General Rating: 3

Introduction

ALBUM REVIEWS:

• Bloomfield/Kooper/Stills: Super Session
• Crosby, Stills & Nash: Crosby, Stills & Nash
• Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young: Déjà Vu
• Stephen Stills: Stephen Stills
• Stephen Stills: Manassas
• Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young: Looking Forward

This page also hosts comments from the following Certified Commentators: Richard C. Dickison, Fredrik Tydal.

First of all, let's sweep this off with a technical remark. This page, as can be seen from the very 'table of contents', is going to be structured a bit different from the usual approach that strictly divides the band and its members' solo careers. Crosby, Stills & Nash (& don't forget Young!) are a bit different in that they never were a really stable band. Quite contrarily, they give the impression of three (or four) different solo artists that live their life mainly concentrating on their solo careers and simply 'crossing paths' from time to time, sometimes forming duos (Crosby & Nash; the Stills-Young band), sometimes trios (CSN), sometimes quartets (CSNY). In this respect, analyzing and classifying their discographies is a real pain in the ass. So, instead of discussing them separately, I've preferred to let it go and dump everything in one melting pot, simply classifying the records in chronological order. Right now my collection of these records is only starting, but it's bound to grow, as these guys are such an important, vital element in the whole system of American (and trans-Atlantic, too, if we consider Graham Nash) pop music that it's necessary to know as much about them as possible.
Note that I have specially bothered not to include Neil Young in the page title, and I review all of his solo output on a separate page. I have my reasons for that. First, Neil's back catalog is way too huge to be covered on here - in all, he's had about as much solo albums as the other three put together. Second and even more important, Neil's mentality and style is really way, way different from CSN's 'ideology'; the very fact of his joining up with the band is just another one of the many controversial points in his biography. I won't motivate this opinion further, as I don't suppose it really requires further backing; please visit my Young page for further information after you've finished with this one.
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to just have a little rave & rant about CSN and their impact on our culture and, what the hell, on our minds in general. First of all, CSN are way overrated as a phenomenon, in the same way as Simon & Garfunkel and Neil Young. In a certain sense, they are said to embody the 'American spirit' and all that crap, and for this, honey-mouthed critics are often ready to forgive them anything, even the so-so quality of Déjà Vu. Let us cut the crap at once and explicitly say that none of these guys were musical geniuses. Most of their records suffer serious problems in the way of diversity and catchiness, and practically all of the past thirty years have been nothing but a retread of the groundbreaking effected on their debut album - the only record that was somewhat innovative and at least completely fresh-sounding.
But the main strength of the band and its solo members doesn't really lie in their innovativeness or exceptional melodical strength - their music has a special 'click', a peculiar way of getting under your skin and staying there no matter how much you try to squeeze it out. 'Folk- and country-rock with an edge', we might call it, and the 'edge' is extremely important here. They have always tried to make their stuff interesting, no matter what means they used to do it, and they never contented themselves with standard musical cliches lying around. Take their 1969 debut, for example - how many generic melodies will you find there? Not a single one, not even a pedestrian blues or straightforward country motive. So when you put on a CSN record (or a Crosby record, or a Stills record, you get my drift), you're always ready for a pleasant, or unpleasant, little surprise or two - it's definitely different from putting on a simple, unimaginative folk-rock record.
And this, of course, has a lot to do with the three guys' fascinating personalities - after all, all of them are untrivial individuals. Stephen Stills is usually the unacclaimed 'leader' of the band: in the band's prime days, at least, he used to contribute the majority of the tunes, and on stage he was always the central figure. After his 'graduation' from the Buffalo Springfield, a band I still hope to hear some day, he already was one of the most notorious 'folk-rockers' in the Western hemisphere, and a 'moderate expert' in everything. He has a good, emotional, slightly squeaky, Dylan-ish singing voice; a good sense of melody; a firm grasp of 'traditional musical values'; and a lot of guitar-playing skills. Everything in the right proportion, although the top never boils over on any of these qualities. And it's a big shame that Stills is really so much underrated in most of these categories. For my money, I find Stephen a better entertainer and 'musical philosopher' than Neil Young; Neil beats Stephen over with his Biblical flavour, almost prophetical status and loads of philosophic bombast, but Stills comes out the winner simply because he's a far more restrained and humble performer, and in most cases he's completely adequate: he really says what he thinks, and thinks what he says.
Crosby, on the other hand, is a hallucinogenous raving mystic - he's the 'debacled' one of the band, and the lengthy list of his toils includes calamities such as prison time (for drugs, I presume) and liver failure due to alcoholism. His songs are usually not very strong melody-wise, as he was always a bit too keen on the mind-blowing aspects of psychedelia - remember 'Mind Gardens' from his Byrds legacy? But damn the melody, he's got that great hippie psycho aspect to him, and the more he was burning out, the more it became obvious that he actually burned talent, not just calories. The perfect dude to 'tune in' to, like, totally.
Finally, I have always held a soft spot in my heart for Nash: he's often overlooked behind the mighty shoulders of Stills and the luxuriant mane of Crosby, but let us not forget that it was Nash who was one of the primary active forces in the Hollies - Britain's best 'pure pop' band of the Sixties. He brought a little bit of the Hollies into CSN as well, compensating Stills' bleary ballads and Crosby's acid fantasies with little fresh drops of funny, dazzling, catchy pop - come on now, wouldn't Crosby, Stills & Nash be far more depressing and hard to swallow if it didn't contain the cutesy 'Marrakesh Express'? Again, Nash might not be the greatest popmeister in the world, but he certainly does have some instincts, and they rarely fail him. Pity I haven't had the possibility to grab any of his solo output...
It's obvious, now, that such a weird combination couldn't help but produce some interesting results. In fact, the band's debut album still remains one of the best records of 1969 (and that year WAS heavy on great music), and, while they could never really follow it with anything even closely resembling, it set off three lengthy decades, full of solo, duo, trio and quartet projects, many of which are quite worth your attention; on this page, I'll eventually try to introduce you to some of these (it's hardly possible to review EVERYTHING these guys put out; hell, their complete output almost exceeds Frank Zappa's!)

General Evaluation:

Listenability: 4/5. Good, pretty, nice, listenable melodies all around, but very few breathtaking hooks.
Resonance: 3/5. See above. I'm sure they mostly sang what they meant, but there's a certain 'timidity' here that doesn't allow them to approach 'God of Your Emotions' status.
Originality: 1/5. Any particular questions? They're not any more original than the Eagles, unless three-part harmonies in roots rock songs count.
Adequacy: 4/5. I wish they weren't that heavy on the 'we're the prophets of the hippie generation' thing. This would both improve their rating in this category AND reduce the amount of dirt that people have poured all over their heads over the years.
Overall: 3.0 = * * * on the rating scale.

What do YOU think about Crosby, Stills & Nash? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Rose Mary <raponte@prtc.net> (11.03.2000)

At last someone had the guts to say that CSN are overrated!! Besides " Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" there' s nothing else which could be considered a dignified output. And those barber-shop harmonies.....Uhhhh they really suck. And what's worst: Crosby's lyrics and dull songs. 'Almost cut my Hair' is a hippy anthem shame..so banal. Has Crosby ever considered to add MUSIC to his tunes? And hey George if you wanna spent a miserable afternoon, try to review Four-Way Street, CSN&Y's Live Album. I'll bet you'll shift to your Hollies Greatest Hits Collection instead or to Alanis Morrisette!!

