New CD from Hank!

[bor64]

I don't mind a good cover.
I can understand some people are against covers of some numbers...those people want to hear the music by the original artist.
Such thing isn't any problem in the classical world, all original artist who done the original "first" version of the tune are dead also the composers so it isn't a big deal in the classical music world.
All versions played and recorded in the last 100 years are covers.....

When Hank wants/needs a big selling cover hit album....he can do Hank plays ABBA....although he could ending up paying royalties thru his nose....

Cheers Rob

[Uncle Fiesta]

Despite the impression I may have given, I don't mind covers, it's just stuff that's got no life in it that I object to.

I want something that gives me the same feeling I got when listening to Apache, FBI, Atlantis etc. for the first time, and neither the Shadows nor Hank have given me that for many years.

[Tony Szpala]

Agree whole heartedly with your et al. comments - but hopefully with Ben's presence Hank will come up with something more akin to the days of Apache - we can but hope!

[drakula63]

The thing is... once you get a name/reputation for mainly doing instrumental covers of well known songs, etc, you can't really get away with anything else. If Hank brought out an album of all new, original compositions, people would pick it up, look at it and go "I don't know that one... I don't know that one... I don't know any of these. I'll give it a miss." The days of guitar instrumental music are, sadly, long gone and Hank has to compromise to a very great degree to get his albums made and out there in the shops, etc.

I think that maybe The Shadows could get away with an album of all new stuff with unfamiliar titles, but Hank on his own probably not.

And I say all this as someone who's favourite Shads album was Rockin' With Curly Leads...

[Moderne]

The thing is... once you get a name/reputation for mainly doing instrumental covers of well known songs, etc, you can't really get away with anything else. If Hank brought out an album of all new, original compositions, people would pick it up, look at it and go "I don't know that one... I don't know that one... I don't know any of these. I'll give it a miss." The days of guitar instrumental music are, sadly, long gone and Hank has to compromise to a very great degree to get his albums made and out there in the shops, etc.

I think that maybe The Shadows could get away with an album of all new stuff with unfamiliar titles, but Hank on his own probably not.

And I say all this as someone who's favourite Shads album was Rockin' With Curly Leads...

I agree, but we could have had this debate with the same comments almost 40 years ago (and indeed people have debated this many times!) It's a difficult fact to accept for the hard-core fans but The Shadows and Hank have always been more successful recording covers than originals. But there's a big difference between a handful of really good originals on an album of mostly covers, and no originals at all. Some of the most successful Shads/Hank albums have included some originals (Into the Light, Steppin'..., Life in the Jungle etc.) so I've always found it difficult to accept the '100% covers' policy; I would have thought the majority of prospective Shads/Hank record buyers would accept the fact that three or four songs on an album were unfamiliar so long as they recognised most of them. Taking Into the Light as an example, I think Steel Wheels contains plenty of Apache-style excitement and Moontalk and Scirocco are fantastic melodies too - and that was a successful album wasn't it? It's the total lack of any originals on an album that I bemoan, because despite being a lifelong fan of Hank's unique talent and artistry I have no inclination to listen to his versions of songs like I Will Always Love You or Everything I Do (I Do It All Over You) - as Hank himself once described it in an interview!

Regarding covers, it's a bit more complicated than just saying "some songs work as instrumentals - others don't". My own view is that some songs are such great pieces of music that almost anyone's version will sound good (e.g. Argentina and Semi-Detached Suburban Mr James - which, as I think I've said before, I actually prefer to the Manfred Mann no.1 version); others are so identifiable with a particular recording or instrument (I'm thinking of Baker Street and Classical Gas off String of Hits) that I can't really see why anyone would want to hear any other version in preference to the original - however hard The Shads or Hank might try to make it sound good.

[Moderne]

Incidentally, I'm listening to the Hank CD now and I agree with Justin's comments. Summertime has a similar vibe to Michael Buble's version of Cry Me A River. I'm looking forward to Hank's new album too. All power to him - that he's musically active as ever...

[Uncle Fiesta]

... And I say all this as someone who's favourite Shads album was Rockin' With Curly Leads...

Mine too, that was the last time I got that feeling I was talking about - although Specs Appeal also managed it to a degree.

[Tigerdaisy]

Despite the impression I may have given, I don't mind covers, it's just stuff that's got no life in it that I object to.

I want something that gives me the same feeling I got when listening to Apache, FBI, Atlantis etc. for the first time, and neither the Shadows nor Hank have given me that for many years.

