Lead singer Clarke was blessed with a fantastic, flexible, melodic rock ‘n roll voice, but he had a Look for radio. Here’s more proof:
If anyone should have been steered away from the Shirtless, Open-Leather Jacket With Scarf and Perm ensemble that was all the rage circa 1973, it was this guy!
To make matters worse, the rest of the band doesn’t follow suit. They leave Clarke hanging, with one guy showing up in his pajamas and the other guys wearing the same thing they wore when washing their cars the previous Saturday.
In a genre that rightfully values “cool” it’s tough to make the case for The Hollies compared with The Byrds. Surely my task would be easier if I were harping on the relative lack of acclaim granted to Buffalo Springfield, who it could be argued had an all-around cooler Look than The Byrds if a few less killer songs.
My problem with the Hollies was always their lack of testosterone. I’ll grant that a certain amount of androgyny was central to the appeal of the groups of that era, but the Hollies always seemed helium-voived to the extreme, even if they did have good songs. Typically the lead vocal on their tracks was a high tenor, and then there were layers of vocal harmony higher than that. I remember there was rumor floating around that Graham Nash was an actual eunuch. Their Look may or may not have been any worse than their contempraries’, but the vocals made even great stuff like Carrie Anne and Bus Stop seem stuck in prepubescence.
Compared to the Byrds and Monkees, the Hollies had no real personality. They sound kind of bland and homogenized, overall.
I’m not sure, either, why so many people think so highly of the Monkees. Even their best record, Head, has a ton of filler.
The Byrds were cool because they could blend styles: Dylan, country, psychedelia. They were way more multi-dimensional than the Hollies or Monkees.
I understand (but disagree) with your basic Byrds-are-overrated theme. I think they are important for a number of reasons, but they do not have the voluminous output of other equally-important bands. In that respect they are kind of like The Who. Really important band with great musicians, but not nearly the catalog of The Stones or The Beatles.
The real reason for this comment is to point out another great band that is unfairly slighted by the critics in comparison to The Byrds, and that is The Zombies. Not sure if any Byrds album matches Odessey and Oracle, but The Zombies are considered also rans in the world of sixties rock.
In my opinion the Hollies are very pleasant o hear, but just a bit too poppy to match up with The Byrds or The Zombies.
I agree with you regarding The Zombies, Loophole, and I’ll go you one better: I think they’re better than both bands. That said, The Zombies may may have less rock superpowers than even The Hollies. If only these bands had Mandom at their disposal.
I think The Who’s catalog is much deeper than any of these second-tier bands. I consider them a solid first-tier band from that era.
I’m cool with anyone disagreeing with me over The Byrds. That would only make you wrong:)
The point I was trying to make about The Who is that they are better than their catalog. I think they are a hugely important rock band, but their catalog doesn’t match their importance. I’m comparing them to the Beatles and the Stones (and Kinks). Definitely first tier.
Same thing with the Byrds. Their importance outpaces their production. I should say, however, that I think the post-Sweetheart Byrds stuff is better than the public perception. Clarence White, who replaced Parsons, was an awesome guitarist, considered by Hendrix to be one of the best players out there. He would have become a much bigger star (and The Byrds later albums would be more highly regarded) if he had not been killed by a drunk driver in 1973.
I see what you’re saying with The Who, but I probably give more weight to their early ’70s catalog than others. I simply fail to see much about the importance of The Byrds. I think they were really good at quickly synthesizing ongoing developments by other artists and then, somehow, claiming more credit for their “innovations” than they deserved. Or maybe I’m simply deaf to the wonders of the band beyond the dozen songs I really like by them? I know Clarence White was a great guitarist, but I don’t get much of a thrill listening to those albums he’s on.
Despite my handicap in hearing all that I guess I should be hearing in The Byrds, I truly think The Hollies succeeded in their humble goals to a great degree. I think they made better records. Even their corny songs hold together as RECORDS. To my ears, The Byrds could hit some highs, but when they flopped, they showed little understanding of what made a good record. The Buffalo Springfield, for better contrast, made tighter records, even when the songs weren’t as good. I feel the same way about The Easybeats. True, I often live in a hermetically sealed world of record listening rather than listening to songs or performances. This probably colors my opinions as much as my dissatisfaction with too many Byrds songs.
While I recognize the talents and accomplishments of The Byrds, I have never been able to get into them. There’s something about their sound that puts me off from any extended listening. I’m not sure I’m going to do a decent job of explaining this, but their songs often tend to make me tired or feel worn out, but not in the way that something exhilarating might do. I find their music, what, enervating, I guess? That’s seems a little too harsh, but I’m struggling here.
