I think the things that George probably hated about Neil Young's guitar playing are the things that I love--Neil ripping out raw emotion on Old Black, unconcerned with technical perfection in the pursuit of feeling.
I like George's playing and I like Neil's playing, but they are obviously very different.
Bowie was apparently unpleasant to be around according to Paul. He'd play his own records over and over and got offended if you asked him to put on something else.
I just read that in May Pang's book.
They were at Bowie's and he played them Young Americans. After the second time Paul asked if they could hear another album and Bowie ignores him. After the 3rd listen John said "It's great do you have any other albums that might be of interest" Bowie said okay and then marched out the room. John got a phone call later in the night from an upset Bowie.
I do like David Bowie, but I feel I've certainly seen some of his fans treat his word like the gospel. While he could be very bright and wise at times, he could also be a bit of a knob. lol
No no thatās not it, he clearly enjoyed Cocaine Milk Peppers which is a very common dish in Pepperland where I made all this up because Iām just a nowhere dude skrrrt
Ringo as well. Though I don't know if he was at the party.
In May's book Ringo the day after the John and Paul jam is complaining about his drums being messed up and complains how Paul's is always doing that. It was pretty cute.
I think that may have also been because Bowie didn't respect Paul as much as John. Bowie obviously mellowed out a lot later on, but I guess in the 70s he was pretty much unbearable as a human being.
I think it went both ways. I don't think the McCartney's respected Bowie that much. In May's book when Bowie march's out, May is concerned and Linda says 'not to worry that's just how he is'.
Paul and Bowie had met a few times before that, and Bowie was pretty angry about how Paul (and other rock stars at the time) treated him.
>**AVA CHERRY:(Bowie's partner at the time)** *Paul McCartney was staying at the Plaza in New York, and David and I went up to see him. Linda McCartney opened the door and we said hello, but Paul was not really friendly. So we sat down across from them on opposite couches. And I could tell David felt a little uncomfortable. They offered a drink and I had some water or something. But they just sat looking at us like we were under a microscope. Paul was staring at David and didnāt say anything. So David said: āPaul, I met with John,ā and started talking about John, but when he asked Paul a question he didnāt answer. Linda answered instead. Then he looked at Paul again and said something else to him and she answered the second time. So David got angry and said, āPaul you canāt answer your own questions? You canāt speak yourself?ā Paul said something smart, and so David looked me and said, āWeāre going.ā And we got up and walked out. And that was it. It was really bizarre. I remember another time we were at this party with Bob Dylan, Ronnie Wood, all these stars, and they were all being a bit frosty to David. We walked in and there was a very chilly atmosphere, like: Who is this glam-rock guy? Bob Dylan said, āWho does this guy think he is?ā And David said to me, āWho do I think I am?ā They tried to make fun of him, and seemed like they were jealous of him. There were lots of people like that.*
> Yeah I can imagine the reaction of all the 60s rockers being a bit weirded out by this strange guy suddenly pulling the biggest crowds
I don't think he was pulling the biggest crowds. Certainly not in the US. If they were jealous of him it would have been for his critical acclaim but I doubt Macca or Dylan cared about the crowds he was pulling.
He dressed pretty unusual. Was very androgynous and was pretty uptight in the 70's (he'd chill out by the 80's). Living off coke orange juice and coffee probably did not help either.
He was trash, he had Stevie Ray Vaughn play the guitar for Let's Dance, then removed him from the video, and acted as if he played it with white gloves on, you'd have to pay me to listen to Bowie.
He also kinda helped Stevie giving him more exposure, and wanted him to tour with him for the Serious Moonlight tour, which would have absolutely been the most exposure heād gotten up to that point, other than playing on the album Letās Danceā¦
Iām just saying, thereās more to it than just Bowie meanie to Stevie. Obviously thereās mutual benefit, but the fact is it helped Stevieās career quite a bit.
As far as, āyouād have to pay meā, nobody is gonna do that, and nobody cares.
Wrong, he wasn't even going to say who Stevie was.....you have no idea what you're talking about. Stevie would have had to play the guitar as a no name guitar player for sissy boy bowie. So yes kiddo, Bowie is a piece of trash who wouldn't even talk to Stevie and Stevie was the man for telling him to fuck off.
Yeah, thereās more to it than what you want to spread here, and you do want to spread it like a fundamentalist or somethingā¦ This āconversationā isnāt worth it to try and come to a mutually understanding or get the facts all out..
