Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Oh my, Steve ... you are right ... what a song! Must admit I'd never
heard of this guy before.  I will definitely check out the album.
Gracias ...
  

    
Yeah, he's amazing, and pretty much ignored by the music industry.  If you 
like "Ghosts," pick up the Red House Painters' "Songs for a Blue Guitar," 
which was my favorite album of a few years ago.

There are a lot of hardcore Koz/RHP fans who prefer RHP's earlier albums, 
but I find them a bit trite in that coffeehouse-yearning way.  He's 
getting better and better as he gets older.
  

    
Thanks for the turn-on, Steve. I'll head over to Amazon later and look
for both the Kozelek and Red House Painters (love that name). 
Meanwhile, I'll be off-line for a couple hours running Saturday
errands. 
  

    
Just FYI, "Ghosts" is listed under the band name Sun Kil Moon (another 
boxer -- he's obsessed.)  :)
  

    
Hey Dave,

From your perspective, can you talk to us a little about Neil? 

He's always kind of spoken about as the enigmatic member of the band.
He also seems to be given credit as the one who makes all the decisions
and pulls the strings...

What's your take on the man and what seems like an on again off again
relationship with the others?
  

    
Tony ... Neil Young, for as far back as I've been following him and
CSNY, has been a bit apart ... by choice.  Stephen once told me, "I
love Neil like a brother, but he's not a real *band* guy and has always
wanted to be in control of where he's going." That said, Neil himself
has said that what he likes about being in CSNY is that he doesn't have
to be out front all of the time.  He can sing a few of his songs, lay
back, and rotate into the spotlight a few times as the show progresses.
I really don't think he "pulls all of the strings." I mean, Crosby,
Stills *and* Nash are very forceful, independent guys on their own. But
without Neil, of course, there is no CSNY.

The last piece in the 4 Way Street book is an interview Ian D'Giff did
with Croz, and he asked him about the future of CSNY (the interview
took place in March 2002), to which David responded: "You got me chief
... CSNY is largely up to Neil.  Neil, in popular terms, is bigger by
himself than the three of us are.  And we know that. But, CSNY is
bigger than either, and he knows that."

The times that I've interviewed Neil and spoken with him casually,
he's always been very direct ... and funny.  He's serious about his
music. But, from my experience, he's far from the "dark loner" image
that he's been tagged with at various points in his career.  

The guy loves to play with people ... just not the same people all of
the time.  One year it'll be Crazy Horse ... the next year it may be
Booker T. and the MGs ... the next year it may be CSNY ... or he may
decide to pair it all down to just himself, with six guitars, a piano
and pump organ. Then, out of the blue, he creates this whole world ...
Greendale ... a community ... characters ... a story ... songs ... a
concert ... a film.  I was prepared not to like it.  But I saw two
shows live in NYC and went to the premiere of the film and *loved* it.
I enjoy the messages (folk tales grounded in humanity and taking care
of the earth), the music (the acoustic and electric versions)and the
*grooves.* At Radio City Music Hall in March, when he started playing,
my wife and stood up and Neil & the Horse just took us away.  Whoosh
... what a great feeling.

What more can I say? Neil is a prolific writer and performer.  He's in
constant motion.  CSNY is just one of his trips.  But when he's in
CSNY, especially lately, in 1999, 2000 and 2002, he seems to certainly
give it his all. 

I hope CSNY plays together again ... we shall see. Meanwhile, Neil
will do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it ... and I'll be
happy to listen in. 

  

 
  

    
There's an "extra" on the Harvest DVD-A recording with an interview
with Neil where he's laying out in a field, and it's from about the
time Harvest was produced. He's laying there semi-prone in the middle
of a field in front of the barn where they did Alabama talking about
how cool it is to have the independence he has. He makes his philosophy
on this very clear and I even think I recall that he says playing with
CSNY is "different" for him.....
  

    
I've seen that interview, Buzz.  It's a very spacey rap! For a little
more insight into a more current take on Neil and CSNY ... here's a
brief excerpt from a 2002 piece by Gary Graff that's in 4 Way Street:

... Nash acknowledges that Young is the man in charge of things these
days.

