THE SHADOWS IN THE 1960'S

[Airhostess.]

I found this on youtube ,it's quite interesting some of you may have seen it before but for those who have not it's worth a look,there is a bit of reading to do at the start and then it goes into the video including the use of burns guitars that are different than the "Marvin" we all are used to look at the scratchplate and other details you do get the "Marvins" later in...anyway for those who wish to see it follow the link and enjoy

cut and paste into youtube the link below its a bit of a slow starter so stick with it



THE SHADOWS IN THE 1960'S

best wishes

Kay

[sandra]

Nice find Kay but it may be easier to go directly to it from this link:

THE SHADOWS IN THE 1960'S

[godzilla]

Nice one Kay. Thanks Sandra - you rescued me again!!

Keith

[wiggle99]

good job they can play because. sing they don.t

[Stu's Dad]

I don't know what you were listening to wiggle, but the Shadows are excellent singers.

[wiggle99]

i begg to differ 

[Stu's Dad]

Fine if that's your view, but I think you'll find yourself in a very small minority.

[brightcaster]

Especially in the Marvin, Welch and Farrar days they became really good singers in my opinion!

(starting at 0:45):www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPrOvptotkw



David

[alanedwards]

THANKS TO STEVE REYNOLDS FOR PUTTING IT ON YOUTUBE

[tolo]

Nov 26, 2020 17:45:20 GMT Stu's Dad said:

I don't know what you were listening to wiggle, but the Shadows are excellent singers.

OK - this is going to be controversial - but - reality check.

I think they are passable vocalists - but never excellent. They excel in what they became famous for - but, lets be honest, Bruce has never had a strong lead voice and (for myself) I think Hank is a much better singer - as evidenced in his solo material later on. But neither - especially in the era they were in competing with the bands that came later - were 'front men'. I think - and several examples come to mind - you can get away with being not such a great singer if you had real 'presence' or 'attitude' to front a band - but if you don't have either then you just cannot compete. Sadly - The Shadows were always too 'safe' in this environment - it is the reason they never really made it in the US - becoming more cabaret than rock and roll, and eventually just 'Rock' as they went on. They became irrelevant in context to what was going on at the time.

Don't get me wrong - I am a complete Shadows fan - but I can see why they did what they did and why other bands eclipsed them - but despite their best efforts to do otherwise they just didn't have what the public wanted at the time. The Beatles changed everything - and yes I know I am going to get the Harrison quotes and the rest of the anecdotes - but the Beatles CHANGED it completely. Doesn't matter who was the 'better' band - The Beatles had energy, personality, drive, attitude and last but not least - songs! Whilst the Shads just became pantomime stars... The Beatles did irony and controversy - The Shadows did cheesy comedy. How we choose to view the past is personal of course - but, put that aside and look at the history of music though the decades and see what has happened - and just wonder why...

wiggle99 is right - and history proves it.

[shadamber]

Tolo most of what you write is irrelevant. The thread was about their singing. Not about their compositions. Nor of a seeming inability to change/possibily poor advice from their management as musical tastes changed.

So, let's confine the discussion to the question at hand. Were they good singers? Yes if one defines good as the ability to stay in tune even when singing three part harmony. And possessing control over their breathing. Reasonable range too.

[jontie]

Collectively they are excellent, as their work as MWF and Specs Appeal demonstrates. There's also a version of "Memories are made of this" on uTube, back in the Palladium days with Cliff, in which the harmonies are brilliant.

Cheers

[tolo]

Dec 25, 2020 22:46:12 GMT shadamber said:

Tolo most of what you write is irrelevant. The thread was about their singing. Not about their compositions. Nor of a seeming inability to change/possibily poor advice from their management as musical tastes changed.

So, let's confine the discussion to the question at hand. Were they good singers? Yes if one defines good as the ability to stay in tune even when singing three part harmony. And possessing control over their breathing. Reasonable range too.

Ok - thanks for putting me right and for the benefit of your musical expertise. I thought the thread was actually about the Shadows in the 60's... as per the title?

[shadamber]

Sure the title was about the Shadows in the 1960's. But the thread had soon started to emphasize their singing. You even opened your case with a quotation about their singing ability.

And when I defended their abilities I was not thinking about MWF. I had in mind Marvin, Welch,and Rostill, in order to keep it under the title.

[Stu's Dad]

I was in at the beggining of this when I jumped to the Shadows' defence about their singing. wiggle99 more or less said that they were poor singers, and that's just plain wrong, but I accept that 'excellent' was perhaps a bit strong.

I read Tony's first post with interest, and most of what he said was exactly right, but I still maintain that they are certainly very good singers. Perhaps they wouldn't have had a successful career as a singing group but for a talented instrumental group they're d**n good singers. I was surprised at how young Hank sounded on the final tour.

'Tis the season of goodwill gentlemen, let us be of good cheer,

Len

[wiggle99]

thank you