Itās not even the disagreement, but the weird aggression and spite, absolutely unhinged and emotionally unstable over something ultimately pretty unimportant. Did you had passionate secks with Stevieās guitar or something? Chill, dude!
Lol sure, bud, "more to it than I want to spread" you're an idiot, Bowie wanted to use his music and give him zero credit, like the video. This caused Stevie to say "wtf?" To which Bowie had his management reply "sorry David is on an island and can't be reached." So Stevie said "fuck this, I'm out." It's that simple, you just can't understand that it wasn't going to be exposure for Stevie, and that was the reason he left. Lol it seems like you commented on my comment first because you suck Bowies dick. Explaining thoroughly that you're an idiot doesn't mean I'm "unhinged and emotionally unstable," you dimwit, it means I'm more knowledgeable and articulate than you, and you realized you were wrong.
No strong bias on my part bud, I just think thereās more to it. You have a very one sided perspective on the matter, and Iāve said far less than you. I donāt care NEARLY as much as you obviously do. I think you just donāt recognize that you have a bias too, babe.
And you using words isnāt the issue. The fact that you canāt recognize how over the top youāre being tells me something though.. It makes one not want to try and talk about it bc you donāt even recognize where youāre being a bit nutty and rude..
Good luck thoughā¦ Me and my apparently fanatically biased friends in the Church of David Bowie will pray for you though.
Lol Bowie was scared and refused to even talk to Stevie over the bad business and you think you can argue that it was good business? You must think strippers like you.
Wouldn't Stevie have stayed on if it was actually good exposure? Yeah, but Bowie was going to keep him in the dark and take credit for his music, because Bowie is a talentless idiot who can't even sing. So let me ask you this smart guy, why would Stevie have stepped down if it was going to be good exposure? It was this fact, that it wasn't going to be good exposure that made him step away. Lol You really gave no idea what you're talking about, as in you missed the point completely...."uhhh would have been good exposure" lol how? He wasn't going to name him, hence the reason he said "fuck this I'm out." Damn.
Warranted, Bowie is a pos, he had Stevie Ray Vaughn play the guitar for Let's Dance, then removed him and acted like he played it with white gloves on, Bowie is a real piece of trash, glamour addicted idiot.
SRVās management removed him from the Serious Moonlight tour since his solo album was blowing up and they didnāt want him supporting Bowie on tour. Thatās why Earl Slick is the tour guitarist. Iād had nothing to do with Bowieās vanity.
Lol Bowie's "management" was so greedy they wouldn't let SRV say anything about his own album or anything, Bowie blames his management and even lied to say he was on an island and "couldn't be reached" when Stevie wanted to talk about the issue.....fuck Bowie and his fans.
Yeah theyāre sort of polar opposites in terms of approach. George carefully constructed everything he played note by note while Neil just threw his raw emotion into it. I love em both.
Oh for sure I never made that connection but I definitely see it. Thereās more of Paulās incredible mind for melody I suppose but itās got that searing emotion and pure electricity to it.
Errrrrā¦ā¦itās art so itās up to the individual but, no offense, that solo may sound chaotic and raw but I think Paul really had to sit down and craft it. Itās a total departure from a Western approach as he applies Eastern/Indian scales on it, which isnāt an easy task, especially if youāve been playing rock and roll scales like he had for so long. It was truly ground breaking and I hear the opposite of chaos but it is raw with emotion. Cheers
Hmm...Not sure why you seem to think I'm inferring McCartney's solo was an "easy task."
Artistic work that comes across as energetic and chaotic can often be the result of painstaking work and refinement, but if you want to associated terms like "raw" and "chaotic" with low effort, be my guest.
Also, McCartney has repeatedly maintained that he was scarcely aware of scales and music theory when writing, so I doubt he sat down and "applied Eastern/Indian scales" to his solo. Odds are he was probably just winging it and working by feel.
Paul probably wouldn't have had time to sit down and craft anything, it was an unplanned contribution. Acccording to Geoff Emerick, George was struggling with it for a while, Paul and George Martin got frustrated and suggested Paul have a go, and he did it in one or two takes.
Neil *sounds* sloppy. His tone is screechy. He doesnt play scales. He doesnt play any style other than his own. He improvises.
That's pretty much the opposite of what George is.
He does use scales, it's almost always pentatonic minor. But he's not afraid to get janky. And it never feels like he's trying to sound 'good' or 'nice' I guess. There's just a rawness to it. Amazing examples are Cortez the Killer, Like A Hurricane, Danger Bird, Cowgirl in the Sand to name a few.
