General Rating: 2

Introduction

ALBUM REVIEWS:

• Neil Young
• After The Gold Rush
• Harvest
• Comes A Time
• Rust Never Sleeps
• Landing On Water
• This Note's For You
• Harvest Moon
• Dead Man
• Broken Arrow

Neil Young got to be one of the most, if not the most, gruesomely overrated solo artists in rock music. He seems to be the love and pride of every music critic - alive and dead, and, at first glance, he deserves it. There are three main points that seem to summarize all of the man's positive value. First, he is thought of as a contemplative, philosophical balladeer, following in the steps of Bob Dylan: his soft, acoustic tunes with presumably deep, hard-to-understand and obviously heartfelt lyrics are often deemed to reflect the very 'spirit of America', if indeed there is such a thing (as an outsider, I wouldn't really know about that!) Second, he's known as an endless experimentalist, shifting from one style to another with such ease as if all of them were nothing but spare pairs of pants. He's never stuck to a single formula, and the 'pushing forth of music boundaries' label is appliable to him maybe more than to anybody else. Third, he's still a rocker at heart, and again, the critics drowned him in a sea of appraisal - both in the era of punk and in the era of grunge, when Neil came out with winners at a time when everybody else of his epoch was mercilessly labeled a sold-out old fart. What could there possibly be done about it? Intelligent, skilled, talented, diverse, emotional and wreckless - isn't it clear that Neil Young is one of the greatest rock musicians, composers, performers, and, well, dudes in existence?
Well, actually, no. The critics may bug everybody with their fake, conventional panegyrics, but they don't fool me. Sure, Neil Young isn't the worst performer on the planet - I enjoy quite a fair share of his output, and some of his ballads and rockers are absolutely breathtaking. But his strength lies primarily in his image, and not in his composing talents. (A thing which I already complained about when discussing Frank Zappa; however, I consider Zappa to be a much more interesting musician and performer than Neil, all points taken). Speaking in general, his ballads are mostly bland, melodyless 'periods' of acoustic strumming, and the lyrics seem all puffed up and mystical and weird, but in fact he's just making a lame emulation of Dylan - always trying to but never succeeding in surpassing the master. His experimentation, to a large degree, is failed: the Eighties saw a collection of strange, mostly unsuccessful industrial, rockabilly, country and synth-pop records that often make even fans cringe. And as for the other epochs, this particular facet of his reputation is fake: even his best albums are anything but diverse, all built on the same gruff electric rocker - soft acoustic ballad opposition (except for cases, and numerous at that, of records with no gruff electric rockers at all).
Finally, his reputation as that of a 'rocker that refuses to be washed up' is deserved, but it's not outstanding - contrary to rumours, Neil isn't the only dinosaur who knew how to rock all the way and knows it still. For my money, Keith Richards always rocked much harder than Neil Young (where 'harder' doesn't necessarily mean adding loads of distortion and trying to pull a Johnny Rotten or a Kurt Cobaine), and he still rocks harder than Neil Young; here's at least one serious competitor for you. And if you try to label Keith Richards as a sell-out, well, you'll only get my hysterical laugh in return.
Now that I got that off my chest, let me apologize and say that Neil really is a serious artist - it's just that America seems to recognize him as one of the two or three of its main national musical heroes, a conception that is wrong, harmful and needed to be dismissed. Just because he managed to play such a Biblical role on After The Gold Rush and Harvest doesn't mean he really knew what the hell he was doing at the time. His pretentions are never matched by his music, and his whiny, but utterly pleasant and sometimes even beautiful voice is never matched by the contents of his lyrics. However, if you do not worry so much about his cultural image and his meaningless and unimaginative lyrics, but instead just take his albums as they are, without the hype and the nearly religious awe, they are still guaranteed to bring you pleasure - some pleasure, at least, since it all depends on how much you enjoy roots rock, on one side, and hard rock, on the other. There's no denying that Neil is a good singer, guitar player, and a thoroughly intelligent and, well, interesting dude, and although I completely despise the fact that he's been so 'critically revived' over and over again while the Rolling Stones have been not, it's still an honour to see the man still stand out loud and proud despite all the circumstances.
My personal intimate feelings? There you go. I consider his blues-, country- and folk-rock stylizations passable, but not very imaginative and definitely undistinguished except by his voice; but then again, I'm not a big fan of the Grateful Dead and I didn't like the Band at first listen, so what do I know? You find out for yourself! On to the reviews, now!

What do YOU think about Neil Young? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (08.09.99)

I like young a lot and do believe he deserves a three on the rating system. A two is a little disrespectful. His body of work is amazing (30 albums?) and he really has not made one REALLY bad album. OK, so he hasn't made a blinding album - just very good ones - but I have to say, Neil deserves a little more praise.
[Special author note: I may have given him a 3, but that's where subjectivity comes over - I seem to really be allergic to most of Young's output. Feel free to up that rating one point (and do likewise with a couple of other bands on this site, like Yes or Traffic) if you're okay with it.]

Aleksandr L. Berenzon <[email protected]> (29.11.99)

Neil Young is SSSUUUPPPEEERRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
that's all...
[Special author note: Ah, at long last a compatriot! Too bad he wasn't so talkative...]

<[email protected]> (19.02.2000)

I have long and violent arguments with myself as to whether this artist is my favorite or not. There are times when being a fan of his ain't easy!
He can be careless with professional commitments (such as scuttling the Buffalo Springfield reunion in 1987 or thereabouts). He is one of those tinnitus-afflicted rockers who are still quacking about vinyl's alleged superiority to CD. (O they who have ears but do not hear....)
But this guy has written a good part of the soundtrack to my life. He pushes the envelope. I would rather it be pushed in the wrong direction here and there than not be pushed at all.
An essential musician-and with cross-generational appeal, yet. Rock's Energizer Bunny.
Oh yes, Re: the aforementioned Buffalo Springfield. He/she who has not heard his work in that band knows not the complete Mr.Young.

Fredrik Tydal <[email protected]> (25.02.2000)

I think you are a bit hard on Neil, George. It isn't really his own fault that most critics have raised him to such immeasurable heights. The only artists who really can manage and actually live up to those heights appointed to them are The Beatles, Bob Dylan, The Stones and Jimi Hendrix. Just try to put the critical opinion on Neil aside and take him for what he is; a traditional singer/songwriter with few pretentions. In that respect I think he should deserve a three on your artist ranking, but I know that's subjective. I'm not a big Young fan myself - I actually discovered him through Crosby, Stills & Nash, which is a rather unusual path. I don't like music critics who hold Neil as a God, because those critics often disparage Crosby, Stills & Nash. I have actually read things like "why does Young continue struggling with the musical dead-weight of CSN?" and "CSN should be very, very grateful that Neil is kind enough to work with them". That kind of thing really irritates me. I like Neil myself, but what I don't like is when he is used to minimize the importance and dismissing the "hippie crap" of CSN. I bet those hardcore Neil lovers/CSN haters haven't even heard CSN's 1969 debut album.

Mr Soul <[email protected]> (30.08.2000)

In my opinion Neil Young is one of the best (if not the best) living performers and songwriters. Perhaps the reason you don't like him is because he will not conform to what you, and much of the listening public deem mainstream (okay, now I'm branded for being a conformist. I'll add it to my collection of insults, the one which has also garnered accusations of being way too intolerant towards roots-rock - G.S.). Neil is often compared to Dylan, I often look at Dylan and Neil in the same way that I look and Socrates and Plato. Socrates was the founder the original influencer for a way of thinking (Dylan), but Plato was able to refine on what his mentor taught him and make it better and more "real". In my opinion this is what Neil has done.