"The man's a genius," Nash says. "We all have our roles to play; it's
just that Neil is taking the reins this time, and that's fine with all
of us. I'll follow anyone who's right. If you're not right, I go 'Wait
a second,' but Neil has been right a tremendous amount of the time. His
instincts as a musician are wonderful; as a musician he lives in the
moment, and I'm perfectly willing to follow him right into the moment."

Young, however, deflects the mantle of leadership. "I don't run it --
I don't want that responsibility!" he says with a laugh. "The reason I
play with CSN is because ... I don't have to sing every song, because I
like playing with them. I like being with guys I've known for 30 years
that have gone through so much with me. It's a rewarding experience.
It's fun to look around and see those guys." 
  

    
The band's relationship with Neil is also subject to financial pressures, 
because CSN lacking Y makes much less money on the road than all four 
letters on the marquee.  And any two-letter combination makes much less 
than that, or even loses money.

A serious consideration of the arc of CSNY's career, including band 
relationships, has to take this fact into account, because it set 
practical reality at odds with the reason the bandmembers called 
themselves by their names in the first place:  they didn't want to be 
slaves to a collective identity anymore;  they didn't want to be Hollies 
or Byrds or Buffalo Springfields.  They wanted to be free agents, at 
liberty to play in any constellation as they chose.  The burst of solo 
albums at the beginning of the '70s reflects that:  Stills albums, a 
Crosby solo album, Nash & Crosby, Nash, and of course the various 
incarnations of Young.  To my mind, almost all of these albums stand on 
their own as products of musical genius (Stills through the Manassas 
period);  but the record-and-ticket-buying public, and notably, rock 
critics, seemed much less interested in anything but the mothership.

Even an album that is, in retrospect, obviously brilliant, such as Stephen 
Stills 1, suffered a withering reception in the rock press.  This is Ed 
Ward in Rolling Stone on that record:


"I must have played this album a dozen times and have yet to distinguish 
between the  songs, which must either have identical tunes or be in the 
same key. I can barely hear  Jimi Hendrix lead on 'Old Times Good Times', 
although I've listened for it, and I didn't  even bother to listen for 
Eric Clapton's lead on 'Go Back Home'. Every single on of these  
compositions (with notable exception of 'Black Queen', which certainly 
doesn't stand up  under repeated listenings) has an elusive, perhaps I 
should say, evanescent quality to it.  Sort of like the greased pig of 
carnival fame or taste of Puerto Rican coconut soda.  Except the pig is 
most definitely there, even if nobody can catch him, and I think Coco  
Rico has a taste. 

See Stephen sitting outside in the snow with his very expensive 
(Washburn?) guitar,  playing for a multi coloured ceramic giraffe. See 
Stephen, attired in polo shirt, perhaps  playing polo. See the back cover 
with the names of 22 people who just happened to drop  into the recording 
session. Names all of them, of course, either because they are or by  
association with those who are. 

Remember the days when a group broke up because one of the guys got 
drafted or killed?  Remember the days when the word superstar was a 
cynical title Andy Warhol would give to  his actors who didn't have to 
act? I still go for the sentiment expressed on a sign that I  hear he has 
up at the Factory: IN THE FUTURE, EVERYBODY WILL BE FAMOUS FOR 15 MINUTES.  
Remember the kid who wrote in to the Fantastic Four comic book and asked 
how Mr Fantastic  kept from stretching himself so thin that he'd snap? 
Does anybody out there remember the  answer? 

I'm not saying that I don't like this album. I put it on, my mind goes and 
wanders, I  find myself tapping my foot, I admire little production 
techniques here and there, I think  that 'Love The One You're With' will 
make a killer single. But when it's over, I put  something meatier on."
----

My own feeling is that this has been a tragedy for CSNY individually and 
collectively, though, like all true artists, they made the best of it, and 
never put out a record just for the money, with the possible exceptions of 
Replay and Allies.  They have kept the quality up, but I think their 
hearts were significantly broken by learning that a huge portion of their 
audience would walk away unless all four acronyms were on the same stage.  
In a cruel irony, the four-letter moniker became even *more* 
oppressively confining than a band name would have been, because you can 
swap in or out any number of players and still tour as the Byrds.

