^^seconded, though I wouldn't even place them alongside the other three

and Ten blows

Vs was cool

Its not really a fair comparison, Crazy Horse were a band that just lacked a frontman when they hooked up with Young, whereas CSNY were a supergroup that happened to work very well together, when its often more common that supergroup's don't work that well together.

Luckily that was the only thing he copied from Doug Ingle, because outside of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida they didn't put out a good album.

I had the honor of seeing buffalo Springfield last year. I can proudly say that I've been a part of one of the few audiences that has had the privilege to see them in the last 40 years.

Ive never been really impressed with a pearl jam album as a whole. They've made some great songs and some pretty good albums, but nothing that was really great in it's entirety.

I'd give it to Neil, but I think it boils down to taste. I love Bob still of course, saw him in 2010.

One of the best psychedelic albums ever made, though, and the title track is one of the greatest moments of the genre. The 3 minute single just doesn't cut it, though.

Ten is as close to a perfect record that Pearl Jam made. "Alive" is a great track, which features one of my favorite solos.

But overall, I think Pearl Jam are an abomination. One of the worst bands, mainly just due to the fact I find Eddie Vedder to be a boring vocalist and as they went on they basically became the AOR equivalent of the alternative scene.

Vs. was a boring record. As was anything they did after that to this day.

I remember going through a Pearl Jam phase, but in my defense I was on a lot of drugs at the time.

Mostly what stops me from liking them more is Eddie though, don't like his songwriting. Find him to be no better than any of the self help zombies, who drink at starbucks and read The Secret and think they are deep.

No better than any of their clones.

^^I think I sometimes even enjoy some Creed songs more than PJ

at least I can laugh at Creed. Remember seeing them live.

To be honest, I think Creed are a decent band, they are just stuck with a piss poor douche of a singer. But I like Mark Tremonti as a guitarist.

Alive is a good song but it's been so overplayed it's hard for me to listen to these days

yeah, i agree. But still love that solo in it.

Luckily I don't live in Canada, otherwise I would feed you through a woodchipper.

http://photoshopcontest.com/images/f...2520165635.jpg

yeah, I was waiting for the death threats on that one.

What, you mean like this?

Bob was a pretty damn good finger picker. Listen to him play a song called "I was young when I left home". I believe it's on the "no direction home" soundtrack. The finger picking on that song is pretty damn good. And when you consider he's singing at the same time, it's no easy task.

When it comes to his lead guitar playing, it's very simple but he could do it. There are some studio outtakes where you can hear some of his lead guitar playing. for example, his electric version of "house of the rising sun" with The Band. He also does just about all of the lead guitar playing on his MTV unplugged album. And of course there's his little solo intro in "leopard skin pill-box hat".

No you don't, you lying fuck. You can't do that.

He just likes to rock the boat now and again, one day he'll see sense.

He's a good man, I know he means good.

On the topic, I'm biased and thus will not vote. I was raised on Young by both my parents, and my mom has a partial hatred for Dylan. I will agree with her that as good few of his popular songs just wind on and on. Sure, he's got a lot to say, and I wouldn't say his lyrics feel forced so much (though they can become a little wordy, in a sense), it just doesn't leave the song with much natural flow.

He was always a much better player than he was given credit for, including on piano. His piano style is idiosyncratic: a fellow musician remarked that Dylan would usually begin playing at opposite ends of the keyboard, with his hands ultimately meeting in the middle.

I think Dylan is the superior artist, but I find myself listening to Young more often. Young's music is more emotionally moving to me.

i can't help hating Pearl Jam

C'mon stop being silly now.

really

with a passion, no less

they stamped their "trademark" so deep you can hear echoes of it in today's popular rock music

and i don't like it

i'd rather music followed the template of Melvins

The Melvins were too experimental to be a template for today's popular rock music.

well, today's popular music should very well dammed be experimental

Pearl Jam are experimental quite often.

