Were CSNY really considered the "American Beatles" in the early to mid 1970s?

Does this mean Crazy Horse were the European Shaggs?

 

If you think they hit a creative wall recording-wise after the "couch"
album and Déjà Vu, you haven't heard the solo + duo albums plus "CSN" that came out the during the 70s. They were on fire!

 

Back then other than perhaps the rogue DJ here and there people just didn't really think of bands that way. I don't remember CSNY being thought of as anything other than CSNY. To a large degree the general music listening public was too busy being the music listening public to be into all that, except perhaps reading Rolling Stone reviews just to guffaw at after a hearty toke.
CSN and CSNY hit the scene so strong and so fast that they had their very own identity, and really didn't need comparisons.

 

European?

 

The only things I can think of that would be vaguely analogous are CSN(Y) as the Anglo-American Cream, or Blind Faith as the More-British CSN(Y).

 

Heard them all (even Live It Up). As the CSN box shows (to me), lots of good stuff, but also a lot of dross. Wasted on the Way after that opening shot of brilliance. A lot. Read their books.
YMMV and, if so, I sincerely respect your right to disagree.
From 1972-76, if anyone was the American Beatles, it was Glenn, Don and their backing musicians.

 

glenn, don, and their hired hands took over for CSNY in my opinion.

After the '74 reunion failed it was pretty much a given that CSNY was no more, the gods and their cohorts grabbed the reins.

 

For me, it was Beatles, then Eagles, then Bruce, until about Tunnel of Love.
I liked a lot of what CSN and Y did, as a group, as solo artists, and in various combinations, but the above three did it for me.
Again, YMMV.

 

For me, it was...well...that depends on the week, month, or year. Thats why I have too many records.

 

As much as I'd hate not to have a lot of CSN's solo output, it really makes me wonder what it would have been like if they'd stuck together and put out albums as regularly as the Stones through the '70s, even without Y.

 

They probably would have put out great albums through 1977, then on-and-off after that. They'd be a bigger act "historically" speaking, than they are now. Songs from solo albums may have become decent size hit singles instead of great songs only fans know. Eight solid years of success, hit albums and touring would have made them one of the biggest acts of seventies.

Although I, too, would hate to be without all the solo/duo albums.

 

If CSNY can be "totally American" then why not?

 

Gotcha.....

 

Hahahahahaaaaa.... NO.

Same goes for The Beach Boys.

 

I mentioned The Beach Boys over CSNY earlier in this thread, "however" after seeing The Beach Boys "Summer Of Love" video mentioned by Zack in the "Worst Song Ever" thread, I'm pulling back .
Then again, if CSNY could put out a boxset that had 11 releases like The Beatles recent set, it'd be another story. American Beatles are still tbd in mho.

 

Why is this thread still being treated like a CSNY vs Beatles thread? How come whenever a band is called the [insert here]'s Beatles it suddenly becomes [insert here]'s Beatles vs the Beatles? In this case being "America's Beatles" means it's that vs other US acts. People are too quick to get too defensive toward the Beatles and than anything that resembles a comparison is blasphemous.

 

Uh, no.

 

CSNY is an American signed act. You don't have to be from the country to be a signed act of that country. There are actually many examples of musicans who's country of origin isn't the country where they are considered to be a musican from.

 

LOL OK dude

 

Did I say something that was untrue?

 

Again, I count the beginning of their creativity and remarkable body of work as 1966 for Neil and Stephen, 1963 for Graham, and 1965 for David. In their earlier groups, CSN(Y), and the post-CSNY solo and duo albums, they did create a remarkable body of work from roughly 1966-1974. CSNY was basically a continuation of Buffalo Springfield with Graham Nash taking over the Richie Furay role, and Crosby had entered the Springfield orbit as early as "Rock and Roll Woman" and Monterey Pop, so there was a continuity there before CSN officially formed in 1968.

 

As a huge Hollies, Byrds and Springfield fan, I don't dispute the quality of those groups' work, but that really wasn't the question. It was CSN and Y as the new Beatles in the early to mid-70s. That's the group and body of work up for comparison.. Moreover, to give Nash, whose guitar wasnt even plugged in, credit for the Hollies' catalog kind of gives short shrift to Clarke and Hicks; to credit Stills and Young for the Sprinfield ignores Furay, Palmer and Messina. But most ludicrous is crediting the Capeman for the Byrds classic stuff, ignoring McGuinn, Clark and Hillman's more significant contributions. As I recall, they threw him out because he was such a jackass. Plus, there's Mind Gardens.

 

Huh? For harmony maybe. Furay's country contributions to BS were irreplaceable.

 

And also "Lady Friend" and "Draft Morning."

 

For true fans, probably so. However, the two giants of the group that the larger world remembers are Stills and Young. The earliest incarnation of CSNY even featured Bruce Palmer, before he got deported again, if I'm not mistaken. So you had 3 out of 5 guys in Buffalo Springfield, again with Nash taking the Furay role in my eyes - if you disagree with that analysis, fine, but that's how I see it. I continue not to buy the "they began in 1969 and wasted their talent after two albums" argument. The individual members of CSNY all started doing great work around 1966, with Stills and Young doing it together in the same band at that point, before CSNY was ever founded. They had a much longer run of peak material than just 1969/70. Some of the"peak" CSNY material, such as "Questions," and, if I'm not mistaken, at least parts of Neil's "Country Girl" medley, obviously even dated back to the Buffalo Springfield era.