Fredrik Tydal <f_tydal@hotmail.com> (13.03.99)

Of course CSN/Y are overrated! That's goes without saying. Can you possibly imagine the ludicrously high expectations people have had on these guys? I mean; think 1969. Three ex-members of reasonably successful bands hook up - a thing completely unheard of then (well, if you don't count Cream, which I don't). There's talk in the press, about how Crosby really was the heart of The Byrds since McGuinn's Byrds has lost creative height ever since Crosby's departure. And Stills, that hot guitar player from the intriguing Buffalo Springfield with the Kooper/Bloomfield blues-rock album already to his credit. And Nash - that pop song-writer with the pleasant voice whose Hollies had been all over the charts in Britain and to a lesser degree in the States. Take all these factors together and you'll see that the press stirred up a massive hype. Then the album comes. And it's fantastic, it really his. Then along comes Woodstock, where they pull of a good performance where they all come across as humble, sympathetic down-to-earth kind of guys - just like on the couch cover. All grand expectations are virtually met. Too bad they had to live up to them the rest of their career. And if that's not enough, Neil Young joins them (already at Woodstock, actually). Neil Young - the mysterious Canadian who had already put out two critic favourite albums - are finally reunited with his old Springfield buddy Stills.
The stage is set for the Deja Vu album. Ouch. I wouldn't even want to subject those unparalleled, other-worldly, ridiculously high expectations to my worst enemies.

<Jndiller@aol.com> (10.12.2000)

Mr. Tydal said it better than I could. I was there, I saw it happen and I foretold that not they or anybody could live up to the expectations & hype. Deja Vu didn't come up to the standard of CSN1 and they have suffered ever since for that sin.
And Rose Mary..."barber-shop" harmonies, "banal", "dull"....Y'know, I get a lot of this stuff from guys, you're the first female I've heard it from. What I tell the guys is that their problem is BALLADS. If they don't "get" ballads, they simply haven't known the right women....Sorry, but I think something analogous is at work here. Perhaps you find Pantera more tuneful.
It was the girls who turned us guys on to CSN1. And then they were for everybody.
And as for Four-Way Street, well, disk 2 shows that folk rockers can indeed ROCK LIKE HELL ON EARTH.
Especially 'Southern Man' and 'Carry On', where we get to hear the patented Stills-Young git-tar duels like the ones they had in the Springfield days. (but weren't recorded-more's the pity.) You get to hear Mr. Young invent grundge-rock. In 1970!
George and readers, do NOT pass judgment on cisny without hearing these tracks!

SUPER SESSION

Year Of Release: 1968
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 9

Your ordinary, not very imaginative blues rock. Makes a great listen at tea parties, though.
Best song: YOU DON'T LOVE ME

There were several reasons that led me to buying this record. First of all, it has some historical importance - these 'super sessions' are your basic musical equivalent of 'high level meetings' in political life: they kinda represent the true spirit of the epoch, if you get my drift. Second, at this point I still can't lay my hands on even a single Buffalo Springfield record, and I desperately wanted to get more Stephen Stills product - whatever it might be. Third, it is reviewed by Wilson & Alroy, and how could I fall behind? Fourth and lastly (and most of all), I got it for a miserable price, so why should I complain?
This is (supposedly) Stephen Stills' first more or less 'independent' product after his departure from Buffalo Springfield and thus, an important landmark in his career. As for the two other dudes, they're also fairly notorious in their own special way: Al Kooper is that pretentious organist/pianist dude that later formed Blood, Sweat & Tears and became the Godfather of jazz rock which is a genre that I profoundly respect but will never listen to unless threatened by death (although I was tricked into buying some of the latter day Soft Machine records, I must admit); and Mike Bloomfield could be familiar to you if you ever gave a shot at Dylan's Highway 61 Revisited. Remember those garage chops on 'Tombstone Blues'? Meet Mike!
What this record represents is two jam sessions, both of which feature Kooper but only one of each features Bloomfield and Stills - separately, so the title could be a bit misguiding (and misguided). Their point is simply to have a good time by playing whatever they wish - but Bloomfield is more on the hardcore blues side, while Stills is more on the psychedelic side, so the two sides sound nothing like each other. The Bloomfield side is almost fully instrumental: the only vocals can be found on the rather primitive cover of the rather primitive C. Mayfield's soul number, 'Man's Temptation' (Kooper provides the vocals throughout). Some of the jams are very nice, and Bloomfield shows himself to be a pretty professional blues player - his licks on 'Albert's Shuffle' are adorable, even if a bit dated even at the time: this is the style that Clapton demonstrated on his 1966 Bluesbreakers album, and music had long since advanced to a further level. Still, the album doesn't pretend to be groundbreaking or 'fashionable', so you might just as well not pay attention to Bloomfield's limitations. Sometimes, though, they just go a bit too far, with the nine-minute 'His Holy Modal Majesty' capable of breaking down all limits of patience: Kooper might be professional, too, but three- or four-minute mid-tempo organ solos with no emotional resonance are more than I can take. It also sounds like they try a bit too hard to get 'psychedelic' on that track - the druggy slow organ passage near the beginning sounds heavily inspired by such Beatles songs as 'Tomorrow Never Knows' or 'Only A Northern Song'. But it's kinda boring and monotonous, and realizing it themselves, just after two minutes they launch in this lengthy fast jazz improv which is equally boring but which at least sounds somewhat more self-assured - at least, this time the guys know just what they're after.
The second side picks it up a bit - it is opened with a sped-up, punchy version of Dylan's 'It Takes A Lot To Laugh', quite similar to the original rejected by Bob himself (the one you can easily find on The Bootleg Series). You'd thought it would feature Bloomfield as well, since he was the guy that participated in Dylan's recording sessions, but apparently it doesn't. Nevertheless, Stills plays quite an engaging solo, and while I really, really prefer the moody, slow version that Dylan put on his album, the number goes down really well. However, the atmosphere is spoiled by the follow-up, Donovan's 'Season Of The Witch': while it starts out great, with creepy wah-wah guitars all over the spot and spooky, ominous singing, it certainly doesn't justify the eleven-minute length! Oh, I forgot, it's a 'jam'... somebody already accused me of missing the essence of this notion, so I think I'll pass and just make a comment on what I consider to be the real masterpiece on here - the tripped out, almost acid version of W. Cobb's 'You Don't Love Me'. The Allman Brothers did it later on their live album, and they might have had more verve, energy and fury, and it lacks the cool organ riff of Gregg Allman, but it has something that the Allmans just did not have at all - a weird, psycho arrangement with groovy 'airplane' noises produced by I-don't-know-what (some embryonic synths, mayhaps? and there's certainly a lot of phasing going around here, too) and a threatening, enthralling workout by the rhythm section (Eddie Hoh on drums, Harvey Brooks on bass). In fact, the song sounds like the only truly finished and polished composition on the album - even despite the fact that Al added some annoying brass to various tracks 'as an afterthought'.
Still, one good, even one great song and a couple decent jams do not save a record that's certainly a toss-off and has not much more artistic value than your average pub blues band wailing in the corner: there were tons of better albums made that year. If you want some really enchanting blues rock, you'd better be off with a random Cream album than this stuff. Pleasant, and shows that Bloomfield really had much more talent than showcased on Highway 61, but Stephen Stills fans really do not need to bother. Try to find those wretched Buffalo Springfield records instead! I know I will!