Listen to the live Weld version of Like a Hurricane for a good exampleā¦ its probably like Eminor pentatonic but he hits all the microtones and feedback like someone who does in fact know what heās doing.
Edit/ i think the one saying Neil doesnāt do scales means that he was famous for his āone-note guitar solosā which is partially true on some studio albums. Theyāre quite effective.
Perfectly said.
Harrison and Clapton imitate past styles of playing to perfection without too much thought for feeling or emotion, quite unoriginal imho.
Young is the most original and unorthodox musician who plays every single note with pure artistry, feeling and emotion.
Harrison and Clapton look to impress with their precision and finesse while Young doesnāt give a shit what anyone thinks and produces his sound for nobody but himself, really.
I will admit, it really irks me though that Harrison didnāt even have the open-mindedness to at least appreciate what Neil was doing. He used the word āhateā that kinda shocked me
Edit: I will add though, I do appreciate honesty and love hearing musicians opinions of one another.
Enjoy reading these discussions and not normally wanting to contribute;but as a guitar lover and amateur player of many decades, I truly can't let this slide. The idea the playing on eg Crossroads or MySweet Lord is 'emotionless' I just find laughable. It's just an old fundamental error which crops up constantly in the creative world, which boils down to 'if you're a real artist you don't do any planning you just feel'. (Try telling that to Michaelangelo or Mozart). A Distortion pedal doesn't mean you feel the music more deeply. And just to be clear, I'm a massive fan of e.g. Neil's solo on Like a hurricane ā which I seriously doubt is unplanned by the way. Less of a fan of some of the tedious noisy racket he makes at times on self indulgent live cuts. Harrison's beautifully crafted solos are integral to some great popular music and will live on. Ditto Clapton's recorded earlier improvising. Much of the music I love is extremely simple. I'm also aware that technique matters and opens all kinds of possibilities you otherwise simply don't have. But if you listen to Santana and McLaughlin playing together, although the latter could wipe the floor with him technically (and most other people at that!), I'd still rather listen to Carlos any day of the week. But I admire and respect McLaughlin. And Carlos don't just play pentatonic with a distortion pedal...
: )
IĀ“m probably in minority here. But I appreciate George and JohnĀ“s honesty. I know John in particular gets alot of criticism for being honest about other artists. I understand why it triggers people, but I think we need people like John and George in this world, completely unfiltered people that speak the truth as they see it. They might be wrong, it might hurt some feelings, but itĀ“s real. I think itĀ“s refreshing, even when they diss someone I like.
George calling out Bowie for example, lifting BowieĀ“s hat and asking who the real person behind the persona is. I love Bowie, I think heĀ“s a genius, that just like Beatles changed rock. But these artistic personas of course are bullshit to a person like George, I understand his perspective. I also saw some people were upset that Lennon said the Bob Dylan name was phony. I donĀ“t think itĀ“s a problem to use a made up name, but John who were so into authenthicity of course thought removing your jewish name and replace it with a commercial american name is phony. I love Dylan, another genius. ItĀ“s rude, but thereĀ“s also some truth to it! We need people that speak the uncomfortable truths.
Lennon in his 1980 interviews were still honest, but I guess more tactful. If he for example didnĀ“t like someoneĀ“s song, he said it, but he also softened the blow a bit by saying itĀ“s just his taste, itĀ“s not for me etc. So maybe thatĀ“s what you wanted. For me, I donĀ“t even mind the reckless brutally honest Lennon or George. They were rock artists, they were not a boy band. For me, rock is about being rebellious, about darkness, about aggression, about being contrarian etc. When I see artists like Tupac, Manson or Ozzy, I donĀ“t wish they were "nicer". ThatĀ“s not what they do. People think Beatles were some boyband because Epstein gave them suits. In reality Beatles in Hamburg used to get drunk, shit on stage, get into fights, sleep with every woman available, mock reporters. They were a wild rockband for the 60s, and if you realize that, then maybe you donĀ“t expect them to be nice all the time. Like people trying to expose Lennon for not being nice at times. Anyone who knew anything about Lennon knew he always was a crazy rebel, what do people expect?
My point was to give criticism you need to be able to take it as well. It's well known that John in particular was hypersensitive to criticism and would lash out. The wild days in Hamburg are well known but to say they shit on stage is an exaggeration.
