|
Post by oh oooh on Apr 5, 2020 12:58:42 GMT
John's just reminded me...I wanted to start a thread about Nash because he figured largely (as you might expect) in a recent Hollies doc I watched, and related the old story about leaving his band because he didn't feel 'fulfilled'. That band were writing songs about daisies and lighthouses and I dunno what, and it was the time of the Vietnam War, maaan! what were they doing wasting time with that shit? So as you know he left The Hollies, flew across the Atlantic and teamed up with Crosby and Stills and was finally free to spread his wings and do something a bit more meaningful.
Except - what does 'Judy Blue Eyes' have to say, exactly? It sounds pretty, those harmonies were special, but he's hardly calling on the nation's youth to stand up and make themselves heard. Quite the opposite, really. 'Our House'? What is that? Yeah, there was 'Ohio' - but wasn't that Neil? (I think it came a bit later anyway)
Pretty soon after GH left, the Hollies had two of their biggest ever hits with 'Sorry Suzanne' and 'He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother'. I think I'd rather hear either of those than 'Teach Your Children' or 'Almost Cut My Hair'.
You?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 13:04:06 GMT
Judy Blue Eyes is a Stills song (collection of different song ideas mashed into one actually) about being dumped by Judy Collins.
Nash was tempted California, the music scene and the women into staying there. He is more charming to American women than he was to British ones. He may glorify it but that was it, he wanted to leave his wife and family in the UK but describe it a "calling". His songs are weak and commercial-friendly. Oh he's nice enough, some songs are very good. But he was the harmoniser and the glue of the band, not much more.
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Apr 5, 2020 13:40:07 GMT
Nice high clear voice, for sure, a couple of gems (I actually really like his first solo album quite a bit, and Deja Vu/CSN/first CN), but deeply self serving and lofty with it. His book seems to mention about once every dozen or so words how "The Hollies were strictly eight pints a night lads" (whereas...worldly NASH speaking here, as you know)...and, his old standby, "Obviously once we'd HEARD what we HEARD when those three voices were joined for the first time..." with all of its implicit "Well, OBVIOUSLY I don't have to tell YOU what a no brainer that was."...
Neil absolutely gave them a depth that they didn't otherwise have, and...they might have - truthfully - done better over a lifetime had that bar not been raised (especially so early in their career).
There is an oft mis-attributed quote in which it is alleged that CSN believe themselves to have ended the Vietnam War (I don't think they believe this, I don't think they ever said it), but there is something in Nash's lifetime loftiness (and, honestly in their overall affect at the peak of their careers - C, S and N at any rate) that gives this cruel joke a certain credibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 13:45:48 GMT
I never really saw it so much as him leaving in order to make more politically relevent music, if he says that now then I think there's an aspect of revisionism there. But there's no doubt CS & N had a credibility The Hollies never had. There was always an old fashioned aspect to The Hollies compared to The Who or The Kinks say, in some ways they were closer to a Herman's Hermits. You can see Nash's frustration in that Bernstein doc where he's pissed up and arguing angrily with Peter Noone! I think he just wanted to be in a hipper band and felt The Hollies had reached their sell by date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 13:51:06 GMT
Neil absolutely gave them a depth that they didn't otherwise have, and...they might have - truthfully - done better over a lifetime had that bar not been raised (especially so early in their career). He gave them an added grit, but musically he wasn't in the same league as Stills and, especially, Crosby with their circular songs, jazzy minor chords and sense of groove. His style seems so much more prosaic compared to them. Helpless? Hopeless more like.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Apr 5, 2020 14:01:13 GMT
'Helpless' is a dog, but as usual anyone can see through your usual SELECTO trick here G
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Apr 5, 2020 14:01:35 GMT
Yeah, in more prosaic terms, I think that is also completely accurate. What it meant to be in "a British Invasion act" (who were rather wrongheadedly attempting a Dylan covers album) ca. 1968...I can hardly fault him for floating away to Joni, California, hippie supergroup, "Crosby's amazing grass", etc. - BUT...there is something in the way he tells it that is very "He thinks he's Dylan, doesn't he?"
Speaking of which - I have a friend who plays in the "whenever we go out and perform Odyssey..." lineup of the Zombies. He told us a story a few years back about Nash coming to a Zombies gig, and having an interaction backstage with Rod, Colin, Chris (and probably the wives) where his effusive review of the show was less about how beautifully the band had played this stunning music, but more about "Now, think about it - I could have been anywhere tonight, but I was here!" (that is to say, you guys want to know what I thought of the gig? It was so great that I deigned to attend!). In their unfailingly polite British civilized way, all of the principal Zombies (on the ride back to the hotel) bantered in that gently withering way about Nash with all sorts of "He really seems to have taken to America, doesn't he?" observational, smiling appraisal.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Apr 5, 2020 15:07:26 GMT
You can see Nash's frustration in that Bernstein doc where he's pissed up and arguing angrily with Peter Noone! The funniest thing about that debate is that Peter Noone says so little (Nash scarcely allows him the oxygen) yet comes off as so much more sensible! (I wonder how many young viewers at the time thought so.)
