NEW HOLLIES SINGLE

rob_mac · Post by **rob_mac** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:08 pm

For anyone interested here is a chance to listen to the new Hollies single 'so damn beautiful' 2 weeks before it is released. This is the first single with new singer Peter Howarth and it sounds pretty good to me.

use this link
http://www.capitalgold.com/article.asp?id=165588

Best wishes from Rob

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:49 am

Thanks Rob,

The Hollies were a great band in the 60s. I'll give this a listen.

winston · Post by **winston** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:05 am

Oh boy! That is one of their best efforts yet. I love it. I think that is a beautiful song.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:51 pm

It's a little too easy listening for me but very good for a 60's band that I thought broke up about 30 years ago. Sounds like The Hollies vocals, the music doesn't sound like their playing but of course you have to stay contemporary to compete I guess.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 pm

It's a good song and for me proves that guys in their fifties and sixties can still make good music.

Youngest in the band is in fact the new vocalist Peter Howarth who is only 45, Tony Hicks is the oldest a very young looking 60. Only Hicks and Elliot remain from the original Hollies of the Sixties, technically Elliott was not an original but a pedantic point, he's been on the drums for 41 years, so a mute point.

The link below shows how the making of an album these days is totally different, the cynic in me could even say as long as you are a computer whizz you don't even need to be a good musician, some of you guys on here who undoubtedly are, may like to read the article below.

http://www.hollies.co.uk/stayingpower_making

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:07 am

To tell you the truth...
I think the song is very nice, but the "modernized" sound doesn't really appeal to me, i cannot say why, perhaps the drum pattern...

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:20 am

Here's one some of you may not have heard talking of The Hollies. At the end of the sixties Allan Clarke left to pursue a solo career, returning 2 years later. The rest of the band were probably in somewhat of a quandary as Clarke to a lot of people was the sound of the Hollies. They drafted in a young Swede called Mikael Rikfors and released two albums with him though one of them was only released in Germany. This was the first post Clarke Hollies record still one of my favourite Hollies songs.

http://s53.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2JIL5LGWG2BPR0TVM4UGIL2ZGF

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:38 am

Thanks again Roy. I have not followed the career of the Hollies since the 70s. It's good to see that they are keeping their hand in. I liked them a lot when Clarke, Hicks and Nash were playing together

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:52 am

Yes, a lovely track, thank you Roy. Sounds a bit strange to my ear, though...

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:28 pm

Interesting link that describes how the Hollies made their latest album Roy. It's a fairly common process these days, for those of us with home studios, but they accurately describe how it's done.

Thanks for that link too.

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:36 am

Somehow i feel like explaining why do i think it sounds a bit strange to my ear (not that it's really necessary, but still...)
First, the lead singer's voice. It's not a secret i like this kind of voices, they sort of create an effect of surreal, and high harmonies & sound effects add to that, so in the end it sounds (to me) like, "hey, is that FOR REAL?!" Lovely.
As far as the modern recording stuff goes... again, it's not a secret that nowadays you can take a handsome boy or a pretty girl with a 1,5 octave range and an average ear for music and, using the technology, "create" the good singer. And even more: technology allows "creation" of a singer "out of nothing" - remember the "alien lady singer" from "The 5th Element" movie? Some scientists proved that the human vocal cords cannot reproduce this kind of sound; however, the funny thing is, a girl named Pelagea didn't know it and has managed to reproduce it...

In any case, the live show will "show" who's a real singer and who's just a "product" of modern technology... given they will not use phonograms at a live show, of course...

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:33 am

Unfortunately, you've just described a Britney Spears concert, Sheena...among others...

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:46 am

Britney Spears? Who's that?

Well, in fact, i didn't mean to jump so far off the main topic, the thing is, back in the 60s you could easily define what the singer must really sound like after having listened to the record, while today... well, i'm glad that at least some of the artists from the 60s and 70s still provide us with the real sound...

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:35 pm

Sheena you just summed up why I listen to music 99% of which is from the 60's and earlier besides the fact that I just plain like it a lot better, and then even that may have a lot to do with the fact that you know what you are hearing is real for the most part. I like some 70's music but the 80's really ruined it for me, that synthesisor krap.

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:33 am

Well, to be true, Bob... i don't want to disappoint you, but there are bands/artists from the 70s and even 90s (80s escaped me somehow...) i really do like, and they are good live. On the other hand... there were some bands even in the 60s that didn't really play on their records and lip-synched on stage... However, as they say, "time will show", and while i'm pretty sure the Beatles, the Hollies, etc will be remembered in 20 years from now, i'm not so sure about modern pop idols... but then again... who knows? Let's see...
Thinkin' of a new game around the 60s songs (not a puzzle) but i'm not sure...