The stones at the o2

[cockroach]

Jim

Both of those tunes were only mid level or minor chart hits in the USA but I don't think they were well known or maybe even released widely in the UK at the time they came out.

The British players and singers often covered these obscure songs, there sometimes being a way whereby they discovered them and were able to access new material (A&R men and DJs and record company people who had advance copies, a few local record shops that imported US stuff- like NEMS in Liverpool, and some shops in London etc)

From comments I've heard from some US artists who benefited greatly from British covers which became huge hits, they may not have liked the cover versions or that others were taking their songs into the charts, nor did they often know or care who the hell these Brit kids were, BUT they were grateful and happy when the royalty cheques hit their mail boxes!

I saw the great Latin jazz timbale player Tito Puente and his band play some years ago, and introducing his tune 'Oyo Como Va' he said that he didn't like the rock cover version when he heard it and hadn't heard of this Santana bloke- but after the cheque arrived, he said he LOVED Santana..!

[iefje]

I think all three, Hank, Bruce and Brian (Tony of course is not possible anymore) make The Shadows. Hank did some wonderful solo stuff in the 1990's and early 2000's, but to me a live "Apache" or a live "The Rise And Fall Of Flingel Bunt" are still the best with Bruce and Brian (and Tony in the early years), compared to Ben Marvin and Peter May (despite their musical excellence). Accomplished as Ben and Peter are, to me they have never been and will never be 'Shadows'.

Peter May and Ben weren't supposed to be Shadows - they backed hank on his solo 'Hank Marvin' tours. The clue is in the name.

Sigh...Yes Dave, I know that. What I meant was that I think Bruce and Brian (and Tony and Jet) in the early years, were just as important to The Shadows sound as Hank was. So to me, Hank, Bruce and Brian (and earlier Tony and Jet) are The Shadows, not just Hank.

[dave robinson]

Sigh...Yes Dave, I know that. What I meant was that I think Bruce and Brian (and Tony and Jet) in the early years, were just as important to The Shadows sound as Hank was. So to me, Hank, Bruce and Brian (and earlier Tony and Jet) are The Shadows, not just Hank.

Who said anything about the SOUND of The Shadows ? I certainly did not.
I respect and support The Shadows as much as anyone else here and for me the whole band are equally important, but the sad fact is the 99% of the public perceive Hank to be the image of the band.
I remember around 1994 that Bruce arranged a tour on his own for which we bought tickets, only to learn that the tour was cancelled owing to 'lack of interest' and our money was refunded.
I remember being furious at the time as I had looked forward to seeing Bruce as I admire him a lot.
By contrast Hank's tour (which I boycotted in protest) of the same year was quite busy and his subsequent tours sold out in most venues. This is the point I am trying to make regarding the general public - to them rightly or wrongly, Hank is the man, The Shadows.
Getting back on topic, Brian Jones had the same presence in The Rolling Stones. That's it.

[Twang46]

I remember around 1994 that Bruce arranged a tour on his own for which we bought tickets, only to learn that the tour was cancelled owing to 'lack of interest' and our money was refunded.
I remember being furious at the time as I had looked forward to seeing Bruce as I admire him a lot.

I also was quite "furious" about Bruce's tour being dropped especially since it went as far as being publicised on the local ITV station (Tyne Tees) with a short interview with Bruce before it was pulled.

Conspiracy theory anybody ??

Dick.

[kipper]

i think it was last year that hank marvin had a tour canceled because of lack of support ticket sales ect i think he was going to do the gypsy stuff that he`s apparantly now in to. so pehaps its the music not the man. just a thought peter

[EJK]

Sigh...Yes Dave, I know that. What I meant was that I think Bruce and Brian (and Tony and Jet) in the early years, were just as important to The Shadows sound as Hank was. So to me, Hank, Bruce and Brian (and earlier Tony and Jet) are The Shadows, not just Hank.

Who said anything about the SOUND of The Shadows ? I certainly did not.
I respect and support The Shadows as much as anyone else here and for me the whole band are equally important, but the sad fact is the 99% of the public perceive Hank to be the image of the band.
I remember around 1994 that Bruce arranged a tour on his own for which we bought tickets, only to learn that the tour was cancelled owing to 'lack of interest' and our money was refunded.
I remember being furious at the time as I had looked forward to seeing Bruce as I admire him a lot.
By contrast Hank's tour (which I boycotted in protest) of the same year was quite busy and his subsequent tours sold out in most venues. This is the point I am trying to make regarding the general public - to them rightly or wrongly, Hank is the man, The Shadows.

Getting back on topic, Brian Jones had the same presence in The Rolling Stones. That's it.

You are quite right about Hank being "the man" The Shadows. However, I would point out that, in addition, back in 1960-62 Jet Harris was also viewed in similar vein to Hank being instantly recognizable, referred to as the leader of the band and also known as the cool fair haired guy in the middle! It would have been interesting to see how the band developed musically if he had stayed on the straight and narrow and remained with them. Unfortunately we will never know.

[des mcneill]

and to think that Bruce used to object to Jet just having a couple of pints? Keith Richards used to have a bottle of Jack Daniels on the stage!

I prefer the first couple of years of the Stones and the first three albums with Brian Jones, an underrated bluesman.

For me, the Rolling Stones were finished when Brian Jones left the band - IMHO he WAS the Rolling Stones, just as Hank is The Shadows

I happen to agree with Dave, and we are all entitled to our opinion. Hank is the 'voice' of the shadows. Hank can play without the rest of the band (see youtube,Hank, without backing) but the rest of the band cannot play without Hank.
Neil

Hi Neil,
Just to prove differing opinions,Hank's efforts on Youtube without backing left me completely cold,I would enjoy more a backing without the lead,there is more musical content. To me Hank is one of a band of four(or five) and cannot stand on his own playing Shads tunes.
I do however understand and agree with Robbo's comments that the public at large identify Hank as the Shads,but then the public don't always appreciate the finer points. However,despite this Jet also made a huge impression on the public, - probably the first bass player to do so.

Des.

[Iain Purdon]

Jet certainly made a huge impression on the public of the time and he probably was the first UK bass guitarist to do so. But Bill Black came earlier as a bass player and made a big impression backing Elvis along with Scotty Moore.

[dave robinson]

Totally agree about Jet - he WAS the man at the outset, check out the early Cliff & Shadows black & white videos, he looked incredible !

[donna plasky]

I suppose what I missed out on, as far as The Shadows, is how it would have felt each time they had a change in their line-up. When I became a Shadows fan, the lineup included Mark Griffiths -- so those people constituted whom I knew as The Shadows. Then of course I studied up on their history and I know who everyone is now. And I love all of them. But with the exception of John Rostill (and the associated tragedy), I wonder if I would have been disappointed or slightly angry when somebody left the band.

My point of view is probably biased because I am a female, and I can't help but think that if I was a teenager when Jet left the band, I would have been really disappointed. But then again, I have nothing but smiley faces when I see that Licorice was the next person in line.

In more modern times, when I was in high school, I was really into Hall & Oates. But eventually they broke up and each went their own way. I didn't like them separately, only together.

Cockroach, you would probably get a smile out of seeing the catalogue on my iPod. All the music is Australian and British, very little is American music...and none of the American music is newer than 1984.

Kind regards,
Donna