The Nash vs. Crosby Feud

I recall decades ago reading a story — which may well be apocryphal but is one of those stories that should be true — about one of Stills and Young's long jams, probably from the Buffalo Springfield days.

Supposedly, Stills ripped off a few minutes of his typically lacy types of solos, very musical, very impressive. And then Young took over and played one note for every ten that Stills had played, but did so with such intense fire and emotion that Stills was left agape and shaking his head in wonder.

I admire both Stephen and Neil as guitarists, but as a Neil fan first, that story always seemed to have a certain poetic justice about it, so I've not hesitated to repeat it — true or not!

 

Just stopped over on YouTube to check out some of the ‘74 tour footage. Ended up scrolling through the Wembley show.

1. Safe to say, it’s the clearest example I’ve come across of drugs (cocaine) negatively impacting a performance by any established “rock star” musicians. (Who aren’t the Replacements, at least.) It might not seem possible for an acoustic/harmony vocals set to go off the rails as if it was some speed-induced punk rock set, but CSNY proved that it can be done.

2. Some of it sank to “amateur/open mic night” levels of quality and professionalism. You can be a musical genius and still coast on ego (no doubt bolstered by drugs) - that was definitely the case here. Clearly, no one told these guys “hey, your performances are terrible.”

 

I don't think Crosby did. The first I heard about any of this (and it's still not clear if it was over the book, or the mid life crisis girlfriend) was from Nash. Nash used the whole thing to get publicity for his album.

 

That should be “avoid”

 

Wembley was a fiasco they all seemed to regret immediately. However, CSNY's vocals were always shaky, even on a good day. I don't think they ever figured out how to use Neil's voice in the mix. If the others backed a Neil lead vocal, that tended to work better.

CSN was better, as long as they could hear themselves. Crosby & Nash were almost always great.

 

So real talk: what I knew strictly of CSN, it was from when I was growing up and whatever my parents played or that I heard on classic rock radio. Almost musical furniture to me - what I knew of it, I liked. But I did think of them as ‘60s/‘70s hippie relics, on a lower tier than the Beatles, Stones, Who, Hendrix, etc. Especially getting into punk as a teenager.

I’ve liked Neil Young for years, but even then didn’t dig too much into CSN(Y) stuff for a long time. But in the last few months, I’ve been dipping my toe in the water and realized how great they actually were.

Was just agreeing with my friend (also a NY fan) that the Neil part of the CSNY equation, minus “Ohio”, is more or less inessential. The other guys were great without him, and I far prefer the first album to Deja Vu. Crosby wrote some killer jams with the group and on his own, and they didn’t need Neil around to improve on any of that.

 

It wasn't a fiasco for those of us there. And the UK music paper reviews were on the whole positive. We loved it though. Remember we only had the sound to listen to not any big screens to watch as for most of us there they were a great distance away. The only bit I remember thinking off at the time was the Carry on guitar jam which just didn't get going.

 

Perhaps they did not need Neil with respect to material, because clearly they produced some dynamic work as CSN, but they did need his musical contributions as a live act circa 1969. Subsequently, Neil's presence on "Deja Vu" was very important, as was his continued presence as an in-concert contributor/collaborator. One also cannot dismiss how enormously popular Neil was by the mid-1970's, which clearly played a role in CSNY playing as many stadiums as they did in 1974. Obviously Neil's ongoing popularity during the 1990's, when CSN's fortunes as a commercial force declined, played a key role in the CSN's ability to play arenas as CSNY.

 

In the Zimmer book on CSNY, I believe Nash is quoted as saying that Neil coming in gave them a push to "rock out" instead of just being an "acoustic group," which he said was something they needed to do; and Crosby is quoted as saying that when Neil came in, it always was a spark of acetylene that pushed things into a gear the CSN alignment wasn't able to reach.

 

I've said the on here before, but I tend to feel sorry for Stills. In his prime, he was hugely ambitious, very focused, and a grafter. Stills was probably the main ingredient that powered both BS and CSN to success. It helps a lot having someone like Stills in your band. Yet he was never a consistent songwriter and he never fulfilled his early promise, cursed to be less intriguing than his buddy Neil.

 

So much to say, so little space in my brain. I think Stills is 10x the guitarist Young is. Young will take a theme and grind it into the ground. Stills is quite nimble in comparison. And Neil is a great songwriter but he has a signature sound. I feel SS is much more accomplished for not having weird songs that we can identify with him. Neil wrote odd stuff like Cinnamon Girl and Down By The River and Cowgirl In The Sand. Stills sounds much more happy and professional and not con-fessional like NY.

 

I probably agree with you. But the truth is a true modern professional guitar player like Jeff Pevar or Shane Fontayne would blow either of these two off stage given chance.

 

I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground, but I want to say I don't know how any guitar player, short of Jimi, can blow anyone else out of the water. Neil does his thing, George did his thing. I feel Stephen plays the solos the songs are asking for, Neil is just looking for a reason to play one-note solos.

 

doubtful. no one is paying to see faceless sidemen

 

Oh dear, have I shaken the tree too hard.

 

In terms of technique, yes. But they don't have the soul or feel that guys like Stills and Young have.

 

As a guitarist, its so much harder to pull off what Neil is laying down. First off, acoustically, both are fantastic. Still is more intricate, Neil's more effective to some degree. In electric playing, I hear Stills as a guy who took lessons from Clapton, which he did, and alwasy tried to do the virtuoso thing. But other guys kind of have that voice. Neil just plugged his guitar into his heart, so to speak. When Stills plays, I love it, but nothing visual happens to me. When Neil plays, visions of soaring Eagles tattoo themselves to my brain. Neil's playing has wingspan. I have to end this on a positive note for Steve Stills, though, who is an absolute master and a major source of inspiration to me.

 

Nope. Not even close either. Now, I will say pro sidemen are awesome and can read music and do things that Neil and Steve can't. But when Steven and Neil play, it communicates itself to potentially trillions of people over time effectively. SO hard to pull off and even thinking of trying makes it seem impossible. Like, "how can I play to make everyone in this stadium like me?" I think Steve and Neil would take lessons from the other guys, yet the other guys would likely trade that to have an eternally influential voice on the instrument.

 

I think this video bears out what you're saying. Neil is a emotive player whereas Stephen flies around the fingerboard more; flashy. Neil feels every note, etc. It's great to see these guys having fun.

 

A minute in and has the key change to what would become Eldorado

 

Substitute any "professional guitar player" for Stills in this post. The application is the same.

We're talking about different processes here. I admire any guitarist who carefully crafts a solo that fits the intent of the song it appears in. But in his long jams, Neil Young is undertaking a different enterprise — one in which technical skill takes a back seat to, as I said, fire and emotion.

Another difference is that Young is doing this on the fly — playing what he feels in the moment as opposed to working it out in advance.

 

Oh there's a good bit about Pevar in the last part of the Browne book. Pevar talked to Browne and apparently Stills did NOT appreciate Crosby bringing him into the band, wouldn't even shake his hand at first. They eventually came to an understanding though, Pevar said he showed up at Stills' house one day and they spent 7 hours just playing blues and Stills kind of warmed up to him after that,

 

They are currently hitting each other with their walkers as we speak.

 

Imagine how Crosby would have felt if Stephen had brought a mid-range harmony singer into the band.