Pender On Leaving Searchers

[admin]

From the Mike D'Abo 2002 interview

"We all wanted to get on. We even thought about changing the name and starting new again. After trying so many times, it really was like banging your head against a brick wall. So in late 1985 I decided, look, I've had enough. People started to want nostalgia again. So I had to prove it to myself. I said look, I'm going to get three guys and go back to the way we were, drummer, singer and bring a keyboard into it."

These comments certainly point to Mike Pender's frustration with the groups lack of success on the charts. I wonder how realistic he was being, however, by thinking of going back to the old days as a formula for making it on the charts. As Mike himself noted earlier in the same interview, most groups could expect 2-3 years in the limelight.

[tim]

Peter, I am not convinced. The Searchers had a much better profile, especially for the nostalgia circuit, when they could boast a front-line that dated back to August 1964. As I've said before, I think Mike's departure has a lot to do with him getting the feeling that it was always 'two against one', with John and Frank tending to agree on the way things should go. Mike 'hedged his bets' for his solo career by releasing a contemporary single and putting a band together for shows on the nostalgia circuit. He probably was trying to get back to The Searchers 60's sound, especially bearing in mind his meetings with Tony Jackson and Chris Curtis. In the end it was the rejuvenated Searchers that reaped the rewards of the nostalgia boom with their triumphs on the various 'Solid Silver 60s' package tours.

[admin]

Tim: I concur, the greatest attraction for those who followed the Searchers' music has always been the group and not any single individual. This was the case from the start and it certainly applies from the mid 1980s until today. None of the Searchers was successful on their own. The strength is in the group and the whole is certainly more than the sum of its parts in this case.

[royclough]

I think Mike also probably thought that without him, The Searchers (i.e.John and Frank)would find their market diminshed without essentially the "voice".
There was a very interesting article from an avid's perspective in a trade magazine shortly after the spilt was announced, headed Searcher v Searcher in which some comments were made by Mike.

[sowhat]

Good comment, Roy.
Anyway, whatever led to the "split"... i've once heard a point of view that it was just a commercial trick - and it turned out to be a really successfull "trick", imho. I mean maybe Pender made the only right decision that could've been made. Because a) it attracted people's attention to the band; b) instead of one band which could've probably died naturally in a couple of years or so, now we've got two (everybody is free to decide for themselves which one is "better" or just accept both). I'm not sure if Mike really got what he wanted; on the other hand, his ex-bandmates 'acquired' a very good singer, etc. Well, some might have not even noticed the change... Yes, right, it led to a breakup of a friendship, but we're talking about show business, right?..
PS. Roy: do you know where's this article now? Is it anywhere on the web?

[admin]

Sheena: I think we can safely rule out a "commercial trick." This cost the Searchers a lot of heartache and I am sure, money. Frank Allen certainly makes this point in his book.

[sowhat]

Peter: i don't insist it really was, that'd be way too cynical, but... well, sometimes the operation has to be done. It's very painful, and it can also cost a lot of money, but sometimes it's the only way out. I mean, maybe that was the case. Or maybe not, we'll never know. But it was done the way it was done and maybe, to some extent, for better.

[admin]

There were positive spin-offs I agree. The Searchers became stronger as a group and their popularity on the "Sixties" circuit certainly grew. Pender got the chance to do his own thing which may have reduced the conflict mentioned by Tim.