|
Post by cameron on Dec 3, 2014 11:39:26 GMT
I enjoyed Nash's autobiography - but what's immediately apparent is that his time with the Hollies is far more interesting than his time with CSN+Y. We've all heard the CSN story millions of times and what gets grossly overlooked is that the egos and drama got in the way to the point where if you think about it, CSN only released one great album and again, one album with CSN+Y. And since then, those two albums formed the basis of their touring career for the next 40 years! I adore CSNY, but do think they have a tendency to get quite hyped up sometimes.
I enjoy hearing stories about the Hollies from their 1960's heyday: some great anecdotes from their various world tours that are as interesting as they are entertaining such as their stories of first going to America (and Allan asking in a bar for a packet of fags!), a tour of Norway in 1966 where someone stole Bobby's trademark hat so he threw down his sticks and chased the guy with Allan taking his place until the end of the song, also playing an exclusive gig for the Military at Christmas 1967... just some examples.
The Hollies just don't seem to have the "hip" image of other 1960's bands and thus don't have a legendary tale that's probably got exaggerated over the years like the Kinks, Rolling Stones, Small Faces etc... but they're equally interesting in their own right. And I think a biography on the band would commend a big audience from old and new fans and musicians who admire the Hollies for their talent.
|
|
|
Post by roots66 on Dec 8, 2014 14:37:46 GMT
Some chap did publish a book with an apparent lengthy section of interviews with Allan, Graham and Tony in a recently published book: goodmusicguy.com/play-on-power-pop-heroes-volume-1-2/ but the cost of it for me was astronomical given that the interview would probably last 10-20 pages at best. I think it was £60-£70 by the time it was shipped. If anyone would like to read this, PM me. (Caveat: It's a decent read, but not super-revelatory.)
|
|
|
Post by roots66 on Jun 4, 2015 13:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moorlock2003 on Jun 5, 2015 17:41:57 GMT
I enjoyed Nash's autobiography - but what's immediately apparent is that his time with the Hollies is far more interesting than his time with CSN+Y. We've all heard the CSN story millions of times and what gets grossly overlooked is that the egos and drama got in the way to the point where if you think about it, CSN only released one great album and again, one album with CSN+Y. And since then, those two albums formed the basis of their touring career for the next 40 years! I adore CSNY, but do think they have a tendency to get quite hyped up sometimes. I enjoy hearing stories about the Hollies from their 1960's heyday: some great anecdotes from their various world tours that are as interesting as they are entertaining such as their stories of first going to America (and Allan asking in a bar for a packet of fags!), a tour of Norway in 1966 where someone stole Bobby's trademark hat so he threw down his sticks and chased the guy with Allan taking his place until the end of the song, also playing an exclusive gig for the Military at Christmas 1967... just some examples. The Hollies just don't seem to have the "hip" image of other 1960's bands and thus don't have a legendary tale that's probably got exaggerated over the years like the Kinks, Rolling Stones, Small Faces etc... but they're equally interesting in their own right. And I think a biography on the band would commend a big audience from old and new fans and musicians who admire the Hollies for their talent. Oh, this "hip" nonsense. It was Nash's doing, after he left he felt the need to slag off his old band. This attitude has continued to the present, unfortunately, like when I asked him how come The Hollies weren't on The Ed Sullivan Show. His response: "Maybe THEY weren't good enough", the "THEY" thrown in to once again distance himself from the band. Jerk.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 8, 2015 20:26:33 GMT
I see 'The Road Is Long' by former EMI and A & M Records man (and Melody Maker/ Disc music writer) Brian Southall is published on 24th June
a 192 pages book - per Amazon UK tho' others say it's 280 pages - on The Hollies with contributions by Graham Nash & other band members
Red Planet books & Amazon UK (& I assume in the USA) have it priced at 15.99 UK pounds
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 11, 2015 14:45:28 GMT
I enjoyed Nash's autobiography - but what's immediately apparent is that his time with the Hollies is far more interesting than his time with CSN+Y. We've all heard the CSN story millions of times and what gets grossly overlooked is that the egos and drama got in the way to the point where if you think about it, CSN only released one great album and again, one album with CSN+Y. And since then, those two albums formed the basis of their touring career for the next 40 years! I adore CSNY, but do think they have a tendency to get quite hyped up sometimes. I enjoy hearing stories about the Hollies from their 1960's heyday: some great anecdotes from their various world tours that are as interesting as they are entertaining such as their stories of first going to America (and Allan asking in a bar for a packet of fags!), a tour of Norway in 1966 where someone stole Bobby's trademark hat so he threw down his sticks and chased the guy with Allan taking his place until the end of the song, also playing an exclusive gig for the Military at Christmas 1967... just some examples. The Hollies just don't seem to have the "hip" image of other 1960's bands and thus don't have a legendary tale that's probably got exaggerated over the years like the Kinks, Rolling Stones, Small Faces etc... but they're equally interesting in their own right. And I think a biography on the band would commend a big audience from old and new fans and musicians who admire the Hollies for their talent. Oh, this "hip" nonsense. It was Nash's doing, after he left he felt the need to slag off his old band. This attitude has continued to the present, unfortunately, like when I asked him how come The Hollies weren't on The Ed Sullivan Show. His response: "Maybe THEY weren't good enough", the "THEY" thrown in to once again distance himself from the band. Jerk. I think we're been over this territory on more than one occasion so I'll keep this brief. Since the late '60's, there's been a lingering attitude among the mainstream pop media to regard The Hollies as musical lightweights at best. And Graham's digs and backhanded compliments towards his former mates, tend to reinforce this prejudice. I can understand, to a point, Nash's frustration toward The Hollies during his last year with the group, and his resultant public Hollies putdowns after his exit. But compared to the volcanic eruptions of animus, backbiting and group splits he experienced with CSN, his Hollies kerfuffles seem trivial. Yet his love and admiration for his second band know no bounds. What I'm getting at is that there seems to be a distinct 'lack of respect' for his first group. He seems to view them as poor second cousins compared to his talented brothers in CSN. The Hollies already take a lot of stick from the music world in general. When Nash, the most high-profile member of the group, joins in and confirms this prejudice, it seems like piling on to me. The fact that he is still doing this nowadays is overkill, and betrays some deep-seated anger in Graham that just won't be satiated.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 11, 2015 16:07:58 GMT
Their induction into the R & R Hall of Fame will have improved their critical standing somewhat - hence Brian Southall's book, various magazine articles (even putting them on covers) & Bobby doing a book etc
the fact is The Hollies themselves always opted for the faceless 'squeaky clean' image (still do !) and never sought the limelight apart from the music itself (besides Nash)
Allan, Tony, Bobby, Terry, Mike...plus the others all preferred a 'low profile' (Clarke was upset when 'He Ain't Heavy' topped the UK chart in 1988 meant he 'got recognised in the shops' again !)