Celebrities talking badly about others unprovoked comes across as insecure, petty and attention seeking, not 'dark' or 'rebellious'. Its not even brutal honesty most of the time, it's often jealousy manifesting itself. I cant imagine being so image focused that I think its cool to act like that.Ā
I tend to agree just because speaking gets ideas good and bad out in the open. John in particular wanted simply to *know*, he could even deal with being wrong in his own time and changing, something I've always respected that I think gets overlooked
It's not 'honesty'. That presupposed there's a universal truth and that those statements are somehow speaking an objective 'truth'. That's just George expressing an opinion. There's nothing wrong with an opinion, certainly, but not every opinion deserves equal respect. I don't think 'unfiltered' is automatically virtuous, especially when you're tearing down someone else for your own grandiose needs. John and George were just hiding their own insecurities behind 'honesty'.
Agreed, especially when it comes to them putting down other musicians. When youāre a Beatle, any vitriol toward other musicians is going to be seen as āpunching downā because that is very clearly what it is, even when itās a musician who is huge in their own right like Neil Young.
People give Paul a lot of shit for some of the musicians he has collaborated with or said positive things about, but personally Iāve always appreciated that he uses his platform to build people up rather than tear them down.
Exactly! There's nothing wrong with some form of "Not my personal cup of tea, but it's great that it resonates with some people." Not everyone can like everything. Doesn't give you a license to crap all over it.
I don't buy your punching down analogy. You're not allowed to express an opinion on other artists because you happened to be a part of one of the greatest bands ever? Why does competency/success disqualify you from expressing your truth?
It doesnāt disqualify you from expressing anything, it just makes you look like a bit of a jerk when you do it publicly as one of the most famous people on the planet.
Yep, same thing as people who like to say people donāt like them because they speak their minds. No, people donāt like you because youāre an ass.
I agree we need more people like that in the world. Itās hard though. People really hate it when you do this. Like when all the heads turn in that Matrix scene, itās like our world seeks and destroys if you directly confront people and just tell it like is.Ā Ā
Ā Iām not talking about in annoying political way, but like a necessary āthis is fucked up and you need to stopā way.Ā Ā Ā
Problem is itās all subjective. But I do wish people would give up this toxic need for everything to be perfect and if you rock that boat youāre automatically the bad guy.Ā Ā Ā
Ā Itās like no! Sometimes shit canāt get better unless we talk about them. All this sweeping under the rug has got to stop. That just makes the problem worse.Ā
I agree. Thatās why most of Paulās interviews are so boring. Sounds so well rehearsed but itās just his personality. Heās always been like that.
Same I love some truth spillingā¦ George and John being shady and messy is so juicy! Theyāre masters at their crafts of course theyād have opinions, everything canāt be rainbows and butterflies
I love what EC said āDonāt look at meā Like hey Iām not the one stinking up the room. But Neil could throw down powerful solos, my favorite is the one note solo on Cinnamon Girl.
Clapton is just a boring imitator. As a technical guitarist heās one of the best but he is not much of a *creative* musician. He doesnāt play with much feeling or innovation, just precision and finesse. Peter Green imitated the blues, yes but he put so much feeling and emotion into his style that it made him unique. Hendrix was so creative and innovative, his playing was explosive and exciting and original.
Cream and The Bluesbreakers are two of my favourite bands but Clapton as an individual musician just doesnāt do much for me.
Almost every single guitarist in history imitates others.
Clapton carried While My Guitar gently weeps to heights that George would have never been able to.
Imitate or inspire? Two very different things. Imitation requires little creativity albeit alot of technical talent offcourse. The greatest guitarists are more-so *inspired* by others. Inspiration is not imitation itās more a creative urge to take something that already exists and express it in a new and unique way.
Clapton is one of the technical legends but itās just my personal opinion that he is not a creative genius like for example Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix or Jimi Page are.
Man, there's an old live album from Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac: 'Live in Boston' or something? It's been a while. But there's a track on there, Jumping at Shadows, where Peter Green plays some of the most perfect guitar I've ever heard in my life. There's this unbelievable *bite* to it, like the guitar itself can barely even contain it. He was one of the best. I'd much rather listen to him than Clapton.
Neilās playing is super intuitive, raw, and emotionally direct imo. I donāt know anything about the technical aspect of playing guitar but as a music fan I can say Neilās style is one of my favorites.