I know this is harsh, but I believe it to be true, and I believe it to be 
an important factor in all of their legendary ego-battles over the years, 
particularly with Young.  I have found it particularly distressing in that 
while any CSNY tour plays to filled arenas, CPR has to struggle to fill 
clubs, and there have been many times in recent years when I thought the 
music on offer at a CPR gig was much more in the spirit of the original 
CSNY vibe than the mothership extravaganzas.

Dave or <croz>, thoughts?
  

    
I am neither of the Davids you asked, but: great post, Steve.  The nature of
the fame biz, I'm afraid.
  

    

And it's more than that.  These heroes of ours stepped through a magic door
in the '60s and early '70s, attaining their collective God status at a moment
when rock musicians were the most important people in pop culture.  They
EARNED that status, to be sure, with their genuine (joint and several) great-
ness.  But the BUSINESS took over shortly thereafter, and the business just
wants the money shot.  The business won't put the efffort into making their
customers aware of CPR, because the money is in CSNY.

Just stating the brutal obvious here.
  

    
<But the BUSINESS took over shortly thereafter, and the business just
wants the money shot.  The business won't put the efffort into making
their
customers aware of CPR, because the money is in CSNY.

Just stating the brutal obvious here.>

Sad commentary, I'm afraid.... but that's why it is so important for
people who are touched by these new endeavors to try to get the word
and music out by whatever means. <croz> has mentioned to me that the
business and "radio play" and thus sales, won't be there for the new
C&N venture. I take a more positive outlook on it and believe that if
we, the fans, do what we do best, listen and spread the word, that
maybe some lucky thing might happen. I guess I'm an eternal optimist...
but you never know, do you?
  

    

You are absolutely right, Buzz.  Word of mouth is EVERYTHING these days.  I
speak as a struggling singer-songwriter...
  

    
<<The business won't put the effort into making their
customers aware of CPR, the money is in CSNY.>> 

David, Stephen Stills had a similar complaint as far back as 1972 -
1973, when Atlantic Records was less than enthusiastic about Manassas
(believe it or not), feeling that if that group took off -- which it
had every right to do -- this would push another CSNY "pay day" further
into the future. This fact nearly drove Stills crazy. He worked his
tail off on the double album. "God knows, I gave them the ammunition,"
Stills once told me. But, alas, Atlantic provided minimal support, an
inferior second album was issued and Manassas splintered. A few months
later, Stephen went back to CSNY for the huge stadium tour of '74.

In theory, as each member of CSNY has stated from 1969 on, "the
mothership" concept should allow for all of the other various
combinations to happen and, though not succeed commercially
at the level of CSNY, be supported enough by the business and the
public to encourage further artistic exploration. 

Now, however, it's like CSNY *needs* to happen periodically to help
finance CPR, Crosby-Nash and Stills solo projects. It certainly seems
like that is the case, anyway.

Steve ... excellent post and points. It was also interesting to read
Ed Ward's words about Stills 1 (though he got some details wrong ...
Stills was playing a vintage Martin, *not* a Washburn, and he was not
playing polo ... rather, clad in a football jersey, just breezing one
of his own horses). These days, Rolling Stone might not even review the
record. 

While Steve stated ...

<<...but the record-and-ticket-buying public, and notably, rock 
critics, seemed much less interested in anything but the mothership.>>

most rock critics don't even seem interested in "the mothership" these
days.  The only artist of the four that gets any major current
coverage in the mainstream rock press is Neil. That's been the case for
quite awhile now.

<<I thought the music on offer at a CPR gig was much more in the
spirit of the original CSNY vibe than the mothership extravaganzas.>>

I agree with this from a song selection and energy standpoint. But, I
must admit, the CSNY vibe or *aura* is still there for me when I see
the four of them on stage. But when the familiar CSNY songs start
unfolding without infusion of genuine new material and fresh spirit,
the edge comes off the aura/vibe and, in the end, the concert falls
well short of greatness.