a bit of 'dirty washing' from a (then) disgrunteled Eric Haydock in the UK press horrified them around that time too...
so in many ways they have ensured their reputation was a rather bland one - 'nice lads from up noorf' etc - and very little else to speak of in the UK
Popular music fractured in the late sixties into 'Pop' and more serious 'Rock' which was the situation when Nash departed
- Jack Bruce (Cream) would never have mentioned being in Manfred Mann & playing on UK chart topper 'Pretty Flamingo' in 1966
Manfred in turn split up his mega successful 'pop group'in 1969 and went 'serious' in Manfred Mann Chapter Three (Jazz/Rock)
Steve Marriott quit The Small Faces for a 'more serious' band Humble Pie with Peter Frampton (who had likewise left The Herd)
Carl Wayne quit The Move for a solo career (tho' he moved into a MOR style), The Move got in Jeff Lynne and went heavier ('Brontasurus', 'When Alice Comes Back To The Farm' etc)
thus a vast gulf opened up between 'Pop groups'/singers' and 'Rock bands' while Singer/songwriters emerged (compare stylish sixties Cat Stevens of 'Matthew & Son' and other hits with seventies acoustic Cat of 'Lady D'Arbanville' & albums etc)
Nash obviously jumped over the gap onto the 'more serious' side of music - the music critics of that era really looked down their noses on mere 'pop' artists it was virtually a contemptable idiom
Disc Jockeys like John Peel (a friend of The Hollies) pushed the 'more serious' music and those who opted to remain perceived as a 'pop' act were seen as desperately unfashionable (The Beach Boys & Four Seasons and by 1970 The Bee Gees too all suffered this lack of critical respect at the onset of the seventies - likewise UK bands such as The Hollies, Tremeloes, Badfinger ! - despite the music they were then making)
I suspect Nash in his mind may be a bit "stuck in the early seventies" (Crosby & Stills too) a period when in the UK CSNY were hailed as 'sun gods' by the UK music press....tho' later CSN were seen as a 'bad joke' in the 'post punk' UK music papers (in the UK The Hollies never were praised up as much...but then nor cut to shreds as much either!)
America tends to retain more affection for their established famous acts compared to the UK where the public might still like an artist but the UK media can be mega ruthless and unkind...
The Hollies were probably simply taken for granted in the UK and seen as occasional hit makers in the USA, and their own LACK of interest in promoting themselves as "real" figures to the public ensured they remained quite an anonymous bunch even tho' respected as musicians, singers & notably as harmony singers within the entertainment industry itself
Nash, I suspect, took some 'ribbing' from some music writers re how 'lightweight' his old band were compared to say Byrds & Springfield etc (also a few Beatle fanatics went OTT 'anti Hollies' due to remarks Lennon & Harrison made circa 1965 even tho' John, Paul & George later became friends with The Hollies) - thus in Nash's eyes it was never 'cool' to be an ex-Hollie !
I think Nash then tried too hard to 'distance himself'and strengthen his own credibility by leading the 'Anti Hollies' charge at times (not aimed at his old bandmates personally but the 'group name' pop image) - hence perhaps his happily singing the 'Jennifer Eccles' send up verse on The Scaffold's 'Lily The Pink' ? - forever later trying to impress his new American 'serious musician' friends just how much he'd seen the light in jumping from pop music ('Bus Stop', 'Carrie Anne', 'Jennifer Eccles') across the pond and over to 'serious music' ('Immigration Man', 'Teach Your Children' etc...plus 'Marrakesh Express' - it becoming a hit single in 1969 must have vindicated Nash's righteousness re his 'serious' music after Clarke & Ron Richards had vetoed it...and Mickie Most told him to be content to remain in his segment of the pop dartboard etc) as Nash found himself in the album charts with CSN and ultra 'cool' at Woodstock etc
...when about just a year before he'd been in a white suit singing 'Puff The Magic Dragon' & 'Blo-Blo-Blowin...'
- how would YOU have felt in Nash's place then ?
Of course in reality The Hollies were EVERY bit as strong as any 'serious' rock outfit - 'Sing Hollies', 'Confessions..', 'Distant Light'etc proved them as capable as any other seventies band - while in truth 'Evolution', 'Butterfly' had been every bit as strong albums as anything anybody else issued in 1967.
Nash of course ought to have been arguing back the worth of his original band to some UK & USA critics....but I suspect his own feelings of frustration (making him feel like he was King Midas...in reverse, longing to get Away Away Away...and just send back a Postcard or two !) no doubt left him feeling WHY should I bother to defend a band who had fought his creative ideas to spread their Wings circa 1967-68 and reach their true potential (a feeling Allan Clarke also had by late 1971...then Terry Sylvester also had by 1981...probably no co-incidence)
I think Nash has blown 'hot and cold' at times re The Hollies - depending on his moods, who he is with, and who he is talking to, it's understandable but with Nash so up & down re his old band and the rest of the group's key members quite content to keep a low profile it's no wonder The Hollies are still not given the critical standing they should have received decades ago (tho' hopefully over time the situation should improve if a few more books are written about them...)
- their worldwide record sales figures and number of international chart placings blow MANY far higher esteemed groups out the window !
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 11, 2015 23:10:23 GMT
I'll start by stating that Graham Nash is my favourite Hollie, BUT...
No disrespect to them because I love them too, but when you think about it, CSN only achieved ONE great album in 1969 with their debut and followed it with just ONE great album as CSNY. They then spent the following 40 years dining out on those two albums with a lacklustre revival in the late 70's. Their respective solo debut albums were all excellent, but their respective follow ups were definitely not a step forward musically. Although I think Crosby/Nash as a duo recorded some very strong tracks. But again, strong debut LP as a duo but the rest missed the mark slightly.
Meanwhile, the Hollies got back to basics with Hollies Sing Dylan and had a sure fire hit with Sorry Suzanne and then they grew up. They released Hollies Sing Hollies which was their first real specially conscious and mature statement with tracks like My Life Is Over With You, Soldiers Dilemma, Marigold/Swansong and Why Didn't You Believe. It wasn't flawless, some "filler" with the forgettable Please Sign Your Letters, but it was a huge step in the right direction. Ironically, the direction that Nash wanted them to take back in 1967/8!
Then they follow that with their biggest "superhit", He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother. A MASSIVE departure for the band stylistically but every bit mature and achingly beautiful. And just to remind you, on the other side of the Atlantic, CSN were pushing Marrakesh Express as a single. It's all very ironic when you think about it...
The Hollies continued to release album after album of critically acclaimed material - the run from Confessions Of The Mind through to Another Night ranks among their best work, with three worldwide superhits to boot. Who cares about record sales when the music is fantastic? Remember the Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society and The Zombies' Oddesey And Oracle that bombed on release but are now universally regarded classics? I feel the same way about the Hollies' albums from this period (well, perhaps starting in 1966 with For Certain Because... and lasting through to Another Night in 1975) I'd put any of their albums against the respective contemporaries of the time.