Michael Heck <[email protected]> (29.10.2000)

hmmm... where do I start... How bout with the trashbin remark? (see Harvest review - G.S.) telling someone that their tastes are in the trashbin is about as ignorant as saying blue is better than red. Taste is subjective, deal with it. For the guy who said the only Neil Young he could tolerate was the stuff with csny, I leave you with this David Crosby quote: "Neil by himself is more powerful than the three of us (CSN) put together." If you're looking for people's opinions about Neil, I suggest checking into what other musicians think about him, not critics. (As you seem to already know, critics usually don't have a clue in the world what they're talking about- why even bother reading what they have to say, or worse yet, bitching about it on a web page?)
[Special author note: Mike, if taste is subjective, then musicians' tastes, not to mention old Crosby's, are subjective as well. As for critics - keep that in your lead head: everybody who has an opinion is a critic. You are my critic here, and not a very polite one. As for the trashbin remark - do you diehards ever have a sense of humour, or was it simply squeezed out of place by posters and stickers?]

Year Of Release: 1969
Record rating = 8
Overall rating = 10

What's that, symph-hard rock with folk elements or hard folk with an occasional string quartet?
Best song: THE LONER

Although this record isn't all that diverse, you can still easily see that Neil Young had a very experimental nature from the very beginning of his prolific solo career. Apparently, on his first solo album he tries his forces in several genres as if the album's main goal were to establish what are the things he's best at. Thus, the record is not really all that good - for every successful gem you get a failed experiment or something. Actually, for me the question of 'what's best on here?' is non-existent: it's the songs that come closer to Neil's preferred genre that always was his forte and never really was subject to any other rock performer. Call it 'soft-hard rock', if you wish: gentle (or not so very gentle, after all) ballads underpinned by a gruesomely distorted, yet masterfully played quasi-metallic riff. I admit it's very hard to try and marry these two tendencies, but when you get a true master to do it, the game's worth it: the 'hardness' gets artsy, and the 'sissiness' gets angry and moody. Terrific ballads like 'I've Been Waiting For You' and 'What Did You Do To My Life?' both qualify in that direction, and the first one is supplemented by a beautiful wailing solo that strongly reminds you of late-period Beatles; in fact, the whole song is kinda Lennon-ish - it even reminds me of 'I'm Losing You' (all right, so Double Fantasy didn't really come out until eleven years lately, but who cares?). And the combination of sweet vocals, 'bland' backups and sharp, poignant guitar tone on 'What Did You Do To My Life?' really makes the song unforgettable - gentle in the verses, slightly menacing and ominous in the chorus, with contrasts sending shivers down your spine.
Best of the pack, however, is 'The Loner', which is certainly not a love ballad - it's the first in a long row of anti-social, misanthropic compositions that Neil is quite known for. Again, it doesn't have a hell of a melody (although the refrain is certainly charming and quite unpredictable), but the addition of a heavy rhythm track gives the song an extra dimension - like, you know, it has depth and kicks butt at the same time? Wow! And it even has some strings on top, not to mention the moody organ background.
Not that the excessive use of strings on the record is a very good idea - they mar the perfectly decent introductory instrumental 'The Emperor Of Wyoming', and Jack Nietzsche's 'String Quartet From Whiskey Boot Hill' is a waste of tape. But I guess Neil just couldn't resist the temptation to stay on top of all current tendencies (a thing that usually served him well in the Seventies, but nearly ruined his reputation in the Eighties). Since art rock was becoming fashionable, he probably thought adding strings would be his contribution to the genre - truth is, they are almost Hollywoodish, surpassed in their banality only by Days Of Future Passed. Fortunately, both the instrumentals are very short.
Otherwise, the two main inspirations for this record seem to have been soul balladeering and Bob Dylan. Neither, however, have led to particularly interesting results. Songs like 'The Old Laughing Lady' and 'I've Loved Her So Long' are totally inoffensive and sometimes even pretty, but utterly unmemorable and with no edge, and 'Here We Are In The Years' is only a little better because, to tell you the truth, I like Neil's subtle guitar passages on that one - so tasty and inspired. They just sit there and chew this sentimental stuff for serious running times ('Old Laughing Lady' seems to go on forever), but with no obvious results. At least, no immediate ones - I don't have enough time to listen to this record for fifteen thousand times. And when Neil tries to pull a Bob Dylan by taking out his acoustic, creating a pedestrian melody and chanting several pseudo-Buddhist life situations over the course of nine and a half minutes ('The Last Trip To Tulsa'), it's simply unbearable, because he's no Bob Dylan and he just can't arrange the song in such a way that it wouldn't sound grossly pretentious and ridiculous. Gotta give the man some credit for the lyrics, though: that story about chopping down the palmtree is downright amusing, and, of course, those anti-Dylan fans that find his voice unbearable, will prefer to flow in this particular direction.
A patchy affair, this album, with enough filler to seriously lower its rating, yet it has its moments and at least it's not as biblically self-conscious as many subsequent albums would be. And maybe its ultimate enthralling lies in the fact that, whilst it was recorded in 1969, it bears virtually no traces of the hippie style: instead, it's a set of personal revelations, like a half-hearted prelude to John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band. Fans are only left wondering why the hell did Neil feel the necessity to join Crosby, Stills & Nash the same year - the band that simply epitomized the whole hippie movement. Maybe he was feeling lonely? Maybe he thought that falling to the 'power of love' would cure his personal problems? (Well, thanks anyway - after all, it was nobody's merit but his that he managed to save Déjà Vu from utter ruin.) But I guess the correct answer is that he just had to test his limits once more...

I've been waiting for you to mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

John N. Diller <[email protected]> (02.02.2000)

Lots of overproduced and self-pitying stuff left over from his days with Buffalo Springfield. I consider his real startout to be Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere with Crazy Horse. A desert island disc.

Year Of Release: 1970
Record rating = 9
Overall rating = 11

Well, he might not be the next Bob Dylan after all, but the soulful approach on this record really gets under your skin...
Best song: TELL ME WHY

This is often considered to be Neil's best, but I can't really do justice to this rumour, seeing as I haven't yet heard everything the man pumped out (and he pumped out quite a lot). Out of the albums I own, though, it is really the most solid and melodically rich, though it takes some time to understand it. By 1970, Neil Young had finally figured out his act, and his plans on here are obvious - he is planning to replace Bob Dylan on the singer-songwriting scene, trying to combine the man's lyrical wit, 'father-of-the-nation'-personality vibe, and stripped-down arrangements with a more heart-wrenching intonation and an occasional tasty distorted guitar lick now and then. In a certain sense, he succeeded: this album started rock critique's lengthy and passionate romance with Neil that lasts up to this day and is as sickeningly overblown as possible. But, musically speaking, he fails: his whiny voice is far better than Dylan's, and this gives most of the songs an unpleasant, pretentious feel: the title track, even if it is one of the best numbers on the whole record, sounds too prog-rockish to be really representative of 'the heart of the nation'. If anything, Neil is simply not the perfect candidate for that 'salt-of-the-earth' image the critics love to assign him every now and then: he's far too clever, experimental, and, well, whiny for that status.
However, this does not mean that the album isn't enjoyable. Like I said, it's a bit hard to get into, but once you've filtered away the filler, the task won't be so frustrating. Most of the songs look simplistic: 'ordinary' acoustic or piano ballads, diversified a little with a couple of moderate rockers, one on each side. Neil is backed by members of the Crazy Horse, his beloved band, but it doesn't really look like a band effort: if not for the lush harmonies on much of the tracks (sometimes provided by Steve Stills), you wouldn't really know 'bout no stinkin' band. But the album is not 'folky' or 'countryish', like Harvest; instead, Neil goes for a more pop approach on most of the tracks. Several of the ballads are utterly dispensable, like the loose, sappy, hookless love ballad 'Birds' or the cover of Don Gibson's 'Oh Lonesome Me' - can a song like that one truly belong on a classic album? It's just a by-the-book country number that doesn't deviate from the 'standard' formula not by one iota. And I utterly hate that monotonous 'pam-pam... pam-pam... pam-pam...' thump of the emotionless, slow, stuttering waltz 'Only Love Can Break Your Heart', a song that's as uninspired and formulaic as could be.
But once in a while Neil really hits upon a gold mine: the opening 'Tell Me Why', with its sad, wistful and captivating chorus, somehow does manage to convey that gloomy, melancholic feeling of life's uselessness, even if I'm not sure whether the lyrics really mean it. What could they mean, anyway? Neil isn't an especially terrible lyricist, but I wonder how many people spent large portions of their lives trying to decipher the lines 'Is it hard to make arrangements with yourself/When you're old enough to repay but young enough to sell?' Whatever, the chorus hits a very sensitive string in my soul, hardened as it is against Neil's usual whinings.
Of course, the title track beats it to 'Tell Me Why' as the most incomprehensible, incoherent set of quasi-poetic visions in this record; the lyrics are clearly Dylan-inspired, but, unfortunately, the mood is as far from Bob as possible. Lucky for the song that it has a pretty, if not breathtaking, melody, and that Neil really is a great singer, which no one can deny; otherwise, I would easily have dismissed it as some kind of second-rate prog-imitating crap. Yeah, Neil succeeds in being as incomprehensible as Bob (that's no big problem), but he utterly fails in conveying a specific mood with these lyrics. So forget it and better pay some more attention to 'Don't Let It Bring You Down', a ballad similar in tone but slightly more emotionally resonant. It sounds like its title suggests - some angry and sorrowful lyrics about a dead man lying down by the road and a blind man who lost his cane in the night, but anyway, 'don't let it bring you down/It's only castles burning', right? Arguably the most disturbing and 'politically incorrect' song on the album, even more so than 'Southern Man'. I love hearing the hidden menace and irony in that one - at least we have something with an edge.
The rockers are also quite interesting, and certainly have nothing to do with each other. 'When You Dance You Can Really Love' is, in fact, a conventional pop rocker - with bland love lyrics and a near-dance beat, yet it is quite catchy in its dumbness, and in addition features some incredible piano work from Jack Nietzsche in the final 'jam' section. But, of course, the song that causes the most controversy is 'Southern Man', a song with some obvious references to slavery and the post-Civil War situation in the South but whose message is rather vague. Seems like Young is mocking the traditional Southern ideology, but who really cares in this increasingly industrial world of ours? Me, I don't give a damn 'bout those lyrics, but I sure like the guitar parts on there - a bit tame compared to some of the soloing on Young's debut album, but certainly the most adrenaline-raising segment of this here record.
Taken together with two tasty short snippets (the jolly piano ditty 'Till The Morning Comes' and the countryish send-up 'Cripple Creek Ferry'), these songs really make up for a normal listening - there's almost nothing that would lift you off the ground and carry away into the clouds, but there's at least enough entertainment value to allow you to sit through this without falling asleep. And well, at least it's stylish. That's already saying much.

