Buffalo Springfield Again

Do talk back
Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 26 Nov 2007, 22:08

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ho ho ho.

I've loved Moby Grape, the Doors, and the Airplane for many many years now. They moved me when I was in my late teens, I even managed to order a book from Whitehaven public library on the West Coast scene and devoured the fucking thing (this means a lot, by the way). The Buffalo Springfield didn't move me, and still don't. Not really. I know many who feel the same way - in fact, I always believed it was a 'standard' opinion. Until you prove that it isn't (i.e. don't just point to an embarrassment of Joni-obsessed LA layabouts here on the board who'll harp on and on and on and on about Stephen fucking soft-as-shite Stills), I'll keep hold of my 'opinion' and hold it as something close to fact: the band were second-rate.

There.

:P

User avatar
Balboa
Posts: 17579
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 13:31

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Balboa » 26 Nov 2007, 22:13

It took a little while, but eventually I understood the Springfield to be another of those bands from the 60's with 3 GREAT songwriters in. Really (and predictably) I think this album is great - top class songwriting, great arrangements and fantastic vocals. And it seems to get better with time, more than can be said for some other 60s 'giants'.
Of course, I was mostly stoned at the time.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:25

Sir John Coan wrote: I know many who feel the same way - in fact, I always believed it was a 'standard' opinion. Until you prove that it isn't (i.e. don't just point to an embarrassment of Joni-obsessed LA layabouts here on the board who'll harp on and on and on and on about Stephen fucking soft-as-shite Stills), I'll keep hold of my 'opinion' and hold it as something close to fact: the band were second-rate.

There.

:P


Doesn't seem to be the case here. You're the lone dissenting voice so far.

And I hope you're not counting me among your "Joni-obsessed LA layabouts." All your criticisms of Stills are valid- just not here. You're holding what he became against him retroactively. And if you lose that- even accepting that what Furay was up to might not be your cuppa- you really don't have a leg to stand on as far as the band being second-rate.
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!! 2021?

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 26 Nov 2007, 22:31

toomanyhatz wrote:
Sir John Coan wrote: I know many who feel the same way - in fact, I always believed it was a 'standard' opinion. Until you prove that it isn't (i.e. don't just point to an embarrassment of Joni-obsessed LA layabouts here on the board who'll harp on and on and on and on about Stephen fucking soft-as-shite Stills), I'll keep hold of my 'opinion' and hold it as something close to fact: the band were second-rate.

There.

:P


Doesn't seem to be the case here. You're the lone dissenting voice so far.


Moddie's not too keen, either.

Ach, anyway. They're just not my thing, really. There's too much bland muso-ing on the album (it actually just hit me harder than before - I recalled them as Byrds-lite in my own head) and some of the la-la stuff verges on plain silly. There's none of the grit and none of the fire that lifted the truly great sixties bands out of FM-style mediocrity. They play like a pre-school Eagles.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:38

Sir John Coan wrote: They play like a pre-school Eagles.


Yeah. "Mr. Soul." Pre-school Eagles. :roll:

Again, you're confusing what they became for what they are here. It's as absurd to blame the Springfield for the cocaine-addled Stills as it is to blame the Hollies for "Our House."
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!! 2021?

Piggly Wiggly

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Piggly Wiggly » 26 Nov 2007, 22:39

toomanyhatz wrote:
Again, you're confusing what they became for what they are here. It's absurd to blame the Hollies for "Our House."



You got a problem with "Our House"?

User avatar
Balboa
Posts: 17579
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 13:31

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Balboa » 26 Nov 2007, 22:42

toomanyhatz wrote:. It's as absurd to blame the Springfield for the cocaine-addled Stills as it is to blame the Hollies for "Our House."


Stills was a GIANT after Buffalo Springfield - one of the most talented people back then. Multi instrumentalist, hard worker, great voice. But I know you know that Dave!
Of course, I was mostly stoned at the time.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 26 Nov 2007, 22:43

toomanyhatz wrote:
Sir John Coan wrote: They play like a pre-school Eagles.


Yeah. "Mr. Soul." Pre-school Eagles. :roll:


No, it's not. But 'A Child's Claim To Fame' certainly is.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:45

Loveless wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:
Again, you're confusing what they became for what they are here. It's absurd to blame the Hollies for "Our House."


You got a problem with "Our House"?


Not a big one, no. I was just trying to talk to Coan in his language. I'd have a hard time arguing with anybody that finds it hopelessly sappy.

If you prefer, replace with "Lady of the Island."
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!! 2021?

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:46

Sir John Coan wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:
Sir John Coan wrote: They play like a pre-school Eagles.


Yeah. "Mr. Soul." Pre-school Eagles. :roll:


No, it's not. But 'A Child's Claim To Fame' certainly is.


I hear it as what would become the Eagles, only done with more taste and personality. But to each his own.

And, Joni worshipping, LA layabout that I am, I don't even hate the Eagles. So there.
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!! 2021?

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:51

Balboa wrote:
toomanyhatz wrote:. It's as absurd to blame the Springfield for the cocaine-addled Stills as it is to blame the Hollies for "Our House."


Stills was a GIANT after Buffalo Springfield - one of the most talented people back then. Multi instrumentalist, hard worker, great voice. But I know you know that Dave!


