Buffalo Springfield Again

Do talk back
User avatar
Piet
Posts: 513
Joined: 02 Nov 2003, 19:10
Location: The Magic Village

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Piet » 28 Nov 2007, 07:11

At the Manchester Film Theatre in 1968, during the intermission between 'Flesh' and 'Lonesome Cowboys', the album was played in its entirety, at high volume.

No album has ever made a greater impact on first hearing before or since. It remains one of the three greatest albums featuring Neil Young.

The Modernist

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby The Modernist » 28 Nov 2007, 09:24

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


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



I really like the venomous attack of "Mr Soul" but it's hardly a great song in itself and you can find plenty of obscure garage singles that do the same sort of thing in a more exciting way. It typifies what I don't really get about BS, they don't really have their own sound..everything sounds rather borrowed. "Mr Soul" is basically a "Satisfaction" rip isn't it?
I agreed with Quaco's post really but I'd like to give them another go. A synchronised listen of their first album is a good idea and I'd be up for that (I'd have to buy the first album, I just have a comp).

User avatar
Penk!
Midnight to Six Man
Posts: 35784
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 20:12
Location: Stockholm

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Penk! » 28 Nov 2007, 09:25

I like it, perhaps a bit more than Coan, but far less than Matt or Hatz. I have to agree with Hatz's assertion that there are no bad tracks, but at the same time, for me there are only one or two that really stand out. I enjoy it when I put it on, but it's never compelled me to investigate the other two albums.
fange wrote:One of the things i really dislike in this life is people raising their voices in German.

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

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Quaco » 28 Nov 2007, 11:08

Candy Sausagehead wrote:At the Manchester Film Theatre in 1968, during the intermission between 'Flesh' and 'Lonesome Cowboys', the album was played in its entirety, at high volume.

No album has ever made a greater impact on first hearing before or since.

Well, those kinds of experiences are great and hard to come by, so whatever you do, don't let anyone talk you out of it.

Why did it make such an impression I wonder? Do we ever know why this happens?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 28 Nov 2007, 13:09

Quaco wrote:
Candy Sausagehead wrote:At the Manchester Film Theatre in 1968, during the intermission between 'Flesh' and 'Lonesome Cowboys', the album was played in its entirety, at high volume.

No album has ever made a greater impact on first hearing before or since.

Well, those kinds of experiences are great and hard to come by, so whatever you do, don't let anyone talk you out of it.

Why did it make such an impression I wonder? Do we ever know why this happens?


I'd love to know. That fascinates me. Something to do with three or four of the five senses being 'activated' at the same time? new experiences that heighten other, co-(time? 'concurrent'?) experiences?

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 43088
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Charlie O. » 28 Nov 2007, 13:45

Sir John of Tunes wrote:
Quaco wrote:
Candy Sausagehead wrote:At the Manchester Film Theatre in 1968, during the intermission between 'Flesh' and 'Lonesome Cowboys', the album was played in its entirety, at high volume.

No album has ever made a greater impact on first hearing before or since.

Well, those kinds of experiences are great and hard to come by, so whatever you do, don't let anyone talk you out of it.

Why did it make such an impression I wonder? Do we ever know why this happens?


I'd love to know. That fascinates me. Something to do with three or four of the five senses being 'activated' at the same time? new experiences that heighten other, co-(time? 'concurrent'?) experiences?


The fact that it's such a fucking great album?
Image

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 28 Nov 2007, 13:49

Grrrr....

I listened again last night - just the tracks I'm not familiar with. It's definitely the muso-ish aspect I find a little off-putting. There's nothing too original there, too, as Moddie suggests. Like I said before, it just wasn't up to the very high standards of the best bands of the time - that's the feeling I get. It's just a very good album.

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 » 28 Nov 2007, 16:10

Sir John of Tunes wrote:Grrrr....

I listened again last night - just the tracks I'm not familiar with. It's definitely the muso-ish aspect I find a little off-putting. There's nothing too original there, too, as Moddie suggests. Like I said before, it just wasn't up to the very high standards of the best bands of the time - that's the feeling I get. It's just a very good album.


So now you're up to saying "it's a very good album."
What's your take on country, John? Honestly, don't give us the old "it's pretty good when I'm in the mood" bit. I'm betting you hardly if ever play it for pleasure though if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll lose no time correcting me. The Springfield had a strong folk/country bent in their use of acoustic guitar and even some of their harmonies. To dismiss a song like "A Child's Claim to Fame" probably indicates that sound (and it could pass for country) doesn't do it for you.

You say they offered nothing innovative--that it mostly seems borrowed but their first album was one of the first country rock albums ever and certainly one of the best. This was before Gene Clark, Hearts and Flowers, The Dillards,* International Submarine Band, etc ever released an album. Hell, the Byrds hadn't even done Younger Than Yesterday yet (though they had dabbled with tracks like "Mr Spaceman"). When they threw some psychedelia and Young's experimental tracks into Again I'd say they were being quite innovative. Their sound is at least as distinguished (I'd say far more so) than your beloved 13th Floor Elevators.