Tell me why you aren't mailing your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (08.09.99)

I love this album! My fave track is 'southern man' - a restrained forcefulness exudes from this song. The long few songs do drag a little, but overall the best young album I think. 'Only love can break your heart' is a fantastic mellow song - young can do both ends of the song writing emotional spectrum with ease. Classic record for the more mature music listener, I think. Otherwise this may bore the pants off of you!

Fredrik Tydal <[email protected]> (25.02.2000)

I disliked this after the first listen. I really did. I thought it had to be the most overrated album of Neil Young's overrated catalogue. Of course I was wrong. Like you say, it's takes a while to get into. Some of Young's best melodies are here; "Tell Me Why", "Southern Man", "Only Love Can Break Your Heart". I can see why you haven't yet seen the beauty in the latter. I only grew to appreciate it after hearing the horrible euro-disco cover by British group "Saint Etienne". After that, I once again learnt how effectful a sparse arrangement really can be. Man, I absolutely hate those covers that totally removes all meaning, soul and emotions from the originals (Roxy Music's "Eight Miles High" and *gasp* Madonna's "American Pie"). Anyway, "Only Love" is a great song with a great melody and you should give it another listen (or take a listen to that awful cover - might do the trick).

<[email protected]> (01.07.2000)

George, I would like to hear your honest opinion on the existing musicianship in this album. Some of the songs contain good (not great) melodies and forgetable lyrics (the story of Neil young's career). But when Neil pulls out the old axe to play a lick or two, he makes a fool of himself. Relisten to the solo on " Southern Man" . This godawful excuse for playing sold quite a few records. Mostly what bugs me about not just this album but Neil's whole career is the distasteful feeling of most of his songs. Not good, not bad, not happy, or sad!

Year Of Release: 1972
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 8

A bleak collection of forced out country songs with next to no interesting melodies. Yeah, of course it's heartfelt, but that's understood.
Best song: HARVEST

Overrated, and again, together with Willy And The Poorboys and a couple of other notorious records, a complete mystery to me. Unlike Willy, though, I'm easily observing that Harvest is definitely not a critics' favourite - it might be Neil's best-selling album ever, but the 'intellectuals' are usually tending to put it down, at least a little, and I eagerly raise my voice in the chorus.
See, there's really no words of praise that could prove appropriate for this record. The album's an almost pure excourse into country'n'bluegrass - but not the fast, rollicking country that I enjoy so much, and not even the generic, but understandable country of the Byrds (not to mention John Fogerty): it's Neil Young-country, which means it's slow, dull, 'serious' and totally uninteresting musically. If you're looking for any vintage riffing or various musical curiosities, this is not only not the place to start - it's the place to finish. Yet, for some reason, this was a true multi-mega-seller, and it's a paradox of history that 'Heart Of Gold', maybe one of the most undistinguishable Young tunes (heck, it's even quite simplistic lyrics-wise), went on to become his first and only # 1 in the US. Well... maybe it was accidentally mistaken for a Carpenters song?
All right, I'll be honest and indulgent. It is true that the album has a single, but truly important, quality that partly redeems it: it's an album of a man with a bleeding heart. Most of the tunes, rudimentary and spontaneous as they might be, still carry that sincere and confessive imprint that sometimes makes even a total duffer come to life. The lyrics and singing on such songs as the title track, 'Out On The Weekend', 'Words' and 'Old Man' are simply wonderful, and if you're able to identify yourself with the suffering hero you're fine - you'll adore the record. Unfortunately, I find it hard for me to get Neil's psychological state: I don't even understand what the hell he's singing about half the time. Sometimes he seems to have problems with women ('Out On The Weekend'), and sometimes he seems to express these problems in a horrible way ('A Man Needs A Maid' - really! What are the connotations of this expression, I wonder?) Sometimes he seems to have problems with drugs ('The Needle And The Damage Done'), sometimes with finding the sense of life ('Old Man'). But somehow all of these lyrics sound lost and pointless - like he's so confused he doesn't even know what to do of his problems (except finding himself a maid, of course). Dunno. Seems strange and a little mixed-up.
Now, on to the melodies, and this is where my backlash hits really hard - of course, I don't know crap about good melodies, but I know sure as heck that these particular melodies just aren't the ones I've been looking for all of my life. Sometimes it's just a crazy mess with a couple uninteresting rhythm guitars and a couple of chords - even the frenzied, 'emotional' solo doesn't save 'Words' from being a non-vivacious, stoned out album closer. Sometimes the melodies are just generic country/soul rip-offs ('Old Man', with annoying backup vocals from James Taylor and Linda Ronstadt - hey, no wonder some of the tunes are so similar to the Eagles' early work), and on a couple tracks he goes for an orchestrated, unbearingly sweetened up approach that makes me sick ('There's A World' is nothing but a piece of prime bullshit!)
That leaves just about three or four songs that manage to attract my attention - 'Are You Ready For The Country?', for instance, is already good because it's the only thing that approaches a fast, jolly-rollicky groove, and it's also a welcome distraction from the deadly seriousness of the record. (By the way, notice how Neil begins singing his lines with the words 'slippin' and slidin'', sung exactly in the intonation needed for Little Richard's 'Slippin' And Slidin'? Hah! That's a rip-off for you!) And the album starts out really strong - both 'Out On The Weekend' and especially the title track are really good, with a strong rhythm section, some hooks and probably the most interesting, although a little obscure, lyrics on the record. Finally, there's the wee bit more rockin' 'Alabama' that could have easily fit on Déjà Vu, and not just because Crosby and Stills sing backup vocals... well, come to think of it, maybe just because of that. But that's about it.
Guess he was just going for a lil' bit o' spontaneity on this one - you know, trying to emulate Bob Dylan again. There's a big difference between Neil and Bob, though - while the latter is completely unpretentious, Neil not only 'wears his heart on his sleeve', he tries to shove this heart right into your face in order for you to hear it going boom boom and feel the blood flowing. And I don't particularly enjoy the sight of blood. Makes me sick. Just like this album.
No, no, 'scuse the ol' me. Harvest doesn't make me sick. Just a little fidgety, 's all. But how could you Americans go out and make 'Heart Of Gold' a # 1 when Mott The Hoople's 'All The Young Dudes' was only a # 3 the same year? Where were your tastes? In the TRASH BIN????