You don't love me? Why don't you mail me your ideas?

Your worthy comments:

Eric Einhorn <eeinhorn@home.com> (04.08.2000)

Both Al Kooper and Mike Bloomfield played on Higway 61 Revisited - Kooper played the organ part in "Like A Rolling Stone", as well as various other pieces on the album. There was another keyboard player, whose name I forget: this was probably the first album to have the two keyboard sound which would inspire The Band, Procol Harum, and some other bands.

CROSBY, STILLS & NASH

Year Of Release: 1969
Record rating = 10
Overall rating = 13

Catchy soft-rock with enough depth and insight to guarantee some innocent greatness...
Best song: SUITE: JUDY BLUE EYES

Well, since I haven't really heard the Buffalo Springfield yet, I can't really say whether Stills had changed his style significantly in order to adjust it to the CSN standard. However, both David Crosby and Graham Nash haven't really made a significant revolution with their songs - if you heard some mid-Sixties Byrds (which you might well have) or some mid-Sixties Hollies (which you probably haven't, but I fortunately have), you won't be surprised at all. The really big surprise, though, is the way their individual songs all fit together.
It is no big surprise that the band did not manage to last very long - you could see why just by looking at the track listing. There's practically no collaboration between band members, the only 'collective' song written being 'Wooden Ships', and even here the main work is done by Stills. Being virtually 'unchained', it's no wonder that one by one the band members could take off, return again, and split once more - and yet, the record doesn't sound disjointed at all. In fact, the three guys complement each other's functions: Stills acts as 'chief' and 'ideological guide', Crosby acts as 'the freaked out one' and Nash dilutes the album's seriousness by being 'the poppy one' - after all, he's an ex-Hollie, isn't he?
Well, anyway, this record deserves its reputation. I confess that it's been a real pain in the ass to get through it, but believe me, 'the game's worth the candle', as we say in Russia. The main problem is that some find the Stills numbers too complicated, the Crosby trips too loose and the Nash ditties too bubble-gummy. They all have a point. But, curiously enough, while these qualities are usually considered bad for a rock record, here they work in favour of the impression. The record is so warm, inviting, so 'homely' and cozy, that you can't help but end up forgiving the guys for having dropped too much acid. In fact, with this record hippies were happy to have found a new, three-headed intellectual guru that they never received earlier due to Bob Dylan's infamous motorcycle accident... but enough of that, onto the songs!
As I said, Stills is the commander-in-chief on record. He not only plays both lead guitar and bass (plus organ on 'Wooden Ships' and others), but also contributes the absolute majority of songs. A couple of them might not seem a great what-not - I still can't get the message of 'You Don't Have To Cry' which seems like a rather pedestrian, uninspired love ballad to me'; 'Helplessly Hoping' is average as well, but saved with some mighty fine three-part harmonies; and the album closer, '49 Bye-Byes', goes absolutely nowhere - it just rambles on and on with its inobtrusive melody for five minutes until it bores you to death. In fact, I will go as far as to say that this song is the only major flaw of the album - a huge disappointment as the closing tune. Not so with the opener, though, which is the gorgeous 'Suite Judy Blue Eyes', an absolute classic and probably the greatest acoustic multi-part suite ever written. Basically, it's just a love song, but the lyrics are far from generic (some of the most beautiful love lyrics I ever heard, in fact), and the three or four melodies that intertwine and gracefully flow one into another are sure to take your breath away - some are terrific singalongs, some funny foot-stompers, and Stills' and Crosby's interlocking guitars create a wonderful, rich sound texture that you won't often hear on an acoustic song off a rock album.
Stephen also contributes what's probably the second best song on the album - the contemplative, romantic 'Wooden Ships' that quite immediately became one of the leading hippie anthems, and deservedly so - even if it's far deeper and more endurable than most of the hippie stuff of the epoch. Built on the base of an imaginary dialogue between two hostile soldiers that become friends through hardship and sufferings, and set to an ominous beat with dreary electric guitar and moody organ, it's probably the only song on the album that would be instantly likeable to rockers, but no genre could really spoil its catchiness or the groovy message (see the horrid version of the Jefferson Airplane, though, to witness how it is possible to spoil even what you thought was unspoilable).
On the other hand, Crosby, besides collaborating on 'Wooden Ships', has but two songs of his own on the album, but both are highlights. I used to hate 'Guinnevere' as the kind of melody-less schlocky pretentious stuff that you often meet on the most unimaginative folk albums, but slowly I grew addicted to it - now I find the atmosphere, with that nagging, repetitive dark acoustic riff and the wonderful harmonies, simply enchanting. Here's a perfect song for a movie about King Arthur, I say! It works here as well, though, and also does the band a good service by fitting into the times with its medieval fantasy mystique. For the record, if you enjoy 'Everybody's Been Burned' off the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday, you're sure to love this one (and vice versa), 'cause both songs set absolutely the same mood even if they have different lyrical matters. The other highlight here is 'Long Time Gone' which I also used not to notice, but due to the fact that it is now used as the intro theme to the Woodstock movie, I've listened to it quite a lot and finally came close to growing an appreciation for the song's magnificent structure, its bold hippie message ('but don't try to get yourself elected/If you do you had better cut your hair') and the weird singing tone that David adopts for this particular piece - stuttering, almost breaking down from time to time, but getting it all back together in an almost Dylan style. And again, the harmonies on the chorus are superb.
This leaves Nash, and, like I said, he sweetens the pill with several pop songs that border on cheesy but never really become so. Both 'Marrakesh Express' and 'Pre-Road Downs' could have easily been passed off as Hollies songs (the question is: why did he have to leave that band if he didn't even change his style?), but as it turns out, this style is perfectly applicable to the CSN vibe. Both songs are happy, stupid and unbelievably catchy - if you like them, feel free to proceed to the best of Hollies' material (or vice versa once again). 'Lady Of The Island' doesn't thrill me as much, though, because Nash is trying to pull a Crosby, and he doesn't quite have the nerve to do it, but it ain't offensive at least.
Yeah, this album isn't an easy-going piece of cake, but it's a rewarding one - these guys weren't exactly your average bunch of pleasant folkies who make you feel happy while you're listening to the material but are dead and gone together with the CD player being turned off. They were quite sophisticated and really took the time to work on the material, and the results are splendid. And somebody - send my regards to Steve for that quirky backwards solo on 'Pre-Road Downs', woncha? Good day to you all, gentlemen!

Helplessly hoping you'll mail your ideas some day or other

Your worthy comments:

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (10.08.99)

What a debut album though, I mean take this as the first time these guys had put this sound together and it starts them at a nice peak.
You've named the major winners here 'Suite Judy Blue Eyes', 'Marrakesh Express', and 'Guinnevere' never was a problem for me, wow what voice these guys brought to that song, love that atmosphere. They justified there whole exsistence with that one. 'Wooden Ships' was complex and a little harder to get into. They could grate your ears with all that self rightousness and sugar sappy love love love anthems but hey I'll pay the admission price to hear 'Guinnevere' again.
CSNY's Didja Poo was better loved by the critics but I'll keep this one for my preferred folk fixs thank you.