* The Dillards had released an album before 1966--but it was a bluegrass one. I must mention this before Muskrat sees this post.
Last edited by Matt Wilson on 28 Nov 2007, 17:41, edited 1 time in total.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 28 Nov 2007, 17:23

Fair points - but they weren't anywhere near as exciting or as innovative as the Elevators. Even you would you have a hard time disputing the latter point, at least, Matt.

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 » 28 Nov 2007, 17:33

Sir John of Tunes wrote:Fair points - but they weren't anywhere near as exciting or as innovative as the Elevators. Even you would you have a hard time disputing the latter point, at least, Matt.


John I like the Elevators but "exciting" is a subjective term, is it not? What was so innovative about their music? Tommy Hall's jug? It's actually a distraction`to these ears. Nope, for me the Springfield's songs are far more timeless than those of the Elevators. Then again--I'm not really into seeing the world through Hall's druggy vision and I don't think acid is going to improve man's evolutionary journey or whatever and since that's what the Elevators were really about there's a limit as to how much their music will appeal to me.

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 » 28 Nov 2007, 17:35

I don't think John's saying it's a bad album at all,, nor did he ever (and I wouldn't say that either... it's a fine album, but there are many many others of the era that I like better).

You may be onto something with the folk & country aspect though, Matt. As I've freely admitted here many times, I listen to very little folk or country (especially when compared with other non-rock genres like jazz, funk, soul, avant-garde classical, electronic, etc).

Buffalo Springfield doesn't "hit home" for me, and that may be part of the reason.
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

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 » 28 Nov 2007, 17:43

king feeb wrote: Buffalo Springfield doesn't "hit home" for me, and that may be part of the reason.


Do C,S&N or Neil Young hit home for you? How about the Burritos or Gram Parsons? If you answer yes to any of those questions then I see no reason the Springfield shouldn't please.

Bungo the Mungo

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 28 Nov 2007, 19:34

Oh, fuck this.

The reason they don't 'please' is that they're BORING.

There.

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 » 29 Nov 2007, 01:33

Wilson Schmilson wrote:
king feeb wrote: Buffalo Springfield doesn't "hit home" for me, and that may be part of the reason.


Do C,S&N or Neil Young hit home for you? How about the Burritos or Gram Parsons? If you answer yes to any of those questions then I see no reason the Springfield shouldn't please.


I like Neil (and his songs on the Springfield discs are inevitably my favorites). The other artists you mention are fine, but really aren't for me.

I've always had a bad relationship with country music, which was inevitably the soundtrack for every shit job and redneck confrontation I had while growing up in West Virginia (I also have trouble liking Southern Rock for much the same reasons). It's only been in the last few years that I've been able to appreciate the greatness of some country artists like George Jones, Waylon Jennings and Willie Nelson (oddly I've never had any problem liking Johnny Cash...he was the "country guy that rock fans love", and I once stumbled into one of his shows by accident and really enjoyed it).

Anyhow, I'm holding onto the disc John burned me, and it's entirely possible that I will revise my opinion at a later time...
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

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 » 29 Nov 2007, 01:37

king feeb wrote:
Anyhow, I'm holding onto the disc John burned me, and it's entirely possible that I will revise my opinion at a later time...


I'm dying to know,

a) what's on it? and,
b) why did he send it? Response to a cough, or because he used to like them more then he does now, or because he was punishing you somehow? :lol:
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 » 29 Nov 2007, 02:03

toomanyhatz wrote:
king feeb wrote:
Anyhow, I'm holding onto the disc John burned me, and it's entirely possible that I will revise my opinion at a later time...


I'm dying to know,

a) what's on it? and,
b) why did he send it? Response to a cough, or because he used to like them more then he does now, or because he was punishing you somehow? :lol:


It appears to be a John-assembled comp, heavy on the Neil tunes. He was sending some other stuff and I had mentioned on a thread that I hadn't heard any Springfield except for the "bigger hits".

I mean, I like the band. They're good. But they don't really "get me". I suspect that John feels similarly.
You'd pay big bucks to know what you really think.

User avatar
der Freiherr
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44786
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby der Freiherr » 29 Nov 2007, 03:52

:idea: I'll post my impressions before reading the thread.
I like this record a lot. But, like the Springfield, it's frustrating. Flashes of true genius nearly sunk by something - to call it ineffable mediocrity would be harsh, but they always seemed doomed to fail, didn't they?

