Searchers At The Beeb

mygeneration · Post by **mygeneration** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:47 am

Listened to my copy which came today.

Musically, it's as good as you would expect from The Searchers, but to me, the constant introductions and voice-overs spoil it. After the first disc I felt I had heard Brian Matthew say "and now, The Searchers" about forty times.
Not easy listening

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:43 am

That aside though some interesting versions on it, one error which I'm sure you spotted Gary, the track listed as Ready Teddy is actually I'm Ready. One of my least favourite Searchers tracks Too Many Miles, when performed here without the over production and wing instruments that was on the record is quite good, equally a great guitar break on Popcorn Double Feature and a great version of Be My Baby.

mark_telfer · Post by **mark_telfer** » Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:35 pm

I've just listened to my new 2-CD set and the highlight is the amazing arrangement of "Popcorn Double Feature", where a very harsh, trebly, slightly out-of-tune electric 12-string replaces the string section throughout. I can't tell whether it's a 1993 or a Double Six. Frank Allen's EB-0 also cuts through very well. Makes me want to get a band together again.

The Tremeloes 2-CD set in this series is also very good, although there is a lot of tape hiss and a very muddy sound on the earlier material, a problem on the recent Cream set too. However, the Trems, like The Searchers, also attempt some cover version never committed to vinyl, including some interesting excursions on Rick Westwood's electric 12.

mark_telfer · Post by **mark_telfer** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:41 am

After several more listens, I was being unfair. That guitar is not out-of-tune and it sounds like a 1993 going through an AC-30.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:51 am

don't know about the technical stuff Mark, but I do know it is a great version and I'll be telling Mr McNally to start putting it in the live show.

mdenger · Post by **mdenger** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:24 pm

Received my copy just a few days ago and I must say I'm somehow disappointed because I'm think the sound quality could be better. Just compare Sweet Little Sixteen from the BBC cd to the same song from the Anniversary cd 3. Same song but less quality on the BBC cd. And this goes for all that are on both cds.
Beside that I think that CC Rider are different versions. Can anyone confirm that?

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:09 am

See See Rider/Jenny Take a ride are most cetainly different versions Michael.

david · Post by **david** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:12 pm

For me the most interesting segments begin when John Blunt is introduced as the Searcher's new drummer.Not usually overpraised by Historians his high energy style seems to fit right in with the BBC studio setting and generates some real excitement.These might be his finest moments.

einar · Post by **einar** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:33 am

I found the BBC sessions a very welcome addition to the Searchers discography. Some interesting "stripped" versions of songs, and great ability to copy the studio recordings live.

This is my main observation:

On the 30th anniversary collection, disc three features 6 tracks live from the BBC. They are repeted on the new collection, although there are one or two examples of different versions used. "30th" offers no information about from when
these recordings dates- i.m.o. a great weakness! I must confess I was rather confused and surprised to understand that most of these BBC recordings feature Searchers#3, alias post-Curtis Searchers! This goes especially for two tracks: The most beautiful "I'll be loving you", and "I don't believe". The former is credited to the collective songwriting of Searchers#2, (and in the liner notes on the new collection, McNally says he can't remember if it was actually him or Curtis who wrote it). Thus, it was pure logic to presume this was a recording with Curtis still in the lines! I think the song has Curtis written all over it! Including vocals and drum rolls!
Much of the same goes for the other song, though not an original by the Searchers. I am inhabited to identify this leadsinging voice as Chris'! But now it must be Pender, and maybe I'll have to reconcider some of my voice identifying skills as far as Searchers goes!

Conclusion: I am surpriesd (positively) that it is Searchers#3 that produced songs and sounds like this! I thought it was all gone with Chris Curtis!

Einar

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 7:33 am

"...till the butterflies and puppies' eyes lose their tenderness...", "...till the heartache sounds of merry-go-rounds can make you smile, till we can enjoy what a brand new toy means for a child..." - Curtis? mmm... this endless "till" and the stuff somehow makes me doubt it...

And the tune as well - to my ear, Curtis' tunes are usually very simple, easy to sing. I may be wrong, though.

royclough · Post by **royclough** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:01 am

From I'll be Loving You and yes I found lyrics confusing

einar · Post by **einar** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:21 pm

My main point is that these two tracks (overall sound and atmosphere) has Curtis written all over them! And that this is a rather false observation, as he is obviously not on them!
As to the lyrics of "Loving you": Well, somebody (Searchers#2) must have written them. Probably during 1965. So- who is the best bet to have written vulnerable words like this: Family man McNally, or the soon-to-jump-ship Curtis?

Einar

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:04 am

Nothing to do with family status i'm afraid, Einar. I've never talked to any of the two but to be true i'd rather believe it was written by a guy who wrote "Push Push" and "Don't you know why" than by a guy who wrote "I pretend I'm with you" and "Darling do you miss me". I really cannot think of Curtis' song with lyrics that much loaded with metaphors, especially NON-TRITE metaphors. And another point: i know of some "happy family guys" who write songs so fragile and 'vulnerable' that they can bring a lady to tears... And the third one: it could have as well been written in 1964 or maybe even 1963... who knows now?