Fredrik Tydal <f_tydal@hotmail.com> (18.10.99)

I just have to gush over this marvellous album. If I had to listen to only one album the rest of my life, this would be it. Sure, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Blonde On Blonde and Pet Sounds are all better in many ways - but no album gets you in such a good mood as CSN's debut. Of course, it takes a while to get into the album - I myself wasn't that impressed at first - but it grows on you. Anyone who hasn't got this album in their collection should get it as soon as possible.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (05.08.2000)

Well, I'm in the more typical camp that says this album pales considerably when compared with Déjà vu. The only way this record is stronger is that it had a more unified sound -- Déjà vu does sound like the band is already falling apart.
But the album sound is so wimpy! Almost no edge at all. What rhythm section work there is is way too muted. And Nash's two tracks are the worst offenders! His solo vocal on "Lady of the Island" is a real snoozer. While he is a great harmony singer, as a lead vocalist he leaves much to be desired. And "Marrakech Express" sounds like a nag whenever it comes on (I even thought this at the age of 12!) Allan Clarke did most of the lead vocals with the Hollies for a very good reason.
The songwriting from Crosby and Stills is really solid, though, which does redeem the record. Crosby does have an unusual way with melodies ("Guinnevere"), and Stills already proved he was the top talent in the band. But some cojones were desperately needed here. By the way, Stills was not the main writer of "Wooden Ships" -- Crosby wrote the music, and Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane (whose version is infinitely better) came up with the majority of the lyrics. Stills only wrote the third verse ("Horror grips us as we watch you die...). Evidently more morbid than the usual hippie type, apparently.

Richard Levy <richard.levy@citicorp.com> (25.08.2000)

This is a great album that brings back memories of high school and college in the 70's. I used to listen to Crosby Stills & Nash lying down in bed with the lights and volume low, enjoying the images and harmonies. Also, I have a vivid memory of driving with a bunch of friends to Killington, Vermont for a intersession ski week. It was the middle of the night, a light snow was falling, and Crosby, Stills & Nash was playing on the car stereo. It was perfect.

DÉJÀ VU

Year Of Release: 1970
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 10

A musical hippy paradise, but MUCH too bland and spaced out for my tastes...
Best song: WOODSTOCK

Overrated as hell. Badly overrated, in fact - it seems that ninety-nine percent of critics worldwide tend to rave and rant about this record so that it the eyes of many it stands as the ultimate hippie catechism. Unfortunately, I prefer to rely on my own intuition and taste, undescribably bad as it is (I guess everybody already knows that), and this is my judgement: no way can this be a greater classic than the far, far, far superior Crosby, Stills & Nash - the record that should forever take the place of Déjà Vu in the annals of musical history.
Maybe it's because of the presence of the all-time critic favourite Neil Young on the record that it's praised so much? Could well be, but I think that the real reason lies in the more abstract factors. CSN was a record that blessed the hippie movement, but it did this in an inobtrusive and thoroughly unpretentious way. The album's being 'underproduced', its definite homemade-ness and quiet charm were what really made even the fillerish tracks really cook. Not so with this piece of overbloated, pretentious (and I mean it - you don't hear me complaining about a record's pretentiousness too often, now do you?), drugged out hippie chunk whose main goal is to present Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young as the Holy Quadrumvirate of the Flower Generation. But the ideological factor is fake - by 1970, nobody really needed to be reminded the essentials of flower power any more, Woodstock had faded away and the band members themselves were up to the ears in drug and other personal problems. So that means that about ninety percent of the lyrics on the record (everything, in fact, but the Young contributions) have dated badly and are only interesting from a purely historical point of view. Why should I be interested, in fact, in Graham Nash's recipees for hippy family life (both 'Teach Your Children' and 'Our House') or in Crosby's meditations on the fates of the counterculture ('Almost Cut My Hair'?) WHY??...
The fact that bugs me even more is that the music is generally below par. Several trademark elements of CSN that I enjoyed so much are gone. First of all, where's that lush harmony sound? Most of the time they adopt a boring, folky, Byrds-like approach to harmonies where all the four (three? two?) sing in unison - a far cry from the stunning multi-part approach on, say, 'Judy Blue Eyes'. Next, this record is certainly overproduced. The guitars are for the most part generic - there's no tasty treats like the beautiful, funny acoustic guitar lines of 'Judy' or the cool backwards soloing of 'Pre-Road Downs'. And lastly, the melodies are just not all that interesting. Dang, there ain't a single song on here I couldn't live without.
A strange paradox it is, and I still can't really explain it, but my favourite song on here (a) doesn't belong to any of the band members at all, and (b) has the most irritating lyrical matter. Yeah, it is certainly Joni Mitchell's 'Woodstock', and it far surpasses the original. It is by far the only veritable rocker on record (Joni's version was a watered-down piano one), and I love that great Stills vocal tone and Young's guitar licks. Maybe it's again due to my long-time exposion to the movie, but fact is, I can't deny the number's a classic, and whatever I may hold against the famous 'we are stardust, we are golden' lyrics, they pretty much define the epoch, don't they?
Apart from that, the album's a true democracy - every member gets two solo numbers, and there's practically no collaboration at all, if you don't count the jerky 'Everybody I Love You', a very lame and insecure attempt at a hippie anthem that closes the album, co-written not by Crosby and Nash, as one might suspect, but by Stills and Young (Neil, Neil, what a bummer). Like I said, Young's numbers are by far the best songs on the album: 'Helpless' is a very pretty ballad that gets most of its warmth and pleasantness due to Neil's unexpectedly sweet tone, and the multi-part suite 'Country Girl' seems like a bore until it picks a little steam in the middle with that Mellotron background and the groovy, bombastic chorus. If anybody ever wondered who was the best songwriter of the whole crew, your answer's right here. Still, these two tunes are not among the best ones.
Stills' contributions are a little worse, although not particularly offensive - but there's not much I could really say about them. '4+20' is an interesting, moody, almost menacing acoustic song, but unfortunately, it's much too short - less than two minutes, actually - and only hints at the hotcake it could have been in another life. And 'Carry On' always bores me with those Byrdsey harmonies, plus the guitar riff is almost bad, you know - like a half-professional, but inadequately ambitious acoustic player trying to hammer out the best lines of his stinkin' life. No resemblance to those fascinating 'Judy Blue Eyes' opening lines, that's for sure.
However, the real downers on the record are the Crosby/Nash songs. The first one contributes a lifeless, totally unessential pseudo-rocker ('Almost Cut My Hair') that sounds like a Jimi Hendrix song with the guitar mixed out, and the title track, that starts as a really fascinating acoustic shuffle before, of course, degenerating into a lethargic jam probably due to everybody being totally stoned at the time of recording. As for Nash, his two flower power ditties aren't exactly 'cheesy', but are certainly more so than 'Marrakesh Express', and not very memorable as well - plain, uninteresting pop songs that aren't really good or bad. Listenable, but there's a lot of things in this world that are listenable. Joseph Haydn, for instance.
I really have no idea if I'll be flamed for this review or not, because I can't really figure out if the album is just a critics' favourite or it is really revered in public. But my opinion is definite. It ain't bad - yeah, 'Everybody I Love You' and the Crosby numbers really suck, but apart from that, there aren't no major stinkers - but it certainly does not deserve all the hype and exceeding praise that it usually gets. A record whose historical importance (and yes, I agree that from this point of view it is one of the most significant albums of 1970) has clearly overshadowed its real artistic value. Go put on some Hollies instead! These guys don't have no historical importance at all, but by gum, they're so much more enjoyable! At least they were less cocaine-obsessed than David Crosby. Disclaimer: that was just a metaphor. I really wouldn't know what kind of drug Dave preferred at the time. Wouldn't really want to, either, but one thing's for sure: it messed up his head just fine. 'Almost Cut My Hair', really!

