Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
- Hepcat
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
- Location: Toronto
Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Did the recorded output of Buffalo Springfield exceed that of Crosby, Still, Nash (& Young) in quality? Or was one or the other group unlistenable in your opinion?
Last edited by Hepcat on 23 May 2018, 17:01, edited 1 time in total.
"That government governs best that governs least."
- BARON CORNY DOG
- Diamond Geezer
- Posts: 45153
- Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
- Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills....
Hepcat wrote:Did the recorded output of Buffalo Springfield exceed that of Crosby, Still, Nash (& Young) in quality?
No.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
- pig bodine
- Posts: 713
- Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 16:39
- Location: Upper Baboonasshole
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills....
About equal, but BS only recoded 3 albums. CSN(Y) pretty much suck after Deja Vu
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32527
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills....
I keep harping on this - had CSNY never broke up and their best solo/duo recordings been CSNY songs, they would've been the biggest band of the '70s.
- naughty boy
- hounds people off the board
- Posts: 20266
- Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
- Sneelock
- Posts: 14077
- Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
- Location: Lincoln Head City
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Buffalo Springfield was great but CSN(Y) was GRATE.
I think Matt makes a good point - they kept cranking out good singles under their own names for quite a while.
I think Matt makes a good point - they kept cranking out good singles under their own names for quite a while.
uggy poopy doody.
-
- Posts: 63925
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
sneelock wrote:Buffalo Springfield was great but CSN(Y) was GRATE.
I think Matt makes a good point - they kept cranking out good singles under their own names for quite a while.
But wasn't that part of the problem? They were all solo artists at heart.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Sneelock
- Posts: 14077
- Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
- Location: Lincoln Head City
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
sure but maybe part of the strength too - in both cases.
uggy poopy doody.
- clive gash
- wannabee enfant terrible
- Posts: 17219
- Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 00:32
- Location: down the rabbit hole
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
None of them (Harvest aside) were mega sellers individually, why would a record with three songs by each sell more? The Eagles had a homogenised sound and image, CSN&Y’s songwriting and performance was too variable.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
Diamond Dog wrote:...it quite clearly hit the target with you and your nonce...
...a multitude of innuendo and hearsay...
...I'm producing facts here...
-
- Posts: 63925
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
gash on ignore wrote:None of them (Harvest aside) were mega sellers individually, why would a record with three songs by each sell more? The Eagles had a homogenised sound and image, CSN&Y’s songwriting and performance was too variable.
I don't know if you can use album sales as a determinant whether they thought they were solo artists or not. Lots of lesser artists than CSN&Y break up because of members' egos. They also seem to pair up into Stills-Young, like in Buffalo Springfield and Crosby with Nash.
But the Eagles are a good example. All those guys had pretty big egos, but were able to put them aside.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Sneelock
- Posts: 14077
- Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
- Location: Lincoln Head City
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
I have Glenn Frey's ego in a mason jar.
you can make a bid on EBAY.
you can make a bid on EBAY.
uggy poopy doody.
-
- Posts: 63925
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
sneelock wrote:I have Glenn Frey's ego in a mason jar.
you can make a bid on EBAY.
I'm saving up for Ted Williams' cryogenic head so I'll have to pass.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32527
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
gash on ignore wrote:None of them (Harvest aside) were mega sellers individually, why would a record with three songs by each sell more?
The same way Deja Vu sold more than Let it Be or any solo Beatles album in 1970.
- toomanyhatz
- Power-mad king of the WCC
- Posts: 29993
- Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
- Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Springfield had a decided advantage in that Graham Nash was never part of it.
Stills also got worse, although Young did get better.
Stills also got worse, although Young did get better.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?
-
- Posts: 63925
- Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
toomanyhatz wrote:Springfield had a decided advantage in that Graham Nash was never part of it.
But did the Hollies?
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32527
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Tell me this triple album wouldn't have been THE LP of 1971:
Album One
Side One
1. "Southern Man" -Neil 5:31
2. "Love the One You're With" - Stephen 3:07 (#14 Billboard charts) (B-side “Birds” – Neil 2:34)
3. "Music is Love" - David 3:22 (#95 Billboard charts) (B-side “Do for the Others” – Stephen 2:52)
4. “I Used to be a King" - Graham 4:48 (#111 Billboard charts) (B-side “Orleans” – David 1:56)
5. "Tell Me Why" - Neil 2:59