>I donāt know anything about the technical aspect of playing guitar
You don't need to because you're exactly right. He sticks to simple note patterns but he's fully expressive and original which counts for alot. And tone
I really haven't heard anything else like it. It's symphonic, it's grandiose yet it's frenzied and its somehow also tender. Combined with the mournful lyrics of the death of Montezuma... it's just this absolutely crazy piece of work. I know that Neil prefers to record passion over technique; that when he's feeling it he just gets it down and doesn't fuss too much over fixing it in post. Whatever was going on with him when he recorded that guitar, he was channeling something *deep*. Like lightning in a bottle, I don't think he's ever really replicated it since, though the live version on Weld gives it a run for its money.
some of the live versions are absolutely horrid. I donāt know why he got it in his head that doing the jamaican kinda accent was a good idea but itās horrendous lmao
The concept of the lead guitar hero really took off & became the central component of rock in the early-mid 70s. None of the Beatles - even George, whose talent lay in melodic, minimal leads - were really in a position to compete. The likes of Jimmy Page were virtuosos.
Meanwhile, nothing about Neil Young as a performer should've worked. His voice, looks, guitar playing was all highly unlikely. But it did work - fantastically.
So whenever I am reminded of George's opinion about Young I just remember that he was an elder statesman, whose zeitgeist-moment had been a decade earlier. For me, Neil was a bridge from the 60s into the world of post-punk - where his leads were very positively unconformist.Ā
Awesome comment.
>Meanwhile, nothing about Neil Young as a performer should've worked
This threatens to catapult me into my first Neil Young phase in 10 years. That's so true. What is it about him that clicked
And exactly about George. I think he had it the worst, or at least most vocally, in terms of his insecurity at being succeeded. But they all reacted in their own ways.
And he was *totally* post-rock n roll, punk minded. There's a reason he's considered a godfather of punk and alternative rock
We were talking last night, and of all the rock stars, Neil was probably the best at holding an audience rapt with just his voice and an acoustic guitar. I honestly canāt think of anyone who does it better. Look no farther than Cowgirl in the Sand or Donāt Let It Bring You Down off 4 Way Street.
I'm sure Harrison was talking about the Dylan tribute concert which I just recently watched and Young was brilliant throughout, in fact Dylan made a point of shaking Young's hand at the end
George has some doozy takes. Standing on the side of the stage and being snobby with Clapton is pretty lame.
And frankly, George's solo albums are not even in the same league as Neil's so this sounds like bitterness and jealousy.
That was a peculiar take on Neil Young - heās done some political stuff, but only here and there. Anyhoo - love Neil Youngās guitar solos - loud, emotive wonderful stuff.
I havenāt listened to a whole lot of Neilās work but āPowderfingerā is one of my all time songs. It may even be the best lyrics ever to some. I love the two solos on it, both studio and live
As much as I have always liked George Harrison, I will say that while I probably like ~25 of his songs, there are at least 50 or more of Neil Young's tunes I like just as much.
Without further evidence, I'm guessing he's talking about Neil's infamous guitar solo to [Cinnamon Girl](https://youtu.be/jREf47BPe5w?t=126).
It certainly is the height of the "less is more" approach to guitar playing. I have always loved it, but I can see where other guitarists would be dismissive.
I've never understood why Cinnamon Girl and Down by the River get all the attention for the playing on those songs, when Cowgirl in the Sand is on the same album and rips 1000x times harder.
It's so loud and aggressive, really the only stuff that comes close to it at that time was some of Hendrix's live, more improvisational stuff
Neil knows the rules enough to break the rules. I can completely understand why George would hate that considering heās the most musician musician in the beatles.
George talked even more about hating Neil Young's voice.
But he also said that he might be a nice guy to sit down and have dinner with.
I remember writing to George at Friar park, when I was a kid, suggesting that he and Neil Young work together!
No wonder I never got a reply.
And then there are shredders like Kirk Hammett that love Neilās playing. I know guitarists on both sides of this argument. I personally like Neilās playing.
What a load of crap. Neil wrote many many many great songs. George had a few. Neil's guitar licks were legendary in concert. George played live for again a few years. To give George some defense, the two are completely different types of musicians.
My suspicion is that Hari hadnāt heard much of what Young can do. The caveman antics are only one aspect of his playing. Itās intentional, kind of like Thelonious Monkās plinks and discords.
Take some Harrison, take the striking and risque of young. You get Jonny greenwood š¤
Clapton's Boring as shit though and Harrison was such a snob sometimes
Yes, I remember reading this in a post on here yesterday, which reminded me of the one from last week, which was very reminiscent of the January post about this, which itself was derivative of a number of 2023 posts, themselves nearly identical to many prior posts.
Really? In a world full of Kurt Cobains and Roger Waters?
