Just one year and handful of days before Brian Connolly died the Mail on Sunday (UK) ran an article examining the depth of the divide between Andy Scott’s Sweet and BC Sweet. Simon Kinnersley reported that with the compilation album BALLROOM BLITZ standing at 37 in the charts a touring "Sweet" lineup would rake in the money. Certainly an album bubbling on the 70s nostalgia boom with high earning thirty something’s reliving their days of youth, a full Sweet contingency available for daytime TV and live shows would have put the album into top five. A promotional show with both Sweets performing a short set each before the main set with the famous four being supported by the AS and BC crews would have proved sensational. Even if the two bands were unable to work together on a regular basis, the wave of enthusiasm would have provided demand for new material and "anniversary" gigs into the next millennium. Coupled to this both Sweets would have had the following to continue to tour should they wish to. So why did it not happen? What follows, as Jan Achman has rightly pointed out, is a limited examination using very limited sources of what caused the split. The beauty of the WEB is that this article can grow and adapt as people feed it. All food please to woody@sweetfan.freeserve.co.uk
It is Kinnersley’s contention that the split between Brian and the rest of the group, and in particular with Andy Scott, was so acrimonious that £/$ signs were not enough to mend the rift. The claims made in the article, that are attributed to Brian, smack of a conspiracy and deceit that should make any Sweet fan shake their head in sadness. Any teacher will tell you that it is almost impossible to separate truth from fiction when two squabbling children are asked to explain why they are fighting. The kind of accusations and counter accusations surrounding this issue make getting at the truth probably impossible, but to shy away from examining it would be wrong.
Commenting on the possibility of a tour to plug Ballroom Blitz, Brian comments "The only way a reunion tour would work is if we stayed in different hotels, traveled in separate cars and were playing in different venues." And yet they had reformed, hadn't they? Briefly? As leather clad rockers? Brian in the interview on the Castle Hendring video talks about what great things he's expecting from the forthcoming reformation. But the vitriol from Brian in the Mail interview clearly refers to earlier times. "Andy couldn’t bear the fact that I was the front man and the person the fans identified with."
If this is true then Andy was a little misled. I agree with Mick when he talks of each member of the band having their own fan base (Castle Hendring Video - at present released the Ballroom Hitz Video - available from Virgin or good old Kev Smith). Yet Andy did appear to have ideas for his own personal career enhancement, and why not?, as can be seen with his brief solo appearances and releases in the seventies. Brian goes on to say "He wanted to be the star. He also wanted to sing lead vocals and he’s not got the voice." Sorry Brian, but I think you’ll find he has. But with Steve already getting the catchy hooks that are a feature of the hit material and showing he was well able to hold his own and with Suzi Q and Phil Lynott showing that a bassist could front a band Brian must have been looking over his shoulder. Then with Andy attempting inroads to a possible solo career, demonstrating a multi-talented musical ability that Brian did not have, it must have been threatening to him. Andy was of course the "new boy", but surely Brian could rely on his old mates Mick and Steve to support him? Apparently not. "They ostracised me completely. It was hell towards the end. I knew they were backing me into a corner and there was nothing I could do about it. They wanted me out of the band." Can we really believe this? Could Mick (13 hit wonder) Tucker, Brian’s mucker from way back, turn and stab him in the back? And what about Steve? So laid back, he was even asleep when he first met Andy. Yet if Brian is to be believed, in the lead singers absence a whole albums backing tracks were recorded in a key that Brian found impossible cope with. Now Mick can be excused for not being involved in this - unless he or the studio retuned the drum kit! But Steve would have known. Who am I kidding? Mick's a singer too - he'd have realised...surely?
Dave Walker, manager with Quo and previously with Sweet, remembers the split saying: "The others recorded an albums worth of music and, when Brian couldn’t do the vocals, told him that he was no good. What they had done was to record it in a key that he couldn’t sing, so they did the lead vocals themselves which is what they wanted. It was the greatest act of creative sabotage I’ve ever seen." Kinnersley also appears in no doubt about the treatment of Brian, also describing it as "sabotage". But which is this mysterious album that Brian can't sing on? The most likely contender is Cut Above', and this is agreed with by Christer Nilson and Jeff Brown (See Christer’s site). Yet how could they have hoped to fool Brian with this sort of action? Its clear from the video of Level Headed, recorded at the Rainbow (available from Kev Smith - his own compilation I believe), that Brian could still "do the words" - although his involvement is restricted, and when performing Level Headed material live, Andy did make a comment about the timbre of Brian’s voice being suitable for certain songs, and therefore, by implication, not suitable for others. But, that Brian’s voice could have deteriorated over the next few months is not likely, and he’d have known. So if Dave Walker is right, and they said Brian's voice was no good, and had recorded in a key to make this so, then Brian would not have been fooled. It was simply the final straw that pushed him over the edge into a solo career; and if Brian is to be believed that he only turned to drink AFTER the split then it was a big edge to be pushed over.
Steve Priest has lately said that he feels Brian was probably misquoted by the reporter in this article and that the claims by Walker cannot be considered reliable. (Steve Wood 22/2/99)