Agreed, though the wimpiness did start to set in as early as the first CSN record. As amazing a musician as he was then, his songwriting had already started to slip.

For instance I'm not a huge fan of "Helplessly Hoping."
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!! 2021?

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 26 Nov 2007, 22:52

*packs bag, strolls off to find middle-aged-protopunks-r-us message board*

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 29712
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby toomanyhatz » 26 Nov 2007, 22:59

Sir John Coan wrote:*packs bag, strolls off to find middle-aged-protopunks-r-us message board*


Image

Acchh. You'll be back!!
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!! 2021?

User avatar
king feeb
He's the consultant of swing
Posts: 26243
Joined: 19 Jul 2003, 00:42
Location: Soon Over Babaluma
Contact:

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby king feeb » 27 Nov 2007, 01:25

toomanyhatz wrote:Doesn't seem to be the case here. You're the lone dissenting voice so far.


Well allow me.

About a year ago, a well-respected poster sent me some Buffalo Springfield after I mentioned that they didn't do much for me. After listening to the disc, I have to say that I really didn't change my mind.

They have a few really top-notch songs (mostly Neil's, but Stills gets some good ones in too), but in the main, I just found that they didn't stick. There are just too many songs with weak or indistinct ideas. Also, considering that the late 60s were an era of ground-breaking sonic experimentation, this music is pretty conservative and unchallenging. It's nice enough stuff, but not very exciting.


In light of this thread, it is doubly ironic that the poster who sent me the Buffalo Springfield disc was... *cue Twilight Zone theme*... John Coan!
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 27 Nov 2007, 03:05

:lol:

I'd completely forgotten about that!

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 31171
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Matt Wilson » 27 Nov 2007, 05:16

What? Is Coan still mucking up this thread with his anti-Springfield shite?
It's time to take action. Maybe we can get Slider to edit Coan's post.

Piggly Wiggly

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Piggly Wiggly » 27 Nov 2007, 05:20

Wilson Schmilson wrote:What? Is Coan still mucking up this thread with his anti-Springfield shite?
It's time to take action. Maybe we can get Slider to edit Coan's post.


No harm. You won't see Coan divisively whinging about a single edit.

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 31171
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Matt Wilson » 27 Nov 2007, 05:51

Loveless wrote:
Wilson Schmilson wrote:What? Is Coan still mucking up this thread with his anti-Springfield shite?
It's time to take action. Maybe we can get Slider to edit Coan's post.


No harm. You won't see Coan divisively whinging about a single edit.


Even if we made him say Mark E. Smith sucks dog cocks in hell?

Piggly Wiggly

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Piggly Wiggly » 27 Nov 2007, 05:58

Wilson Schmilson wrote:
Loveless wrote:
Wilson Schmilson wrote:What? Is Coan still mucking up this thread with his anti-Springfield shite?
It's time to take action. Maybe we can get Slider to edit Coan's post.


No harm. You won't see Coan divisively whinging about a single edit.


Even if we made him say Mark E. Smith sucks dog cocks in hell?


I don't think he'd be THRILLED, but...he's a big boy.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 47258
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Quaco » 27 Nov 2007, 10:06

Of California bands from the '60s, for some reason, I loved both the weird (The Doors, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, and Love) and the ultra-normal (Beach Boys, Gary Lewis), but it was those ones in the middle that I was never so sure about. I liked The Byrds because of their sound, and because it was a sentimental favorite from my childhood. I liked CSNY a lot, but they were more like the beginning of the '70s, akin to Seals and Crofts and all those breezy '70s singles I loved. The ones I never got were Moby Grape and Buffalo Springfield. They both sound good but pedestrian. And even today, I still don't know even their classic albums very well. Like everyone, I have heard the most obvious songs of each, but each time I start to put on either band, it always seems like there's something else I'd rather be listening to.

I'm also not as big a Neil Young fan as I could be. I truly like him at times, but I don't know his stuff as well as I could, or even as he deserves.

Steve Stills has always been annoying, despite writing some great songs for my cherished CSNY. That may be part of what never grabbed me about Buffalo Springfield. Listening to the Again album recently, I was impressed by how solid it sounded, and thought I really should spend a bit more time with it. Having those trippy and gorgeous Young tracks on there ("Excpecting to Fly" and "Broken Arrow") brings up the tone of the album. Those are sort of the gateway tracks on the album for me. It's getting into the "Rock and Roll Woman"s of the album that is more of a challenge.

It seems that neither Moby Grape nor Buffalo Springfield were that experimental with the actual sound of their records. There was no "That's It for the Other One" or "Horse Lattitudes" -- these are the kinds of things that make me interested in looking deeper -- or weird darknesses a la Love, and yet they were too hip to actually be twee like Gary Lewis or The Monkees either. Thus, it's just guys playing music. I have a feeling they would have been great live. For people who either experienced that or can visualize it, they become a lot greater. Interesting that both bands featured three guitars. I bet that seeing that would help a lot.

So, though I love certain tracks, I must say that I'm not the biggest fan. It would be nice to do one of their albums as one of these synchronized listens, as I don't dislike them. I'm open to both bands. They're certainly close to the kind of thing I should love. It might help hearing it with friends, talking about it while it's happening, really listening a bit more carefully.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -