The ShadowMusic Web Community

Gary Allen posted this fascinating track in another thread, and rather than shoot off topic there, I've started this new thread...

Here's the track - try to listen to it through something decent. https://soundcloud.com/gary-allen-54/savage-hank-less-shads

I love this track, for me perhaps the definitive track of the early Shads era, and one which I have always tried to emulate exactly because of that... When I started playing Shadows music again in 1996, I relearned this in a different place on the fingerboard, changing from starting on second fret to seventh... Listening to this now, I wonder if I did right. And what magic a series of unintended string strikes bring to the"solo". And what ferocity Hank brings to the track with his plectrum technique...

I also hear these things on the first Shads E.P. and early flip sides. And maybe KonTiki - which is later (?)

Jet always used to say that The Shads stopped being a rock'n'roll group. Certainly, the managers who believed that it was a short lived fad, and pushed them, and Cliff into schmaltz, panto and cabaret must share the blame for that...

But does this track exemplify exactly what they lost?

Yep, all time favourite.

David Martin wrote:But does this track exemplify exactly what they lost?

It probably does. As they grew older and more battle-scarred with all the touring, so the youthful aggression plus mistakes was replaced by greater sophistication and better musicianship. Yes, it would never be the same again. But how long could it have lasted that way? Nobody knows. Personally, I'm glad they went through all the changes. They made the overall experience a lot richer for me.

Classic Shads sound indeed

Robby

Jan mixed it with a UBHank BT, fascinating......https://app.box.com/s/14witkxvz0go3esl459q6om1gd3xomvx

I think Iain's right when he suggests that it was only because the Shads matured and developed that they sustained their career as long as they did. Had they stayed as raw rockers they would have been completely sunk by "Merseybeat".

I know opinions vary on the desirability of the 1980s "covers" albums but think what else we would have lost, such as the magnificent vocals of the Marvin Welch and Farrar phase, the Theme from the Deerhunter, and so much more. Would the 2004 and 2009 reunions have happened? I very much doubt it.

I’m listening to that again, trying to get closer to Hank’s version. I can only sport one mid-strike, at about 1/07, which of course I’ll try to come too.

Andy

I never, ever thought of the Shadows as a rock and roll group. Wouldn't have liked them if they had been.

As for the 80s albums full of awful song covers, I can think of nothing more cringeworthy. If I want to hear covers, I can wander up the road to my local pub.

(But I don't, far rather stay at home and put a record on.)

I think the Shadows fit in the brief musical era between rock ‘n’ roll and the British Invasion. Personally, I don’t relate much to Shadows music beyond early 1960s.

Andy

Uncle Fiesta wrote:I never, ever thought of the Shadows as a rock and roll group. Wouldn't have liked them if they had been.

As for the 80s albums full of awful song covers, I can think of nothing more cringeworthy. If I want to hear covers, I can wander up the road to my local pub.

(But I don't, far rather stay at home and put a record on.)

It's easy to forget Steve that before Apache the Shadows were predominantly Cliff's backing band. If you listen to the early live album 'Cliff' or 'Me and my Shadows', not forgetting some of the singles, they were a great rock & roll band.

Len