graphic
graphic
The Hollies Forum Index » My Back Pages » Pop Weekly, July 31,1965
graphic
Post new topic   Reply to topic
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject: Pop Weekly, July 31,1965
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

This is from Pop Weekly's July 31, 1965 issue. The article was about the Hollies not getting enough of the limelight. Read it and see if you agree. I wanted to post the photo and text separately, so they would come out larger, but when I cropped the photo into a separate document, it had this ciruclar texture about it that it didn't have in the original scan, so I decided to keep the text and photo together in order to maintain the better quality in the photo.

PostPosted:Thu Aug 09, 2007 23:14 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

Here's the text only.

PostPosted:Thu Aug 09, 2007 23:16 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
holliesfan Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 519
Location: New Jersey, USA

I suppose it's been said in one way or another, the reason the Hollies fell short of the limelight was because of their clean cut appearance and that they never destroyed hotel rooms while on tour. To them it was all about the music, for which I am eternally grateful. As always Vrinda, great article and photo...thanks!
PostPosted:Thu Aug 09, 2007 23:39 pm
graphic
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
John Truman Post subject:
Rythym Guitar


Rythym Guitar
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 228
Location: Cambs. UK

Great article, Vrinda.

I remember Jimmy Savile always used to refer to the Hollies all through the sixties as the group's group.

_________________
John
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:44 am
graphic
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

Thanks, John and Alan. I wish more groups today would follow the Hollies' example!
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 15:17 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

Here's the photo. I managed to crop and resize it so the strange texture doesn't show.

PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 15:21 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

Here's a photo from the cover of that issue of Pop Weekly:

PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 15:23 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
benny-b-goode Post subject:
Rythym Guitar


Rythym Guitar
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 293

Yes, I totally agree to what the article says.

I always understood why The Beatles were the most popular group. In three words: They were trendsetters, so they deserved their fame. But to be honest, I never understood the enormous fame of The Stones. They were followers in the footsteps of The Beatles just like every other Beat group with a lot of differences in relation to The Hollies. The Hollies had the much better singer (Mick Jagger could sing rock but he would have failed singing "He Ain't Heavy" while Allan could sing both perfectly), the better lead guitarist, the better drummer (Bobby is better than Ringo and Charlie together) and the best harmony vocals ever.
Just from a musical point of view The Beatles and The Hollies should be the two bands in the spotlight when there is talk about the 1960s and not The Beatles and The Stones.
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 16:31 pm
graphic
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

I couldn't agree more, Benny! However, you say that to any Stones fans and they'll beat you to within an inch of your life. I never understood the Stones' appeal, but because I have friends who are fans of the Stones, I don't express my opinions about them out loud when I'm around them. I think the Stones got a lot of attention because of their raunchiness and bad boy image. They wanted to come across as more macho than the Beatles and the other British groups. That was their trademark and they played it for all they could. The Hollies had no trademark other than their quality singing, musicanship, clean-cut, fresh look, and likeable personalites - something many bands then as well as now needed and need to have.
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 16:38 pm

Last edited by Vrinda on Sat Aug 11, 2007 22:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
James Towill Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 928
Location: Dunfermline, Fife

The Hollies songs were immaculately produced. I might get some flack for this but George Martin's production of Beatles songs doesn't sound as good to me as Ron Richards for The Hollies. Stones records were really rough and ready and I find the drums aren't recorded very well.

There was a comment made by (I think) George Harrison or John Lennon who said that the Hollies sounded like a bunch of session musicians rather than a band. I think this illustrates how good a group of musicians they were and is maybe just a little hint of jealousy creeping in...

_________________
The Last Wind... don't eat curries late at night
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 18:03 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
Vrinda Post subject:
Lead Guitar


Lead Guitar
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 667
Location: New Jersey, USA

Quote:
There was a comment made by (I think) George Harrison or John Lennon who said that the Hollies sounded like a bunch of session musicians rather than a band. I think this illustrates how good a group of musicians they were and is maybe just a little hint of jealousy creeping in...


I read that comment in a book once, James, but don't believe every word of it. It was put out by a person who said they were a Beatles publicist, and it might have been fabricated to to create some contorversy and give both bands unwanted attention. I don't see a great difference between George Martin's production of the Beatles' music and Ron Richards's production of the Hollies's music. I don't knoow enough to make any distinction, but the two had different sounds and did different songs each, so for what each group was doing, I think both producers did an outstanding job with their respective charges. Is there even a distinguishable difference between session musicians and live groups?
PostPosted:Fri Aug 10, 2007 18:45 pm
graphic
View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic graphic
shootthebusstop Post subject:
Rythym Guitar


Rythym Guitar
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 486
Location: UK

Vrinda wrote:
I couldn't agree more, Benny! However, you say that to any Stones fans and they'll beat you to within an inch of your life. I never understood the Stones' appeal, but because I have friends who are fans of the Stones, I don't express my opinions about them out loud when I'm around them. I think the Stones got a lot of attention because of their raunchiness and bad boy image. They wanted to come across as more macho than the Beatles and the other British groups. That was their trademark and they played it for all they could. The Hollies had no trademark other than their quality singing, musicanship, clean-cut, fresh look, and likeable personalites - something many bands then as well as now needed and need to have.
" The Strolling Bones" that's all they are today!Mr Jagger just struts around like a chicken on speed and Keith Richards is like an embalmed mummy!I really have never liked the Stones.I think they have given nothing to music.The Hollies are giants compared to them.It makes me mad when I go into music shops where the Hollies section is miniscule and the Stones section is vast.I think it was" cool" for a lot of lads to identify themselves with these hardmen just because of their image not because of their talent(which is minimal!).The Hollies as we have seen from this article have always been underrated! Thank goodness we all see what should be obvious to the world.I'm in great company here! Ta Vrinda

_________________
I feel far from home and far from talented....
_________________
Paula
PostPosted:Sat Sep 01, 2007 14:15 pm
graphic
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote Top of page
graphic

graphic
Post new topic   Reply to topic
graphic
The Hollies Forum Index » My Back Pages
graphic
   
graphic

graphic graphic
Display posts from previous:   
Jump to:  
View previous topic :: View next topic


Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
graphic graphic


KDM2 template v1.0.2 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
The time now is Wed Dec 13, 2017 18:57 pm. All times are GMT