I don't think Nash is distancing himself from the band due to credibility (The Byrds were great but nowhere near as commercially successful as the Hollies for as long and I've always thought the Buffalo Springfield to be way overrated purely down to their members and what they went on to do), I think he's upset that they Hollies went on to do exactly what he wanted them to do in the first place and while they lacked the "superstar" status of CSN(Y), they were certainly moving forward all the time unlike Nash who was seemingly stuck between a rock and a hard place with Stills' ego and Crosby's drug addiction. The drugs and rock and roll lifestyle stunted their growth as a band whereas the Hollies' "boring" rock and roll lifestyle at least produced a stunning back catalogue to be proud of with so much variation. And that's worth more to me than a "hip" image.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 12, 2015 12:12:59 GMT
There have been issues of Nash's 'credibility' re his Hollies links - he's been called the 'Ringo' of CSNY in the UK pop press, the 'Record Collector' mag interviewer unkindly made MUCH of him singing 'Puff The Magic Dragon' in cabaret with The Hollies in 1968 when interviewing CSN (I have that issue) clearly attempting to embaress Nash in front of his American buddies...and asking if he still had his white suit etc
Nash also was circa 1968 hanging out with figures like John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones,David Crosby, etc - all deemed to be 'serious' musicians in critically accepted 'serious' groups - yet Nash was singing 'Jennifer Eccles' & 'Listen To Me' (hear him 'boo' when 'Jennifer Eccles' is mentioned before being sung in that 1968 Yugoslavia concert)
The New Musical express Albums book dismisses The Hollies as just a lightweight pop group even when mentioning 'Hollies Greatest' was at No.1 for about ten weeks in the late summer of 1968 - they state: '...'Hollies Greatest' was at no.1 despite NO ONE ever even admitting to LIKEING the band...'(what a nerve !!) so I do think Nash both in 1968 and even years later was at times 'belittled' by some music press people (especially in the UK) re his mere 'pop' background....when in fact Nash had been on MORE hit singles (18 in the UK) and chart albums worldwide than either ex-Byrd Crosby, Ex-Springfields Stills, or Young !
plus the fact CSN(Y) centered much of their music on harmony vocals and Nash took the highest harmony vocal in their harmonised sound
Besides 'Marrakesh Express' & the first CSN album, both 'Teach Your Children' & 'Deja Vu' album became famous too...while Nash gave CSN a later chart hit with 'Just A Song Before I Go' too.so his being called the 'Ringo' of the band (an insult to both Nash & poor Ringo too) was a bit out of order
Nash was the distinctive top harmony voice on Steve Stills solo hit 'Love The One Your With' (repeating the 'do-do-do-do..' style lines he'd featured on the intro of The Hollies hit 'I'm Alive')with Nash's voice standing out over about SEVEN harmony vocalists on the chorus including David Crosby, Cass Elliott, & Steve Stills himself.
so Nash (thanks to his 'Hollie days' training) contributed ALOT vocally to his later liasons with his American friends (who themselves NEVER belittled Nash at all & always valued his friendship - Art Garfunkel called Nash a 'Great Brit') but some sections of the music press HAVE tried to really have a go at Nash (the same crowd who were attacking The Hollies 'Romany' album around that time) and 'post punk' CSN were gleefully slaughtered by the writers who plugged punk - I recall when CSN played an open air festival in the UK in the 80's a TV guy took pleasure in dismissing them as an 'irrelevance' (with a loathing The Hollies have never been clobbered with !) - CSN's gentle harmonies & flowing songs were the complete opposite of what the music media then deemed as 'cool'
So I think there was an element of credibility that has influenced how Nash speaks at times - he'll sometimes praise up The Hollies, while at other times appears embarressed to be associated with his own musical past...
Another aspect here was how The Hollies 'squeaky clean' image later went against them - with NOTHING KNOWN that the music gutter press could write about (they tried to make MUCH of the 'If I Needed Someone' and 'Nash opposes 'Sing Dylan' thing but it was 'small fry' compared to other group's dirty washing being aired in public that they could enthuse over...)
so The Hollies in many ways were a complete 'dead loss' to the music papers & writers, being seen as 'nice lads' and totally non controversial (hence 'Stop Stop Stop' slipped through getting a ban !) and not juicy material for any press mileage re scandals (another reason there were previously no books on The Hollies either)
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 12, 2015 14:38:58 GMT
Nash provided CSNY with their biggest hits chart wise. Our House and Marrakesh Express are still popular songs on the US radio. I think it might just have been a case of him being the "outsider" coming from England and from the largely unknown and certainly faceless Hollies (to Americans anyway) at the time. It sort of makes him an unfairly easy target.
But he's totally out of order belittling the Hollies' career. Who cares about scandals and fall outs and the "juicy bits". The Hollies were at the fore of THE most exciting time for music. And they spent it listening, watching and creating their own music when other bands were stoned out of their faces and subsequently can't remember what happened. What an amazing prospective to have on the swinging sixties and I'm jealous that they were there to experience it! How many other bands had the privilage of working alongside the Beatles at Abbey Road during their "studio years" and got the chance to hang out with other musicians during their down time? I bet there's hundreds of interesting and entertaining stories that could be told without even touching any controversy and it would still make a great read.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 12, 2015 18:01:56 GMT
I've always found it more than a little ironic that Nash, after more or less claiming he was the prolific songwriter in the Hollies, the guy who wrote the clever, meaningful numbers, the driving force of the group while the others trailed in his wake, would shortly thereafter find himself being assigned by the media to the very position he had consigned his former band mates: the lightweight passenger of Crosby, Stills, Nash(&Young). How many times did we see those iconic pics of Graham, perched on a stool hands in pocket, waiting to add his high harmony, while Crosby, and especially Stills, did the heavy lifting? They say a picture is worth a thousand words and in the minds of many CSN fans, it summed up their feelings towards Nash perfectly: a weak link, instrumentally mediocre at best, with a great high harmony voice yes, but songwriting-wise, not much more than a purveyor of pretty pop tunes. Of course, this was far from the case, just as The Hollies were far better than given credit for, but as they say, 'turnabout is fair play' or more apt in this case,'what goes around, comes around'.
Gee mentioned Nash "blows hot and cold" re The Hollies, depending on his mind, who he's with, who he's talking to. I would only add, Graham will 'big up' the group if there's Hollies product to push, seats to fill etc, and consequently money to be made. He's far better at it than his Hollies compatriots, for that matter.
