The 1980s: My point of view

[drakula63]

Rather than add yet more posts to my String of Hits 2 thread, I thought I'd start a new one for this more specific topic.

We all have strong opinions (I believe) on what the Shadows did during the 1980s whilst at Polydor. So here are my thoughts on the subject...

The 1960s and the 1970s were probably the best periods for the Shadows to try to forge ahead and experiment with both style and sound. As the 1980s dawned, and for them their 40s, I think it's fair to say that their age and their style of music were against them. Now that's not to say that I think they were 'past it'... but for the general public, they probably were.

It must have been frustrating for them - and EMI - to see a whole raft of original singles flop badly, especially when many of these were extremely good and as good as the stuff that was getting into the charts. Then, in 1978 and 1979, the band suddenly had totally unexpected chart success with singles and albums consisting of their instrumental versions of other people's (well known) songs. It was a life-saver for the band and these records (Don't Cry For Me, Cavatina and String of Hits) brought them more success than they'd had since the 1960s. So... what next...?

EMI - apparently - wanted more of the same. The Shadows wanted to release more original material and, of course, own their tapes. Polydor gave them more leeway, at first, but the relatively low chart placings (and sales?) meant that by the mid 80s it was back to the String of Hits formula, that had been successful then and returned them to the charts again.

So, how do I personally feel about that? As a 'fan', I would much rather have had more albums like Specs Appeal and Rockin' With Curly leads... but these albums hadn't really sold and so this suggests that neither EMI nor the general public were keen.

It's a shame that the Shads had to become a 'novelty covers band' (as they did) during the 80s, but it was probably the only way they were going to survive and hang on to a major record deal. Hank did much the same thing during the 1990s. The 1980s had many highs and lows for the band, but I somehow doubt that we'd have got any albums, singles or tours from them if they hadn't followed the path that was dictated to them. So... did they do the right thing by ditching the original material and concentrating on covers...? Yes, I think they did. It was either that or call it a day. I saw them in concert about seven times during the 80s... and I'm glad I had that opportunity.

[Tigerdaisy]

I think it's probably a lot to do with there being very few melodies that suit the Shadows style very well- they very quickly ran out of them in the early days...
'Riders in the Sky' was a quite late hit that suited them very well.

[drakula63]

Just wanted to add that, in my opinion, The Third Man (1981) and Moonlight Shadow (1986), were two of the best covers the Shads ever did and certainly in the case of the former it was just serious bad luck that prevented it from becoming a HUGE hit. After that, it seemed that none of the singles they released appealed sufficiently to the public and it was album sales that kept them going. Interestingly, the same thing happened to Sky after they had that huge and unexpected hit with Toccata in 1980.

[andykombi]

They did do 4 or 5 live when the albums came out

[Twilight Ranger]

I have a somewhat different taste in music. I absolutelu NEVER listen to Rockin' With Curly Leads and I like The Shadows' covers a lot. I do like the originals as well, of course, both the early stuff and their later recordings. Chris's reasoning and logic about the career of The Shadows may contain a great deal of truth.

[drakula63]

I remember Cliff saying that, in 1979, he had considered calling it a day, as he'd had several singles in a row that hadn't been hits. Then, of course, along came We Don't Talk Anymore and changed all that!

By 1979 I think the Shadows were probably in a similar position. They'd had Run Billy Run, It'll Be Me Babe, Another Night and Love De Luxe, none of which had been successful. And the album Tasty had similarly failed to chart. I wonder how long this situation would have been allowed to continue as far as EMI was concerned? Then along came Don't Cry For Me and changed everything! Sadly, I think that concentrating on covers was probably the safest and only real road open to them by that point. They made the right decision, even if they were nudged in that direction... not least of all by the fans/public who bought this stuff in the same way they hadn't bought most if it for five years. 20GG being the obvious exception.

Hits Right Up Your Street was an OK album, but the title and the boring cover art made it unattractive and I can see how it got lost. I remember John Friesen telling me on the phone that it hadn't sold as well as they had all hoped. The same is true, largely, of XXV and Guardian Angel... cover art that didn't inspire you to want to buy the album. They seemed to get it right with Moonlight Shadows (the sleeve design and the content gelled and really hit the mark) and it finally started to take them back into the higher reaches of the charts. I think, as a largely instrumental band from the 1960s, the Shadows had the cards stacked against them by the 1980s - unlike the Stones for example - and I think it really was covers or nothing. At the time I was one of those who wanted more original material and vocals... but now I can see that I was probably in the minority and things worked out pretty well for everyone after all.

[iefje]

I quite like the original Polydor album cover of "Hits Right Up Your Street". It's a little bit cartoon-like and I think also eye-catching.

[Twilight Ranger]

I quite like the original Polydor album cover of "Hits Right Up Your Street". It's a little bit cartoon-like and I think also eye-catching.

Me too. I like it very much, and the music even more!

[iefje]

The whole cover versions debate reminds me of something Hank has said in one of his interviews. What he said, came down to this: When orchestras play arrangements of centuries-old classical music, it's fine. When blues guitarists (like Eric Clapton) play arrangements of blues standards, it's fine. But when The Shadows, Hank Marvin and The Ventures (and other guitar groups) play their instrumental interpretations of familiar music, it's not done or highly criticised.

[drakula63]

The whole cover versions debate reminds me of something Hank has said in one of his interviews. What he said, came down to this: When orchestras play arrangements of centuries-old classical music, it's fine. When blues guitarists (like Eric Clapton) play arrangements of blues standards, it's fine. But when The Shadows, Hank Marvin and The Ventures (and other guitar groups) play their instrumental interpretations of familiar music, it's not done or highly criticised.

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky with Heaven is a Place on Earth or When the Going Gets Tough (The Tough Get Going). However... I take the point. As far as the general public go, it was obviously OK... but I think the problem was that it wasn't really what the hardcore fans wanted. But, as we've seen, the general public won and it kept the Shads going for another ten years, whereas another album like Guardian Angel and I think it would have been game over. As an aside, I've always been somewhat bemused by the esteem with which Blues music is regarded. To me it's just miserable and depressing and I guess that's why they call it the blues! Mind you, the Stones album Blue and Lonesome got to number 1, so maybe there's more to it than meets the eye. Or ear.