New CD Hank

[Uncle Fiesta]

I will raise just two small points from Justin's excellent post:

Firstly he says, we are supposed to be his fans. Well the last time I looked, it said Shadows at the top of this page, rather than any of the individual members. I've said before that just being a fan of a band does not necessarily mean you are also a fan of the work of the members. In the case of the Shadows, and me, I am a fan of the entity known as the Shadows, full stop. Specifically, the Shadows at EMI. (Ultra-specifically, pre-Argentina.) Hank Marvin did nothing for me in the least. Ten out of ten for his playing being as good as ever, zero out of ten for choice of material.

Secondly Justin appears to suggest that just because we aren't recording stars, we shouldn't criticise those that are. Well if I'm a customer and I buy, or am expected to buy, something that isn't very good I have a perfect right to criticise; it's my money.

[Fenderman]

Just to echo previous comments, Hank is an excellent guitarist, no of us can dispute that and i will buy his new album but if i don't like a track i will say so. I'm not going to automatically like everything him or the Shads have done just because 'they' recorded it.
What intially irked me was the some of the choices of material he has picked (or the record company or whoever makes the decison), many of the tracks on Guitar Man were poor (Take That? Come on!).
We are grateful Hank is still recording and playing at 75, he could easily retire and devote more time to his hobbies and his gypsy jazz music.
Also on a slightly different note i keep seeing people on Facebook still hankering for a Shadows reunion, it won't happen but we can take second prize with Hank's new material.

[JimN]

I will raise just two small points from Justin's excellent post:

Firstly he says, we are supposed to be his fans. Well the last time I looked, it said Shadows at the top of this page, rather than any of the individual members. I've said before that just being a fan of a band does not necessarily mean you are also a fan of the work of the members. In the case of the Shadows, and me, I am a fan of the entity known as the Shadows, full stop. Specifically, the Shadows at EMI. (Ultra-specifically, pre-Argentina.) Hank Marvin did nothing for me in the least. Ten out of ten for his playing being as good as ever, zero out of ten for choice of material.

Secondly Justin appears to suggest that just because we aren't recording stars, we shouldn't criticise those that are. Well if I'm a customer and I buy, or am expected to buy, something that isn't very good I have a perfect right to criticise; it's my money.

I remember this sort of discussion more than ten years ago, during the period when it looked as though there would never be another Shadows live appearance, but Hank was doing live tours.

I said (to a well-known Shadows fan and writer, who knows who he is): "I'm not a Hank Marvin fan; I'm a Shadows fan".

That does not mean that I don't care for Hank's solo work, his albums or live appearances. It just means that I prefer the Shadows as an act.

In fact, it's like Beatles fans (of which I'm also one) preferring the group's work to that of individual members.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[John Boyd]

Jim, my thoughts exactly.
Cheers,
JB

[cockroach]

It occurred to me reading the last few posts, that Hank is however the focal point of the Shadows as a group..

After all, the group has had different drummers, and bass players, and even Bruce was replaced briefly (by Alan Hawkshaw(?) but Hank has always been the mainstay..and to the average punter, they know his face, name and his sound...to many folk, Hank IS the Shadows..

[MartcasterJunior]

I really don't know how anyone can listen to the Theme from Doctor Who (as I've just done on Spotify) and not think that that's a massive waste of talent, of both artist and producer. The Shadows and Hank Marvin have collectively and apart made some amazing music, but that is purely muzak; if I heard it in a supermarket I'd comment on how terrible it was. It's not enough just bad enough to blend into the background. If he was desperate for the money then I could understand it. I hope it gives him the financial backing to do something more artistically worthy because, frankly, I'd pay £9.99 to never have to listen to that again.

I'm off to listen to Would You Believe It to try and cleanse the memory of that travesty from my mind.

Matt

[Gary Allen]

Tom Baker was the best Dr Who

[Fenderman]

I've been wondering recently and think that at 75, does Hank feel he needs to stretch himself anymore? He has nothing left to prove and maybe he's in a 'comfort zone' musically but someone at the record company really should think about the material he's offered. My brother never got over him doing Star Wars and reckons it's the worst thing he had ever heard, some tracks do not suit the guitar.
What about a Ventures/Duane Eddy tribute album? That would be something!

[MeBHank]

I really don't know how anyone can listen to the Theme from Doctor Who (as I've just done on Spotify) and not think that that's a massive waste of talent, of both artist and producer. The Shadows and Hank Marvin have collectively and apart made some amazing music, but that is purely muzak; if I heard it in a supermarket I'd comment on how terrible it was. It's not enough just bad enough to blend into the background. If he was desperate for the money then I could understand it. I hope it gives him the financial backing to do something more artistically worthy because, frankly, I'd pay £9.99 to never have to listen to that again.

I'm off to listen to Would You Believe It to try and cleanse the memory of that travesty from my mind.

Matt

Perhaps it's the context that's important. I'm not a Doctor Who fan, and I don't know the theme well, and especially not all the various versions that have been made over the years. So when I listen to the whole track I expect to hear a full band arrangement with some unusual chords and a quirky melody. I have nothing to compare it to and I'm not going to rush to listen to other versions to try and put it into some sort of context. I'm going to listen to it on its own merit without any sort of preconception (I assume it was written as an instrumental, so I expect it's going to be melodically strong enough for me to like it).

That's the case with a lot of The Shads' versions of eighties hits. As a kid I had never known the vocal versions of, say, Just the Way You Are, but I knew and loved The Shadows' recording. It became the definitive version for me. I had no context and I knew none of the music already; I just had a wonderful little cassette tape filled with warm, echoing guitar sounds which made me feel good. I expect 'Without a Word' to deliver in a similar way.

J

[JimN]

(I'm going to listen to it on its own merit without any sort of preconception (I assume it was written as an instrumental, so I expect it's going to be melodically strong enough for me to like it).

That's the case with a lot of The Shads' versions of eighties hits.

Is it?

Here's the track listing for "Simply Shadows" (the worst album they ever put out, bar none):

1. I Knew You Were Waiting (For Me)
2. We Don't Need Another Hero
3. Walking In The Air
4. Careless Whisper
5. Don't Give Up
6. I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues
7. A Heart Will Break Tonight
8. The Lady In Red
9. Pulaski
10. Take My Breath Away
11. The Music Of The Night (from "The Phantom Of The Opera")
12. The Themes From "Eastenders" and "Howard's Way"
13. I Want To Know What Love Is
14. The Skye Boat Song
15. Jealous Guy
16. Chain Reaction

OK, extract Pulaski and Pierre Teodori's A Heart Will Break Tonight. Then the twin TV theme track and maybe the Lloyd-Webber piece. Just possibly the Walking In The Air track as well.

Put them together and what have you got?

A really good EP!

uyt what about the rest? What are you left with there?

Oh, I've got so much I could say... but I don't want to be negative.