British Beat 1960-1969 - Comment on The Searchers

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:54 am

Terry Rawlings has a Searchers' entry in his book, British Beat 1960-1969 : Then, Now and Rare. Rawlings has done a fine job with his encyclopedic form pointing to the highs and lows of groups ranging from the successful to the obscure.

His historical sketch of the Searchers, however, offers us little new information. He has taken information that has been noted in the literature previously and repeated some of the mistakes made by previous writers. As an example, Mike Pender never played for the Wreckers or the Confederates and Tony Jackson has moved on from running a golf course!

Rawlings writes Quote:"Thanks to the Rickenbacker sound being revived, most noteably by Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, the group signed with the relatively hip Sire Records in 1979 and valiantly tried to re-establish themselves as a top name once again." It is questionable whether there was a "Rickenbacker Revival" in 1979 as there has been a loyal following with regard to these instruments since the early 1960s. The fact that the Searchers had Rickenbackers was not responsible for their initial fame and unlikely the reason they were signed by Sire. Their guitar playing and fine vocals was.

Finally, Rawlings offers an hypothesis for the fact that the Searchers did not really have serious competition in Liverpool beyond that of the Beatles during the early 1960s. He writes Quote:"The Searchers were always more than just another Merseybeat group. While not posing any real threat to The Beatles, from the bery beginning, the group established a sound of all their own which saw off any serious competion from their Scouse rivals. Another reason the group looked and sounded more assured that the likes of Gerry and the Pacemakers or Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, was that they appeared to have no apparent leader. All four members boasted strong singing voices, melding with impeccable harmonies. By successfully combining R&B and folk, The Searchers came up with the jangling harmonic, yet slightly edgy sound now taken for granted as folk rock."

So let's hear it. Were the Searchers successful because they had no group leader? Did all members boast "strong singing voices?" To my way of thinking their success was not due to the fact that they all took the same leadership role or took no leadership role at all. It was based on their talented singing which lead to the flawless execution of clever harmonies solid guitar work. Their almost perfect selection of cover tunes at the time didn't hurt either. Surely this required some leadership and in the beginning I would argue fell into the hands of Chris Curtis.

I have enjoyed Rawlings' book. It is a nice compilation, but to my way of thinking, does miss the mark in many areas as far as the Searchers are concerned.

mdenger · Post by **mdenger** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:44 pm

Singers: Although John`s voice isn`t as strong as the others` the Searchers offered more variety through their different singers - solo and harmonies. A whole lp sung by Billy J. Kramer or Gerry is somehow boring. This advantage his heard best on their lp Take Me For What I`m Worth.
Leader: Chris was definitly their leader, he choose the material, made all the anouncements on stage, was responsible for the arragements etc.
Michael

einar · Post by **einar** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 1:41 am

More for Michael than Peter,

I agree the TMFWIW album offers a wide and democratic varity in the singing department. Their best effort in that respect! But by then, one of their strongest cards had left, and I would also say that Chris was over the top by then. His singing contributions on this album is somehow resigned, or downhill, I think. It's nice to hear Frank and John's voices more profiled than before, though.
Finally: I'm down to 29 (twice) in Michael's Memory game! Without any aid (like making notes on paper or anything), but I've made many entries, I confess!

Einar

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:32 am

It was on this album in my view that Mike Pender established himself as the voice of The Searchers, something that was to continue for the next twenty years.

Whether this was a group decision or more the decision of Tony Hatch the bands producer to push Mike to the fore is obviously conjecture on my part, but I believe was a major factor.

Curtis's reign in the band was only to last a further 6 months.

I would disagree that all memebers had a strong singing voice, they had voices that perhaps complimented each other, also whilst I would clearly concur that they wwere more than just another Merseybeat group, reality is that in commercial terms regretfully they were.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:49 am

Good points Roy. I don't think there is any doubt that Mike Pender was "The voice of the Searchers." Having said this, Tony Jackson had a good solo voice for the rockers and Chris Curtis for the ballads. But overall, I consider Pender's voice to be the standout.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the leadership issue purported by Rawlings. Was the group stronger because they did not have a leader apparent?

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:56 am

No I do not think they were stronger, in fact quite the opposite in terms of public awareness, they did not possess someone who captured the media attention as an individual.

Throughout their career and one reason for their longevity as a fairly major force on the, for want of a better phrase, oldies circuit is that the Group name was always stronger than the individuals within it.

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 2:56 pm

Dividing the question into two parts, I think who was the leader is easy: Curtis was. He picked the songs, took the group in the direction he wanted,
a harmony pop sound, and away from the more raucous rock sound of the early days, and by some accounts, had a hand in getting rid of Tony.

As to the second part, "strong voice", that depends on when. Early on, it was Tony. He did the lion's share of the leads. But from "Needles" on, it was Mike. His voice was the one we recognize on most
of the hits, and became the signature voice of the Searchers. That being said, I don't think, from the technical point of view, there was a "strong voice", except, perhaps, Tony's. It's a case of the sum being better than the parts.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:48 am

Exactly the point I make in first posting, John.

I think you are probably correct about Curtis and Jackson, i suspect Tony was more vocerifous than John and Mike and probably argued with Curtis as a result.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Mar 01, 2003 2:23 am

Roy and John: Yes I concur. Another case of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole. The departure of Chris Curtis disrupted the organization of the group and with his leaving The Searchers seemed to have lost their appreciation of what the fans of the day wanted. Having said that, few groups during the 1960s maintanined their global popularity for more than a few years, save the Beatles. In the end, as far as Curtis and Jackson are concerned the conflict generated by them remaining in the group would have resulted in a breakup in any case.

With the loss of Jackson and Curtis, however, the group lost the "golden mix" of voicing and instrumental performance that would never be recaptured. With the introduction of Allen and later James as vocalists, the group departed from the magical sound for which they became known in the early 1960s. They continued to be a fine group but sounded quite differently. Curtis, Jackson and Pender would never achieve the same level of popularity on their own.

To consider another hypothesis, I am wondering whether the personality conflicts, in the very beginning at least, generated an enthusiasm or competition between the group members that was ultimately responsible for some of their success?