A man needs a maid, and I need your ideas, so mail them quick!

Your worthy comments:

Richard C. Dickison <[email protected]> (09.08.99)

Don't blame me, I hated this album. I am soooo over hearing this guy wailing (not singing with that VOICE???) at the top of his lungs about how bad and terrible life has treated him.
Neil's big calling was selling himself as some type of honest artist, of course he forgot that artist usually means that you start by having talent. Thank you for the mistaken for Carpenters comment, he has about that much draw for me. He whines instead of sings, he whines instead of writing interesting songs, he presents himself as a rebel then prides himself in his country roots while laughing at all those new bands.
He experiments with new styles and when they don't work out he whines that the record companies made him do it. He binges his guts out on drugs and booze and then whines that no one will take him seriously. He creates a catchy song every once in a while that people like and then he goes off acting like he is so much better than the rest of the kids he wants so badly to immitate.
Oh by the way this album is slow and dreary, 'Heart of gold' was a fluke (as in parasitical worm). The only Neil Young I can tolerate comes packaged with Crosby,Stills,and Nash. Enough said.

Simon Hearn <[email protected]> (08.09.99)

I know people who think this is his best album! It is so so so boring. I have to say the most over rated Young album ever (and he has made a few!). What puzzles me is why did he go and produce Harvest Moon in the early 90's when he could have re-visited After the Goldrush? Hmmmmm

Kristian B. Handberg <[email protected]> (04.11.99)

Like many other of this Neil-guy's works this one has a mystical quality to me. He really "says" me something. it's a unique brand of mellow country rock and lots of great songs. I like it.

<[email protected]> (19.02.2000)

First, I will say this album is simply not his best work and not an easy listen. Not the best place to start an N.Y. collection.
I've been searchin' for a place to put my opinion on something briefly touched on in your above review. You seem to be dissing country-rock and the Eagles. Here in the States, country- and folk-rock looms rather large in that genre we all are calling Classic Rock. I'm speaking Byrds-Buffalo Springfield-CSN(Y)-Poco-Eagles-Heart here. (Yes, Heart! Mislabeled as hard-rock, I say definitely folk-rock with an edge, and I also say that they get in just under the wire of your mid-sixties-to-mid-seventies timeframe.)
Suggestion, George: When you make the inevitable trip to the Rock Hall of Fame, don't limit yourself to the delights of Cleveland. Take time enough to head for the American southwest. Rent a decent car with a decent sound system and head out on US 50 thru Nevada or US 89 from Canada to Mexico. While roaring down these 2-lanes and gawking at the scenery, play the first 3 Eagles albums on the CD player. "I am an outlaw, I was born an outlaw's son, The highway is my legacy, on the highway I will run...."
Then ask yourself what music fits here, this or Traffic? (or Genesis? 8>) )
I admit, they deserve dissing for their later overblown output. But in their Early Period... Every note: solo or harmony or from the instruments was exactly were it should have been to get the required message across.
Before I forget: It helps to have someone female & squeezable in a T-shirt & bellbottoms along for the' ride....

Fredrik Tydal <[email protected]> (25.02.2000)

Like you say, the common misconception is that this album is overrated. It's not. It just sold well back in '72. Still has some good songs, though. "Heart Of Gold", as much as it's been played on the radio, is still a really good song. I love the melody and those harmonica solos. The other high-light is "Alabama", a virtual CSNY song. I could do without a lot of songs on this album, though. Hopefully, new-comers to Neil don't begin with this album.

Rose Mary <[email protected]> (11.03.2000)

Besides 'Old Man', 'Alabama' and 'Heart of Gold' the rest is so obscure and unattractive....Dont listen to this one if you're really depressed!

Year Of Release: 1978
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 9

An improvement over Harvest, but that's not really saying much.
Best song: MOTORCYCLE MAMA

And again, six years after Harvest, Neil goes with a pure country-folk album in more or less the same style, as if he thought Harvest had left something unsaid. Even so, if there's little to add to that previous effort, I easily welcome Comes A Time as a relative improvement. I know this decision will be severely unpopular among Neil Young fans, but I have my ground to stand on and I'm gonna stand on it in any case. Yes, I know that Harvest is the primary Bible for Neil fans, but that's the very fact that makes me turn away from it and face this one instead. Harvest suffers from a certain Bible flavour indeed: in 1972, Neil was going for a mega-effect record that would be country and mellow, on one hand, and bombastic, overblown and preachy, on the other. Half of them sounded like sermons and the other half like parables - you could almost see the guy trying on the cross. However, even with all his merits, Neil Young is still no Jesus, and all the preachiness ended up sounding dull - especially when set next to the fact of lack of decent melodies.
Not so, at least, not quite so with Comes A Time. On here, Neil abandons most of his usual pretentiousness and substitutes the universalist vibe for a simpler, more grounded one: the songs he sings mostly borrow heavily from traditional country melodies (a good fact, since we know that Neil couldn't pen a half-decent melody himself unless put to torture), and the lyrics are either plain love ballads or nostalgic, sometimes autobiographic snippets. There's just about a couple high-nose ditties, like 'Field Of Opportunity', and even they are rather harmless - especially because of an absolute lack of bombast. And on one track, the one I consider the best, the gritty 'Motorcycle Mama', Neil even delivers his characteristic rockin' chops. Well, better to say 'bluesy chops', because it's a generic blues tune (on which he's greatly assisted by back vocalist Nicolette Larson), and, in fact, it might not be the best, but at least it's the one that stands out most of all. And I love that tasty, gruff blues riff that Neil punches out with so much taste and precision... and sloppiness at the same time. The most precise sloppiness ever seen, dammit! How's that for words?
Normally, though, the music here is just plain untampered country - acoustic guitars, mellow piano, soft drums, fiddles and diddles, and every now and then an orchestrated arrangement pops up, but that's not a very big problem. He's also joined by Crazy Horse on a couple tracks, but you really wouldn't know - after all, they don't jam anywhere, so what difference does it make? In any case, the album is very even, so that it's hard to pick any favourites or any special duffers. I'd say that the slower songs tend to drag, like the killing, bleeding 'Peace Of Mind' which bores me to sleep all the time I hear it. Basically, what it comes down to is banal lyrics about love problems set to a musical marsh with no discernible melody. Perversely enough, it's exactly the songs recorded with Crazy Horse that also turn out to be among the slowest. However, they are a little better: 'Look Out For My Love' has some really sharp, invigorating guitar playing the likes of which you'd never see on Harvest, and 'Lotta Love'... well, it's just a little pleasant, although I can't explain why. No. Wait. It's crap. Why do I need to defend a crappy song? Why, just because I wrote 'they are a little better' without thinking about it, and I was too lazy to re-write it. Well, now I'm punished by having to pen this lengthy apology for my lying to you. Don't believe me, 'Lotta Love' with its whiny la-la-la's and pedestrian piano playing goes nowhere and has no sense at all. Murky.
So I really prefer listening to the faster stuff, first of all, because it's faster, and second, because it's more generic country, and I like generic fast country 'cause it gets you going. (I hate generic slow country, though, 'cause it gets you sleeping). 'Human Highway' and 'Field Of Opportunity' are the highlights here; they say nothing that hasn't been said earlier in Sweetheart Of The Rodeo, but they say it consistently and say it better. Oh, and say it more sincerely, too: in 'Field Of Opportunity' Neil whines 'let me bore you with this story/how my lover let me down' and he does, at least he pretends he does. Also, I think his whiny voice perfectly fits the mood and acts as an attractive factor here, quite unlike the indistinctive vocal harmonies of the Byrds. The best one of these fast ditties, though, and the second best song on the album (first, if there comes a time when I start hating 'Motorcycle Mama') is the title track, the only one with some real emotional power for me - probably due to the fact that the guitar, banjo, fiddle and vocals find just the exact note in some places and sound so wonderfully together.
Yes, this is not bad. Nothing great here, but definitely worth a listen. You know why it is better than Harvest? You can't safely put Harvest on as background music - you're supposed to be listening to that one, and since it's so painful to listen to, I just hate it. This one, though, well, you're not supposed to take this as a serious music dissertation. You just have to put it on and then go and play a game of Tetris. Or some King's Quest. Just don't play Quake! It's an abomination!

