course...)
But Just accepting Allan Clarke's 'version' of events as probably the truth is at best 'cherry picking' as bear in mind that Clarke can get things very badly mixed up at times... - he even CAN'T remember what songs came from what Hollies albums ! (or what the last album's title had been...!)
Allan Clarke's 'version' of Events: The validity of Allan's version has to be taken in context of other things we know that cast some doubt about his actions & comments...
Look at Clarke's 'snubbing' of Terry Sylvester at the HOF induction show, who was shocked as he had believed they were on good terms...
...plus his plainly quite absurd remarks about it being the "END" of 'The Hollies once Nash departed" in the LTAW DVD interview...
So bear in mind Allan's 'recollections' have to be taken with a reasonable pinch of salt like some of Nash's Wild Tales' too...
the 'guy in the street' bit I find rather unlikely - Nash had a record contract awaiting them with Ahmet Ertegan & Atlantic records yes, but Crosby was still severing his ties with The Byrds company CBS Records after being sacked and it was kept under wraps about CSN until after Nash departed these shores - in fact Nash had a throat operation at that time (polyips on his vocal chords) which delayed CSN going into action for a time too.
when Nash left he was supposedly 'going solo', and while it's true he kept his cards close to his chest Bobby Elliott claims Nash had earlier played him a demo of CSN singing together....Bobby says HE was aware Graham had 'hooked up' with Crosby & Stills - it seems highly likely Hicks had some idea too (Bobby & Tony were/are close) as ALL the Hollies had been in with that American musicians crowd - Clarke himself openly speaks of being "shoved in a cupboard" by Stills & co and made to listen to Neil Young's 'Expecting To Fly' (which duly influenced 'Wings')
plus they already knew about Nash's growing American based thing via his being unavailable for 'Top of the pops' to promote 'Listen To Me' earlier in 1968, then Crosby was hanging around with Nash alot more, being backstage at the 'Save Rave' gig in December 1968 (by which time The Hollies were already laying down the backing tracks for 'Sing Dylan', working as a group minus Nash, over 4-6 November 1968...)
so Clarke's being apparently all 'unaware' then all 'shocked' & 'deeply hurt' I find a bit unlikely in truth....a listen to Nash's solo songs on 1967's 'Butterfly' HINT very strongly at his desire to depart...yes ?
so a bloke just 'wandering up in the street' & telling Clarke...seems all too pat for me to take seriously
bear in mind too that Clarke was the chief band member critic of 'Marrakesh Express' besides producer Ron Richards, Clarke openly dismissed the song with some scorn...which then became an international hit for CSN the following year, so Clarke's very 'stuck in the mud' attitude there must have irritated Nash and probably served to hasten his exit from the group...(& maybe later annoyed Bobby & Tony too in retrospect as Bobby has since said he was, apparently' all in favour of The Hollies recording the song at the time...) While Nash might have had some 'snipes' at 'The Hollies' (a group entity & company) Allan Carke has said ALOT of very bad (& unprofessional) things about Nash as a person...I have heard a good few of them myself ! - but really it all reeks of jealousy & looks terrible (like with Sylvester's more recent insults all Nash has/had to do was ignore them...and keep a moral high ground !)
Nash's remarks about The Hollies: Nash's digs at The Hollies were not at the guys personally but I think more re their 'conservative' safe pop image & reluctance as a 'Limited Company' concern to move both musically and artistically beyond what their public wanted/expected (that dart board segment again) ....they looked a very 'safe' but 'uncool' band circa 1968-69 (the 'Sing Dylan' album while popular with the public got a - unfair ? - critical hammering as the later 'Buddy Holly' set would do), and the 'lacey shirts' image (on the 'Sing Hollies' album cover) was more 'Vanity Fare' / 'Pickettywitch' pop group territory that at the close of the decade looked very staid compared to the emerging acts like say Deep Purple (who were once 'poppish' themselves early on), Black Sabbath, Jethro Tull, Free, ELP, Yes, the revised Moody Blues, etc - as music fractured into 'Pop' and 'rock' or 'Folk/Rock' etc
Look how The Move went when Carl Wayne left...they went heavy ('Brontosaurus'/ 'When Alice Comes Back To The Farm'/ 'Looking On' & 'Message From The Country' albums) while Carl shaved off his moustache donned a slick suit with flared trousers & became a cabaret singer !