Everybody I love you, especially when you mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (10.08.99)

See how much easier it is to take Young when he is packaged with these guys.
I think thats the real reason this album went over so well.
The critics could finally rave about Neil and not look like total fools.
Other than that I agree that the CSN album was better but then Young would'nt have a really good reputation would he, hmmmmm.

Glenn Wiener <glennjwiener@hotmail.com> (14.09.99)

Originally, I was not the biggest fan of these guys. However, with NEW music being so dissappointing, I decided to borrow this CD from my local library recently. You know what, these guys are really pretty darn talented and the vocals are sung with much emotion. Even Neil Young's contributions are decent and in general I am not a fan of his off key whining. Graham Nash's tunes 'Teach Your Children' and 'Our House' are probably the best songs as well as the excellent cover of 'Woodstock'. Overall the blend between the loud and soft is well aranged over the course of this album.

Fredrik Tydal <f_tydal@hotmail.com> (12.12.99)

Well, I have mixed feelings about this album. It's certainly not as good as 1969's Crosby, Stills & Nash, but if an album is hyped doesn't necessarily means that it's bad. The only real stand-out is Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock". The rest is a mellow blend of songs which actually add up to a quite impressive whole. All four hold a consistant quality in their respective songs. It actually feels as if Young is delivering second-rate material.

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (07.08.2000)

I'm surprised on how many people seem to prefer the first album over Déjà vu. Maybe it's not being around during the times -- this was the second LP I ever bought.
The "group" is really unintegrated here, I have to admit -- the sessions were rife with tensions. And the addition of a tough rhythm section really helps to undo the wimpiness of the last album. Young doesn't even appear on any tracks except his own and "Woodstock". But, nonetheless, song for song, this is so much better than album #1. Much clearer production. I love the impressionism of Young's two solo compositions. "Everybody I Love You" is an energetic bit of fun. "Carry On" has great harmonies and rocks (by the way, the second half is a revamp of the Buffalo Springfield's "Questions"). "4 +20" is haunting. "Déjà vu" continues Crosby's excursions into weird mysticism (cool!). And as for Nash, he comes up with two big winners, saved again by keeping his lead vocal low key and bringing the harmonies to full prominence. "Our House" sounds more like it belongs on the Beach Boys' Friends than it does among all this psychedelic weirdness, but it works. "Teach Your Children" is another great sentiment that doesn't get washed in the corniness Graham would come up with later, and I agree, they do the definitive "Woodstock" here.
However, a BIG agreement on the hideous "Almost Cut My Hair," which is surpasses anything on the first album in sheer awfulness. Crosby's worst song to date (and a strong candidate for ever). Grating lead guitar noises, a bombastic lead vocal, no harmonies and totally obnoxious, self-righteous lyrics. The only saving grace at all was that it was edited for inclusion here, but the boxed set has a full length nine minute version which should be banned by Amnesty International for potential use as a torture device. This is the reason CD programming was invented. Although, I must say that the song was actually tolerable live as a solo acoustic number. But not here!!

STEPHEN STILLS

Year Of Release: 1970
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 10

Not a TON of hooks for my liking, but it's definitely vintage Stills, and this is soothing.
Best song: TO A FLAME

Stills' solo debut looks like... well, looks like something Stills would actually really choose for his debut, too. Take Stephen's slice off any (two) of the previous CSN(Y) albums, enlarge it thrice, throw in some Clapton and Hendrix guest spots and that's what you get. And is it good?
Oh well, it is. Definitely not great - but then again, Stephen Stills and 'greatness' in the usual sense don't really stand together. It's the kind of record that sits there and does nothing for you until you feel, around the third listen or so, that it's starting to creep under your skin in some mystical way, that this guy's really so friendly and homey and sincere that you don't mind his friendship at all. This record has a lot of flaws, and I don't enjoy it nearly as much as the other critics do: there are some really low points and really bad songs, there are very few instantaneously memorable melodies, and the Hendrix guest spot is just plain ridiculous. For a better overview of Steve's possibilities, you'd much better be off with the Manassas album; however, that one's a double album, and it's rather hard to assimilate in one go. Plus, it doesn't have Clapton, so...
The big problem is that Steve is still living in his Woodstock veils; the record might easily be dismissed as 'postmortem hippie crap' by those who believe that the hippie movement and ideals were essentially dead on the night of Altamont or at least on the night of Hendrix's death. Indeed - what the hell? How come the record begins with a song named 'Love The One You're With', continues with a song named 'Do For The Others', and then stomps into a song named 'Church (Part Of Someone)'? This isn't even psycho rock, it smells of preachiness. And so it does. Apart from the relatively pretty acoustic 'Do For The Others', I could care less about the other two - apparently, 'Love The One You're With' was a minor hit for Steve, and it does look like a potential hit, but only for people who think a hit should be huge and anthemic rather than based on a solid melody. 'Church' is just awful, a generic gospel number with generic gospel background vocals. But Steve's voice is way too feeble for singing gospel, and it comes out looking even more awkward than Keith Richards doing reggae.
Having, however, dug through the dung, you'll arrive at the grand prizes - a bunch of excellent rockers and ballads that have little to do with preachiness or epicness. 'Old Times Good Times' is the song they usually quote most of all, because it features one of Jimi Hendrix's last ever guitar appearances - how Steve ever got him to play lead guitar on the track is a mystery to me, but, anyway, it's not one of Jimi's best leads, and without the liner notes you'd hardly guess it was Jimi at all. Sounds more like Clapton, if you axe me. The greatest thing about the song is, however, not the actual solo, but the way it weaves around and interacts with Steve's own organ playing - the effect is amazing, and when you play this loud, it almost... well... should I say it almost kicks ass? It probably does.
Blues lovers, meanwhile, are welcome to enjoy 'Go Back Home', this time with Clapton on lead guitar - Eric was deeply into wah-wahs at the time, but I suppose it's not Eric playing the basic wah-wah part; he comes on later on the usual Fender 'strument. The solo is amazing, and fully redeems the song for stealing its riff from Albert King's 'Born Under A Bad Sign'. Even if without the liner notes you'd hardly guess it was Clapton at all. Sounds more like Hendrix, if you axe me. The greatest thing about the song is, however, not the actual solo, but the way it weaves around and interacts with Steve's own wah-wah playing - the effect is mind-blowing, and when you play this loud, it almost...
In any case, though, these numbers aren't the highlights. People love to emphasize them because they feature rock's biggest guitar gods assembled in one place, but the most well-written song on the album is, undoubtedly, the gorgeous ballad 'To A Flame', with clever vibes and orchestration parts that always balance on sappy and sugary but never really cross the line - the orchestration is more Beatlesque than Hollywoodish, and Steve's humble, tender singing is, as usual, a little bit muffled so he doesn't sound egotistic or pretentious. And my other favourite is the acoustic 'Black Queen' which sounds like it was pretty much recorded in about one take, but which is probably the best example of showing what's so exceptional in the way Stills does his rootsy impersonations. Lots of untrivial chords and chord changes on that one, sharp, stinging playing with the strings almost torn out of their places, and that completely authentic hoarse folkish voice mumbling the lyrics with just enough sincerity to make you dismiss the fact that the guy's a white guy and not a black guy.
The other songs are probably okay, too, most of them pretty decent rockers, but I kinda forgot all about them while I was trying to type out that limited description of 'Black Queen'. So I suppose that instead of rambling on about the individual numbers, I'll just shut up here and say that the record is a must for CSN lovers. But if you're just a lonely guy with a problem who happened to fall in love with Judy Blue Eyes, you probably won't even have the patience to let this album grow on you; and Stills' solo records do take a lot of time to do that.