I was thinking that "subterranean homesick blues" was the first rap song. Listen to that and there's no way you can say he's not rapping

I haven't decided on this one yet. So i'll just make it easy on myself and choose Bob Dylan, for songwriting reasons alone.

that's a really contrived argument

it was based on "No Particular Place to Go" by Chuck Berry

the earliest instance of anybody rapping is "Say, Man" by Bo Diddley

and i'd think a black man started rap

I know some Chuck Berry songs that could qualify as rap. But it's the attitude, the lyrics and just the flow of Dylans singing in "subterranean homesick blues" that really remind me of rap.

I believe it's Dylan who does the guitar playing in the song "buckets of rain". Don't underestimate Dylans guitar work. I don't think Neil young was all that much better at guitar, his guitar was just a bigger part of his music, mostly his electric guitar.

Did Bob Dylan make a mostly one note guitar solo that still sounded killer?

no he didn't

but his solo in "Leopard Skin Pillbox Hat" is pretty killer

I think rhythm guitar playing gets too overlooked and people put too much value on some loud, single-note lead guitar. Theyre both good, I just think the latter is overrated a little. There are plenty of chord shapes, progressions and picking patterns that are more difficult than some single-note lead. And I can think of some Dylan fingerpicking that is more difficult than some of youngs lead guitar work. I'm not trying to knock young, I'm a huge dan and he was a good guitarist, I just think he gets too much credit as a guitarist when he's compared to Dylan and Dylan doesn't get enough credit.

Yes it is. There's a bootleg recording from "planet waves", I believe, of Dylan and The Band playing "house of the rising sun". Dylan does a nice little solo in it. He also does a lot of lead guitar on his unplugged album, which would probably sound a lot cooler if he had the volume and distortion cranked up.

But still, young could play the hell out of a guitar and I love the way he moves and jams while he's playing. The man has got soul. They just have different styles when it come down to it.

Complexity can be overrated itself though. I think Neil is so famous because, amidst Psychedelia, hippies, and even the beginning of prog, his music was fairly stripped down, raw, and dissonant. A one note guitar solo just proves that he was doing more with the bare minimum than others were in the same period.

But you're right: though they've both tackled country, folk, and rock around the same period, and are both hailed as songwriters and innovators, their careers are completely distinctive.

I like the rawness of youngs music, it's very real and down to earth. Same thing that attracts me to The Band.

I agree that complexity can be overrated. I love simple music.

Note: Along with Dylan, I need to listen to the Band.

I highly recommend them both. The band was a real down to earth, rootsy band. It's funny that they wrote some of the most rootsy American songs that were filled with american history And only one member was from America.

They were a very folky, rootsy band but they still had some complexity in their music at the same time. Listen to "chest fever", there's a great bach-inspired organ solo.

I can't think of many if any more talented bands. Garth Hudson was an amazing organist and pianist. He also played saxophone, flute, accordion, Cello and violin, to name a few. He could play more instruments.

Every member was a very talented multi-instrumentalist.

Rick danko was a great bassist and guitarist, he also played fiddle, trombone and accordion. Robbie Robertson was a great guitarist and songwriter. Richard Manuel was a very talented pianist, he could also play drums, Lap slide guitar, Saxophone. Levon played drums, guitar, mandolin and harmonica.

Yeah, the one from America is actually from my neck of the woods. Would the Last Waltz be a good start, or should i begin chronologically, or how? I am excited to check em out, 70's rock (post psychedelic optional) is one of my favorite forms of rock, and this sounds extremely promising.

I wouldnt expect most younger people to really like them. I created a thread about them here and it didn't get much attention.

I think the last waltz is a good starting point. It has such an all-star lineup and you'll get many great songs from them.

They had a very diverse style ranging from folk to blues to rock n roll to new Orleans jazz (they worked with Allen toussaint on some occasions) to country . They just had a unique style. In A time when so many bands were doing the counter-culture, rebel, psychedelic thing they were certainly something different and inspired many bands, even the beatles.

All their albums with the original line up and even some later ones are good But I think the last waltz is a great starting point. Their first two albums are probably their best.

Was the Blues/Country/Folk scene really against the counter-culture grain back then? I thought those were fundamental to the psychedelic scene.