The Nash vs. Crosby Feud

He's hugely talented. But he's also the one member of the CSNY family who never wrote a hit, unless you count his small contribution to "Eight Miles High."

 

I think that matters with respect to publishing value because hits and well-known staples drive up the value of a catalogue, but he did have a hand in some quality songs over the years.

 

Sure, and I think "Everybody's Been Burned" is tons better than lots of songs that were hits. But that doesn't drive up its value.

 

I expect $10 million if that is the number would make all the difference in the world in how comfortably Croz is able to spend his remaining years.

I'd retire tomorrow if someone wrote me that check - and as a healthy 55yo I likely have a quarter century more life expectancy than he does.

 

He came close with "Carry Me", which got to #52. I wish it had been a bigger hit. CSN or Y songs were not exactly embraced by pop radio in the mid-70s.

 

Lovely song from a wonderful record. Both Croz & Graham were on top of their games.

 

Drugs are bulls***. I loathe users and excusers.

 

Says Mr Nicotine Caffeine!

 

Love your nickname

 

David Crosby lost his publishing years ago in his Chapter 13. Nash bought some some of them off him before the load went to the creditors. I can't figure out why people think he still owns his songs going back to '65....he only owns his recent ones. He is financially a mess and admits it.

 

For anyone interested, If I Could Only Remember My Name is this week’s Weakest Link album..........

Poll--The Weakest Link: David Crosby IF I COULD ONLY REMEMBER MY NAME, Round 1

To be partial to both sides of the feud, I’ll do Songs For Beginners later this year.

 

read a nice article the other day in which crosby says he and stills are still friends and still talk, but nary a word from young or nash.

 

I was surprised that Crosby said Nash and Young were “mean” to him and he isn’t interested in talking to them now. Oh well..

 

He apologized for what he said about Young and Daryl Hannah, but I guess that didn't cut it.

As has probably been posted more than once in this thread (by me, at least), the feud with Nash began with the publication of the latter's autobiography.

They tell very different tales about the particulars of that dispute. I personally find Crosby's side of it to be the more credible.

 

David Crosby has no connection to reality. For example, in a recent interview he said, "Don't do cocaine, it will ruin your life."

Well David, most of us weren't millionaires by the age of 30 like you. We work at crappy jobs 40+ hours a week for not much money. If I'm partying with some friends on a weekend and we each chip in $100 for some coke, you know what happens? We have our good time and when the coke is gone we say, "Oh well, that was fun" and go back to work on Monday morning. Our lives remain the same as they were before.

If you're David Crosby and can afford to buy $10,000 worth of coke, snort it all up then buy ANOTHER $10,000 worth of coke and just keep going for oh, 20 or 30 years until all your money is gone then yes, that will ruin your life.

And then Crosby whines that he can't pay his mortgage because of Spotify? What a pampered jerk.

Overindulgence in almost anything can ruin your life.

 

Nice to know.

Stephen seems to have settled in to a dignified and mellow old age. Good for him!

 

Croz and Stills could do something real cool together. Croz is an amazing singer and Stills an amazing guitarist - and linking their names would quadruple their sales. Maybe hook up with Rosanne Carter Cash and go out as Crosby Stills and Cash.

 

Your logic makes no sense - it's people who don't have lots of money but get addicted to hard drugs whose lives are ruined. Rich guys can afford to sustain a habit, often for years or even decades. The average Joe very quickly finds himself having to sell his TV just to get a hit.

 

Cocaine use doesn't "very quickly" turn you into a junkie. If you have an addictive personality (like David Crosby) you should stay away from drugs, period. The rest of us can occasionally alter our consciousness for recreation and our lives are just fine. Moderation in everything. I've been using drugs off and on for over 30 years and I've never sold any of my furniture.

 

So your issue with Crosby is that he’s suggesting people shouldn’t get into coke. And you’re advocating casual coke use. And your reasoning is that most people can’t afford to become addicts? Really not sure that holds up to any challenge.

 

wild tales

 

No. Drugs are just bad for you. Don't try to suggest they're anything other than bad for you. Can some people function with them? Yes. Can some people live with them? Yes. Can some people work hard and create while using them? Yes. Of course. They also lead to people justifying their behaviour and insisting there's no harm in using them. They're insidious like that.

 

Drugs can be wonderful in moderation. They're just not for everyone. Every person has a different body chemistry, and some bodies react negatively to certain drugs. It's about knowing your limits. I can honestly say that LSD and psilocybin have had a positive effect on my life, partly because I never went overboard with my usage.

 

Nonsense. It’s just that some people are better equipped to handle them than some other people are. The whole thing hinges upon an individual controlling input of the addictive substance. How many people are in control of an addiction?

 

Exactly. The problem is that too many people think that they’re Keith Richards and can do whatever they want and still be rock and roll.
I see the the downside of drug addiction daily with patients who are in Suboxone programs to try and give them a better quality of life after opiate addiction.

I watched the new Crosby doc and it seems he’s realized the destruction and dysfunction caused by his actions throughout his life but only too late.