Max Décharné

The sad story of the short-lived Small Faces

The influential 1960s rock band should have enjoyed the longevity of the Rolling Stones. But disputes with managers over low record royalties led to frustration, tension and disillusionment

The Small Faces. From left: Steve Marriott, Ronnie Lane, Kenney Jones, Ian McLagan. [Getty Images] 
issue 21 September 2024

One Sunday in October 1967, about 16 per cent of the British population settled down at 8.15 p.m. to watch the Morecambe & Wise Show on ITV. This was mainstream family entertainment aimed at all age groups, but there was also a place each week for teen-friendly acts from the pop charts. That evening it was the turn of four sharply dressed East End mods, who managed to inject some real heart and soul into their band’s performance. ‘They look very nice, don’t they?’ said Ernie, to which Eric replied: ‘They look extremely nice, except for one thing. Their faces are too small, I feel. Much too small.’

Mild leg-pulling of this kind was par for the course. Future guests, such as multiple Academy-Award nominee Vanessa Redgrave and the genial French crooner Sacha Distel, were cheerfully addressed by their hosts in turn as Vanilla Rednose and Slasher Distillery. But many watching the Small Faces that night singing ‘All or Nothing’ would have assumed that their two-year career had brought them to the peak of success, and the money was rolling in. However, with many other 1960s hit-makers, the story behind the scenes was very different. A combination of punishingly low record royalty rates, disputes with management, fraying inter-band relationships and an abiding unwillingness to be regarded as mere chart-fodder for screaming 14-year-olds saw them split up little more than a year later, shortly after the release of their landmark third studio album, Ogdens’ Nut Gone Flake.

Sean Egan’s entertaining and thoroughly researched book is billed as ‘the definitive Small Faces biography’. This is a bold claim about a much loved band whose reputation has only grown with the passing decades –and whose every action during a short career from 1965 to 1968 has been examined in multiple books, articles, documentaries and website entries – but it’s largely justified.

GIF Image

Disagree with half of it, enjoy reading all of it

TRY 3 MONTHS FOR $5
Our magazine articles are for subscribers only. Start your 3-month trial today for just $5 and subscribe to more than one view

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in