While it irked me back in '69-'72 to hear Nash belittling The Hollies, today I think he was trying hard to run away from his own past as well as disown his old mates. The way everything re youth went topsy-turvy around mid-68, whether it was music, art, theatre, campus life or protests, was akin to a revolution. Musically, pop groups like Herman's Hermits, The Tremeloes and DC5 vanished without trace over here. It you were not considered hard and heavy, progressive, or the singer/songwriter type, you were, to the critics' eyes, worthless, and figuratively 'put up against the wall and shot'. I still find it amazing, and I don't think enough is made of this, that The Hollies, having just lost their leader, their spokesman, a prolific songwriter and fabulous high harmony singer, were not only able to survive this turbulent era, but to actually thrive, and to do it in style, hit records, sold out tours and all.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 12, 2015 20:54:27 GMT
you have got it spot on re Nash running away (away away !) from his own past - he'd split with his first wife Rosemary, left his band, split from his old lifestyle and found a new life, new image, new country...
Like the shedding of a skin - Lennon, McCartney, Harrison all did it too about a year later at the end of 1969, hence Lennon saying; 'I Don't believe..in Beatles...', George Harrison singing; 'All Things Must Pass...away' & Paul doing his first solo album a very much 'one man effort'
Cat Stevens 1970 song 'Pop Star' on 'Mona Bone Jakon' album looked back on his previous life as a snappy dressed pop singer of 1966-68
Ray Davies wrote 'Top of The Pops'(on 'Lola v Powerman & The Moneygoround'' album in 1970) which was a wry indeed cynical look back at the materialistic side of being a sixties pop star...and pop record !)
A little later on 'My Real Name is Arold' cover in 1972 Allan Clarke was depicted emerging from the water as if in 're-birth' as a soloist...and NOT a 'Hollie' at all
so Nash was not alone in shedding a previous musical career 'skin' around that time as the sixties drew to a close, and for him it was a TOTAL lifestyle departure....
The Hollies of course did and SHOULD have gone on & continued to still be a success - they easily had enough talent still onboard without any shadow of a doubt or question...plus Terry Sylvester was a splendid addition to the band vocally & instrumentally (and developed into an equally fine songwriter for them and another solo balladeer like Nash, an unexpected bonus) and he was another good looking lad who fitted into the band perfectly - Terry's emotive tinged high harmony voice being perfect for the 'wordier' early seventies more dramatic hits
Yet Allan Clarke (who should have been in his element at fronting the band as clear 'frontman/figurehead' after Nash's departure) seemed to recoil from the responsibility (Hicks became band leader) and Allan seemed to just want to sing and clearly was ill at ease (then at least) re doing Nash's old 'PR' job in concerts, Allan while a terrific lead singer was never a natural with his public...
and many in the music press (in the UK anyway) seemed genuinely surprised when 'Sorry Suzanne' came out and The Hollies sounded as recognisible as ever, as the swept up to No.3 - as in the UK did 'Sing Dylan'...then 'He Ain't Heavy' (another UK No.3) sealed a triumphant 1969 and firmly established they had a life after Graham...which DID confound and leave red faced more than one UK critic (hence I suspect later in 1972 after Clarke's exit from the band they had a second chance and gleefully got their sharpened knives out for the Rickfors Hollies and so unfairly blasted 'Romany'!)
However despite Terry Sylvester's welcome addition to the group & his positive energy and clear enthusiasm, and Tony Hicks calmly assuming control of the band's leadership (leaving Allan Clarke to just sing & 'front' the band) Allan still went through a very 'down' and depressed stage in his life - hence his comments in that LTAW DVD re the "END of The Hollies" when Graham left (which shocked quite a few fans) - despite the group's clear ongoing strengths and the addition of the keen young Terry Sylvester, Clarke nevertheless had his 'issues' during that period and it can't all be blamed on Nash for leaving - the fact is Clarke preferred NOT to lead the band, then or later after he rejoined them in 1973....
Graham Nash took his chance in 1969 and luckily for him was a big success in the USA, (he could have failed badly and faded from view...) Nash, despite any perceived 'shortcomings' as a songwriter, (which really is a matter of opinion, after all he did provide CSN & Y with some of their best remembered songs) nevertheless was the vital 'glue' that held them all together, most notably Crosby & Stills - just as Nash had pulled Clarke & Hicks together as songwriters in the sixties too, note how minus Nash quickly they largely drifted apart as songwriters over 1969-71 until Sylvester reunited them properly in 1974)
|
|
|
Post by Gralto on Jun 14, 2015 14:25:42 GMT
I still find it amazing, and I don't think enough is made of this, that The Hollies, having just lost their leader, their spokesman, a prolific songwriter and fabulous high harmony singer, were not only able to survive this turbulent era, but to actually thrive, and to do it in style, hit records, sold out tours and all. Great point Stuball - proof that while Nash was important to the band's growth, actually 'The Hollies Sound' and the talents of Ron Richards to pick the best songs for release as A-Sides were arguably more important than the loss of the group's most charismatic member. If only they hadn't chosen such morose, downbeat material - nearly all of them ballads - after Air in 1974. Let's briefly review their UK singles in correct chronological order of release Son Of A Rotten Gambler - terrible intro, slow, builds up gradually but nobody was listening by then - no DJ worth his reputation would play this more than once or twice - career killing single (for The Hollies...Anne Murray took it to No. 1 in Canada the same year) - they needed a biggie next to get them back on track so they came up with I'm Down - superb production and performances but another slow, ponderous ballad - lyrically downbeat - as Hicks once said about the song in a 1983 Aussie TV interview, "music to die by". Then came... Sandy - popular in some territories but a Springsteen melancholy ballad that was only saved by Ron Richards' incredible efforts from turning around a pedestrian original version that was only an album track at best. Three failed ballads as A-Sides in succession. Time to release something faster - how about... Another Night - which wasn't. Well, a little faster but still another lyrically downbeat ballad. Another UK chart failure - "and their losing". The Hollies have now become a gloomy ballad band, pitching more towards an American sound. Hey, if you're on a bad thing, stick to it with... Boulder To Birmingham - another super dreary ballad - as always, a good performance but nobody is going to spin this as their single of the week. BYO - pillow, serapax not required. It's getting close to official - The Hollies are yesterday's men. Clarke's perm is not helping. Maybe there's still hope by releasing something different. Uh oh, fail - another downbeat ballad like Write On - when you know there's no one listening (or buying or playing it on the radio) to your song, Write On - another write off. Star - this may have done something if this had been written, recorded and released after Air in 1974, because it was upbeat and different. But it was two years too late...the damage was already done. Remember, Ron Richards has gone by this point so their hit making svengali of the first decade was no longer at the controls. At least it was a nod back towards rock which was more fully realised with- Daddy Don't Mind - which was a shame given the awful, cringeworthy title and lyrics containing waaaay too many words in the chorus - can you imagine any teenager singing along to the words (nearly impossible to decipher anyway): "Given strict instructions not to fall for no seductions" - track really thumps along but it's basically over for the group in the charts. Oh, hang on, that disco beat -our old Manchester home towners the Bee Gees are carving up a storm and redefining themselves. Oh that's right, we can't. We don't have an image. Oh well, here goes nothing... Wiggle That Wotsit - if this had been a Mud song it could have been a hit. Mud were a good time band who didn't take themselves too seriously. People would have seen this for its pure entertainment factor. But The Hollies weren't a light hearted band with a spirit of fun. They were professionals in it for the long haul, with a serious looking front man and now several years without a decent placing in their principal domain - the singles chart. So obviously a contrived bandwagon jumper of a song (even though I think it's way better than most Hollies fans give it credit for) but the title alone = complete career ender as a respected singles force. The rest of the decade produced 5 more singles - ALL ballads, all completely overlooked and all deservedly so (Soldier's Song the exception). I don't think the message was getting through somehow... This is not to critique the performances which we know are all universally first rate. And the tours worldwide were still a great success. But as a litany of A-Side selection disasters, it really was one calamity after another. And perhaps with Nash's departure went the light, the fun and the positivity of On A Carousel, Stop Stop Stop, Carrie Anne and Jennifer Eccles from The Hollies forever (even if Nash did loathe the latter song). If this sounds like monumental criticism of The Hollies, it's really not meant to be. How many other bands without any definable image had a decade of worldwide hits? The band is quite incredible and I continually marvel at what they achieved. They were just bound to run out of steam like every other band, but the difference was that they outlasted practically all of their contemporaries via a combination of talents. But as Gee will tell you, once Clarke returned to the band, I think the spirit of optimism disappeared. They were a business. That business was faltering and they needed to re-hire their main shopfront man to reassure their loyal customers that it was business as usual. That's my quick take on their Sylvester era post Air 45 release schedule, for what it's worth! Really fascinating when you remove the subjectivity of our closeness to the subject and view these decisions coldly and analytically.