From an overall emotional standpoint, I agree that it *was* much more
gratifying to see/hear CPR come out and play a majority of brand new
songs during the first third of their set on the recent tour. That's
the *juice* for me (and you, I know, Steve).  Unfortunately, most of
the thousands of fans who flock to the sheds to see CSNY would rather
hear "Our House" and "Carry On" than "Jesus of Rio" or "Lay Me Down." 
A sad reality ...  
  

    
all pretty true stuff......the biggest blow to CSNY and all
permutations thereof and all other singer-songwriters though has been
MTV and VH1 ....they seemed like such a great idea at first and then
they quite quickly changed it from being a musical experience to being
a theatrical experience .......we aren't cute .....don't have perky
tits .......so we're pretty much fucked in the marketing dept. and
don't get played ......I think we are incredibly lucky that we can
still sell tickets and make a living that way  ......CPR sure can't
......and when people as good as Shawn Colvin and Marc Cohn can't get
on the air or even really make $$ on tour .....things are in a bad way 
  

    
> the biggest blow to CSNY and all
permutations thereof and all other singer-songwriters though has been
MTV and VH1 ....they seemed like such a great idea at first and then
they quite quickly changed it from being a musical experience to being
a theatrical experience <

Amen, <croz>.  That's it, in a word.
  

    
Dave [Zimmer], in the course of compiling the book and doing other
CSNY research over the years, you most likely came across a wide scope
of critical opinions on the band. While they were generally well
received in their early days, there was also some later revisionist
backlash which castigated the group as overrated and quaintly passe.
This wasn't, as some might assume, only an outgrowth of the punk/new
wave era. Rolling Stone itself did this in the mid-to-late 1970s, for
instance referring to them only in passing as "the not-so-great Crosby,
Stills, Nash and Young" in the folk-rock chapter of "The Rolling Stone
Illustrated History of Rock & Roll." In the original edition of "The
Rolling Stone Record Guide" they went further, writing for the CSN
entry: "Limpid 'adult bubblegum' rockers and ballads of numbingly
ersatz sensitivity. The vocal harmonies that were supposed to be the
trio's forte are so static when played at anything near a loud volume
that they actually feel like needle pricks on the brain."

Although a hugely popular act, CSNY have had a rather polarizing
effect on critics (though Neil Young's solo work is about as critically
lauded as anyone's, with some exceptions, particularly for his 1980s
albums). Do you have any thoughts on why they sometimes garner such
negative reactions, and did you come across any reviews/essays you felt
extremely wrongheaded (in an entertaining fashion or otherwise) when
considering material for the book?
  

    
I saw CPR play Marin Civic in March (one of the highest musical
experiences in my life, I do believe - I was moved to tears several
times) and was AMAZED that the place wasn't packed with lines around
the building.  I'd say it was over three-quarters full - but not sold
out.  Go figger!
  

    

Well, since we are talking about critical response to CSN&Y and its
various subsets, I can no longer resist mentioning what may well be the
most ruthlessly efficient dismissal of a record ever -- simply the album
title and three additional words (plus the name of the author, Bruce
Malamut). It appeared, as below, in Crawdaddy:

STEPHEN STILLS LIVE

Coulda fooled me.
  

    
That's a good one, but it might be outdone by NME's review of Lee
Hazlewood's "Poet, Fool, or Bum," which was just one word: "Bum."
  

    

Yep, that beats it for word-count economy!
  

    
the one I loved /hated the most was when Rolling Stone called my first
solo "If I Could......." .........mediocre....that hurt .....I mean
they could have said it was weird ....yeah ...it was
.....self-indulgent .....uh huh....off the wall....outside
......strange ...yup .....but mediocre !!..........
  

    
Must be awful to read that knowing it's not true.   Some reviewer, with a
snappy line, dismisses months of hard work.    A reviewer has a
responsibility beyond entertaining the readers and maintaining his hip
factor.

Ralph Gleason came into Gatsby's, in Sausalito, to catch my band on a night
when I just couldn't hit on shit.  I was feeling bad enough about the show,
but when I recognized him walking in, my heart sank.   But when I went out
between sets to say hi, he was gracious in the extreme, and even
commiserated about the trouble I seemed to be having.  And then he told my
not to worry.   That he never gave an act a bad review based on one show.  A
good one, yeah.   But not a bad one, because everybody can have a bad night.
That kind of class is rare, unfortunately.
  

    
For sure.
  

    
Hey Dave... this question might be a little too specific but...

Do you have any favorite quotes you could share with us either from
your interviews of the band or from the book? 

Any prophetic statements made back in the day that have played out?