I like the Hollies more, but that lack of “coolness” or “toughness” puts them in a limited-listening category, too. Not because I think they need to be “cool” to invest in them (I would and did vote for the Monkees over both of them in the poll, after all), it’s just that it would be easy to overload on their high harmonies. But something like “Bus Stop” has an energy to it that I like, even if that one in particular gets a little too close to being a lesser “Things We Said Today” revamp. “King Midas In Reverse” is probably my favorite Hollies song, though the “King Midas with a curse” line is kind of redundant. Maybe they didn’t get to the end of the King Midas story.
The best songs of the Zombies appeal to me much more than the best of the Byrds or Hollies, so I’d have them in a different category altogether.
Mod, I agree The Byrds did not make tight records and that’s a definite strike against them. I definitely pick and chose songs. Also I see where Alexmagic is coming from that they can wear you out. The only one I listen to a lot is Sweetheart, but I’m a nut about country music.
(By the way, I used to share your opinion bout The Byrds, but I have been re-evaluating of late.)
As an aside, brother loophole brought up the subject of the latter day Byrds and Clarence White. If you like guitaring and havn’t yet heard the recently issued Byrds set “Live at the Fillmore – February 1969′ by all means do so! It was recorded with the Byrds whittled down to a four piece, and it’s easily the best document out there of Clarence White playing his b&g-bender Telecaster that I’ve heard. Absolutely smoking and on my list of ten desert island recordings…
The Hollies are okay. I think I loved their Greatest Hits album I bought at a gas station for two bucks for an entire week, until I got home. BigSteve is dead on – they sounded like boys.
I think The Byrds were to Bob Dylan what Pat Boone was to Little Richard.
I’m loving what I’m reading so far. I think it’s good that we’re keeping this discussion in the same ballpark, maybe even splitting hairs, as necessary. I consider that a good and necessary process.
I do think it’s kind of funny the wimpiness of The Hollies is universally thought of as a strike against them when any similar criticism of some other bands (eg, The Beach Boys or some folk-rocker) is often met with protests that we’re big bullies. What do our more sensitive Townspeople think of The Hollies’ lack of testosterone?
Wimpiness and lack-of-coolness are not exactly the same thing. You could make a Venn diagram with three big circles for “Talented,” “Cool” and “Wimpy.” In the small area where all three circles intersect, you would find The Beach Boys. The Hollies would be in the Talented-Wimpy overlap, but not in the Cool circle.
Dammit, Mod! Once again, a loyal Townsman scoops you on a brilliant idea. We need to have a separate section of the Hall devoted exclusively to Rock Venn Diagrams! Excellent notion, Loophole!
I like them both, but I’m partial to the Byrds.
I fail to see how the Hollies suffer due to the Byrd’s critical acclaim, however. The world aint built that way. There’s room enough for both bands. The Hollies have likely seen less critical acclaim here than they have over there in England, which might be skewing your viewing. Plus, if they have been short changed, it may be due to their drab personalities.
In fact, I’m feeling rather drab myself right now.
Isn’t that “cool” picture of that Hollies from their “Long Cool Woman” period, with Graham no longer in the fold?
The Venn diagram section is great. We should go through the Venn diagrams mentioned in the past and start constructing/storing them. Loophole’s excellent one and a few that General Slocum has referred to over the last year could kick it off.
By the way, Mad Props for poll respondents as of this time today. Not one Townsperson has chosen the wiseacre D&D option. I call that facing the hard questions!
this ‘venn diagram’ idea has long roots in rth.
I remember Valania threatening to prove the validity of a rock point he was making by using a slide rule…
I feel a little like this question is Apples and Oranges, in that I see many more similarities between the Hollies and the Monkees than I do between either of them and the Byrds. The pop rock vs. folk rock difference, for one, means that their influences and goals, both in terms of sound and lyrics, are significantly dissimilar. In the end, of course, both the Hollies and Monkees (mainly solo) were influenced by the folk rock pop concept that the Byrds pioneered, and not at all the other way around.
To me, the Hollies vs. Monkees is a more significant question, and I come down definitely on the side of the Hollies. Why? I can play a 25 song Greatest Hits by them and recognize their limitations without being annoyed by them. They have consistently pleasing craft. The Monkees don’t have that kind of staying power; they’ve got a couple of good songs but not much more, and their tics are really annoying.