Comes a time when everybody mails their ideas

Year Of Release: 1979
Record rating = 10
Overall rating = 12

Young's take on Dylan intensifies, but, according to Young's standards, this is as high as Rock and Folk can get.
Best song: HEY HEY MY MY (INTO THE BLACK)

For my money, this is the best Neil Young that money can buy. Harvest is preachy, and After The Gold Rush is a bit dull, so make sure this one's among your first buys. In fact, I'd go as far as to state this should be your first buy, because no other album captures the whole Young experience so well. Not to mention that this is a seminal album and one of the major key albums in the whole career of the man, because this is Young's brave response to punk and one of his best, most clear and brilliant artistic statements. But let's get that in the correct order, shall we?
The album was recorded live with Crazy Horse, with the audience carefully muffled out; however, there is still no doubt that it is a live album, judging both by the cover and the final audience response at the end of the show. Moreover, Neil carefully divided the two sides, so that the first one is just him and his guitar 'n' harmonica (the band does join in in a light shuffle on 'Sail Away', though), while the second one is an all-out rocker paradise, with gruff, distorted electric guitars and bucketloads of feedback all over the place. If this doesn't remind you of Dylan's past, you probably know nothing of it: critics at the time compared this stunt with Bringing It All Back Home, however, right now it seems more obvious (though less correct from the chronological point of view) to compare it with the newly unarchived Live 1966, where Dylan first plays his acoustic set and then is joined by the ferociously rockin' Hawks. Again, the comparison is not in favour of Young: his material just doesn't hold a candle to Dylan, and none of the actual songs are among Young's major masterpieces (at least, not according to me).
What matters here is the very statement made by this album. By 1979, punk rock was already fading, but the 'dinosaur rockers' had already faded away several years ago, and Neil rises up to defend the positions of both. It's funny that two of the reviews of this album I've read on the Web (Wilson & Alroy's and Brian Burks') hold the exactly opposite opinion on the message of the opening song, 'My My Hey Hey (Out Of The Blue)': the former claim this to be a eulogy of the Sex Pistols, while the latter says that it primarily eulogizes Elvis Presley and the 'dinosaur rockers'. Indeed, the lyrics are a bit too witty to be easily understood, but one thing's for certain: the concept of a 'dinosaur' is what bugs Neil the most as he proclaims that it's 'better to burn out than to fade away'. After which he calmly proceeds to prove to everybody that he's not yet burned out at all: in a certain sense, the whole concert is built with one intense desire, to prove that rock'n'roll and true music in general are totally independent of age (a concept that I uphold fully and without any compromises). This gives the songs, even if they're not all that great, a new dimension - something of a heroic type, I'd say, and the record never becomes boring.
It's rather hard to pick out a highlight on the first, acoustic side: the songs are rather even, with nothing to stand out in a particular way. 'My My Hey Hey' goes off splendidly, with a very Dylanesque harmonica solo and vocals that are undoubtedly heartfelt and, this time around, fully convincing - after all, Neil is just defending himself, and he stands the test. The allegories of the lengthy 'Thrasher' (no, no, it ain't a heavy metal player, it's just a peasant who thrashes grain) are not very well understood, but the melody is fine - it does borrow something from Dylan's 'Love Minus Zero', but to good effect. After which we get a three-song mini-suite about America: 'Ride My Llama' is a rather complex song, a mystical travelogue lyricswise and a folkie-styled number melodywise; 'Pocahontas' deals with native Indians and their fates in the modern world; and 'Sail Away' is yet another mystical travelogue, this time some kind of a 'we-gotta-get-out-of-this-place' number. Not that you'll remember them very well after you turn off your player, but while they're on, they're fine.
The second side, though, kicks your butt throughout - even if none of the Crazy Horsemen can play worth a crap (their rhythm guitarist seems barely competent and only happy to hide his talent behind a wall of fuzz and distortion, and I could play better than that drummer after a week of drumming), isn't this the necessary attribute of a qualified punk band, after all? 'Powderfinger' starts the side on a wonderful note: the lyrics are just your typical nonsense-making Americano bunch of cliches about me and my Dad and my rifles and hunting out in the mountains and white boats comin' up the river, but the melody is groovy, since, in any case, it's ripped off from Simon & Garfunkel's 'Sounds Of Silence'. At least, partially, and don't bother telling me that it isn't. If it wasn't, no way could I have thought of that song after thirty seconds of listening. 'Welfare Mothers', though, is a worthless piece of metallic crap: why Neil thought this dumb tune, with its leaden riff and stupid social commentary, was necessary on this album, is beyond me. The situation gets a little bit steadier with 'Sedan Delivery' that has quite a bit of that precious punkish drive and energy (yeah, I know I said I hate punk, but punk taken in small doses doesn't hurt anybody), and, of course, the closing track, which is an electric reprise of 'My My Hey Hey', quite naturally entitled 'Hey Hey My My (Into The Black)'. It features almost the same lyrics, although most of them come in reversed order - what a clever idea, but it turns out that the song is even more effective when given this violent, energetic kind of treatment, with feedback basically dripping off your ears. The short bunch of solos that Neil gives out in the course of its rendition are among his most precious ever - forget that crappy Harvest, I tell you, and hearken as the man lets go in order to prove that he's just as hip as Johnny Rotten, and maybe even more! If this is punk, this is the most cathartic that punk ever managed to get.
I don't know yet if it's really the best Neil Young album ever - I still miss out quite a lot. And, come to think of it, After The Gold Rush and others, hell, even his debut album had much stronger melodies overall. But, on the other hand, they all had a lot of painful duffer material, while here there's only one seriously offensive track, and none of the other albums are as strongly compelling as Rust Never Sleeps. What I'd really want to state is that this album breathes - it lives its own life, fresh and full of that delicious live energy that, in fact, can be pulled off only by rock 'dinosaurs'. There, I've made my serious artistic statement. I don't give a damn about Neil Young, but I welcome this album as a metaphor for the battlecry - 'Long Live All The Bearded Dinosaurs!'

My my, hey hey, are your ideas on the way?

Your worthy comments:

Richard C. Dickison <[email protected]> (29.08.99)

Hey, Hey, My, My, This is his only album, Worth to buy. ;) I recall this album when it came out was the final proof he was the greatest. Boy, did those critics breathe a sigh of relief when their golden boy finally got his act together. I personally love the second side of this album and this is infact the only Neil Young album I will sit through and not be trying to be polite to some misguided fan usually for some other motive (hee,hee). Yes, that's right, Dick will listen to Rush but only if there is booze, or well you know involved. Hey, I can even be bought. But my price is quite high if there are Kiss albums involved. Anyway, Yeah the guy actually did make this album and Yeah I can listen to it, but... keep going on this catalog and see what a waste case can do to fu-- up his career, oops sorry, why does this man bring out the worst in me, I should be better than that. That bastard.