so Nash's actions & words at that time need to be taken in that context - compare the cover photos of 'CSN' first album & 'Hollies Sing Hollies' (complete with a drunken looking Clarke with his hand between Tony's legs !) - those two cover photos say it all & tell you why Nash felt he needed to 'distance himself' - it was the brief very 'twee' looking IMAGE of the always reasonably 'faceless' Hollies ('Men With No Expression' ?) - the band who besides Nash always preferring to keep a VERY low profile (then & now)
we do know Steve Stills was a big Hollies admirer & Crosby slaggged off EVERYONE rom Dylan to The Byrds...so his views were normally deliberately antagonistic out of sheer mischief (see him upset Stills a good few times !) - but the fact the Hollies were seen by some vocal members of the music press back then as mega 'uncool' and Byrds/Springfield (both nowhere near as successful worldwide in selling records as The Hollies back then, indeed both those bands struggled with inconsistant record sales at the time in the sixties) were seen as 'so cool' and 'influential' by music press & commentators alike probably made Nash embarressed by his old band (look how the Byrds insulted The Monkees re; 'So You wanna Be A Rock & Roll Star' - yet The Monkees albums were then selling FAR more than the Byrds, Mike Nesmith felt equally embarressed as Nash....), yet in retrospect ALOT of the 'digs' from so called 'serious musicians' was probably through sheer jealousy re the monetary angle !
Crosby similarly later insulted Roger McGuinn re the latter era Byrds (who in truth were a STRONGER live act with The Late Great Clarence White on lead guitar !)
Nash in CSN & Y: CSN (& Y) were first & foremost all about trademark harmonised vocals, and in that Nash was a key figure being the top voice...plus Nash gave them most of the hits/ trademark songs ('Marrakesh Express', 'Teach Your Children','Our House', 'Just A Song Before I Go', etc) which made the name of CSN & Y famous worldwide
without Nash I think their history might have been VERY different & it's very unlikely the outfit would have lasted very long....if anything Nash was the 'Paul' not the 'Ringo' of CSN & Y !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 16:07:32 GMT
Nash's digs at The Hollies were not at the guys personally but I think more re their 'conservative' safe pop image & reluctance as a 'Limited Company' concern to move both musically and artistically beyond what their public wanted/expected (that dart board segment again) ....they looked a very 'safe' but 'uncool' band circa 1968-69 (the 'Sing Dylan' album while popular with the public got a - unfair ? - critical hammering as the later 'Buddy Holly' set would do), and the 'lacey shirts' image (on the 'Sing Hollies' album cover) was more 'Vanity Fare' / 'Pickettywitch' pop group territory that at the close of the decade looked very staid compared to the emerging acts like say Deep Purple (who were once 'poppish' themselves early on), Black Sabbath, Jethro Tull, Free, ELP, Yes, the revised Moody Blues, etc - as music fractured into 'Pop' and 'rock' or 'Folk/Rock' etc I believe it was initially Graham's idea for them to wear suits and bow ties though...
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 9, 2013 16:27:50 GMT
Yes indeed, and it was Nash's idea to move over into Cabaret too - as he was hoping for a more mature audience that would not just 'scream' wildly but listen to the songs - The Move tried it too & lost Carl Wayne as a result...
but that move into cabaret circles, despite being well intentioned, and successfully lucrative moneywise, then badly 'backfired' on them ('everything he touches turns to dust...?') as the move was never really accepted by the cabaret audiences...and only distanced them further from the contemporary late sixties younger musical audience more and saw them like The Beach Boys (also then in white suits - compare 'Sing Dylan' & the UK 'BB Greatest Hits' almost identical covers) get tagged as a 'middle of the road' even passe act
along with the wider public rejection of 'King Midas...' yet mass public approval of 'Hollies Greatest' (plus 'Carrie Anne', 'Jennifer Eccles' & soon after; 'Sorry Suzanne') it must have convinced Nash he was banging his head against a brick wall....in retrospect we can clearly see why he opted out to start afresh across the pond (probably the best move both for Nash and for The Hollies too)
By 1981 an equally frustrated Terry Sylvester found himself similarly tired of 'banging his head against the same wall' too...'Deja Vu' indeed...
While as I said Bobby Elliott's claim that Nash played him a demo of CSN 'on a tiny tape player' (in the LTAW Hollies documentary show) would appear to confirm that the 'senior' Hollies at least were aware of Nash's new 'group' beforehand....and suggests that Clarke's version about his 'not knowing anything about it & a guy just wandering up in the street to tell him....' is rather dubious
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Nov 10, 2013 17:09:38 GMT
|
|