Sit yourself down and mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (05.08.2000)

Almost as strong as Déjà vu, and the best solo album ever put out by C, S or N. The diversity of styles is amazing, but it all holds together, unlike Déjà vu, because it's all Stills.
However, we disagree on the best songs. "To a Flame," I think, is by far the WORST song. An overproduced cocktail bar number. The strings are oppressive and the vibes too far forward in the mix -- Steve's "The Long and Winding Road." And "Black Queen" never did much for me, either. The liner notes credit a bottle of tequila because he drank the entire thing before writing the song, and it sounds like it. I was also going to say that I don't care for it because I'm not really into the blues, except that would contradict my feelings about "Go Back Home," which I do agree with you is terrific. I also agree that "Old Times, Good Times" is overrated. One thing this track brings to mind is that Steve does have a distinctive touch with the Hammond organ. He's not exactly Steve Winwood with the instrument, but his playing on the early records always sounded pretty cool, and you always know it's him, whether it's on this track, "Love the One You're With," "Wooden Ships" or even the Jefferson Airplane's "Turn Your Life Down."
You overlook "Cherokee," which is neat jazz-rock fusion tune - -he succeeds here where he fails with "To a Flame." I think my favorite is "Do for the Others," where Steve creates those CSN harmonies all by his multitracked self. As for the rest of the songs, I'm always sucked in by gospel vocals, so I think those four songs work better WITH those arrangements.
A great debut. But Steve's songwriting would never be as consistent again, and he would never top this album (and neither would CSN, for that matter).

<lollipop_lane@juno.com> (18.08.2000)

Does 'Love the one you're with' sound like 'You can't always get what you want' or am I going crazy?

MANASSAS

Year Of Release: 1972
Record rating = 9
Overall rating = 12

Quite a bit of country-western sprawl on here, but some of the numbers do grow on you.
Best song: JOHNNY'S GARDEN

Man, this one's a tough call. Apparently, it's not simply a Stills' solo album: 'Manassas' was the name of a fishy 'big band' that Stephen assembled together with rather unclear purposes and even managed to drag through one more record which I do not have. As I'm not the greatest expert in the world on session players and all that stuff, most of the names don't say anything to me, except that Dallas Taylor was the regular drummer for CSN, and Stephen's most important collaborator on the album was Chris Hillman, the former bassist for the Byrds and a moderately successful solo artist, too (at this point he was just out of that notorious country-rock combo, The Flyin' Burrito Brothers). Oh yeah, credits on here even list Bill Wyman, but I don't know exactly which tracks he's playing on, and who gives a damn anyway - there are so many instruments here that it would be impossible to pay attention to something as deeply hidden as bass guitar.
I confess that I hated the record first time I heard it in its entirety, but it turns out to be a much more acceptable, in parts - downright great product after you actually sat through it three or four more times. Which isn't that easy a task, I assure you: Manassas is a double album, with an astonishing total of twenty-one tracks, each and every one of which is an accomplished song in its own rights, whether good or so-so (fortunately, none of these songs are bad). What makes the experience even more demanding is the fact that most of the tracks are collated together with virtually no breaks at all, except in between sides. I don't know if this was the original trick, or it was just a debatable move of the record company to 'glue' together all the songs in order to squeeze everything onto one CD, but methinks this is the way the album is lookin' now and this is the way it's going to stay forever.
Anyway, suffice it to say that this is one of the hardest bones I've nibbled on in these past few months. Fortunately, it finally grew on me - not passionately, but in its own special way. Manassas is perhaps the grandest, most ambitious project ever undertaken by Stills, and I don't just mean the enormous size of his backing band. Where other bands and artists have rarely ventured besides abstract fantasies to create an 'all-American' record, Stills is actually doing just that. The four sides in question cover each and every aspect of 'roots rock': acoustic blues, electric blues, country, country-rock, folk and folk-rock, even bluegrass and Latin ('Cuban Bluegrass' manages to combine both!). In this way, this is an indispensable acquisition for everybody who loves his rock tame, inoffensive, introspective and emotional, but also sincere, passionate and far from cheesy or generic.
Each of the sides is given its special 'name' on here, but I fail to discern the 'underlying criteria' for all of them except the second side: that one's called 'Wilderness' and is dedicated entirely to basic country material, with fiddles and steel guitars being the most prominent instruments (no banjos, though). Even so, this is light years ahead of dull, plodding Byrds-ey country of the Sweetheart Of The Rodeo mark, mainly because Stills never relied entirely on obsessive country cliches, and the lyrics are far from generic, either. My favourite here is the fast, engaging side opener 'Fallen Eagle', which combines a strangely hilarious melody with grim, weird lyrics that seem to complain about Western iniquity, in a highly metaphorical language; and the side closes with the equally fun, energetic 'Don't Look At My Shadow', a typical 'tired pop star travelogue', if you get my drift. In between, however, are etched slow, moody songs that used to bore me to a comatose state until I finally got used to the charms of Stills' vocal delivery and appreciated the incredible lushness and expert character of the arrangements. Truthfully, not a note on here sounds out of place - the tasty acoustic guitars, the naggin' fiddle and the powerful drumming all gel ideally. 'Colorado' and 'So Begins The Task' are the 'introspective' highlights on this side, the first one structured as a tired workin' man's lament, the second one being a more typical Stills-style confessional, deep and moving. The chorus ('and I must learn to live...') is simply wonderful, a brief moment of quiet, 'toned-down' ecstasy.
Like I said, the other three sides are far harder to classify - I'd say that 'The Raven' functions as a mixed-style intro side, 'Consider' is the deeply introspective side, and 'Rock & Roll Is Here To Stay' is, sure enough, the more 'rocking' side, even if it does finish in a pure blues number. But this is only an approximate classification, and it might simply be wrong altogether.
It would be hard for me to list all the songs off here - describing twenty-one tracks is a real Gargantuan task, and I'll refrain from it, especially since I already undertook the Gargantuan task of listening to the album four times in a row. Let me just say once again that, in my humble opinion, there are basically no bad songs on here - not a single track which would make me blush and feel silly or offended about. The arrangements are extremely tasteful and ear-pleasing from start to finish, as well: Stills shines with his guitar playing on the blistering solos throughout the whole album, and all the instruments are exactly in the right places I'd like them to be. The biggest problem is with the hooks - a great percent of the songs either have none, or they're hidden so deep you have to search and wait for them, but I wouldn't really advise you to do so. Right now, for instance, I'm listening to 'Rock & Roll Crazies', a song virtually hookless, but it's simply so gratifying to my ear that I could never call it a bad song. That magnificently produced grungey riff that the song's based upon, for instance - a real treat. The echoey vocals complement it perfectly. And all these guitars coming in and going out - at least three or four more of them, like a true symphony, wow, now that's clever. There's not the least doubt in my mind that I'll forget the tune five minutes after it's over, but for now, I'm fully satisfied.
All right, just a few words dedicated to the highlights and I'll leave it alone. A couple groovy rockers on here, which gotta rank among Stills' very best. 'Jet Set (Sigh)' is awesome - a slow, dreary blues-rocker with some outstanding lead work. 'The Love Gangster' is a great lil' tune, as well; this time Stills straps on a wah-wah (and Lord knows I love a wah-wah). And, while the jam on 'The Treasure' is way overdone, it's still a terrific song, slightly reminiscent of CSNY's take on 'Woodstock', maybe because Steve's passionate vocals and the band's harmonies interchange with each other in much the same way. Then there are all these gorgeous introspective ballads on the third side: 'It Doesn't Matter', with its troublous, mind-worrying melody, or my personal favourite at the moment, 'Johnny's Garden', where Steve sings about finding himself an earthly paradise to stay - 'There's a place/I can get to/Where I'm safe/From the city blues/And it's green/And it's quiet/Only trouble was/I had to buy it'. And the refrain, the one that goes 'I'll do anything I got to do/Cut my hair and shine my shoes/And keep on singin' the blues/If I can stay here in Johnny's garden', moves me to tears more effectively that anything else on this record - somehow Steve manages to grasp the very essence of that melancholic bluesy atmosphere... Oh yeah, the record's most bombastic tune is also on this side, the one called 'Move Around' where Steve complains about the uselessness of life which is being spent in moving around. The lyrics are way too reminiscent of anti-positivist philosophy, but can't really say anything about the gorgeous harmonies on the chorus, underpinned by a beautiful synth pattern (by the way, this seems to be the only track where synths are used prominently, and they're put to good use, too).
And finally, the record ends with 'Blues Man', one of the simplest and most effective acoustic blues tracks I've ever heard in quite a long time. Steve seems to bend the strings on his guitar as if his very life depended on it, and the song almost gives the effect of bleeding on you - until the very last note, where he picks the string so hard it almost breaks. Twannnnnnggggg, and the record's over. Whoah. Supper time.
I still dock it one point, simply because it's way too long, and takes way too much time to be truly appreciated. But apart from that, there's simply no complaint to make - one of the best-produced, most cleverly crafted roots' rock albums ever. And to think that the American public never really bought it, being way too busy with preferring crap like Neil Young's Harvest that also came out that very year. Blah. Manassas tramples the puffed-up pretentions and complete tunelessness of Harvest into the dirt. I tell you, if you only plan on purchasing one 'roots' rock' album, buy this one. But be prepared for a little hardship and toil.

