The Searchers bring their musical quest to an end after 68 years
They are the longest-running band in pop history, selling tens of millions of records and filling venues worldwide in a 68-year career. But now the Searchers have decided to take their final bow.
The group, who were contemporaries of the Beatles during 'the British invasion' will play their last ever show at this year's Glastonbury festival, after a 'final farewell tour' of Britain.
The band's guitarist John McNally, 83, and bassist and singer Frank Allen, 81, told the Guardian they have decided to retire, partly because age is catching up with them, but also because the increased traffic on the roads now makes it so hard to travel from one gig to another.
Allen, who joined the Searchers in 1964, said: 'Age slows you down a bit. We did between 180 and 200 shows a year. But driving up and down the motorways is the hard part because the traffic is so much heavier than it ever was … There was never a problem with recovering from a show because that's the thing that brings you to life. We were always fit to do a show. It's just the driving up and down motorways.'
McNally, who formed the band when he was 16 in 1957, said: 'The traffic is now an absolute nightmare.'
The Merseybeat band found fame playing in the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg. Their debut No 1 hit Sweets for My Sweet in 1963 was followed by the chart-toppers Needles and Pins and Don't Throw Your Love Away, establishing them as a global act by the mid-1960s.
But they have never played Glastonbury until now. 'No one's asked us,' Allen said. 'The Searchers are finally performing at the greatest music festival of them all. What a way to round off a tour and a career.'
McNally added: 'A Glastonbury debut at 83! Can anyone top that? … We can't wait to see our fans again for this incredible final farewell.'
Glastonbury has long championed ageing stars, including Paul McCartney, who headlined in 2022 at the age of 80. Those playing this year include Rod Stewart, 80, and Neil Young, 79.
McNally – the son of a Liverpool docker and a barmaid – said some of the veterans keep on playing because there is now money to be made. The Searchers were among many musicians who did not earn much in the past: 'In the 1960s, no one had a rulebook to follow, no person to look after them. We just went through the motions and got ripped off.'
He added: 'You think: hang on, where's the money going? We did our first tour of America in 1964 and, when we got back, it was like: 'tuppence for you and tuppence for you and tuppence for you …'. What? We were paying for everything. We didn't make any money on that tour.'
Sign up to Sleeve Notes
Get music news, bold reviews and unexpected extras. Every genre, every era, every week
after newsletter promotion
Asked whether it was agents, managers and record producers who ripped them off, he said: 'Yes, they know all the ins and outs … we were just stupid musicians, so naive.'
Allen spoke of the buzz of being on stage: 'There's something special about it that keeps you young. It's just very addictive. People are cheering and telling you you're wonderful.'
The Searchers have made previous attempts to retire, only to be coaxed back by their fans, who were crying on the last tour. In 2023, their 43-date tour sold out. So too their 2024 tour.
The Searchers' Final Farewell tour runs from 14 to 27 June. The band will appear on the Acoustic Stage at the Glastonbury festival on 27 June
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Spectator
The bluster and waffle of George Freeman
Retromania is well and truly upon us. Neil Young just headlined Glastonbury. Noel Edmonds is back on the telly. And a Tory MP has been turned over by a Sunday newspaper in a cash-for-questions scandal. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1997. The humiliated party this time around is George Freeman, a former science minister in Rishi Sunak's government. He left frontline politics before frontline politics had the chance to leave him – and he was last heard from moaning in 2024 that he was unable to afford a £2,000-a-month mortgage on his £118,000 ministerial salary. After that, he found a side-hustle that better answered his needs – advising an environmental monitoring company called GHGSat, which paid him £5,000 a month for just eight hours of work between last April and March this year. When he took the job, he quite properly consulted Acoba, the regulator that presides over the ethics of private-sector appointments for former ministers and civil servants. GHGSat have said that they 'retained George Foreman MP for a brief period' and that their agreement with him 'did not include any lobbying activities'. Since Foreman remains a trade envoy and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, Acoba quite properly went out of its way to warn him that given 'this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions… there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office'. Acoba