Mwall, how much of the “folk” part of The Byrds’ legacy is an afterthought or a rationalization for the band’s partial failures as the pop group they were intended to be? I mean, they come out of the gates with pop records, complete with the same studio musicians who were all over AM radio. I know they had folk roots and tapped into them to greater degree as time went on, but the band seemed to have no issue with releasing pop records, appearing on variety shows like Ed Sullivan, and wearing the latest threads. Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall The Byrds having played the Newport Folk Festival in jeans and flannel shirts, hanging with Pete Seeger, marching on for Civil Rights, etc. Did any one of The Byrds even sleep with Joan Baez or her sister?
I know they showed another side of themselves on Sweethearts… and on album cuts on some of the albums that preceded that one, but by that point a lot of their contemporaries were also branching out into new musical directions. The Beau Brummels cut that Bradley’s Barn album with some famous country producer; they’re a footnote in rock history because their pop hits, led by “Laugh Laugh”, weren’t half as successful as The Byrds’ big hits. I don’t think I’m comparing apples and oranges, especially when you factor in the common rock lineage to which both The Byrds and The Hollies would contribute.
McGuinn had been a member of the Chad Mitchell Trio, Clark had been a member of the New Christy Minstrels, and Crosby had been in Les Baxter’s Balladeers. Hillman was playing mandolin in bluegrass bands when he joined the Byrds. All except Clarke had folkie ‘credentials.’ McGuinn decided to form a rock group only after seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. All of their early albums have ‘real’ folk songs on them — The Bells of Rhymney, Oh Susannah, John Riley — in addition to the originals and Dylan covers.
Yeah, BigSteve, but outside of that?
BigSteve, what part of “I know they had folk roots and tapped into them to greater degree as time went on…” was not clear? I don’t care if Gene Clark led a miner’s strike in 1923 before joining The Byrds, the band itself wanted to be pop stars. They put themselves into the same league as The Hollies, The Rascals, and even The Monkees. The fact that “The Bells of Rhymney” is a “real” folk song doesn’t avoid the fact that it was recorded as a (great) pop arrangement. And there’s nothing wrong with that… My point is, comparing The Byrds to other would-be Beatles of that period is not apples and oranges just because the knew how to play a mandolin or a washboard prior to launching their pop career.
The part where you suggested folk was an “afterthought.”
I see where I went wrong. Otherwise, I sense, you’re basically in agreement with what I’ve been saying:)
I agree with Big Steve that the folk element is there from the start, not something that later emerged. The goal with the Byrds from the first is to take the sound and traditions of folk music and turn them into rock, hence the covers and traditionals and emphasis on socially meaningful music, as well as the jangling guitars that are closer to the strummed acoustic guitars in folk music than to post-bluesy Chuck Berry minimalism. In fact their first two records are their most traditionally folky. They moved away from it somewhat in their psychedelic period but then returned to it pretty quickly, actually, although with a sound that was obviously by then as much country rock as folk rock.
Guys, it’s OK to assess The Byrds as a pop band. That is what they were shooting for regardless of their influences and syntheses. I think we’re in agreement that it’s not an apples and oranges proposition. What we’re probably not in agreement on is that the reason The Hollies degree of critical acclaim typically pales in comparison to that of The Byrds has more to do with Look or Sound. That’s fine, and that’s where I was hoping to generate discussion. We KNOW The Byrds are cooler and somehow more credible.
I also think the Byrds were able to make the transition to an underground/hippie group in a way that the Hollies were not. The Byrds’ hits dried up sooner than the Hollies’, I believe, but the Byrds were on the Easy Rider soundtrack.
I don’t mind assessing them as a pop band as long as we acknowledge that teenboy love songs simply aren’t part of what they’re after. I mean, to stretch the point in order to suggest that we do have a bit of apples and oranges here, we could also compare the Monkees and the Hollies to Roy Orbison. He had some pop hits around the same time too, didn’t he?
Mwall, Roy Orbison was not part of the same marketing campaign. That would be like comparing Toyota to Edsel.
God (we just got back from the Vatican), The Hollies are much better then The Byrds. I think The Hollies are right at the top of the second-tier. If they had any “great” LP’s they could be a top-tier band. They may be the best “singles-only” brittish 60’s band. I’m not counting the Zombies because of the excellent “Oddessy and Oracle”
I could give a rats-ass about their look – it’s their sound I love. They have a GREAT rhythm section – at least their early incarantion with the original bassist. I also really dig Allan Clarke’s vocal sound, especially when he is double tracked. And of course the harmonies.
Mr Mod – I also dig “Just One Look”. I think I have copped parts of the bass drum pattern a couple of times.
I think I read somewhere that one of thier songs (Carrie Ann?) was ripped off from “Hey Mr Tamborine Man”
Ciao!
Andyr, i hope you climbed to the top of the dome of St. Peter’s and beheld the Eternal City in all it’s splendor.