|
|
|
Post by JamesT on Jun 14, 2015 17:02:54 GMT
...and they tucked 'Hello Lady Goodbye' onto a B-side. I think it would have made a great single A-side.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 14, 2015 21:51:14 GMT
I wrote an article for 'Carousel' some years back called 'Writing on The Wall' where I looked at how The Hollies loaded the gun, took careful aim...and SHOT themselves in the foot re their hit singles career in the seventies (!)
ALOT was wrong behind the scenes (Tony Hicks admitted that)
Allan Clarke was clashing with Ron Richards (again - just as Nash had done circa 1967-68)
Terry Sylvester was STILL regarded as 'the new boy' & (ironic ) 'The Baby' of the band (plus was an 'employee' of the firm) - thus his ideas/input re musical policy no doubt often got short shift from the longtime 'senior' Hollies who comprised 'The Hollies Limited'...
(George Harrison & Carl Wilson faced much the same situations likewise in The Beatles/Beach Boys too - it was a common problem for younger or newer band members no matter how talented or right they might have been , for each band had it's 'pecking order'!)
so The Hollies 'balance' was STILL out in many ways, the natural balance they had with Nash was never fully re-established (probably one reason Terry gave up by 1981 & finally walked...)
while Clarke (per Terry) made his 'annual threats to quit the band...'
so they soldiered on through the seventies, often blowing a great chance re the Polydor singles
It's impossible to tell of course (and always arguable) but I do wonder IF they had put out the following songs might they have scored at least a few more chart hits in the UK (maybe USA too) ??
I would NEVER have put out 'Son of A Rotten Gambler' as an 'A' side (note it's structure actually follows that of 'King Midas' - guitar intro, solo vocal building up through harmonies to full band & orchestrated crashing conclusion - tho' not as distinctive a song) - which was ironic as it was Ron Richards idea for the all important follow up single after 'Air That I Breathe' & it's failure began the parting of the ways between them after 'King Midas..' & 'LCW' clashes earlier...
- I recall UK Disc Jockey Tony Blackburn played it and said; 'I applaud The Hollies for trying something new and a bit different...but must say I prefer them doing numbers like 'Sorry Suzanne' - which said it all re the wider public's opinion !
it's nice but has 'second song on a album track' written all over it...placed after a powering first track !
I know Tony never rated Allan's 'I'm Down' either while Bernie said he cringed at 'Wiggle that Wotsit' ! (not a band in total agreement then...?)
maybe if, after 'Curly Billy' & 'Air' they had next gone with these songs on their Polydor singles:
1) Tony's 'Out on The Road' (Clarke version)- a simpler version that might have had more commercial appeal to the wider public ? (c/w 'Layin' To the music' a new song)
2) 'Sandy' - it might have worked if OOTR had been a third consecutive hit (c/w 'Look Out Johnny'- maybe as a 'Double A' side ?)
3) 'Sweet Country Calling' - might have been 'singalong' enough to appeal to the wider public c/w 'Hello Lady Goodbye' (a new track) - remember you have to have some commercial aspect on most singles & keep it accessable to all as a rule (despite the odd exceptions)
4) 'There's Always Goodbye' - with a nice Hicks 'layered' guitar intro - the song was also recorded by Frankie Valli (as an album track), and had strong harmonies - again it was easy on the ear for the general public and not over melodramatic...c/w 'Crocodile Woman (She Bites)' a brisk rocker
5) '48 Hour Parole' - why not put out a blasting rocker for a change ? - it might have appealed to the guitar buffs being a bit Status Quo-ish too (who kept having seventies chart hits) c/w 'C'mon (a new track)
6) 'Draggin' My Heels' - catchy enough to make the Canadian chart, a disco-ish number but without daft lyrics c/w 'Corrine' (a new track)
7) 'Hello To Romance' - might have got more radio airplay had they been having more recent hits ? c/w 'Louise' (a rocker)
8) 'Burn Out' / 'Caracas' - double 'A' side - a bit livelier at least !
9) 'Sanctuary' - they were crazy NOT to release this one c/w 'Song of The Sun' (to be honest I never saw ANY potential hit singles on that 'Five Three one..' album)
10) 'Soldier's Song' / 'If The lights Go Out' - double 'A' side
11) 'That'll Be The Day'- a Status Quo like 'stomper' (much like their HIT cover of 'The Wanderer' two years later in 1982) c/w 'Think it Over'& 'Take Your Time' (not that daft 'Reprise' nonsense !!) - surely a better bet with the wider public (& for Radio airplay) than their dreary version of 'Heartbeat' ?
while later on 'Laughter Turns To Tears' OUGHT to have been an 'A' side in 1985 (as earlier so should 'If it Wasn't For The Reason' too)& 'Shine Silently' ought to have got a UK single release too...
Just a few ideas - and quite impossible to prove of course - but at least those eleven Polydor 'A' sides (with a couple of 'double A's) would have been somewhat livelier & more typically 'Hollies' singles with potentially wider public appeal than the string of melancholic slow melodramatic 'pot boiler' ballads they KEPT ON putting out (plus the odd poppier song dressed up in reggae or disco frills often set at completely the WRONG tempo for dancing too )- clearly they were hoping for another 'He Ain't Heavy' or 'Air That I Breathe' (right up to 'Too Many Hearts Get Broken', 'Reunion of The Heart' etc)....