Anyway, as far as his split from The Hollies and England goes, he started pulling away from them some time before, for better or worse, in terms of musical philosophies ( there's a fun early '67 interview here), and I suspect socially too; his marriage was falling apart; he'd met Joni; he'd "heard what CSN sounded like"... it's not hard to see that there really wasn't much to compel him to stay. I imagine The Hollies fared as well without him as they would have if he had stayed (commercially at least), and he obviously did okay for himself, regardless of what we may or may not think of the musical results of the split.
|
|
|
Post by osgood on Apr 5, 2020 15:25:27 GMT
'Helpless' is a dog, but as usual anyone can see through your usual SELECTO trick here G I can't say how much did Neil contribute to raise the bar, but the truth is that the only CSNY song written by him that is up to his solo work is Ohio.
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Apr 5, 2020 16:02:32 GMT
'Helpless' is a dog, but as usual anyone can see through your usual SELECTO trick here G I can't say how much did Neil contribute to raise the bar, but the truth is that the only CSNY song written by him that is up to his solo work is Ohio. I probably love "Country Girl" as much as anything on ATGR or Harvest, but my point may also be that his general upsetting of the balance (they were quite successful before he joined) is tied to all sorts of things (his musical contributions on tracks like "Woodstock', "Almost..."...and the fact that he had a far more remarkable [successful AND striking] solo career than the others). They weren't a three legged dog before he joined, but...in many ways, they WERE after he left. I think he made out great in the deal (became a marquee name right before hitting his creative stride), but (Nash's well worn "book the fucking studio now!" retelling of Ohio aside) it is conceivable that the other three might have all periodically wondered what they could have achieved WITHOUT having added such an ultimately lopsided dynamic.
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Apr 5, 2020 16:04:27 GMT
You can see Nash's frustration in that Bernstein doc where he's pissed up and arguing angrily with Peter Noone! The funniest thing about that debate is that Peter Noone says so little (Nash scarcely allows him the oxygen) yet comes off as so much more sensible! (I wonder how many young viewers at the time thought so.)
Anyway, as far as his split from The Hollies and England goes, he started pulling away from them some time before, for better or worse, in terms of musical philosophies ( there's a fun early '67 interview here), and I suspect socially too; his marriage was falling apart; I think he'd met Joni (I'm not certain of that); he'd "heard what CSN sounded like"... it's not hard to see that there really wasn't much to compel him to stay. I imagine The Hollies fared as well without him as they would have if he had stayed (commercially at least), and he obviously did okay for himself, regardless of what we may or may not think of the musical results of the split. GREAT interview!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 16:12:30 GMT
I prefer CS&N without the Y. He makes it a more complex band but it's fine without. Simplistically-speaking, Stills goes for rock, Crosby more trippy and Nash more simplistic - put those all together and it works, but the individual songs reflect the interests and/or inclinations of the songwriter.
Nash is still on very good terms with the people in the Hollies.
And I agree with Loveless about Nash's tone - what might work well on stage in terms of being simplistic and projecting doesn't work so well in person and he could do with bringing the level down. And he can come across as patronising. He isn't that bad in person when he's not performing.
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Apr 5, 2020 16:25:33 GMT
Having seen both Crosby and Nash separately as solo acts in recent years, it did strike me that each was able to "do his thing" pretty thoroughly in a way that I might not have gotten from a CSN concert (I would imagine the things I "missed" - "Carry On" and "Suite..." - sound VERY different now than they did 50 years ago, and not for the better). Hollies tracks, Byrds tracks, their finest moments solo and C(S)N(Y), informal, small venues - I think I probably got the best deal out of that scenario that a person could get in this day and age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 16:26:02 GMT
The current rift, btw, and it's been going for a few years now and is said to be final, is because David Crosby called Daryl Hannah a whore because Neil Young left his long-term wife for her, and Graham Nash isn't forgiving him. Croz has tried to apologise. Nash was very bitter about it. Not like Nash not to be the peacemaker, but no.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Apr 5, 2020 16:31:16 GMT
The current rift, btw, and it's been going for a few years now and is said to be final, is because David Crosby called Daryl Hannah a whore because Neil Young left his long-term wife for her, and Graham Nash isn't forgiving him. Croz has tried to apologise. Nash was very bitter about it. Not like Nash not to be the peacemaker, but no. I watched an interview clip on YouTube just the other day where he (Nash) seems to regret it now. I'll see if I can find it again.
|
|