Record Collector issue 71

[Ivan Pongracic Jr]

I imagine at the time, 1968, they genuinely intended to call it a day and break up. I suspect that the 1969 reunion and then for the album in 1970 was pushed upon them for, as many have said, mainly financial reasons that perhaps were not foreseen. Certainly I know that many people don't really regard the 1969/70 line-up as really being the 'proper' Shadows, due to Bruce's absence and the very different un-Shadow-like sound and style.

For many people, I suspect, the Shadows broke up in 1968 and reformed in 1973. I suspect that to the vast majority of the general public this IS the case.

Not for all of us though, eh?

indeed, not. I've been listening to Shades of Rock over and over again the past few days, inspired by this discussion. I actually REALLY like it! But it's a 'dark' album, in some sense. It's a bit of a downer, so I can see why it wouldn't appeal, besides it not sounding a whole lot like the classic Shadows. Still, brilliant playing, fantastic arrangements, and of course, the songs are all classics - which wouldn't really mean much if the boys hadn't made them 'theirs', but they did.

One thing that struck me while listening to it on the headphones is how Hank's tone is completely dry, and therefore extremely 'present' - you can hear *every* nuance of his phrasing, every tiny detail. And when you focus on his playing, it's really remarkable. His phrasing, his touch, his confidence, his tone, it's all quite amazing. To play with such precision without absolutely anything to hide behind is truly impressive.

Another major piece of music that we should not forget that was done during this so-called 'break-up' period was Slaughter on Tenth Avenue, which is just absolutely remarkable. Brian's arranging skills are on display there to the full.

And that actually brings up another question: I believe that Brian played on all of Hank's early solo singles as well as his debut solo album. So, how different is that really from the Shadows, given that John's participation (at least on the recording end) was fairly slight during that period, anyway? Clearly Hank's solo debut album sounds quite a bit different from Shades of Rock, but that was clearly by design/intent. In effect, the main two people that matter on both records were Hank and Brian, and the rest were more or less anonymous sidemen. So, if Shades of Rock is a Shadows album, why not Hank's first solo album?

[iefje]

I imagine at the time, 1968, they genuinely intended to call it a day and break up. I suspect that the 1969 reunion and then for the album in 1970 was pushed upon them for, as many have said, mainly financial reasons that perhaps were not foreseen. Certainly I know that many people don't really regard the 1969/70 line-up as really being the 'proper' Shadows, due to Bruce's absence and the very different un-Shadow-like sound and style.

For many people, I suspect, the Shadows broke up in 1968 and reformed in 1973. I suspect that to the vast majority of the general public this IS the case.

Not for all of us though, eh?

indeed, not. I've been listening to Shades of Rock over and over again the past few days, inspired by this discussion. I actually REALLY like it! But it's a 'dark' album, in some sense. It's a bit of a downer, so I can see why it wouldn't appeal, besides it not sounding a whole lot like the classic Shadows. Still, brilliant playing, fantastic arrangements, and of course, the songs are all classics - which wouldn't really mean much if the boys hadn't made them 'theirs', but they did.

One thing that struck me while listening to it on the headphones is how Hank's tone is completely dry, and therefore extremely 'present' - you can hear *every* nuance of his phrasing, every tiny detail. And when you focus on his playing, it's really remarkable. His phrasing, his touch, his confidence, his tone, it's all quite amazing. To play with such precision without absolutely anything to hide behind is truly impressive.

Another major piece of music that we should not forget that was done during this so-called 'break-up' period was Slaughter on Tenth Avenue, which is just absolutely remarkable. Brian's arranging skills are on display there to the full.

And that actually brings up another question: I believe that Brian played on all of Hank's early solo singles as well as his debut solo album. So, how different is that really from the Shadows, given that John's participation (at least on the recording end) was fairly slight during that period, anyway? Clearly Hank's solo debut album sounds quite a bit different from Shades of Rock, but that was clearly by design/intent. In effect, the main two people that matter on both records were Hank and Brian, and the rest were more or less anonymous sidemen. So, if Shades of Rock is a Shadows album, why not Hank's first solo album?

Alan Hawkshaw features on quite some tracks from Hank's first album too, as well as Herbie Flowers and Dave Richmond on bass.
According to Hank himself (as described in the booklet to the 1998 UK EMI CD "Hank Marvin"), Rex Bennett played drums on the album and related singles and was no relation to Brian Bennett. He did ask Brian to play drums on all tracks, but Brian would rather concentrate on arranging and conducting. However, I do find the drum sound and style on Hank's first album very identical to that on Brian's own second solo album "The Illustrated London Noise", so maybe Hank's quotes in the booklet should be read differently!

[Pierre TEODORI]

I've read somewhere that Kenny Clare played the drums on Hank's first album, at least on some tracks.


Pierre

[Arpeggio]

Rex Bennett (who I believe is still with us - in his 80s nowadays) is a real person. One of the unsung heroes of the 60s / 70s / 80s session scene. Unlike our own BB and players such as Clem Cattini and Bobby Graham, he has remained largely anonymous despite playing on thousands of recordings. I can categorically state with 100% certainty that what I wrote in 1998 is true. Apart from the handful of tracks noted, it was Rex Bennett who played drums on Hank's 1969 - 1970 solo material. Rex Bennett is not a 'fake ID' for Brian!! This has been a fascinating discussion. I find (despite what I wrote nearly 30 years ago) that I can now listen to and admire " S O Rock" for what it is and the playing is indeed top notch. At the time ( going back to Hank's solo material ) he told me during a 1998 interview that he was deliberately attempting to get away from his usual Shadows sound and style during that period. Back to Shades of Rock....maybe it was a mistake to release it as a Shadows LP. But, of course, their name still potentially had immense commercial pulling power. The Shads themselves have mellowed even more during the past 20 yrs or so. Bruce, of course, doesn't ever say much about the 1969 - 1970 material that he didn't play on. Hank maintains that he is very pleased with his playing on "S O Rock" - but accepts that it was a radical departure from the Shadows in terms of style / sound. Further - that it was issued under the Shadows' name purely for commercial reasons. Brian is of the opinion that the playing was first rate and that the arrangements were excellent, However, he has also stated thst it was very different without Bruce' s involvement. Although Bruce was very authoritarian and there were frictions..Brian readily acknowledges that Bruce was right about a lot of things. The last time I spoke to Brian about "S O R" was ehrn it was reissued by RPM. His most recent personal view was that it was an excellent album - but a little over - indulgent.

[drakula63]

Very interesting. Thanks Rob. By the way, Alan still regards Shades of Rock as a good album.