...but the simple fact is that classic songs like those don't come along very often & they had been lucky twice (plus with 'I Can't Tell The Bottom From The Top' too)
I think the band's 'in house' problems, plus Ron Richards & them over time duly drifting apart (which was inevitable as they grew older) plus Polydor's lack of promotion doomed their singles to fail later (Soldier's Song' did scrape into the UK chart...as did 'The Woman I Love' in 1993 !) so there WAS still commercial mileage in the band
- they badly needed a MODERN younger record producer to succeed Richards - a 'Gus Dudgeon', 'Tony Visconti', Glynn Johns', or 'Roy Thomas Baker' type of guy to bring out their core strengths & make sure the BEST material FOR a single comprised their singles...
sadly the lack of such a figure COST them dearly as the REPEATED failure of those seventies Polydor singles to chart in the UK (& USA), despite often charting in other countries in Europe & down under often with minimal Hollies or Polydor promotion, ultimately caused Polydor records to drop them...
...and a dispirited Terry Sylvester to walk out in total frustration by 1981
(just as earlier Graham Nash had done in 1968 - co-incidence ?)
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Jun 14, 2015 21:57:19 GMT
Thanks Simon, voicing what I've believed for years but daren't say! The Hollies quickly became a faceless band in the 1970's. Confessions Of The Mind through to Romany didn't feature the Hollies on the cover - this was already proven to be their downfall when Butterfly didn't chart, but was a much bigger success in Germany where the rear cover photo was used as the main cover. A brief, but not very good (if slightly creepy) photo for Hollies '74, look twice or you'll miss them on Another Night, Write On... nothing, Russian Roulette... nothing and what the heck are they doing on A Crazy Steal? 5317704... nothing, Buddy Holly... nothing.... Appalling artwork in the 70's. In a decade where CSN were even choosing what type of card to print their sleeves on, the era of album art gimmicks and fantastic artwork that grabbed your attention and made an artistic statement as well as the music and the Hollies were completely out of the ball park with pretty much every album they released that decade.
Very little of their post-1974/5 material excites me at all. I've never even made it all the way through A Crazy Steal and 5317704. How many dreary ballads can a band perform? I did think Russian Roulette was a step in the right direction. It's very well produced, there seems to be a lot more thought going into that album that the few that proceeded it. I'm one of the rare fans who actually thinks that Wiggle That Wotsit is ok. It's got a good driving rhythm and is really only let down by the cringeworthy lyrics. But some good rockers on that album like 48 Hour Parole and Daddy Don't Mind.
But I think that if it wasn't for the unexpected hit they had with Hollies Live Hits, they'd have disappeared altogether in the latter part of the 70's.
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Jun 14, 2015 23:12:26 GMT
agree 100% about the later 70's albums, I found them very slow and boring, albums after album of harmonies did not excite me too.
|
|
|
Post by Stranger on Jun 15, 2015 11:20:17 GMT
Very interesting post Simon, I have a few thoughts on this myself!
1. The parade had gone by for The Hollies after 1974, no one stays on top for ever and the Hollies had been having hits for 11 years. It was simply over, they were "old" and pretty much nothing they could do would chart.
2. The Hollies were actually in decline since 1970. Look at their charting positions in the UK:
7 Hollies I Can't Tell The Bottom From The Top Apr 1970
14 Hollies Gasoline Alley Bred Oct 1970
22 Hollies Hey Willy May 1971
26 Hollies The Baby Feb 1972
32 Hollies Long Cool Woman In A Black Dress Sep 1972
24 Hollies The Day That Curly Billy Shot Down Crazy Sam McGhee Oct 1973
Long Cool Woman was a bit of a freak in the US and then The Air That I Breathe was a late career one off. If you take "Air" out of the mix the trajectory makes much more sense, the Hollies were slowly but surely on the way out from 1970. That's not to say what they were doing had no value or wasn't successful in places.
3. I think Simon really spells out what bad single choices they made. They seem fixated on ballads, none of which really grab you as a single. They seemed to be going out of their way to try and find another "Air" even tacking on "There's Always Goodbye" to the otherwise all original Write On. Personally, I think there music gets very dull after 1974.
Allan made some remark once that The Air That I Breathe was 100% or the ultimate record and everything after was a little below that, its as if they somehow thought that this "ultimate record" was the thing to aspire to.
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 15, 2015 20:33:15 GMT
I think a case can be made that The Hollies were fighting an uphill battle, popularity-wise from early-'68 on. As music changed, and pop culture with it, the group was constantly battling to stay relevant. The bloom was off the rose for that snappy, happy style the lads effortlessly churned out, and although those rollicking tunes continued for some time (Layin' To The Music' being the last to my mind), there was a very conscious effort to find or write deeper and meaningful material, as well as harder edged rock. Though this meant changing direction, turning away from their natural strengths and exploring new avenues, it was a step that that had to be taken if the group wasn't to wind up condemned as just another fun but forgettable '60's pop group. The fact that so much of their '70's oeuvre turned out so dry and ponderous can be put down to this ongoing effort. When it came off, it was magic: He Ain't Heavy, Long Cool Woman, Air, etc., but just as often it didn't, and post '74, those fabulous moments were scarce indeed. Following Simon's critique of post 'Air' Brit singles, I'd like to take a look at the North-American 45 releases for the same period. These offerings were often quite different and usually lagged their British counterparts. If a Hollies Polydor single bombed in the home market, over here Epic would try another song, hoping for better results. That they often picked a song that suffered from the same handicaps was more often the rule than the exception and still today makes one wonder WHO was actually deciding on Hollies' releases: the group or the record company. I can't speak for Polydor but I tend to think Epic were calling the shots over here. Whatever the case, here we go:
When Son Of A Rotten Gambler died a death in Britain, Epic decided to pass on it and released Clarke's Don't Let Me Down instead. A lovely song to be sure, but slow and downbeat and not suitable for the charts. No airplay, and it bombed.
For some reason, Epic followed Polydor's next release and issued I'm Down. Slow and ponderous it suffered the same fate in both markets, although somewhere I believe I still have the late '70's Toronto newspaper clipping with the group claiming 'I'm Down' as their favourite group composition and recording. That's a headshaker for sure!
In early '75, Sandy appeared on both sides of the Atlantic, failed to chart in Britain and although doing better here, with some radio play, it failed to rise above #85. A fabulous performance by The Hollies but.....Springsteen was considered godlike here, the new Dylan if you will. As a DJ spouted on the radio when a caller requested Sandy by the Hollies, "Why would anyone want to listen to 'that', when we can hear it from 'the Master' himself. That arrogant attitude spiked 'Sandy's chances, in my opinion, and shows what The Hollies were up against.
