or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Neil Young
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Neil Young - Page 3

post #31 of 82
^ Yeah, Young si just in a different class than CS&N. Theya re so very "of their time": great at those harmonies, but not much breadth. Young is timeless as he has reinvented himself so many times.
post #32 of 82
Thread Starter 
CSN has its merits. Stephen Stills is twice the guitar player Neil Young is, and Neil has readily admitted this more than once. Crosby and Nash created what are IMO the most beautiful harmonies in the history of pop music. Nothing really comes close.
post #33 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post
CSN has its merits. Stephen Stills is twice the guitar player Neil Young is, and Neil has readily admitted this more than once. Crosby and Nash created what are IMO the most beautiful harmonies in the history of pop music. Nothing really comes close.

+1 But Neil made them an entirely different band. Their entire persona changed (changes) when he plays with them.
post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post
Stephen Stills is twice the guitar player Neil Young is, and Neil has readily admitted this more than once.
Technically, for sure, but Young has so much more raw soul going into it. It's like comparing McCartney's solo at the end of "the End" off Abbey Road with Lennon's. Sure one is the superior musician, but he pales as an artist.
post #35 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonylumpkin View Post
+1 But Neil made them an entirely different band. Their entire persona changed (changes) when he plays with them.

Ehh...I dunno if his impact is/was all that great. From a songwriting standpoint, this is definitely true. Almost all of CSN/CSNY's great songs were penned by Stills, Nash or Crosby. I mean...Southern Cross, Love the One You're With, Suite: Judy Blue Eyes, Wasted on the Way, Long Time Gone, Almost Cut My Hair; you get the drift.

After seeing both iterations of the group in concert, I can honestly say that neither one is significantly better than the others. But I will definitely say that Stills and Young feed off of eachother like vultures in concert. The guitar duels made my jaw drop.
post #36 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo View Post
Technically, for sure, but Young has so much more raw soul going into it. It's like comparing McCartney's solo at the end of "the End" off Abbey Road with Lennon's. Sure one is the superior musician, but he pales as an artist.

Stills has his roots in New Orleans soul and blues, so I don't think you can say he's lacking in soul.

But yeah, I know what you mean. Neil's songs are really powerful.
post #37 of 82
Am I the only one that thinks neil young really, really




































SUCKS?!
post #38 of 82
actually,























yes.
post #39 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post
CSN has its merits. Stephen Stills is twice the guitar player Neil Young is, and Neil has readily admitted this more than once. Crosby and Nash created what are IMO the most beautiful harmonies in the history of pop music. Nothing really comes close.

You really need to listen to some Beach Boys - start with Don't Worry Baby, Good Vibrations and all of Pet Sounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo View Post
Technically, for sure, but Young has so much more raw soul going into it. It's like comparing McCartney's solo at the end of "the End" off Abbey Road with Lennon's. Sure one is the superior musician, but he pales as an artist.

I much prefer Lennon's body of work to McCartney's, but I still appreciate Paul's work and especially his musicianship. He was a better guitar player than George and a wildly inventive bassist. Not just technique, but soul too. I've never been exactly sure who's riffs are who's at in that song, but the one's I believe to be Paul's and George's I far prefer to John's. I love John's writing and singing, but I've never seen any genius in his guitar playing.
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron View Post
I much prefer Lennon's body of work to McCartney's, but I still appreciate Paul's work and especially his musicianship. He was a better guitar player than George and a wildly inventive bassist. Not just technique, but soul too. I've never been exactly sure who's riffs are who's at in that song, but the one's I believe to be Paul's and George's I far prefer to John's. I love John's writing and singing, but I've never seen any genius in his guitar playing.
At the end of "the End", the licks go McCartney-Harrisson-Lennon, with Lennon's, obviously, being the one note bent again-again-again-again-again...the genius in John's guitar (much like Young's) lies in the gnarly, primal, vaguely proto-punk energy. "The End" also has the distinction of being the only Beatles song which features a Ringo solo. And it's the last song on the last album they recorded together. And it's called "the End". What a way to go, eh? .... but no, Paul needs to come in stick on some nonsense about the fuking queen
post #41 of 82
JC: Ringo was the solo singer on Act Naturally. Also, on With a Little Help from my Friends and Yellow Sub. I can't recall the others right now, but those predate The End by several years.
post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bachbeet View Post
JC: Ringo was the solo singer on Act Naturally. Also, on With a Little Help from my Friends and Yellow Sub. I can't recall the others right now, but those predate The End by several years.

I mean drum solo. "The End" (or, more properly, the medley thata ends Abbey Road) contains the Beatles' only released drum solo. Listen to it, it's a little bit sad and hesitant. Reminds me of an uptight Meg White.
post #43 of 82
Helpless is an amazing song.

For people who are NY fans, I highly recommend the soundtrack to Jarmusch's Dea Man. As I understand it, he composed it essentially by plugging in with a screening of the film running in front of him and playing what came to mind. I'm sure it was actually a bit more structured than that suggests, but it's a good story and a great soundtrack.
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
I'm sure it was actually a bit more structured than that suggests, but it's a good story and a great soundtrack.

I'm frankly not so sure there is more to it than that. Young has done some pretty avant shit: making a song slandering Southerners, putting out "Welfare Mothers" (if you've never heard it, you haven't lived. LEAST PC EVER), his showtuney album, rerecording his hits in a form so drenched in feedback and noise as to be unrecognizable and then releasing it as a double LP, much to the chagrin of his label, etc, etc etc. I really wouldn't put it past him to literally plug in and doodle along with the movie in one take, no cuts. Especially considering that the movie consists, in large part, of Johny Depp drifting down a river in a canoe.
post #45 of 82
JC: OK. I actually never thought much about how many of their songs had drum solos. Come to think of it, I don't remember too many RS drum solos. And Watts has always been considered to be a much better drummer than Ringo. Could have been because when they started out, drum solos were extremely rare, maybe nonexistent. One of the first big songs with a long drum solo was Cream's Toad. Quicksilver had drum solos on their Happy Trails album.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Neil Young