Year Of Release: 1986
Record rating = 6
Overall rating = 8

Neil the King of Synth-Pop? Don't laugh... it's not as far from the truth as you'd suspect.
Best song: I GOT A PROBLEM

The worst year in rock music caught Neil Young engaging, respectively, in the worst sub-category of rock music: generic synth-pop. Predictably, the album flopped and the critics panned the old boy even further, because, of all things, who on Earth needs Neil Young doing synth-pop? Spare poor little me.
And yet, while I quite predictably hated the album on first listen, it's turned out not to be as horrendous as it originally promised to be - positively amazing. In fact, it's certainly not worse than any of Phil Collins' better records, and that's saying something: after all, Phil was certainly the grand master of synth-pop when it came to its 'cheesy' side (I'm not talking Depeche Mode here - don't like them either, but that's a different story), but he never managed to bring any real excitement to his records. And Neil does the impossible: combining an ultimately generic and dismissable style with intriguing content - the lyrics, while certainly not supernatural, are far from cartoonish, and there are some real hooks in some of the songs that don't let the tunes just disappear from your head like ordinary routine synth-pop stuff (you know, the one that just goes chunka-chunka-chunka-chunka while the drum machines go boom-a-boom-a-boom-a-boom. Oh, well. Never mind).
Speaking of drum machines - the drumming actually sounds real on the album (that's because it is real: drum machines are used very sparingly, and Steve Jordan doesn't encode his electronic pounding too far, so that it often retains a live feel). Likewise, the synths themselves are not always overbearing - there's plenty thick, catchy bass lines and wailing guitar on the album to save it from sounding entirely poisonous. Note that I still give the record only an eight: nothing is going to save synth-pop from being the most miserable of all genres, but at least Landing On Water sounds better than oh so many of its lesser 'peers'.
The songs themselves differ in quality, of course. My favourite is 'I Got A Problem' - it's not that the song is the best on here (perhaps), but it's unquestionably the most prominent: unlike most of the other material, it's more guitar than synth-based, pinned down by a monstruous minimalistic riff and Jordan's titanic drumming, and the resulting melody is of the kind that stick in your head despite all the odds. So it must be good; the only thing that lets it down are the repetitive and rather simplistic lyrics (after all, Neil had always had problems - the difference is, he used to speak about them in a less straightforward manner than 'every time we talk about it I break out in a cold sweat').
Other tunes well worth mentioning include the fast-rocking, catchy, infectious 'Pressure' (don't you just love that crazy whistling in the instrumental section?); the pretty, gentle ballad 'Bad News Beat' which would, however, easily benefit from a less synth-heavy arrangement - hell, I can easily picture a beautiful acoustic arrangement of the tune fitting into the stylistics of After The Gold Rush; and do not forget the moody, depressing 'Hippie Dream' with its ominous bass riff, in which Neil waxes nostalgic about the good old days - 'There was a time/When the river was wide/And the water came running down/To the rising tide/But the wooden ships/Were just a hippie dream'. The most intriguing thing, though, is that midway through the song suddenly changes key and Neil states that 'Just because it's over for you/Don't mean it's over for me/It's a victory for the heart/Every time the music starts/So please don't kill the machine'. So? Is this another constatation of the 'it's better to burn out than to fade away' philosophy of seven years ago? Or a humble acknowledgment of a self-sell-out? In any case, this is about the only time I've heard the line 'don't kill the machine' in the context of a rock song; most of the time, of course, we hear just the opposite. Neil is obviously riding the machine - and he seems to enjoy it? Whatever.
In any case, riding the machine has its downsides as well: the highlights I've listed are all interspersed with heaps of rather nasty-looking dreck which I don't even blame Neil for: it's hardly possible to make a consistently good Eighties' synth-pop album, I'd warrant. 'Touch The Night', for instance, sounds like a bad outtake off a Deep Purple reunion album - corporate heavy metal with some plastic soul thrown in for good measure; and I hate the mock-funk 'People On The Street' with all my might. I mean, I'm not a funk fan in the first place, but synth-funk? Somebody put a stop to that. Oh well, at least one gotta give the man his due: he goes shooting off in all directions, exploring all the corners of the poor synthy genre, both bright and dark. 'Hard Luck Stories', for instance, is both catchy and exciting, on one hand, and trashy and bad-tasted, on the other. What do I do with that song? The vocal melody is good, but the arrangement sucks everything it's possible to suck. And why the hell did he need the help of the San Francisco Boy Chorus for on 'Violent Side'? And why is 'Drifter' so long? That guitar melody is groovy, but five minutes of 'te-de-doo' is a rather long period, eh...?
So many questions, and so few answers. Oh, well. If by any chance you like this album, I'd like to reassure you saying that it gets a very very very very high eight. Almost a nine. But not enough for a nine. Well, maybe a ve-e-ery weak nine on a particularly good day, especially if we put it on after Phil Collins' Face Value and definitely not after one of Neil's own better albums. And if you're not a purist or anything, this is probably not the last record to acquire for your Young collection. Frankly speaking, if most of Eighties' synth-pop sounded like this album, I'd possibly have to revise my conception of popular music in the twentieth century. At least a little bit. In some ways.

I got a problem - I don't see your comments

Year Of Release: 1988
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 9

Too much horns for my tastes, and the production's way too slick and uninventive for the record to be a blues highlight.
Best song: THIS NOTE'S FOR YOU

This is the last of Young's lengthy and, for the most part, critically unsuccessful series of experimental albums - a year later he would make the glorious comeback as a 'grunge' rocker and completely re-instate the critics' rabid faith in him. For some, however, This Note's For You heralded the comeback - it was somewhat less of a pure experiment, as the album contains its fair share of trademark Neil ballads. Essentially, though, what the man did on here was to record a bunch of not too original, retro-sounding blues and R'n'B tunes and record them with a fully-equipped brass section: in fact, the saxophones and trumpets are the next prominent element on the record after Neil's guitar, and on the rockers they frequently overshadow Neil as well. Thanks, at least, that they aren't synthesized; but if you're not a big jazz or hardcore Chicago blues fanatic, listening to all the songs on a row may cause severe allergy on brass for ever after.
Strange, though, I wouldn't want to entirely dismiss this album. For starters, there ain't really a non-decent song on here: at the worst, the tunes simply lack imagination and inspiration, but certainly not solid melodies or awesome musicianship (the brass section is really tight). And, since yours truly is by no means an anti-blues or anti-roots-rock person, I can easily tolerate even the most generic compositions. After all, when it comes to the blues, Neil Young is certainly no Eric Clapton, but he's no dull ZZ Top, either. The worst problem is that most of this stuff is recorded according to the 'try it you'll like it' formula - no soul, no true passion, nothing to cling on to and nothing to help you treasure the record and distinguish it among a thousand similar ones.
Therefore, I mostly prefer the balladeering stuff on here, especially the most quiet songs like 'Twilight' and 'Coupe De Ville' which highlight Young's whiny voice. It hasn't changed a bit since the last twenty years, and all the better: it's finally become adequate. It was one thing - to go ahead and try to sound like a wisened old man in the Seventies, but it's a completely different thing to sound like an old man when you are an old man. In fact, my guess is that it's mostly this newly-acquired balance between the pretentiousness and the life experience that helps make, say, Harvest Moon such a fascinating listen as compared to Harvest itself... but hey, we're running ahead. I was talking about the ballads, right?
Well, so 'Twilight' is very good; I do get the feeling that the 'midnight saxophone atmosphere' banalizes the song, and I could easily do without the brass on it, but otherwise, it's a soulful, nearly tear-inducing love ballad that gotta rank together with Neil's best stuff. And 'Coupe De Ville', with its mild, quietly strummed guitar and silky, tender vocals, is a highlight as well - you can even tap your foot to it, aided by the gentle percussion beat. In another age, somebody would have made a disco hit out of it; luckily, Neil didn't ever make a disco album. Or did he? I haven't yet heard it, then. Probably should have done; it's a wonder he never tackled foxtrot on his records.
Unfortunately, even the ballads are hit and miss: 'Coupe De Ville' is fine for the first time around, but when several songs later it returns to you in a recycled form in 'Can't Believe Your Lyin', you might actually repent in having just been so overemotional. When it comes to the sappy line 'you have changed my life...' backed by moody Fifties-pop-like trumpets, I cringe and I crumple and I slowly melt in my chair. And the album closer, 'One Thing', drags on for six minutes and doesn't even have a distinguishable melody - crime! perversion! hideous! Of course, the fact that pretty much NONE of the lyrics ever amount to something more than the tritest love cliches, helps a lot. Man, I'd take Dylan's Selfportrait over this stuff any time of day.
Back to the rockers - I actually respect a couple of these, too. 'Ten Men Workin', with its funny graveyard references, is a terrific barroom opener - just the thing you need to put on for a good party, of course, preferrably in a karaoke version and without the strained grunts of the band imitating the work of ten gravediggers. And both the title track and 'Life In The City' are standouts here since they're the only tracks that manage to light a bit of a fire: the latter injects a mini-dose of social critique, while the former is Neil's protest against the sold-out nature of show-biz: 'Ain't singing for Pepsi/Ain't singing for Coke/I don't sing for nobody/Makes me look like a joke'. Punctuating it with sharp, vehement lead guitar and a great swingin' rhythm, Neil manages to make the song unforgettable - to be honest, I really recommend it as a show opener for any band with enough self-respect so as not to fall into the trap of commercialism.
Overall, the Surgeon General reiterates his warning - HIGHLY hazardous for persons with an allergy on Chicago blues and stuff, but quite recommendable for Neil Young fans. Sure, the two or three real highlights do not make the whole album stand out, and it certainly can't be regarded as an innovative achievement or anything like that, but if you got cash to burn, there are far worse ways to do that.
Then again - why should you burn cash? Why not give it to somebody who'll make a wiser use of it? (Me, for instance!) Just give me enough cash, and I'll have the complete works of Billy Joel and Jimmy Buffett reviewed here by tomorrow's end! .........
There. I think I just pointed out the miserable fate of a paid rock critic in the last paragraph. 'Pity the critic', as my good friend Bryan B. would have remarked.