Next came 'Another Night'. Now Simon, I would have bet dollars to donuts that this tune was not a Brit single, but I stand corrected. Epic released it to coincide with The Hollies 'Another Night' promo tour, and it became a minor hit at #71, with the group promoting it on TV and live. Other Hollies fan friends of mine thought it one of the best things the band had ever done and I agreed, so we were disappointed when it stalled.
Boulder To Birmingham, another Brit chart failure, never saw light of day here. Epic went straight to 'Write On', which promptly sank without trace.
'Star, Daddy Don't Mind and Wiggle That Wotsit were all ignored by Epic Records, as they seemed to give up on the group, and seemed content to ride out their contract. Not that I think any of them would have been chart bound. in Canada however, due to a autumn '76 cross-country tour, Columbia released 'Wiggle/Corrine'. But the group did not feature it in concert, and received nil promotion. To me, 'Star' had energy, a story line of sorts, but was mortally wounded by that recurring wobbly recorder break. 'Daddy' too had energy, but that childishly rudimentary trombone!?!?! solo killed it dead.
'Hello To Romance' and 'Amnesty' were not released, but 'Draggin' My Heels' was. In Canada, it caught some disco club action, and then began to receive scattered airplay throughout the country. Actually made easy listening charts, and could be heard from summer '77 to summer '78. It was a hit with radio programmers, plus with The Hollies touring Canada annually at that time, plus the broadcast of The Hollies concert on the national network, all worked to keep this catchy, attractive number in the public eye and ear. About the only bright spot for the group in these bleak years of chart failure.
I suppose I should go on further through 'Something To Live For' but I can't see belabouring things further, so I'll leave it there.
,
|
|
|
Post by Gralto on Jun 16, 2015 9:41:50 GMT
Great posts gang - really interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. Some very perceptive 'elevated observations' here!
Gee, I must revisit your Carousel article - thanks for the reminder.
And dear Stuball - you really are too diplomatic! You are of course 100% right and I'm simply wrong here about Another Night - not sure what I was thinking. It was never a UK 45 - thanks for picking this up.
In fact, Long Cool Woman was reissued (by rival EMI) after Sandy making it the Another Night 45 replacement in the chronology of UK 45s. Reissuing a three year old track with an all new, never heard B-Side called, oh what was it? - some track called Carrie Anne that I believe may have been recorded, oh, you know 8 years earlier. Thanks EMI for coming up with a release that was SUCH good value.
I really feel for The Hollies here - they (presumably) would have had no say in this record company decision. That said, the band did film that LCW promotional film in 1975, found on various official DVDs. This later date is clear given the bare-chested Clarke's perm had not yet happened back in 1971/72 when LCW was originally issued.
I have a question for you all about Hollies USA recordings in the mid 1970s but I'll post it in a new thread to keep this one clearer. (Actually, through my fault, this thread has kinda diversified off Bobby's book! Sorry about that...)
Keep up the great work everyone - lots of good stuff here. (This is not meant to be patronising - I genuinely love it when everyone gets stuck in and gives their 10 cents worth!)
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 16, 2015 12:22:12 GMT
yes some great posts by everyone - including YOU Simon !
The real problem I suspect was minus Nash they became a bit of a 'headless chicken' - Clarke fronted the band but elected NOT to lead it
Hicks took on the full leadership duties (no one else wanted to)
Clarke, Hicks, Elliott were THE "Senior Hollies" (The Hollies Limited) with poor Terry & Bernie salaried employees
Terry had become a key figurehead (notably in 'The Rickfors Hollies' period) but had never been allowed too much creative input - maybe they feared another 'Nash situation' of a figurehead member growing apart from them - neither Allan or Terry had any solo tracks after 'Hollies' 1974 album (Clarke only much later on) - which by them holding Terry back only duly led to another 'Nash situation' again by 1981 !
So they wern't all pulling together (unlike over 1964-67 at least) in the seventies, musical policy conflicts arose, and despite Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester writing songs together when it came to picking the singles, minus both Nash & Ron Richards (or a new producer in his place) it was in the UK probably Polydor execs & the three 'senior Hollies' doing all the song selection...and not very successfully either
I'm pretty sure that Bernie Calvert never wanted 'Wiggle That Wotsit' out as a single ! ('I cringe every time I hear it...')
I've been told Terry Sylvester was dead against them doing the 'Buddy Holly' album (just like Nash re 'Dylan' in late 1968 ?)
- just how true that is we can only guess...but it was apparently Allan Clarke who was chiefly responsible (Hicks had earlier suggested 'Dylan' so I guess Clarke wanted his 'tribute' album idea this time done too ?)
the flop of 'Buddy Holly' & the dreary 'Heartbeat' single (no surprises there) possibly was something of a 'straw that broke the camel's back' for Terry Sylvester and (if Terry actually had opposed them doing it) might have been a spark that ignited his row with them when he walked out...soon followed by Bernie too.
I think they really needed to keep it as commercial & 'recognisably Hollies' as possible on their singles in the seventies - more upbeat cheerful numbers, the odd rocker (LCW was loved by rock fans as was 'Curly Billy' too, while 'Hey Willy' had earlier drawn praise from John Lennon no less !), also if doing a disco styled number make it brisk and DANCEABLE (yes ?) - 'Draggin' My Heels' over 'Wiggle' surely ?
'Wiggle' in retrospect as a performance actually had some fine aspects to it - a great 'funky style' Hicks guitar plus a strident Chicago like brass section featured too & decent percussion with tight vocal harmonies & a powering assertive Clarke lead vocal ...but it's naff; 'rub-a-dub-hug- me' & 'shing-a-ling-a-ling-me' lyrics plus overall SLOWISH non-danceable tempo rather killed it's chances...pity (in truth it probably was an album track like 'Rotten Gambler' not a potential hit single at all)
'Daddy Don't...blow that trumpet ! - WHY not put a flowing Hicks guitar solo on the instrumental break ? (for a single version at least), instead of chopping the tempo of the number while in full flow...with an out of place rudimentary trumpet solo that in places rather sounded like someone 'blowing a rasberry' !
the song's wordy lyrics did seem unusual (tho' 'Gasoline Alley Bred' earlier had those too, but in a far more 'mature' scenario - here it's like 'Hollies go Happy Days' !) perhaps the characters having names like 'Sass E. Frass' & 'Joe D.Glow' being sung by a clearly ageing Allan Clarke looked/sounded silly...?
Clarkie's rapid 'aged' look, Bernie's fast thinning hair (that cover pic on 'A Crazy Steal' was so tellingly ghastly !)
plus Clarkie's bare chested permed hair & medallions and earrings etc (who was advising Allan re his image then ?) did them few favors either in a video period where visual image was more important than ever...
their 'Look' on 'Hollies Greatest Vol 2' had been SO STYLISH too...their later seventies look was another wrong move at the wrong time
a shame as potentially the Hollies could have still made the singles charts with better song choices & proper promotion (they got to No.4 and No.2 with albums in the UK in 1977-78 remember), and if image wise they had aged more gracefully, thus keeping them more relevant overall I think they would have retained far more wider public attention over the 1975-1993 period at least
|
|
|
Post by stuball on Jun 17, 2015 15:56:47 GMT
'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.'
