A question to everybody...

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:14 am

Just recalled an old forum where admin used to throw in (every 3 months or so) a topic like "who do you think is the lost beatle/kink/stone/etc." (a "lost" one of course meant "the one who was meant to be in a band but never was") which always raised a kind of debate. As far as i remember, they didn't get to the Searchers... so a question to all of you: who do you think is the "lost Searcher"? (sure have my own suggestions but actually i'm far more interested in yours).
Curious,
Sheena

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:30 am

Johnny Sandon springs to mind, The Searchers were originally his backing band.

dbrandon · Post by **dbrandon** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:18 am

Yeah, I would have to say the same "Johnny Sandon"

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:20 pm

Tony Hatch- for all the piano he played on the early LPs

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:00 am

The first two Searchers albums in the UK John had no piano on them, the piano first appeared on It's The Searchers the third PYE album.

mark_telfer · Post by **mark_telfer** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:58 am

Imagine The Searchers splitting up in 1967 and "The New Searchers" forming around Chris Curtis in 1968: Jon Lord, Ritchie Blackmore et al.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:40 pm

But not The Saerchers sound

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:41 pm

But not The SEARCHERS SOUND

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:39 am

Cute guys but actually i meant something a bit different: a guy who was IN NO WAY RELATED to the band but was made to be in. Like, say, Scott Joplin... or Billy Joel, speaking more realistically. (on the forum i mentioned, there were comments like 'marilyn manson is a lost beatle' and so on

)
Mark: maybe 'Deep Searchers' or 'Purple Searchers'? anyway, me personally, i wouldn't want any Searchers without their rhythm guitar...

mark_telfer · Post by **mark_telfer** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:47 am

I wonder how a different "drummer/leader" character than Chris Curtis would have worked, such as Dave Munden of The Tremeloes, Dave Clark, or even Keith Moon?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:10 am

I wonder how a producer Like Shel Talmy (The Who) or Mickie Most (Animals) or even Sir George Martin might have affected the fortunes of the Searchers. Each of those producers (the Holy Three of '60's British sound, IMHO) might have given them a beefier sound, again IMHO.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 3:38 pm

They wouldn't have been the Searchers with a heavier sound, Billy Joel in the Searchers??!!

budrocket · Post by **budrocket** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:25 am

Egad, Billy Joel ANYWHERE...yipe! He's an ill wind that blows no good...

Their production wasn't appreciably much better or worse than anybody else's at the time. Granted the Beatles had the best available at the time (given how primitive recording technology was in the UK compared to the States), but they were on top of the heap & could demand unlimited studio time & the finest resources they could get. Even the Stones, Kinks, Zombies & the Who suffered from poor production in their early days.

IMHO the Searchers were hobbled by a number of really bad business decisions & rampant mismanagement, including signing with Tito Burns, who worked them to death on package tours (is it any wonder Curtis cracked up, it could've been anybody, really) to the exclusion of any thought of "sustainable yield"; signing with a record label that viewed them as a flash-in-the-pan commodity (see above); lack of encouragement to develop their songwriting the way, say, an Andrew Oldham or Kit Lambert did with their charges; not cutting "Things We Said Today"; not moving hell & high water to sign with NEMS management; & perhaps most disastrous, allowing Chris Curtis to get away (at the time their only significant in-house songwriter & man with vision & a proven commercial track record of song selection).

It seems like they were more or less adrift on their own out there, & when fashion passed them by, it happened with deadly speed. Hell, there was nobody to talk Pender out of wearing that quiff, which he sported well into 1967...seemingly a small matter now, but back then, when you're marketing yourself to the kids who buy records, image was all important, & when you fell out, man you fell ALL the way out...as evidenced by them finding themselves in the commercial wilderness after about 1966.

bw

*******************************************
BUDDY WOODWARD & THE NITRO EXPRESS
"Honkytonk, Bluegrass, Roots-Rock & a Damn Fine Potato Salad"
[email protected] - www.buddywoodward.net

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:05 am

Yeah, I think their lack of songwriting was a major problem. It seems with them people just took the money and ran. And that happened with so many bands back then, at least they had a sustained career for a few years.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:45 am

They did write though Bob , see the article Searchers Sing Searchers, problem was either they or Tony Hatch did not have faith in their songs, restricting them mainly to the "B"Sides.