POLL -Did Crosby, Stills , Nash Live Up to Their Potential?

I think they did. As much I like Neil Young, the heart of the group for me has always been Crosby, Stills and Nash. Songs like "Marrakesh Express," "Guinevere" and for me "Shadow Captain" are apogees very few artists ever get to. The three had such gorgeous harmony, a very uncommon sound, much more authentic and emotional, than say, the Eagles, etc.

What I do wonder is if they did have a classic album in them in say, 1974 or again in 1975-76. I'd have to say no, but Stills/Young and Crosby/Nash did well enough for me not to feel too bad.

 

I just got finished watching last year's Eight Days a Week about the Beatles, and the one thing that sticks out to me is that the Beatles, at least in the touring years were a group first and stuck up for each other -- with no decision being made unless all agreed. We all know that changed later.

Therefore, my first impression to this question is, given that comparison -- no, CSN really didn't live up to their potential -- they seemed much more "every man for himself" especially in the 1970-1976 timeframe, at the end of that timeframe the moment had passed them by. A shame, too, because things had worked out that they could have had Beatles-like influence had they played their cards right in 1969-70. But perhaps they didn't want that.

 

The average music fan probably doesn't know that they only made a couple albums in the prime of their lives together

 

I lost interest after their second album...

 

Oops I forgot about that one!!!

 

One major concept of my thoughts regarding "potential" - that was hard to communicate in the threads' question was -timing

Different people came to know of CSN at different points in the groups life AND in their own lives. Some here were there at the inception of the group, others may have discovered their music just several years ago. I guess most fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Where you fall , may influence your view of potential.

I heard and read about the super group formed from 3 of my favorite bands and was wowed by their debut album and Woodstock appearance. (Remember, the Beatles were splitting at this time and some of is were anxious about the impending void.)

DEja Vu was great, but I thought too short and a little forced with Neil. 4-Way Street sizzled and showed why Neil was dynamite as a group member on the rock songs. HIs songs were fabulous as solo songs, but he was not essential to the group sound or the others' own solo songs.

So if Spring 1970 was when I answered this - YES!!!! Would be it. 46 years later, no.
Collectively? yes, if not we would not still be talking about them.

 

Those three guys are the living example of why the Hippie dream failed. Neither movement lived up to their potential, for so many reasons. Money, drugs, greed, ego, to name a few.

 

Band that totally missed its potential. A great debut album in 1969, a classic 1970 album with Neil Young.....then egos and in-fighting, rock star b.s. If you want to consider how great CSN could have been up through 1976, just look at the list of songs that made it onto solo/duo albums. If the three of them had been more committed to the group process, they could have had at least 2 more great albums before 1976:

1. Love The One You're With
2. Military Madness
3. Music Is Love
4. Taken At All
5. We Are Not Helpless
6. Johnny's Garden
7. Wind On The Water
8. Carry Me
9. Homeward Through The Haze
10. Change Partners
11. Word Game
12. So Begin The Task
13. Turn Back The Pages
14. As I Come of Age
15. Southbound Train
16. Immigration Man
17. Song With No Words
18. What Are Their Names
19. Laughing
20. I Used To Be A King
21. Simple Man
22. Wild Tales
23. Out Of The Darkness
24. Where Will I Be?
25. The Wall Song
26. Foolish Man
27. Chicago

 

I voted "collectively, hell yes ". Through 1979 or so I listened to an awful lot of the different pairings/solo efforts. Manassas, Wind on the Water etc etc.

I'm a big Neil Young fan but have never considered him to be a core component of this group. If I did, it would be "Collectively, absolutely hell yes".

 

A not-very-good barbershop trio; especially when you consider their previous groups.

 

OK by me.

 

How many albums does the average music fan think they made?

 

Too much Coke & Craziness (Crosby and Stills).

Only a very few songs after their first two albums hold any interest for me ("Cathedral" being one of them).

 

I voted Stills should have pursued Manassas

That's not really a knock on CSN(&Y) who I think hit their potential immediately with Suite Judy Blue Eyes, but more to say that I think Stills was the most talented of that quadrant and yet he didn't sustain and transcend his genius long enough for what I think he should have...

I mean the first CSN/Y records were his in my book, add in his solo debut and the amazing Manassas (plus Springfield) and the scope--songwriting, vocals, piano, guitar and adept stylistically across rock, blues, country, bluegrass, psych, Latin styles he had it.

I think Crosby/Nash harmonies softened his style and I'm sure the drugs didn't help...

So at the end, despite his talent, Neil won the best of them by a decent margin for his career, but Stills is a wasted genius who still gave us a hall of fame sized amount of genius...he really was an exceptional talent...

I do dig all 4, Nash's pleasant surburbanisms sound better as I've matured, and even though he got pretty hippie, Croby's voice is one of the best ever (check out A Child is Coming on Blows Against the Empire for one of my all time favorite vocal moments with Grace and Crosby going into this vocal nirvana in the coda while Kantner paces em...

 

Debut album is perfection personified.
Deja Vu is a rock album, different ...but equally brilliant, cool cover.
Then solo careers. The Loner ' Neil Young delivered with a heartful of gold platters.

 

They were helplessly hoping


Or in Neil's case just helpless

 

Maybe they could've if Neil Young didn't join. They already had their sound and the songs on the first album, and the one weak point (Nash's songwriting) improved improved after that so they had all the potential. I don't think Young added anything and messed up the concept.

 

You would be in the minority, I would wager. 4 Way Street was a phenomenal album.

 

I'm saying that people would probably assume they did quite few albums since they have been around so long simply because it is typically the rule rather than the exception of big names that have been around that long.

 

I'm very satisfied with what they accomplished. Now 'scuse me while I go crank "Southern Cross"!

 

The Rolling Stones have been afflicted by the four vices you mention, and they've been around for more than a half century.

 

Even when they didn't add up to the sum of their parts, their lowest moments are obscured by the shadows of their towering high-points.

 

Other than 4-Way Street, I don't spin CSN (Y) material except Southern Cross, (which is world-class IMO). Not for any particular reasons except that, to my ears, 4-Way Street delivers my fave versions of their core material. Ohio, Carry On, and Pre-Road Downs are highlights.

That stated, the studio albums are necessary to provide the material originally.

 

Good point! And there are plenty more from Stills on that Manassas album, Manassas 2 (Down the Road), The outtakes of that released as Pieces and Stills-Young Long May You Run.

 

Never should have added Neil. Neil Young is great on his own. Just mucked things up. Btw, I think the three Crosby/Nash albums in the 70's were the best thing to come out of that hole shabang (apart from the 1969 CSN album).