This note's for you: mail your ideas NOW!

Year Of Release: 1992
Record rating = 9
Overall rating = 11

Holy cow! Where has he been all his life, hiding these gorgeous melodies? Sowing and reaping?
Best song: HARVEST MOON

Surprise, surprise! Having just stunned the world with his 'electric' comeback on Freedom after a decade full of critical and commercial embarrasments, Neil has struck one more blow against the foes of his reputation, represented by this masterful 'acoustic' comeback. When I first put this on, I was ready for almost anything - seeing my 'love' towards Harvest, what could be possibly expected of a 'sequel' to Harvest that comes off twenty years later? Amazingly, Harvest Moon turned out to be... great. Well, not that great: non-diehard Young fans can probably get a bit bored near the end. But it's so far ahead of its 'classic' predecessor that I now urgently feel the need to exclaim: Do Not Buy Harvest! Get Up And Buy Harvest Moon Instead! Actually, to my further astonishment I understood that most critics really feel the same: everybody admits that the 'sequel' is better than the original, but still it's the 'original' that is considered 'classic' and not the 'sequel'. In some places this leads to ridiculous things: thus, the All-Music Guide in its review says that 'Harvest Moon is a better album' and yet they give it three stars while giving Harvest four and a half! Where in the name of God do we live? Is it the planet Earth or the Land of Confusion?...
Anyway, let me just tell you what the whole hoopla's about. Harvest was a patchy affair, with Young not bothering to write melodies and bogging it all down, down and further down in sloppy, rambling, slow arrangements. Here, Neil is really careful enough not to repeat the same mistake. Not that the melodies strain too far from each other: it's still the same country-folkish sound, but it's chained down by a steady, bouncy rhythm section, and there's enough hooks to hold your attention throughout. Even more important, I can identify with many of the songs - and considering my general anti-Neil attitude, it's a rare, rare chance. Don't be confused by the Biblical album cover - Neil doesn't really present himself as a prophet or a sage on this record, although a couple of more pompous tracks come close ('War Of Man'; the closing epic 'Natural Beauty'). The overall subject here is nostalgia - nostalgia and a melancholic, though by no way pessimistic look back on the years. So the lyrics are often quite explicit - 'From Hank To Hendrix' and 'One Of These Days' reek of gentle, moving reminiscences, 'Old King' is simply an ode to a dog, and there are even simple, unadorned love ballads (title track) that sound unnaturally sincere and genuine. In fact, this is the first Young album that has songs that move me to tears; if it doesn't move you to tears, your soul is probably even harsher than mine.
What can be said of these songs? It's even hard to describe them, as they are quite similar. But do not forget the highlights (and they are numerous) in any case! One of the best here is 'From Hank To Hendrix', with possibly the best harmonica line that Neil had ever created. I used to wonder what the hell makes it so appealing when I realized it was actually 'backed' with an accordeon - a brilliant idea! Had it been previously realized, I wonder? 'Unknown Legend' is a straightforward folkish ballad (ah, hell, most of these are) with a simple, yet brilliant vocal melody; 'You And Me' is one of Neil's more convincing Simon & Garfunkel-esque ditties; and of course, there's the poppy, a bit dance-style title track, a bit less 'soulful' than the others, but the slight touch of irony only makes it more 'soulful', actually! And hey, aren't these guitars beautiful?
The biggest problem that people might experience with the album is that it's somewhat monotonous - one mid-tempo ballad after another, and he sure doesn't vary the style much - apart from 'Old King', a strange country popper about Neil's dog that's highlighted by a weird, disjointed banjo rhythm, everything sounds the same. On a first and distracted listen, mind you: these songs are really different, though the mood is mostly identical. But, like I said, there are clever and cunning hooks almost everywhere - the melodies flow smoothly and in the right directions, and Neil's voice is just as powerful (read: whiny) as it was twenty years later. I'm not a fan of 'Such A Woman' (the piano and synths water down what could be a perfectly fine ballad), I still can't solve the enigma of 'Dreamin' Man', and I still consider 'Natural Beauty' to be overlong - at a couple of minutes, it coulda been the ideal album closer, but at ten minutes it drags so much that I hardly ever endure it to the very end. But the good songs are so shattering that I really don't care.

You and me, we know what we're talking about, so mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Michael Mannheim <[email protected]> (24.05.2000)

Of all the Neil Young albums I own (which isn't many), Harvest Moon has got to be my favorite. 'Unknown Legend', 'From Hank to Hendrix', 'One of These Days', 'Harvest Moon', etc . . . some of the most moving songs Neil ever wrote. What irks me though is how even when the possibility is there, Neil still comes up short on creating a true masterpiece, and ends up with the sloppy 'Natural Beauty' at the end. I despise that song. I start to understand your reasons for making Neil a 2-star artists, though I still don't agree. Neil's can do better, and he does here. It's a great album, except for that last song, and better than the output of a lot of your 3-star bands (such as CSN).

Year Of Release: 1996

One of the weirdest soundtrack albums I've ever heard, no doubt about that.
Best song: .....