Most of the Shadows stuff over the years have been covers...but lately an attempt has been made to elaborate and tart up so as to desperately produce something 'different' which frankly just doesn't work. The secret of the early stuff was that it was pure without all this unnecessary and to me flippant added on instrumentation and orchestration which takes away from the beauty of the simple 4 piece set up where the guitar sound is king. If a melody cannot stand with this basic formula then the melody is not strong enough, for instance I don't think Abba has many songs that stand instrumentation only treatment. I suppose it has all been part of getting respectable and losing the original raw edge the Shadows originally had to the point where they start to add 'big night out' endings to a lot of their stage performance- in my view this sort of treatment weakens impact and trivialises the seriousness and intensity of the various pieces. Take FBI which originally was quite a dramatic almost menacing piece, played in the second verse on the lower bass strings supplying that menacing harshness which never seems to be successfully captured now, partly because of the loss of that edge and the almost comical foot stepping the Shadows do.
Fact is, so much stuff The Shadows and Hank have recorded just does not lend itself to being powerful enough as a stand alone instrumental and Hank has himself alluded to this problem many times. I still think that whatever is recorded it needs to stick to a very simple 4 piece formula without all this unnecessary and contrived multi tracked backing which contributes nothing to the original composition.
Listen to 'Tales of a Raggy Tramline', a brilliant melody, great production and use of the basic four piece line up and no attempt to emulate the Billy Cotton Band Show...

[Tigerdaisy]

The thing is... once you get a name/reputation for mainly doing instrumental covers of well known songs, etc, you can't really get away with anything else. If Hank brought out an album of all new, original compositions, people would pick it up, look at it and go "I don't know that one... I don't know that one... I don't know any of these. I'll give it a miss." The days of guitar instrumental music are, sadly, long gone and Hank has to compromise to a very great degree to get his albums made and out there in the shops, etc.

I think that maybe The Shadows could get away with an album of all new stuff with unfamiliar titles, but Hank on his own probably not.

And I say all this as someone who's favourite Shads album was Rockin' With Curly Leads...

I agree, but we could have had this debate with the same comments almost 40 years ago (and indeed people have debated this many times!) It's a difficult fact to accept for the hard-core fans but The Shadows and Hank have always been more successful recording covers than originals. But there's a big difference between a handful of really good originals on an album of mostly covers, and no originals at all. Some of the most successful Shads/Hank albums have included some originals (Into the Light, Steppin'..., Life in the Jungle etc.) so I've always found it difficult to accept the '100% covers' policy; I would have thought the majority of prospective Shads/Hank record buyers would accept the fact that three or four songs on an album were unfamiliar so long as they recognised most of them. Taking Into the Light as an example, I think Steel Wheels contains plenty of Apache-style excitement and Moontalk and Scirocco are fantastic melodies too - and that was a successful album wasn't it? It's the total lack of any originals on an album that I bemoan, because despite being a lifelong fan of Hank's unique talent and artistry I have no inclination to listen to his versions of songs like I Will Always Love You or Everything I Do (I Do It All Over You) - as Hank himself once described it in an interview!

Regarding covers, it's a bit more complicated than just saying "some songs work as instrumentals - others don't". My own view is that some songs are such great pieces of music that almost anyone's version will sound good (e.g. Argentina and Semi-Detached Suburban Mr James - which, as I think I've said before, I actually prefer to the Manfred Mann no.1 version); others are so identifiable with a particular recording or instrument (I'm thinking of Baker Street and Classical Gas off String of Hits) that I can't really see why anyone would want to hear any other version in preference to the original - however hard The Shads or Hank might try to make it sound good.

I don't want to run the risk of being put on MasterMind answering questions on the 'Bleeding Obvious' but any great song/melody can be screwed up/ butchered by an unsympathetic artist and indeed we are surrounded by these 'modern' totally crap covers that appear to be the result of deafness, artistic insensitivity etc etc. I won't accuse The 'Hank' CD of this, but sadly it comes pretty close to totally not succeeding in the stated intention.
The reason covers are recorded is simply because the artist in question has no good original material. Obviously The Shadows were fortunate enough in their early days to be in the position of being able to record good original material AND to be able to interpret that material with a new and very compelling sound. It's very evident that as time went on these original compositions became very scarce and so covers were recorded more and more and also an attempt was made to 'improve' them by adding more sophisticated orchestration which in my view destroys the sound original concept and purity of the four piece.
The more you try to over orchestrate and thus cover up the original sound of the Stratocaster, which has a host of beautiful and very expressive voices, the less successful you will be in selling 'Shadows' type music. That's really why 'Hank' doesn't succeed.

[Uncle Fiesta]

Quite right Martin and I agree with everything you say, but we can't really blame a lack of original material, as there are still many people writing new music in the original Shadows style. I'm not going to blow my own trumpet by claiming that any of mine is good enough, but there is plenty out there that is. Heard "Surf Break" recently?