So begins the task of mailing your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Fredrik Tydal <f_tydal@hotmail.com> (27.07.2000)

Not so much underrated as it is unknown. This one should be in every collection of American music. With few pretentions, Stills and the gang throws together a tasty dish of of pure American music like they've been master cooks all their lives. And the numerous cooks actually adds to the whole equation, giving the record a really full and rich sound. True, it really takes a lot of patience to digest and fully appreciate the album, but you eventually get your reward. The album is really even, but I'd like to point out a few other high-lights, like the opening "Song Of Love" with one of the best melodies on the album. I also like the beautiful "Both Of Us (Bound To Lose", with Hillman (?) sharing the verse with Stills, which eventually goes into a slighty Latin groove. Hillman probably had a hand in chosing to cover Mike Brewer's "Bound To Fall", since he had cut a backing track for it with The Byrds back in '68. Sometimes the album reminds one of the Grateful Dead's American Beauty. While that album was slightly stoned and laid-back, this album is serious without being pretentious. Also, the Stills on this album is quite different from the CSN one; no politics, no pointed fingers and no Crosby or Nash stirring the pot. So, anyone who doesn't like CSN can perfectly enjoy this album. And since it's a double LP remastered on one CD, I call it a bargain. Not the best I've ever had, but certainly close enough.

LOOKING FORWARD

Year Of Release: 1999
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 10

A fun nostalgic album; the songwriting quality is hit and miss, but at least the guys don't sound like self-parodies.
Best song: SEEN ENOUGH

