Jackson and Curtis - a 'Searchers curse' or what?

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:26 pm

hello,
this might be a very painful topic... about Tony Jackson's and Chris Curtis' solo careers. They are often described as very strong personalities, primarily responsible for the band's success. However, it seems like they didn't have a huge success as solo performers... Why, was it really a 'Searchers curse', as one of my friends had put it, or were there the other reasons, what do you think?

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 10:20 am

Good point Sheena, my view would be as I have stated in articles on Clough Links that as individuals in terms of name they were not that well know the group name being more inportant.

pam · Post by **pam** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:48 pm

Hi all, I can't go with the curse thing cause Mike Pender made a good living after he left the Searchers in spite of the legal hassles. Some of the problem was promotion. The old saying once you leave a high profile group to go it alone you have to get air play and purchasers. For both Tony and Chris they had a lot of local support, particularly Tony but on the international scene they were small fish in a big pond. Chris also tended to pick non mainstream numbers which would cut down his popularity with the wider audience beyond the Searchers. My personal opinion on Chris is he really didn't want international success anyway. He was quite happy being part of the local scene. For all his appeared strength of personality I believe he really was a 'stay at home'at heart and this is where some of the problems arose. That he left it all behind and took a small government job tells me he wasn't the sort of person a lot thought he was. I've seen some old performers still trying to make a buck when they should have retired long ago. Thank goodness he didn't, this way at least his fans have good memories of his success and not of a later total failure.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:38 pm

Pam wrote

My personal opinion on Chris is he really didn't want international success anyway.... . I've seen some old performers still trying to make a buck when they should have retired long ago. Thank goodness he didn't, this way at least his fans have good memories of his success and not of a later total failure.

Pam, while I see your point, it is to be noted that Chris did choose to make a comeback of sorts.

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:28 pm

Here in the States, NONE of the Searchers was known by name. They weren't promoted as individuals or prototypes (John. Paul, George and Ringo), nor known for a particular member (DC5, Freddy, Jerry).They weren't promoted at all. In fact they were so solidly anonymous that even the band wasn't recognizable by sight. They were identified as a "Merseybeat" or "British Invasion" group, and as such were virtually indistinguishable from the others, and when the others went, the Searchers went too. Chris and Tony had virtually no chance here as individual acts- they had no name to cash in on.

The only Chris/Tony "curse" I would subscribe to is the one that split the band in '64, and possibly hastened that slide into greater obscurity.

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:04 pm

... here's the quote about that 'curse' thing (sorry for possible mistakes, i don't have the book at hand now but i'll try my best at reproducing)
'Sometimes it seems to me that there might be some curse that follows the steps of a band-quitter. Not that it's a general thing; let's face it, show-business industry knows the stories of artists who made it really big only after having quit. I'd put it like this: once you leave, you should go for something completely new, something you didn't do while being in the band. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case of any of ex-Searchers. None of them tried to venture the name of the band which was no longer theirs; and to some extent, this band has become their curse and their tombstone. The only one untoched by this curse is perhaps Mike, but that's another story. The strange thing is, after having lost the three possible leaders, the band somehow manages to go on...'
(Adrian J. Lloyd, 'Heretic wanders: the unwritten history of rock', 1990)

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:53 am

I'd have to agree with John Ribeiro. At the time, up to today actually, I was/am totally fascinated with the original British Invasion. I had the Searchers LP#9 single. But danged if I knew who any of them were, the way I knew the Fabs, Stones, Who, DC5, Hermits,et al., all of whose members I could have named. I've learned more about The Searchers since joining this board than in the past 40 years. I've enjoyed their music, even sometimes not knowing it was them.
But my real point is how much I have enjoyed Peter's thorough and passionate writings on the band. It's developed in me a interest for the band I hadn't had before. I only wish there were writings this deep on all the B.I. bands. With this the 40th anniversary of the B.I., why are there no comprehensive books on the subject? I feel it started/caused a major shift in the world!

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Fri Nov 14, 2003 9:03 am

It wasn't only in the states the band members were perhaps not that well known, they were and always will be in my view, greater as a whole than an individual member.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:15 am

Roy: As always a great point which lends itself to much discussion.

I consider that this "anonymity" of Searchers' band members was one of several reasons why the group was not more successful.

In the Beatles' performances and interviews, there tended to be bit of a comedy routine wherein they poked fun at each other. Within the Beatles there was much competition. Lennon was always trying to get a funnier comment or better singing performance or better compositon compared to the others particularly McCartney. Each Beatles was trying to top the other with some well-timed ctiticisms of the other. Whilst these seemed playful to those on the outside, I consider that they were a reflection of more serious emotional times within the group.

This sort of competition was transparent to audience and generally well received by them. It sort of sparked comments such as "Who is your favourite Beatle and why?" This competitiveness gave the Beatles the edge in that fans were more readily attracted to them than many other groups. Beatles' hair, Beatles' boots, Beatles lunch boxes, trading cards, and the like. Who was the "cute one" the "married one" and so on.

The lack of such transparent competition and individuation, in the case of the Searchers allowed them fade into the background. They certainly stood out for their fine harmonies and solid performances but we did get to know them worldwide as they did not have the same outgoing personalites. They did not welcome us into their lives as the Beatles did.

As John Lennon said at one point with regard to his performances, and this is not an exact quote, "Sometimes you have to put it on a bit." I am sorry the Seachers didn't put things on a little more.

mygeneration · Post by **mygeneration** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:55 am

That brings to mind interviews. Now, I'm too young to remember much about the days when The Fabs were giving interviews, but I can't remember any other group being interviewed. So could the reason The Searchers and others didn't get the individual exposure be simply because they weren't interviewed enough to create it?

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:37 pm

Gary: I concur that interviews were certainly a key factor in spreading the word about The Beatles. These interviews may be more accurately referred to as press conferences as they were orchestrated very well.

I recall seeing many microphones in front of the Beatles, especially when they visited America. The screaming fans in the background did hurt bolstering their image either. I don't think that Burns had the management savy of Epstein who promoted the Beatles exceedingly well.

To get to the heart of your question

"So could the reason The Searchers and others didn't get the individual exposure be simply because they weren't interviewed enough to create it?"

I think that interviews or press conferences may have revealed that Pender, McNally, Curtis did not have the rough edge, boldness or magnetic personalities in those days required to capture the attention of fans. Jackson, however, may have been another matter. Unfortunately I suppose it is a bit of a moot point as he did not stay around long enough in any event.

It must also be remembered that the Beatles offered originality and deviated from the norm in many respects, while the Searchers tended to be more mainstream. An "outlandish Jackson" may have made a difference. It certainly worked for The Rolling Stones, but then again they also recorded many original compositions while the Searchers were more of a "cover band."

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:26 pm

Peter,

At least in the States, the only Searchers who ever spoke were Chris Curtis, and then Frank Allen, later on. From '64 to '66 (the last time I saw them during the first run on TV), Mike and John (and Tony, Frank ['til Chris left],and John Blount)never said a word, or were introduced by name. The first time I ever saw John speak was on "Solid Gold" in the '80s. I never saw a Searchers press conference on the news.