Side Two
1. "Sit Yourself Down" - Stephen 3:06 (#37 Billboard charts) (“B-side “There’s Only One” – Graham 3:55)
2. "Simple Man" - Graham 2:18
3. "Laughing" - David 5:27
4. "Only Love Can Break Your Heart" - Neil 3:10 (#33 Billboard charts) (B-side “Church [Part of Someone] – Stephen 4:05)
5. "Chicago/We Can Change the World" - Graham 4:01 (#35 Billboard charts) (B-side “Oh Lonesome Me” – Neil [Don Gibson] 3:47)
Album Two
Side Three
1. "Change Partners" - Stephen 3:16 (#43 Billboard charts) (B-side “Be Yourself” – Graham 3:03)
2. 'Tamalpais High (at about 3)" - David 3:33
3. "Don't Let it Bring You Down" - Neil 2:58
4. "Military Madness" - Graham 2:55 (#73 Billboard charts) (B-side “Word Game” – Stephen 4:13)
5. "Song with No Words/Tree with No Leaves" - David 6:00
Side Four
1. "Marianne" - Stephen 2:30 (#42 Billboard charts) (B-side “Till the Morning Comes” – Neil 1:17)
2. "Man in the Mirror" - Graham 2:49
3. "After the Gold Rush" - Neil 3:47
4. "Traction in the Rain" - David 3:46
5. "Black Queen" - Stephen 5:26
Album Three
Side Five
1. "When You Dance I Can Really Love" - Neil 3:45 (#93 Billboard charts) (B-side “What are Their Names” – David 4:09)
2. "Cowboy Movie" - David 8:11
3. "To a Flame" - Stephen 3:08
4. "Better Days" - Graham 3:50
5. "I'd Swear There Was Somebody Here" -David 1:20
Side Six
1. "Old Times Good Times" - Stephen 3:39 (with Hendrix)
2. "I Believe in You" - Neil 3:27
3. "Wounded Bird" - Graham 2:13
4. "The Lee Shore" - David 5:31 (studio version from CSN box set)
5. "Cripple Creek Ferry" - Neil 1:34
Album One
Side One
1. "Southern Man" -Neil 5:31
2. "Love the One You're With" - Stephen 3:07 (#14 Billboard charts) (B-side “Birds” – Neil 2:34)
3. "Music is Love" - David 3:22 (#95 Billboard charts) (B-side “Do for the Others” – Stephen 2:52)
4. “I Used to be a King" - Graham 4:48 (#111 Billboard charts) (B-side “Orleans” – David 1:56)
5. "Tell Me Why" - Neil 2:59
Side Two
1. "Sit Yourself Down" - Stephen 3:06 (#37 Billboard charts) (“B-side “There’s Only One” – Graham 3:55)
2. "Simple Man" - Graham 2:18
3. "Laughing" - David 5:27
4. "Only Love Can Break Your Heart" - Neil 3:10 (#33 Billboard charts) (B-side “Church [Part of Someone] – Stephen 4:05)
5. "Chicago/We Can Change the World" - Graham 4:01 (#35 Billboard charts) (B-side “Oh Lonesome Me” – Neil [Don Gibson] 3:47)
Album Two
Side Three
1. "Change Partners" - Stephen 3:16 (#43 Billboard charts) (B-side “Be Yourself” – Graham 3:03)
2. 'Tamalpais High (at about 3)" - David 3:33
3. "Don't Let it Bring You Down" - Neil 2:58
4. "Military Madness" - Graham 2:55 (#73 Billboard charts) (B-side “Word Game” – Stephen 4:13)
5. "Song with No Words/Tree with No Leaves" - David 6:00
Side Four
1. "Marianne" - Stephen 2:30 (#42 Billboard charts) (B-side “Till the Morning Comes” – Neil 1:17)
2. "Man in the Mirror" - Graham 2:49
3. "After the Gold Rush" - Neil 3:47
4. "Traction in the Rain" - David 3:46
5. "Black Queen" - Stephen 5:26
Album Three
Side Five
1. "When You Dance I Can Really Love" - Neil 3:45 (#93 Billboard charts) (B-side “What are Their Names” – David 4:09)
2. "Cowboy Movie" - David 8:11
3. "To a Flame" - Stephen 3:08
4. "Better Days" - Graham 3:50
5. "I'd Swear There Was Somebody Here" -David 1:20
Side Six
1. "Old Times Good Times" - Stephen 3:39 (with Hendrix)
2. "I Believe in You" - Neil 3:27
3. "Wounded Bird" - Graham 2:13
4. "The Lee Shore" - David 5:31 (studio version from CSN box set)
5. "Cripple Creek Ferry" - Neil 1:34
- toomanyhatz
- Power-mad king of the WCC
- Posts: 29993
- Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
- Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
THE LP? How?
Commercially? There wasn't that big a market for triple albums. Critically? Mixed, like all their single albums. Artistically? The advantage Neil's songs hold over the others' is embarrassing.
Commercially? There wasn't that big a market for triple albums. Critically? Mixed, like all their single albums. Artistically? The advantage Neil's songs hold over the others' is embarrassing.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017* 2018 2020!! 2023?
- Goat Boy
- Bogarting the joint
- Posts: 32974
- Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
- Location: In the perfumed garden
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
So that's a "no" then
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.
Copehead wrote:a right wing cretin like Berger....bleating about racism
- clive gash
- wannabee enfant terrible
- Posts: 17219
- Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 00:32
- Location: down the rabbit hole
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
Now imagine those songs being played by the same band, one of which, Captain fucking Manyhands, insists on noodling all over them, flattening out all of the raggedness of NY and slathering dreadful blues licks all over Crosby’s psych polyphony.
No way!
No way!
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
Diamond Dog wrote:...it quite clearly hit the target with you and your nonce...
...a multitude of innuendo and hearsay...
...I'm producing facts here...
- Matt Wilson
- Psychedelic Cowpunk
- Posts: 32527
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
- Location: Edge of a continent
Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?
toomanyhatz wrote:THE LP? How?
Commercially? There wasn't that big a market for triple albums. Critically? Mixed, like all their single albums. Artistically? The advantage Neil's songs hold over the others' is embarrassing.
That's only because he's your favorite. Like saying Lennon's songs were better than McCartney's, or vice versa. That album is great. Consisting of the best tracks from five good albums (well, maybe not Stephen Stills 2).
I'm on a mission. I'm going to convince *somebody* that CSN&Y in the '70s would've been HUGE!!