says Foreman specifically assured it that he had 'made it clear to the company that [he would] not lobby government on its behalf'. Anyway, now he's in the soup because the Sunday Times has established that while he was in this company's employment he appears to have tabled several written questions in relation to the areas of GHGSat's commercial interests, in consultation with – and in some cases adopting the exact language of – the company's senior executives. (It's merely the icing on the cake that he appears to have further contravened ethics rules by using his parliamentary offices to host meetings related to his outside commercial interests.) Foreman asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one', when he tabled the questions, which tells parliament that an MP has asked a question relating to one of their registered interests. The facts appear to be undisputed. He took money from this company. He was specifically warned against using his position in parliament to the company's advantage, and he gave undertakings not to. He then went on not only to table several parliamentary questions the answers to which may have been to the potential commercial advantage of this company, but leaked emails show he asked the company's managing director in writing for advice on 'what to ask about'. It's not just that all this is what the young folk like to call a bad look. It's the pious inanity of his response that really hoists the old eyebrows. No doubt under the advice of some spin-doctor telling him to 'get out in front of the story', he made great show of referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. His statement to the Sunday Times when all this came to light was as follows: As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course. We can ignore most of that long feather-puffing opening sentence and all the long feather-puffing second one. And at the third, we can laugh aloud with great merriment: here is such a stickler for the rules, such a deep and assiduous respecter of the need for full transparency, that he voluntarily hands himself in to the Commissioner for Standards the moment that his emails are leaked to the Sunday Times. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home The nub of all that bluster and waffle appears to be that his defence to the charge of asking questions on behalf of the company is that he was asking questions on his own behalf and simply consulting the company to help him get the technical language right. These things he was asking about were just things that he, personally, happened to be interested in – or at least thought would serve the public good – and it is the merest coincidence that they are also things that the company which paid him £60,000-odd could stand to profit from. Perhaps, indeed, this defence stands up. Even parliament is not without its Candide-like innocents. But it seems to me that if he really was all that determined not only to behave with exemplary probity, but to make sure that not a whiff of an ethical lapse should attend him, it might have occurred to him to mention the whole thing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards beforehand. Just, y'know, to know where he stood on the whole thing. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home. Let us say I discover (not at all an implausible situation) that the box of chocs I have deposited in the fridge for the teacher's end-of-term present – and which I specifically told the children not to help themselves to – has vanished. I imagine confronting my daughter. 'Did you eat the chocolates I told you not to eat?' 'Certainly not. I should say that as a long-term champion of secondary education and our hardworking teachers, I have from time to time found it appropriate to make sure that no educators are in danger of eating potentially poisoned chocolate.' 'There's chocolate wrappers on the floor of your room, and an empty chocolate box in your bin.' 'I have striven, throughout my career as a child and now young adult, at all times assiduously to obey parental instructions, and I have no recollection of knowingly doing anything to contravene them. Filial duty has always been my watchword, and my conscience is clear. But in keeping with my determination to uphold the very highest standards in domestic life, I'm voluntarily referring myself to the independent ombudsman and will accept his judgment in due course.' 'What are you talking about? There's literally a smudge of chocolate on your chin.' 'I don't think it would be appropriate to pre-empt the findings of the inquiry, do you?' 'I'm stopping your pocket money for a week.' 'Actually, I think you'll need to raise my pocket money to help pay for the independent investigation into the matter. I have always been a firm believer in going through the appropriate procedures.' Anyway, we'll await the judgment in due course and lay in some chocs to munch for when the time comes.