I also hope you checked the rock leeches thread for my directions to the best plate of pasta in Rome, and Borromini’s perspective tunnel (remember it’s in Palazzo Spada)!
As for the Byrds, the Hollies, and the Monkees, I’m just not sure I get the validity of the comparison; it’s not as if people were drawn away from the Hollies because the Byrds were getting so much acclaim. And I’ve always hated these discussions of who’s “better” (as if there’s a rock newspaper with a sports section, and standings; if there are, I’m not even sure these “teams” would be in the same conference, let alone the same division). I really like all three bands for different reasons, so I’m abstaining from further comment.
Speaking of Look issues, was Graham Nash’s pencil-thin goatee thing the first example of 60s rock group facial hair? And remember the sensation McGuinn’s ‘granny glasses’ caused?
Saturn, I’d love to know why you “really like” the Monkees. I’ve heard andyr’s and Mr. Mod’s take on the subject for many years and have never been convinced. But what’s your take?
Speaking of Look issues, was Graham Nash’s pencil-thin goatee thing the first example of 60s rock group facial hair?
Ringo had a hipster beard when he was with Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. Also, I believe Manfred Mann had Nash beat by a year or two. Also, Dick Taylor from the Pretty Things almost certainly had Nash beat. However, Nash might be the first example of having more effete, Shakespearian, princely, or “sensitive man” growth.
Andyr, Mad Props for your musically based comments on this subject. Hope you guys are having fun!
mwall…
i came to monkees so young that i wasn’t cynical about the way kirshner put them together. i didn’t care about the fact that they didn’t play their own instruments either.
so they bring back fond childhood memories.
beyond that, and in general, catchy guitar-based songs are in my wheelhouse, whether they were penned by hired guns and played by session musicians or not.
What can I say? A song like “saturday’s child” will always have a special place in my heart.
So while I understand ideological and intellectual objections to the Monkees, I’m not willing to forsake my enjoyment of those tunes for some intellectual “truth”. In my universe, I connected with those songs viscerally. And that connection is a greater, more personal truth, in my universe.
There are no consequences to continuing to enjoy the Monkees except the enjoyment itself.
The other day, my girlfriend and i had a rare moment to ourselves, and as usual, we were talking about music, and the monkees came up. I popped “Look Out, here comes tomorrow on”…what a gem! Neither of us had heard it in awhile. Such fun….
Thanks, Saturn, that’s helpful. The childhood connection makes sense, and it’s certainly one I don’t have.
Speaking for myself, I have no backstory cynicism towards them, and I do think they have a few excellent songs. But for me the band just sounds too thin, and their catalogue runs out very quickly.
Similar to Mr. Mod breaking down his list of Bowie songs, if you’re up for sharing, I’d be interested in seeing what those Monkees songs you do like are, mwall, just for the sense of what works and what doesn’t do it for you.
I’m of the same mind as saturn, I gather, that some really enjoyable songs were turned out under the “Monkees” name regardless of who did what, and “Look Out (Here Comes Tomorrow)” is definitely one of those songs that hits the right musical spot for me (even with the creepy spoken parts) whenever I hear it, and a fair share of others do the same.
Also, there totally should be a rock newspaper with standings, injury reports and transactions in the back. Somebody get on that.
Alexmagic wrote:
We’re working on that as a spinoff publication.
That’s a totally reasonable question, alexmagic, and at some point I’ll oblige. Lately I’ve been working long hours and starting next week I’ll be traveling etc etc. The problem for me sometimes is that the threads move too fast; by the time I’ve found a moment to listen to something again, the discussion is long over. But I’ll make my best effort to get to this one. Somehow I have the feeling that the Monkees will come up again on this list, and then I’ll be more thoroughly armed. Still, rest assured I’m not basing my feelings on nothing: I’ve listened to the Monkees often and never gotten anywhere.
Hey Sat,
Yes, I got your recommendations. We are going to try to find the pasta place tomorrow night. I’ll search for it tomorrow.
Also, I love “Saturday’s Child” -defintely one of the best songs on the first Monkees album along with “Take a Giant Step” and “sweet young thing”.
Have you heard us do “look out”?
Re – Rock Stats
I’ve always wanted to do a gig where we had a screen above us where we could show rock stats while we played:
“Andy has messed up those lyrics 4 out of the last 5 gigs”
another art history lesson:
back in the 18th century, Rogier de Piles published his ranking of artists in several categories, including color and design. Poussin, the Caracci, and Raphael scored the highest.
of course, most art historians revile such practices, but i think they’re interesting. so i too would embrace (while laughing out loud at) a rock newspaper with a sports section)!
andy r, i don’t know if i mentioned it, but you’d be remiss not to find the “villa farnesina”, which has raphael’s galatea. It’s in trastevere (at the end of the street that runs along the tiber called the “Lungo Tevere”)!
art
Although we do not yet post the stats from our shows, as Andyr wishes, we have been known to acknowledge fouls with a raised hand.
