Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Do talk back

Which group do you prefer?

Buffalo Springfield
17
55%
Crosby, Stills, Nash (& Young)
14
45%
 
Total votes: 31

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby Hepcat » 23 May 2018, 16:22

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.
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
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....

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 23 May 2018, 16:47

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.

User avatar
pig bodine
Posts: 713
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 16:39
Location: Upper Baboonasshole

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills....

Postby pig bodine » 23 May 2018, 16:58

About equal, but BS only recoded 3 albums. CSN(Y) pretty much suck after Deja Vu

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 32527
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills....

Postby Matt Wilson » 23 May 2018, 17:02

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.

User avatar
naughty boy
hounds people off the board
Posts: 20266
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby naughty boy » 23 May 2018, 17:39

:?
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.

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby Sneelock » 23 May 2018, 18:18

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.
uggy poopy doody.

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63925
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby sloopjohnc » 23 May 2018, 18:21

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!

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby Sneelock » 23 May 2018, 18:23

sure but maybe part of the strength too - in both cases.
uggy poopy doody.

User avatar
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...?

Postby clive gash » 23 May 2018, 18:33

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...

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63925
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby sloopjohnc » 23 May 2018, 18:38

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!

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 14077
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby Sneelock » 23 May 2018, 18:41

I have Glenn Frey's ego in a mason jar.
you can make a bid on EBAY.
uggy poopy doody.

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63925
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby sloopjohnc » 23 May 2018, 19:00

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!

User avatar
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...?

Postby Matt Wilson » 23 May 2018, 19:15

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.

User avatar
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...?

Postby toomanyhatz » 23 May 2018, 19:30

Springfield had a decided advantage in that Graham Nash was never part of it.

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?

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63925
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: Buffalo Springfield! Better than Crosby, Stills, Nash...?

Postby sloopjohnc » 23 May 2018, 19:31

toomanyhatz wrote:Springfield had a decided advantage in that Graham Nash was never part of it.


:lol:

But did the Hollies?
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

User avatar
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...?

Postby Matt Wilson » 23 May 2018, 19:36

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

User avatar
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...?

Postby toomanyhatz » 23 May 2018, 19:43

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.
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?

User avatar
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...?

Postby Goat Boy » 23 May 2018, 19:44

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

User avatar
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...?

Postby clive gash » 23 May 2018, 19:46

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!
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...

User avatar
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...?

Postby Matt Wilson » 23 May 2018, 19:48

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!!


Return to “Yakety Yak”