That oft-quoted line, usually in reference to political and military figures, works equally well when applied to The Hollies later career, in particular their choices of singles. Slow, ponderous and downbeat ballad after ballad, all of which sank without trace time and again. You'd have thought they'd change their method.
Another thing that gets very scant attention, if any at all, and in my opinion was a major contributing factor to the group's late '70's demise, was one of the terms agreed to upon Allan Clarke's returning to the fold in August 1973. The fact that The Hollies, from this point onward, would become a part-time group, working six months of the year and then going into a six month hiatus. Fine for Clarke, I suppose. He could now pursue his solo career and concurrently enjoy the money and security of a Hollies future. As Terry Sylvester put it, "For six months of the year we are very much committed to recording and touring all over the world.... But for the remaining six months, we go our separate ways to do the things we want to do as individuals".
May have seemed a clever idea at the time, and I'm sure later on, in light of how things turned out, Hollies Ltd must have patted themselves on the back. After all, I'm sure Terry and Bernie wouldn't be drawing 12 months salary from 6 months work. A lighter wage bill negotiated before the years of failure set in must have looked brilliant business acumen to Hicks and Elliott. Of course, the fact that this tidy bit of business came about by wagering correctly on the future failure of the group must have taken some sheen off the apple.
And announcing to the world that The Hollies were going into semi-retirement must have been a shock to all involved. Sure, the group would still deliver the same amount of recorded product, and still tour, but it would be done in half the time. I can only imagine what the execs at Polydor and Epic thought. After all, nothing says determination about building your career than going into semi-retirement!
With regard to those later '70's albums with their sluggish, yawn-inducing material, I think it's no surprise. Those songs came out of an easygoing, laidback atmosphere of thirty-something musicians, working part-time at being Hollies. I think those songs are the product of the late '70 Hollies lifestyle. Consider the great earlier material of the '63-''74 period: a young, ambitious, full-time group, eagerly travelling the world, excitedly savouring the lures and temptations of the world, energized by songwriting sessions in cramped hotel rooms, can't wait to record these new tunes etc. Now, compare that to the '74 to '80 era: Semi retired, rolling out of bed at 10, wife has hair appointment at 11, pub lunch, running a bit late, kids home after 4, stop at Waitrose for a few things...oh, gotta remember that date next month re songs. Might have to get busy and write something soon. Oh well, lots of time yet. Wonder what's on the telly tonight.
To my mind, the material, group-written or selected by the group, and the finished product, reflects the apathy within the group. A sense of churning out the required number of songs demanded. Of doing a job without any real enthusiasm.
The Hollies of this late period were often referred to as the polyester Hollies. Middle-aged men with middle-age spread. Still talented yes, but now sporting love handles. Like an aging athlete, still showing glimpses of what made him a star, but now a shadow of his former past. It was sad to see The Hollies go out this way but still, there was the odd gem produced throughout this glum period, and for that we can be thankful.
|
|
|
Post by gee on Jun 17, 2015 16:57:54 GMT
Valid points indeed - and when you compare The Hollies 1978 album; 'A Crazy Steal' (apt title ?) with Clarke's 1978 solo album; 'I Wasn't Born Yesterday' - and later his; 'The Only One' (aka 'Legendary Heroes') the difference in Clarkie's sheer energy & enthusiasm is quite staggering !
I think Hicks cryptic remark; 'there were alot of things WRONG the public never knew...' is telling
Polydor must have expected at least something decent to build on the UK chart success of 'Hollies Live Hits' making No.4 yet the band offered up an uneven set top heavy with ponderous ballads...not surprisingly it flopped and must have put their future Polydor days in doubt
we do now know Terry Sylvester was becoming increasingly frustrated, Bernie was unhappy too, and Allan Clarke has admitted their 1978 group album 'left him cold' (odd as Clarke-Hicks-Sylvester wrote 80% of it...)
During the seventies Clarke's solo works were pretty much FIRMLY a 'no go' area as far as 'The Hollies' were concerned (why ? - we might ask)
- besides Gary Benson's 'Sanctuary' & an earlier unissued group version of Springsteen's 'Born To Run' (1975) they never crossed into each other's territory on albums
- I'd have LOVED to hear a full Hollies harmonised version of Allan's solo songs; 'Who ?', 'Slipstream', & 'Walls' plus his 'Shadow On The Street' hit - while a few tracks later on his 'Reasons To Believe' final solo album (featuring Alan Coates on high harmony vocals/guitar on some notable original tracks) indicate that The Hollies COULD have been far 'rockier' and more contemporary in the latter seventies & onwards than they often were...
'Burn Out' & 'Caracas' plus Clarke-Benson's 'Satellite Three' (with fine Hicks rock guitarwork) stand out from all the slow melancholic melodrama of the ballads that were far too over dominant during 1978-79
'Amnesty' and 'Writing on The Wall', even 'What Am I Gonna Do ?' in themselves are fine BUT slow ballad after slow ballad really grates after a while
WHY they never utilised 'Crossfire' (with fine Hicks guitar), or dug out 'Tip of The Iceberg' (from 1974 but still a fresh driving number) over the two years old (already released) 'Boulder' in order to give 'A Crazy Steal' a bit of a much needed energy boost I'll never know
out of the available songs they had this track listing might have sounded a bit livelier:
Side One: Writing on The Wall - Tip of The Iceberg - Let it Pour - Burn Out - Hello To Romance Side Two: Crossfire - Caracas - Amnesty - Clown Service - Feet on The Ground
they could have put the 1978 'A Crazy Steal' album out like that (with a better title like maybe; 'Crossfire' and decent cover photo !)
I'm not saying it would have been brilliant but surely stronger & more 'upbeat' than the world weary album we got ? (with three previously issued songs - I would have then put out 'Burn Out' / 'Caracas' as the single)
'Five Three One..' like 'Buddy Holly' was the wrong move at the wrong time tho' '5317704' was a bit rushed when Clarke came back & Gary Brooker had dropped out of the picture - after initially singing 'Harlequin' - hence Terry Sylvester got two by then rare Lead vocals to save time, as Clarke quickly added the vocals...
which probably explains why there was only the one original song (hence they took THREE numbers straight off an unissued Jack Bruce Band album 'Jet Set Jewel' - now finally out on CD, written by Tony Hymas & Pete Brown)- the biggest selling point there seemed to be their reunion with producer Ron Richards !
whatever, they certainly were capable of sounding far stronger and fresher than just slow often sad ballads and if their hearts had really been in it I'm sure we would have got far better albums than the last three Polydor sets they churned out...
|
|