Another shocking move for the fans: Neil Young suddenly went ahead and made a bizarre instrumental soundtrack for a perverse country-western film. I never saw the film and do not intend to do so in the nearest time, although the plot seems weird enough and curious to actually get interested in it. Briefly speaking, it has a lot to do with William Blake; if you want to know more, please consult the All-Movie Guide. I know I did, but, frankly, I already forgot the plot, and I won't bother checking it out again. Now the music is... oh, wait, tick tick tick, here comes my splitting of personality again...
Personality # 1 (The One That Thinks Neil Can't Go Wrong): 'This is a superb album. While none of the tracks can actually be called 'songs' or even 'tunes', they are undoubtedly among the most daring, bold, fearless musical explorations ever created. Neil doesn't play his guitar - he uses it as a sonic instrument, to provide ragged, disturbing, mind-upsetting waves of sound that exchange with each other, running in different directions, creating different moods, causing your mind to relax and to be on its guard at the same time. These are not even solos - this is some kind of an innovative, insightful musical therapy that breaks new ground in music making. The 'notes' as they are played cannot be mistaken - they're dirty and feedbacky, so it is Neil, but this time they are not just used as obligatory soloing - they are independent and take off on their own. The occasional organ solo completes the brilliant picture. The breaking of the ocean waves in the background only adds to the deepness and richness of sound, making the record a truly unforgettable experience. And the dialogs? Why, the dialogs, taken from the actual film, do not serve as simple interludes in between the instrumental bits, to take more place; they actually contribute to the mood. What is a soundtrack? It is music destined to appear in films, music that can hardly be imagined or understood without taking its legitimate place as only one of the elements constituting the movie. The dialogs help recreate the movie atmosphere, so that the music should be more easily understood and more thoroughly enjoyed. All in all, a stunning masterpiece and one of the most brilliant and original soundtracks ever written. A 10 for this one, now!'
Personality # 2 (The One That Thinks Neil Can't Go Right): 'This is certainly Neil's worst, most overblown, ridiculous and ear-destructive embarrassment he'd ever commited to tape, let alone film. There are no songs on here, wait, there's even no music: no music at all. Most of the time, Neil just dicks around with his guitar, extracting the same notes over and over again, notes that could easily be played by a three-year old if given enough fuzz and distortion. Maybe he wanted to create 'mood' or 'ambient' music, become some kind of a Brian Eno for the guitar, but this is neither moody nor ambient, it's just unprofessional shit that he tries to pass for 'art'. One of the last 'solos' drags on for more than ten minutes, dammit! Ten minutes of murky noise - how's that for a Nazi torture? He never even varies the tone - it's just the same, again and again. Even worse, the only other element that's present here are the endless pieces of dialog between actors that are taken from the movie and will not do anything for you if you haven't seen it (actually, they'll hardly do anything for you if you've seen it, either). Rent the movie if you're so interested, but don't even think of buying this ridiculous crap! A 1 would be too much of a rating - I'd probably leave this unrated, as it ain't music in any sense of the word. At all.'
Gee, the fit is over. Coming to my senses, I find out that, perversely enough, both personalities have their fine and strong arguments, and in a certain way, I agree with both. First, I must say that this certainly is not music, at least, not in the traditional sense of the word; so I'll indeed leave the album unrated. Second, I do not find the dialog bits particularly irritating; actually, I like listening to such kind of stuff (that's just me, though - I also like taping down the dialog off the Gabriel Knight games and listening to it!) And I do not find the very idea that Neil tried to carry out on this album irritating or stupid: for the first three or four minutes, I'm actually hooked! On the other hand, this album drags on for more than an hour, and that is a bit too much even for me; I think it's even a bit too much for hardcore Young fans. In other words, I don't mind sitting through this once, and I don't even mind putting this on sometimes - when I'm in the mood - you know, when you're alone in the house, on a dark and gloomy evening... wow, this can get real creepy. Maybe you shouldn't do that. Whatever be, this record makes sense - even if it does not provide too much enjoyment. Don't dismiss it on first listen, easy as it might be. Who knows what kind of future creators of new music genres will proudly cite Dead Man as their chief inspiration? Who knows?

Mail your ideas

Year Of Release: 1996
Record rating = 7
Overall rating = 9

Some good songs here, disguised as shitty ones; you just have to sit through piles of boring feedback dreck to get to them.
Best song: SCATTERED

Back again with Crazy Horse, and not necessarily for good, so it seems. The album is nowhere near as long or thoroughly embarrassing like Dead Man, but both share one serious flaw: they're not for the uninitiated. In the latter case, this means that, if your ear is not perfectly attuned to the kind of ragged, dirty sound that Neil is so famous for, you'll probably not be able to distinguish between these songs at all. Namely, the album begins with three lengthy epics - 'Big Time' (7:24), 'Loose Change' (9:49) and 'Slip Away' (8:36) - which all sound the same: the band crashes and bashes at more or less the same, rather slow, tempo, Neil mumbles some lyrics which are absolutely impossible to hear as the recording's quality does not top the most mediocre of bootlegs, and most of the time is given to sloppy, messy, feedbacky solos. Actually, here's yet another link to Dead Man: quite often, these solos sound more like the kind of buzz-saw imitations Neil practiced on that soundtrack, only this time they are set to a solid rhythm section. The worst blow comes in the middle of 'Loose Change', when the band suddenly sticks to repeating the same simplistic riff over and over again for about four minutes (and it reappears later, too, particularly at the end of 'Scattered'), so that at one point it begins to seem that something's wrong with your CD.
However, as horrendously lame as that 'artistic' trick is, it doesn't really conceal the fact that there's also some solid material here. For one, the three lengthy marathons are followed by four perfectly short and perfectly melodical tracks. The overall sound is still the same - bass/drums plus a couple heavily distorted guitars - and the arrangements are about as far away from each other as a plaice's eyes (whoah, now here's a good fishing metaphor), but these are good, entertaining songs. 'Changing Highways' starts the fun with a countryish type of boogie, whatever that means; actually, I'd heavily recommend people who think that 'country rock' equals 'country' take a good listen to this song and see what real country-rock is all about. There's a good, quirky harmonica solo, too, and the song is almost defiantly short, just as the previous three were defiantly long. That Neil, he's really a freaked out one... 'Scattered' is countryish, too, though not as joyful or fast paced, but not a clone of the Great Album Opening Mess, either, as it has a clearly defined riff and vocal melody, and some autobiographic lyrics in 'I'm a little bit here/I'm a little bit there/I'm a little scattered everywhere'. Plus, the sloppy arrangement really does the song good - were Neil to go for a lighter, more traditional arrangement, this would certainly seem much too banal. Next comes 'This Town' that manages to seduce me, too, with its 'chunka-chunka-chunka' rhythm and an almost nursery rhyme melody. Come to think of it, most of these melodies are so simple they'd easily fit nurseries all over the world, although I'm not too sure as to whether little children would enjoy the feedback mess and all the dirt. Finally, 'Music Arcade' finishes the 'quartet' of minor masterpieces on a quieter note: the song would have easily fit right on Harvest Moon, as it's just Neil strumming his acoustic and humming to himself as if nobody were around. It also has his best lyrics on the record - no kidding. Funny, the melody is somewhat sad, while the lyrics seem to be optimistic, as it's essentially the phrase 'don't worry be happy' that has made its long and treacherous way through the warped corridors of Young's wicked mind and came out as a thousand different questions and metaphors.
Of course, the song would have made a fitting and suitable ending for the album, but, of course, Neil had to go and spoil it by adding on another lengthy, never ending bore - the cover of Jimmy Reed's 'Baby What You Want Me To Do', arranged as a pseudo-live recording with artificial crowd noises all around it. It's not as dirty as the three 'suites' that open the record, and it never pounds on your head like the last four minutes of 'Loose Change', but it just drags like a paralized dog, as if the band were totally stoned out and played their instrument in a half-comatose state. Neil is not heard at all, the tempo is drastically slow (as far as I know, this song is usually done faster), and the band never knows when to stop, adding one more after one more after one more... guh. I usually turn down my CD before this one comes on. Even Roger McGuinn did a more decent version on it on Dr Byrds And Mr Hyde.
A weird album, of course, but, after all, Neil Young is much too unpredictable to not release a weird album after he'd already released a weirder one. Well, like I said, there's some really good stuff and it ain't that long. My advice to Neil, however, would be to make his new studio release as gimmickless as possible: it's obvious that the guy is far from spent, but if he keeps abusing his listeners' patience like that, well, I'll just have to stop bothering about the sucker. AT ALL.

Slip away, but mail your ideas first

Your worthy comments:

Philip Maddox <[email protected]> (02.10.2000)

I caught Neil on his tour for this album, and he tore the house down, so I grabbed a copy of this album soon after. It's pretty good, but not really among Neil's best. I like the opening 'Big Time', which really does sound like an old Young epic (get it? "Old Young"? Ok, I'm done now). A bit long, but still catchy. Ditto for 'Slip Away', which has a hypnotizing repetitive riff in it that works quite well. 'Loose Change' has another repetitive riff, but it just pounds on pointlessly. The song starts out good, but I'm bored by the end. And then you crash right back into 'Slip Away', so you keep getting worn out. I didn't like 'Slip Away' until I heard it free of this album's context. Simply too much damage on my brain. The album closing jam is boring, boring, boring. Poorly produced, too. A total waste. The 4 short songs are all pretty good (especially the Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere like 'Scattered'), but not anything you really need to hear. 6/10 from me.