The first side is made unfortunately wobbly by lite contributions from Furay ("A Child's Claim To Fame") and Stills ("Everydays" - which sounds like a bad David Crosby tune). Neil Young's tunes are epic, but also seemingly apart from everything else. "Bluebird" is, of course, a tour de force. Stills had a way of bottling fire from time to time and he absolutely nailed it a few times on this record. I've never reconciled myself to the stupid banjo breakdown, but I'm willing to give into Stills Hubris when he's on a tear. And on "Bluebird" he is. That's some magic sixties gold dust shit. To me, a perfect synthesis of everything good about freedom rock.

Side Two
"Hung Upside Down?" More mastery. All woozy and shit but except for those intermittent bracing guitars. We'll even allow Stills some of his annoying grunting and moaning. I hate you Stills. But they're going off. I love you Stils. Those guitars are candy. Undeniable. "Sad Memory?" :roll: There's an OK moment or two. I guess. Maybe. Probably not. It sucks, OK? "Good Time Boy" is also largely a waste of space. A pleasant diversion, but doesn't really amount to more than the gauche leftover from the sixties time capsule. "Rock and Roll Woman," however, is more Stills stupid title notwithstanding with the dueling fuzz and tremelo interspersed nicely with airier acoustic guitars. And the west coast, nascent CSN harmonies. There's even plausible organ. Young checks in to knock the bastard out of the park with "Broken Arrow," another unimpeachable contribution seemingly from left field. Young almost seems like he's the superstar that isn't traveling with the team. But he's earning his salary, isn't he?

It's a shame that Stills never had a full record of magic -- all in one place at the same time. The Springfield could've been great. They were great. But they shoulda been more.
I'll bet Stills and Young could still tear it up.
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
Charlie O.
Posts: 43088
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby Charlie O. » 29 Nov 2007, 05:35

Baron FritoPie wrote:The first side is made unfortunately wobbly by lite contributions from Furay ("A Child's Claim To Fame") and Stills ("Everydays" - which sounds like a bad David Crosby tune)


Both seminal and robust.

Cloth-ears



.
Image

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby The Write Profile » 27 Nov 2010, 09:27

Baron the Minx wrote::idea: I'll post my impressions before reading the thread.
I like this record a lot. But, like the Springfield, it's frustrating. Flashes of true genius nearly sunk by something - to call it ineffable mediocrity would be harsh, but they always seemed doomed to fail, didn't they?

The first side is made unfortunately wobbly by lite contributions from Furay ("A Child's Claim To Fame") and Stills ("Everydays" - which sounds like a bad David Crosby tune). Neil Young's tunes are epic, but also seemingly apart from everything else. "Bluebird" is, of course, a tour de force. Stills had a way of bottling fire from time to time and he absolutely nailed it a few times on this record. I've never reconciled myself to the stupid banjo breakdown, but I'm willing to give into Stills Hubris when he's on a tear. And on "Bluebird" he is. That's some magic sixties gold dust shit. To me, a perfect synthesis of everything good about freedom rock.

Side Two
"Hung Upside Down?" More mastery. All woozy and shit but except for those intermittent bracing guitars. We'll even allow Stills some of his annoying grunting and moaning. I hate you Stills. But they're going off. I love you Stils. Those guitars are candy. Undeniable. "Sad Memory?" :roll: There's an OK moment or two. I guess. Maybe. Probably not. It sucks, OK? "Good Time Boy" is also largely a waste of space. A pleasant diversion, but doesn't really amount to more than the gauche leftover from the sixties time capsule. "Rock and Roll Woman," however, is more Stills stupid title notwithstanding with the dueling fuzz and tremelo interspersed nicely with airier acoustic guitars. And the west coast, nascent CSN harmonies. There's even plausible organ. Young checks in to knock the bastard out of the park with "Broken Arrow," another unimpeachable contribution seemingly from left field. Young almost seems like he's the superstar that isn't traveling with the team. But he's earning his salary, isn't he?


Just listening to it again for the first time in a while, and the Baron's got it right here. There's something oddly separate about those two "big" Young songs on the record, they fit insofar as the other contribute to them, but both their reach and tone seem to belong to a very different band. Both of them are also oddly self-referential, especially "Broken Arrow". It's interesting too, how hard Young tries to force his voice on these ones, I don't think there's much of an equivalent on any of his great solo records. Without those two songs, it's still a very good record, largely thanks to the best of Stills' material ("Hung Upside Down", "Bluebird") and the vicious "Mr Soul", while I can get with Furay's contributions a bit more than Baron, even if they're not the real gravy. But with those two major Neil Young tracks, it's a great album...even if they sure as hell seem to come out of nowhere.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
C
Robust
Posts: 65611
Joined: 22 Jul 2003, 19:06

Re: Buffalo Springfield Again

Postby C » 29 Sep 2021, 16:03

robertff wrote:Personally I think it's an excellent album and an album that I continue to play regularly. Shame the third didn't live up to its predecessor, great shame the band broke up - so much talent.



Agreed - my favourite




.
Matt Wilson wrote:
Lord Rother wrote:So what do you do to supplement your school teacher salary

I pole dance at the local titty bar.