|
Post by sayne on Jul 21, 2016 11:52:09 GMT -5
Were there other bands at the same time as The Beatles that could have been as big as them but weren't? Lynn Granata
Yes! Just very recently, I found out about the Hollies. Little did I know about them, but they too came from another northern city in England. They were from Manchester, England. They came out like right around the same time as the Beatles. Perhaps just about 6 or 7 months after the Beatles first came to America. They too also followed the same professional path as did the Beatles. They played at the Cavern club, and were signed to Parlophone Records. Ron Richards, a record producer and promoter from EMI Records attended one of their Cavern Club concerts, and he invited them to sign with EMI. So that's when they got their first break. And they recorded all of their music in the same studio as the Beatles did, and practically at the same timeline as the Beatles too. So, if you ask me they would have come in second place if not for the Beatles. Their first hit single was "Just One Look." It got to reaching the top ten in 1964.
Comments?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 22, 2016 8:56:24 GMT -5
Were there other bands at the same time as The Beatles that could have been as big as them but weren't?Lynn Granata Yes! Just very recently, I found out about the Hollies. Little did I know about them, but they too came from another northern city in England. They were from Manchester, England. They came out like right around the same time as the Beatles. Perhaps just about 6 or 7 months after the Beatles first came to America. They too also followed the same professional path as did the Beatles. They played at the Cavern club, and were signed to Parlophone Records. Ron Richards, a record producer and promoter from EMI Records attended one of their Cavern Club concerts, and he invited them to sign with EMI. So that's when they got their first break. And they recorded all of their music in the same studio as the Beatles did, and practically at the same timeline as the Beatles too. So, if you ask me they would have come in second place if not for the Beatles. Their first hit single was "Just One Look." It got to reaching the top ten in 1964.
Comments? The Beatles did not become a great band because of The Cavern or the studio they recorded in at Abbey Rd. The songs, the songs, and the songs. They just kept coming and coming and a record producer knew how to make them sound really good in the studio when they recorded them.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 22, 2016 18:30:29 GMT -5
The Hollies were as popular as they were because of they sounded like and looked like the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 9, 2016 12:18:20 GMT -5
The Hollies have great songs and great singers. Their secret weapon was Tony Hicks, lead guitarist, who was popular with the girls and boys, many of the latter having their one and only man-crush on Mr. Hicks!
The Hollies get short-changed in Rock and Roll history but they were great.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 9, 2016 15:01:23 GMT -5
The Hollies were as popular as they were because of they sounded like and looked like the Beatles. John is making me think I've been too harsh here. Actually, I'll clarify what I'm saying. The Hollies were great. I have a three disc best of and I got another studio disk after having bought that. I wanted more. I'm not saying I won't get more yet. You have to be great to have that many good songs. Had the Beatles not did what they did, the Hollies no doubt would have been playing the white boy/fake blues sound that England was into at the time. The Beatles were the only band that ventured outside of that back then. I'm not sure the Hollies could have made a mark in that environment. It also didn't hurt that they had the style, the hair, and the cute guitarist, that they had, that like the Beatles, made them marketable for selling records without a monthly hit and touring in America on the circuit created by the Beatles.
|
|