Re: OT - Crosby, Stills and Nash and Eagles - What's the Difference?
Posted by:
Jesus Murphy
()
Date: September 9, 2007 11:47
Monkeylad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Eagles are to CS&N and CSN&Y as the Monkees
> are to the Beatles.
LOL...OUCH. It's true, though. The Eagles have even admitted, like umpteen million other California soft-rockers, that CSN is what inspired them.
The difference is, Crosby, Stills and Nash (I prefer them without Young- he's totally like a third wheel with them and infinitely better on his own) are natural harmonizers, second only to The Beatles, in my not so humble opinion. Everything they write, good, bad or indifferent,is from the heart. Back in the day, Stephen Stills was a f---ing musical genius; after all, he played just about everything on their first album (and most of the second) except the drums himself. The only 'musical genius' The Eagles ever had -and even then I use the term lightly- was Joe Walsh, and he was only there for the last two albums. The Eagles may be more 'commercial' than CSN, but the commerciality of their music makes me sick. It's like those guys WANTED to sell out, and as soon as possible (they succeeded, and deserve to be shot for it...if I never heard "Hotel California" on classic rock radio again I could die a happy man!) CSN actively wanted to REACH OUT to people with their music, and I think managed to do so in a way few other bands could. They didn't call them "The American Beatles" for nothing, folks.
I mean...The Eagles personify 'nostalgia band'. They haven't had anything new to say since 1979 and still tour with obscene ticket prices (they actually started the trend, as I recall)...that is sickeningly arrogant to me and an insult to all their fans. CSN at least still make new music, and some of it actually isn't that bad. They still manage to be relevant- that's the difference right there, I'd say.