Seems like time really stands still for these guys. I mean, come on, it's been thirty years since they first assembled as a quartet and they're still able to put together a record as incredibly lame as Déjà Vu... wait, stop me before I start ripping off Prindle's style in earnest. Seriosuly, now, I haven't yet heard any of their Seventies, Eighties, or Nineties 'intermediate' output, but comparisons between Déjà Vu and Looking Forward are simply inevitable if one ever makes at least a vague attempt at genuine analysis. It seems like this time the guys are truly intent on recapturing the spirit of the time whatever it costs them - and in the deep end they finally succeed, even if it does cost them a lot - namely, very few of the songs are all that listenable.
It is, indeed, a sort of huge appraisal for a record like this, if I accuse it of sharing the same flaws as the band's most critically-acclaimed record: yes, I admit that, while they do sound like exactly the same bunch of fat wrinkly old men that you see on the back cover, they sound with dignity: Looking Forward may be flawed, but it is definitely not a loss of face. It is just a little misguided, that's all. But that's really not attributable to age or something: I repeat that I dislike the record for the same reasons that I dislike Déjà Vu: weak, derivative melodies and not a lot of instrumental prowess going on. The spirit is there, all right, which makes the record perfect background listening in any case.
Let's go over it, then, starting from the strongest and ending with the weakest. Once again, dear old Steve Stills fully justifies my trust in him (he's by now graduated to my all-time favourite member of the band): his material is generally the strongest on the record. Okay, so the opening track, 'Faith In Me', which announces the album on a harmonizing, upbeat note in the good old tradition, has a slightly cheesy feel about it - the ethnic rhythms used on it sound more carnivalesque and crowd-pleasing than, well, truly ethnic. Could be a great sing-along for braindead middle-age audiences. Could be not. Ain't nasty, though. But I usually prefer to concentrate on the marvelous 'Seen Enough', a subtle, sly song with not a lot going on but a very hard-hitting message: Stills concocts a rap-influenced (actually, it's the good kind of rap, closer to 'Subterranean Homesick Blues' than to Puff Daddy, mind you), furious, venomous complaint of an old man who laments about the failed hopes of his own generation and sees no hope in the younger generation. Hey, he even starts an odd attack on the computerized part of population, insulting your humble servant and all you ignorant readers in the process - 'even if they don't know shit, stay in the limelight, start your own website', not to mention direct insults like 'dead-eyed, dead drunk, dead stupid cyberpunks'... He's right, of course; and he certainly knows what he's talking about. I even like his voice on this track - it's significantly deteriorated over the years, but on 'Seen Enough' his old, shakey, mumbling, but still emotional and energetic voice sounds just right in its place. And on the more hard-rockin' 'No Tears Left', with generic, but convincing wah-wah metallic solos, he finally raises it as close to a scream as possible, as he hurts out some more brilliant social commentary.
Compared to Stills, the others' material is definitely feeble. Crosby contributes two numbers, one of which nears genius and the other one of which nears shit. Namely, 'Stand And Be Counted' is an inferior re-write of 'Almost Cut My Hair', which didn't even have a melody in the first place. The distorted, spooky guitar sound might seduce you for a moment, but the moment of seduction turns out to be a passing one in the end. On the other hand, 'Dream For Him' is an inferior re-write of 'Wooden Ships' - okay, not that close, but the song certainly sports a similar lethargic, mystical atmosphere, with Stills playing the same 'dreamy' guitar that he used on 'Ships'. Not that the melody of the song is much more defined than the one of 'Stand And Be Counted', but the song is truly atmospheric, and, after all, CSNY are primarily distinguished by the atmosphere and not by chord sequences. I like the way the song shuffles along towards its conclusion, with the tinkling pianos and the perky acoustic rhythm and that 'dreamy' tone in the background. Kudos to Mr Crosby for really approaching the magic of old, if only for once.
Ah, but that leaves us with Nash and Young, and that's where I'm really disappointed. Graham has contributed two songs, Young has inserted four, and none of them are at least a tiny bit essential. As usual, Nash is supposed to be playing the function of 'court jester' - where the others tackle serious matters, he steps in with his lightweight material and relieves the tension where and when needed. But unfortunately, both his contributions this time around aren't interesting at all - 'Someday Soon' is a bland folk ballad the likes of which have been heard before a million times and 'Heartland' is just a cute little pop throwaway that dangerously approaches 'adult contemporary'; the chorus raises it up a bit, but not too much. No crisp melodicity of 'Marrakesh Express' here - sadly enough.
And Neil? Kinda odd; as far as I understand, it was mostly his initiative that the guys reconvene again, and he seriously lets 'em down by contributing very mediocre material. Okay, I take it - 'Slowpoke' is a very nice song, even if it is a rip-off of 'Heart Of Gold'; but both the title track and 'Out Of Control' are for serious Neil fans only. He whines harder than usual, but that has hardly any serious effect; perhaps one should blame it on the rather unimaginative arrangements - I would rather hear some plaintive harmonica lines than the obligatory acoustic guitar/piano duet. In any case, there's something lacking in these songs: they just don't move me to tears, unlike, say, the best stuff on Harvest Moon. 'Queen Of Them All' is so stupid it's almost funny, though.
Lastly, I'm disappointed in the album closer - 'Sanibel', a tune written by Denny Sarokin who also plays guitars on the album, is a really really cheesy ballad. The 'ooh la la' singing really gets on my nerves, and the song itself could as well dwell permanently in the Eagles' territory.
But look, don't condemn me. I'm not really dissing the album - in fact, I rate it only one point below Déjà Vu, and that should tell you something. I understand that the overall rating is not that enormous, for sure, but this speaks more of the objective musical value of this album than of anything else. As it is - I'm perfectly glad that the guys reconvened once more and put this out. It's one of the best records of 1999 I've heard, too. I value Crosby's recalling of the old spirit on 'Dream For Him'; I value Stills' biting social critique; I even value Young's whining. I just don't enjoy this album as much as other people would - but I guess one can easily understand it. So go ahead and don't be afraid to waste some cash on this record - it's quite, quite pleasant. And hey, 'Seen Enough' alone is worth the price of being admitted to your collection.
UPDATE as of 13.04.2000. Hmm, what do you know? The album kinda grows on you with time. I wanted to re-write parts of this review here, but then I figured out it would be tons more interesting to leave in this bit of intimate chronology. Yeah, you heard - what the hell, apart from the way, way, way too campy 'Sanibel', there's actually not a single bad song on here. Okay, so Young is Young, and he keeps repeating himself, but that doesn't mean he doesn't repeat himself in a pleasant way. 'Slowpoke' is tear-inducing, and the others are melodic and pleasantly nostalgic, whatever. And 'Queen Of Them All' is cheesy, but after you find yourself absolutely not able to get that 'but it's happening to me so I'll knock on wood' bit of your head... ah man, that's crazy.
I mean, these songs just end up sucking you in. Yes, I still think that 'Faith In Me', 'Queen Of Them All' and 'Stand And Be Counted' are disposable, but I'd never call them tasteless. Pretty little clunks of a long gone hippie world, they're oh so much needed in our time.
So anyway, I pumped up the rating - yes, it's a ten now. A full, glossy, ten, which probably means I like it as much as Déjà Vu. Gross, isn't it? Oh well... Count it a weak ten ("solid, but nothing outstanding") as opposed to that one's strong ten ("solid, bordering on eyebrow-raising"). And one more thing. Apparently, I'm the only person in the world who still thinks that Stills' contributions are the best stuff on the album. People tend to rave about Neil (well of course they do) and some looners tend to rave about Crosby ("Dream For Him? Ooh, kinda groovy, dude!"), saying things like "Steve lost it. Dammit. No, really! What a shame, Steve!" Calm down you people and realize that Stills is the only member of the band who's trying to, like, actually do something on here the likes of which they'd never done before. The others are just rehashing past achievements, even if they mostly succeed in doing that.

Seen enough? Now mail your ideas!

Your worthy comments:

Fredrik Tydal <f_tydal@hotmail.com> (29.01.2000)

A great come-back by the complete line-up of the band, and a major improvement over 1988's mess American Dream. "Faith In Me" is your compulsory latin spiced Stills song; he has one on every album, so it's no surprise. And, yes, George; "Seen Enough" is a great song with even greater lyrics. Stills actually thought this one was so similar to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" that he called up Dylan and asked for permission to put it on the album. However, I can't see the similarity between "Stand And Be Counted" and "Almost Cut My Hair". If "Stand And Be Counted" is similar to anything, then it's Jefferson Airplane's "Volunteers", which is built on the same basic riff. And "Stand And Be Counted" is a whole lot better than "Cut My Hair"; if I may allow myself make a comparision. I can't understand how you fail to appreciate Neil Young's contributions on this album. I find them to be somewhat the high-lights of the disc; and I'm not even a big Young fan. The title track is classic, beautiful Young. Just one of those that gets under your skin. I think that this is the first CSNY album where Young's song actually measures up to those of his solo career. "Out Of Control" is great. I love the melody and the words. Certainly one of the best songs on the albums, if you ask me. Take just one more listen to this one George. Young's "Queen Of Them All", though, is one of my least favourite tracks. But think about it; did you ever expect to hear the words "I really don't why I feel so good; but it's happening to me so I knock on wood" in a Neil Young song? He is actually *happy* on this song - can you believe it? "Heartland", with Crosby's son on piano, is another high-point of the album and miles ahead of Nash's other composition; the unimpressive "Someday Soon".
Finally, the closing "Sanibel" is just pleasant. Apparently, its inclusion on the album was a return favor from Nash to its composer. Nash and Young alternating verses work quite well on that one. This is a perfect example of an old group who reforms with dignity and manages to capture some of the old magic. Pick up the album, it's a plesant surprise.