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
BBC staff ‘ashamed' over Glastonbury ‘death to IDF' chants
Last week Tim Davie, the director-general of the BBC, emailed all staff announcing new editorial guidelines which would, among other things, prevent the broadcaster from screening 'hate speech'. Days later, staff were dismayed as chants calling for the deaths of Israeli soldiers were broadcast live on BBC iPlayer as part of the corporation's Glastonbury coverage. The incident has plunged the organisation into another crisis, with insiders telling The Times they felt 'ashamed', and led to an intervention by Sir Keir Starmer, who has demanded to know how the scenes were allowed to air. The prime minister said: 'There is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech. The BBC needs to explain how these scenes came to be broadcast.' Davie emailed staff on Tuesday, telling them that the new guidelines would 'set the editorial values and standards for all BBC output'. It was the first time the guidelines have been changed since 2019. In that period the corporation has faced criticism for controversies including a Gaza documentary that had to be pulled after it emerged it was narrated by the teenage son of a Hamas official. The updated guidelines state: 'Material that contains hate speech should not be included in output unless it is justified by the context.' They added that broadcasting hate speech could constitute a criminal offence 'if it is intended or likely to stir up hatred relating to race, or intended to stir up hatred relating to religious belief'. However, viewers of Saturday's Glastonbury coverage would have seen Bobby Vylan, the singer of the punk group Bob Vylan, leading thousands of people in chants on the festival's West Holts Stage. Vylan, 34, from Ipswich, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, urged the crowd to repeat 'Free, free Palestine' and 'Death, death to the IDF' (Israel Defence Force). He also told the crowd 'from the river to the sea Palestine … will be free, inshallah'. The singer delivered a monologue describing working at a record label for someone who supported Israel and describing him as a 'f***ing Zionist'. BBC staff have questioned how the performance — which has been condemned by Jewish groups — was not only broadcast live but also remained available on iPlayer for more than five hours. One insider said that Saturday's scenes were particularly galling as the BBC had won an Emmy only last week for a documentary about the massacre at the Nova music festival during the October 7 attacks in Israel. One BBC staffer said: 'There is no excuse for it being live. It takes a second to cut a feed. The guy was allowed to continue for more than 20 minutes and he was loving that he was live on the BBC. 'He kept reminding the crowd. As soon as he started to tell them how he had had to work for a 'f***ing Zionist' they should have cut him off. 'And now they say it wasn't available to watch on demand but the whole unfiltered show sat on iPlayer for anyone to watch for more than five hours.' Another added: 'This Glastonbury debacle has crossed a line. News coverage will always raise difficult questions and tackle difficult subjects but this was entirely unnecessary and avoidable. The BBC should have been alert to this risk and the live feed should have been cut within seconds.' The Bobby Vylan performance was the last before the Belfast rap trio Kneecap took to the stage. The BBC decided not to screen Kneecap's show live after one of its members, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, was charged with a terrorism offence for allegedly displaying the flag of Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist organisation, at a gig last year. He has denied the charge. Instead, it broadcast highlights of their performance. Starmer said the band should not be given a platform 'and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence'. Subsequently it was announced on Sunday that the Metropolitan Police had decided not to prosecute members of Kneecap over comments allegedly calling for Conservative MPs to be killed, made at a concert in November 2023. Glastonbury Festival issued a statement saying the organisers were 'appalled' at the statements made by Bob Vylan. 'Their chants very much crossed a line,' it said. 'There is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.' Lord Walney, the former government anti-extremism adviser, added his voice to criticism of the BBC. 'After all the furore over Kneecap, it is incredible that they allowed the 'death to the IDF' and 'from the river to the sea' chants to be broadcast from the Bob Vylan set without immediately pulling the feed,' he said. 'There is no excuse for this dereliction of duty by our national broadcaster. Tim Davie must immediately get a grip of this crisis or he is going to face serious calls to step down.' A BBC spokeswoman said: 'Some of the comments made during Bob Vylan's set were deeply offensive. During this livestream on iPlayer, which reflected what was happening on stage, a warning was issued on screen about the very strong and discriminatory language. We have no plans to make the performance available on demand.'
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Glastonbury Festival getaway and clean-up gets underway
Thousands of weary music fans are heading home as Glastonbury Festival has come to an end for another year. It comes hours after US pop star Olivia Rodrigo headlined the Pyramid Stage and closed the festival at Worthy Farm in Somerset. The team of volunteers will begin cleaning up the site to prepare the land for a fallow year in 2026. Revellers were urged to take all of their belongings with them and to leave their campsite were encouraged to leave the site between 00:00 and 06:00 BST to get ahead of the queues and avoid the heat, as temperatures are expected to reach up to 31C (88F). Those beginning their journeys later were advised to cover up with light, airy clothing, carry water and apply sunscreen regularly.
