The Hollies :: View topic

I recently heard that the Kinks have been inducted into the UK Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. If that's the case, I would expect the Hollies enty to be a no-brainer. Any thoughts or comments?

Yes, the event was shown on Channel 4 in the UK. Kinks, Pink Floyd, and The Who were all inducted this month. In all honesty, the Hollies were not as pioneering as any of these groups, nonetheless they strongly deserve to be included. certainly the Clarke/Hicks/Nash and Clarke/Hicks/Sylvester versions of the band. It was the original four-piece of Ray and Dave Davies, Quaife and Avory who picked up the Kinks award.

Must have been nice to see 4 original Kinks onstage. How often does the UK RRHOF nominate/select artists? If the Hollies can make it into the UK Hall that just might what's needed to get the attention of the US version. They have been so noticeably overlooked by both.

Well, the U.S. R&R Hall is a waste of space -- don't expect the Hollies to ever be inducted. They're too busy inducting performers in other areas of music who never even played rock-n-roll. Rolling Eyes

I certainly expect the Hollies to get into the UK version, and am actually surprised that they're not already in.

Bass Guitar Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 98 Location: Rugby

O.K, maybe The Hollies were never as big a group as say The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or The Who. But they have had so many hit singles and of course have a huge fan base so for these reasons they should be inducted into the U.K Hall of Fame

Yes, the US version is more like the Rock & Roll Hall of Shame, when you consider all the perfomers who are not in it. I personally don't get into this kind of thing anyway. It's the music that matters to me, personalities aside. But the US is more concerned with celebrities and so-called rock stars than music. Why else would lousy acts like Black Sabbath (with celebrity Ozzy) and Sex Pistols (with celebrity what's-his-name) be inducted this year, while scores of British Invasion acts far more worthy (including The Hollies) are continually ignored? Even The Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits (who sold a whole lot of records in the US) by all rights should be in, but of course they aren't media personalities, so they don't have a chance. As for Hollies fans, there are the true blue long-time fans (who post on message boards) and there are casual fans, who are far less informed.

Well said Dennis! At the end of the day these "halls of fame" are completely irrelevent anyway. They're just a big excuse for the music industry to congratulate themselves on who they think they have made celebrities. Its all about the spectacle as opposed to the music which is what really matters. I find all of these "music award" events completely irrelevant and useless anyway. If the fans had a vote or a say perhaps it would be different so until that happens, theres next to no chance of The Hollies ever getting a look in, in spite of their achievements and records sold.

In the end cool is nice but great music lives on.

I think The Hollies were very cool in the early '70s after Nash was gone. Their biggest hit had the word "cool" in it! I thought (and still do) that the Rickfors lineup was the coolest. That time period, 1972-3 is my favorite for bands, with quite a few that totally qualify as being cool. I don't give a rat's a#@ what Graham Nash has to say. He has aligned himself with the totally uncool David Crosby for so long that he can't even think clearly. As for quality of musicianship, The Hollies were far better than The Byrds. The 1966 "Big T.N.T. Show" has The Byrds in it, doing several numbers, and frankly, they were a lousy live act. Hardly "cool" if a band can't cut it live, I say. Compare that with The Hollies on the German TV doing "Look Though Any Window", "Very Last Day", and "I Can't Let Go". Absolutely incredible! Bobby Elliot is the greatest rock drummer of all time! There, I've said it, because it's the truth.

Though I own and enjoy all of The Byrds albums, I do feel that though they were good, their reputation and status is overblown. Through much of the 60s they were indeed absolutely awful onstage... try and seek out their appearance at Monterey in 1967 for clear proof. Monterey also proves what a self indulgent egotistical idiot David Crosby was even at that point.

Then theres Michael Clark their drummer. He was notoriously known as being the "king of 4/4" because he couldn't play at all well in any other time and his work is very amateurish. Theres absolutely no contest between him and Bobby Elliott - Bobby wins hands down!

To be fair to The Byrds between 1969 and 1971 they did become a great live band but this was long after Crosby and Clark had left... but its this era when those two were in the band that is regarded and revered as their "classic" period which is what the hyperbole is judged upon.

Being directly connected with Bob Dylan I think played a large part in this in addition to the fact they were the first American band to copy the Beatle image. The Hollies for all their skills and talents are I guess just now dismissed as just another English group that followed in The Beatles wake. Unfair, but this seems to be how history is being written.

I have said several times in this forum and will say it once more... one only has to look at the existing live TV clips to see and hear how brilliant The Hollies were as a live band and they left most of their competitors - certainly The Beatles - dead in the water in that department.

Its an interesting point that the Rickfors line up is looked upon by some as perhaps being the "coolest" era of the band in various ways... I think I can agree with this to some degree. At the end of it all, these "halls of fame", polls and superlatives the music industry keep giving to the most obvious acts is pathetic and unfair and in my view prove that the music industry and most who write about it professionally simply are corrupted and don't know what they're talking about much of the time!

At least we all know and agree how great The Hollies and their legacy is even if these muso professionals refuse to accept or acknowledge it.

Thank you Distant Light for confirming that the later line up of The Byrds were great - I should have mentioned the line ups' names - Roger McGuinn, Clarence White, Skip Battin and Gene Parsons. Great band and their live work heard on 1970s' "Untitled" album is excellent.

You also are right about the drummer debate. I think its impossible to say who is "the best rock drummer of all time". Bobby Elliott is certainly one of my true faves as is Keith Moon... my personal all time fave drummer is Tony Williams who was the drummer with The Miles Davis Quintet in the mid to late 60s... admittedly a "jazz" drummer, his work was extraordinary to jazz in the same way that Bobbys best work was extraordinary in his chosen area, of course in a different genre, pop/rock and it is interesting to note that Bobbys' drum heroes are all jazz drummers.

Mick Tucker of The Sweet is a very interesting choice - not a name one usually finds in great drummers list, but you are right... he was a great drummer too certainly helping drive the bands classic singles along in style. Then what about The Sweets' unique 4 part harmonies? I admit The Sweet may not be to everybodys taste or liking in this forum, but as I'm sure you'll agree, during their glory years with Brian Connolly, those harmonies were fantastic and unique to their sound as The Hollies harmonies are unique to theirs.

This is the thing... we all have out own favourites and whilst I do think Bobby Elliott is certainly one of the very best, one should never overlook the work of other great drummers... bassists... guitarists... vocalists and so on. It is about the combination of members and talents that make groups what they are!