That said, Mr. Mod, the stats on the Byrds-Hollies-Monkees poll are showing some divisions but nonetheless a solid leader.
True, Mwall. The results are impressive! I’d say there’s a lot more to be explored regarding this bag of second-tier ’60s bands.
Ah, the poll is laden with hidden values! Who would ever have suspected?
To some of us, the Byrds are a first tier band.
Mod, I think the Byrds wanted to be both a folk and pop band: they wanted to save the world and, at the same time, score with the LA ladies.
As I’ve commented before this contradiction is central to appeciating the Byrds.
Those sounds like pretty worthwhile goals to me, Dr. John, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, indeed, mwall. It is the key to their multidimensional sound and explains why they were so good at translating Dylan: the Byrds understood that Dylan could be about having fun and being serious at the same time.
And, furthermore, the Byrds created some of the signature openings of 60s rock: like the harmonically dissonant beginning of Eight Miles High, that make them, in a sense, more memorable than the Hollies.
Dr. John, I smell an entire genre and Rock Town Hall Glossary entry in your words regarding The Byrds. Is this endemic to the LA rock tradition? I’m thinking of future Concerned Rock Lotharios like Jackson Browne and Don Henley. Maybe that’s not the right term for these creatures…
Anti-LA feelings are very strong things for east coasters to try to get over, and I speak from experience on that topic, as I’m currently in recovery but not really succeeding. Nonetheless, Mr. Mod, just as you experienced a new understanding of the SF sound while in SF, I think the same may go for LA too. I can’t swear to it, but I suspect it.
Mod, I think the LA scene tends to get pictured in a negative light. Monterey Popo almost didn’t happen because the SF musicians thought the LA scene was too shallow and materialistic.
So whatever politics someone like Henley has expresses is seen as being non-serious. IN reality, like him or not, Walden Pond would be a bunch of condos if it weren’t for him.
Hey man (or should I say, men), I’m not trying to knock LA musicians and their social concerns, just have fun with this breed. Saturnismine, is this an appropriate time to say Sheesh!?
I chimed in after mwall, but we both agree there has long sense been an LA backlash. I think that there has always been a complex relationship between LA and Hollywood
plays a rather significant role.
Well, mod, what I’m gently trying to get across is that the facts clearly don’t measure up to your imagined vision of LA.
With saturnismine’s permission, I will now sigh under my breath and roll my eyes.
Sammy, you’re out there in the LA area. You’ve lived the Hollywood life, maaaannnnnnn. Where do you and your beautiful friends stand on the practice of mixing politics with rock ‘n roll and casual sex?
Mr. Mod, I didn’t say you specifically were knocking L.A. I think the situation really calls for group therapy for us all, to be followed by a round of Bloody Mary’s poolside, preferably with babe in tow. Anybody up for it?
Great idea! Make mine a tequila sunrise.
I’ll join you ONLY if we can throw in some discussion about nuclear threats to whales.
Mr. Mod, we’re going to raise all the big important issues. Eh?
Sorry maaaaannnn. I was out in the canyon up at Tommy Smother’s place, hot tubbin’ it with Stevie and Emmylou. Had to leave when Jerry Brown asked if he could snort some mescaline off…of…me…
Politics and rock? First and foremost, it must rock. If it rocks then anything goes and a dose of heartfelt social commentary can only amp it up (as long as I agree with or can’t understand their, politics.) See: The Clash, X, Gang of Four…et al.
oooohhhhhh.. AND “casual sex.” I missed that part. The answer then is- no.
I think that the universe is, for the most part empty, and therefore there is plenty of room for both the Hollies and the Byrds.
I like both, yet I have to say, hype or not, the Hollies have never done anything that quite sends chills up my spine the way the raga rock solo on the mono version of “Why” does.
http://www.forcedexposure.com/labels/sundazed.html
Here’s the deal with The Byrds.
This is the band that every musician wishes they could have been in and wishes his band would/ could become. More than The Band, more than CCR, more than The Rolling Stones…it’s just something about that band as an ultimate goal
Song for song, The Jayhawks do it for me more than The Byrds when it comes to that country-rock sound and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are a better BAND than The Byrds ever were…but the MYTH is a large part of the appeal