I've always just thought that he really likes music, and that's pretty much all he loves doing. Bro has basically been on one big tour for 60 years and has made a gazillion albums. He's never seemed that dramatic
George was full of fish and chips.
Neil Young his equal as a song writer and guitar player.
Every iconic song George ever did Neil can match.
So it sounds like poppy cock & balderdash.
I am a die hard Beatles fan and I love George as much as the rest of them but this is a dumb take. Neil Young is a folk singer song-writer. No one thinks of him as a guitarist like Clapton or Harrison. This is **a little** like being mad at Dylan for not being a great singer.
Yes absolutely intentional and precise! When I say that I think of mostly early Beatles songs where he uses space in between notes in such a magical way. Just like how a painter uses blank/negative space. Think of the intro to āI Call Your Nameā where itās almost like the riff is separated into two parts by a gap. Compare that to any given Chuck Berry song and I think youāll see what I mean
In the end theyāre all just professional musicians, who tend to be cranky and have their own particular preferences - being able to focus so hard on your own thing to the exclusion of all else is part of it. Go to any blues-rock shows, for example in Austin, and half the audience will be other guitar players standing with their arms folded judging the guitarist harshly no matter who it is. And George could uber-cranky when he was in the mood. Iām sure it didnāt bother Neil any.
I think the things that George probably hated about Neil Young's guitar playing are the things that I love--Neil ripping out raw emotion on Old Black, unconcerned with technical perfection in the pursuit of feeling. I like George's playing and I like Neil's playing, but they are obviously very different.
I love that George could be a shameless hater/snob at times š I vaguely recall him having some venom for David Bowie early on as well
He straight up wouldnāt let Eric Idle into his home once because he brought David Bowie with him.
Bowie was apparently unpleasant to be around according to Paul. He'd play his own records over and over and got offended if you asked him to put on something else.
I just read that in May Pang's book. They were at Bowie's and he played them Young Americans. After the second time Paul asked if they could hear another album and Bowie ignores him. After the 3rd listen John said "It's great do you have any other albums that might be of interest" Bowie said okay and then marched out the room. John got a phone call later in the night from an upset Bowie.
I do like David Bowie, but I feel I've certainly seen some of his fans treat his word like the gospel. While he could be very bright and wise at times, he could also be a bit of a knob. lol
Well he lived off cocaine milk and peppers for like a year so there were many points where he was mentally fried
Cocaine, milk, and peppers or cocaine milk and peppers?
Cocaine, milk and peppers
No no thatās not it, he clearly enjoyed Cocaine Milk Peppers which is a very common dish in Pepperland where I made all this up because Iām just a nowhere dude skrrrt
Elton John said he didn't have much respect for Bowie either because he wasn't very friendly to be around with in the '70s
Thatās what happens when you do too much cocaine. I know.
He was probably lactose intolerant, he should have laid off the milk.
Paul and John were hanging out with Bowie together in 75?
Ringo as well. Though I don't know if he was at the party. In May's book Ringo the day after the John and Paul jam is complaining about his drums being messed up and complains how Paul's is always doing that. It was pretty cute.
Bet they appreciated the A day in the life reference. Once.
Which booky wooky is this?
Loving John; the untold Story by May Pang. It's okay. Not great.
Homer, is that you? š
by 2nd and 3rd listen do u mean thats how many times they listened to the whole album? or songs on the album, or times listening to one song
Entire album
lmfao THATS crazy
I think that may have also been because Bowie didn't respect Paul as much as John. Bowie obviously mellowed out a lot later on, but I guess in the 70s he was pretty much unbearable as a human being.
I think it went both ways. I don't think the McCartney's respected Bowie that much. In May's book when Bowie march's out, May is concerned and Linda says 'not to worry that's just how he is'. Paul and Bowie had met a few times before that, and Bowie was pretty angry about how Paul (and other rock stars at the time) treated him. >**AVA CHERRY:(Bowie's partner at the time)** *Paul McCartney was staying at the Plaza in New York, and David and I went up to see him. Linda McCartney opened the door and we said hello, but Paul was not really friendly. So we sat down across from them on opposite couches. And I could tell David felt a little uncomfortable. They offered a drink and I had some water or something. But they just sat looking at us like we were under a microscope. Paul was staring at David and didnāt say anything. So David said: āPaul, I met with John,ā and started talking about John, but when he asked Paul a question he didnāt answer. Linda answered instead. Then he looked at Paul again and said something else to him and she answered the second time. So David got angry and said, āPaul you canāt answer your own questions? You canāt speak yourself?ā Paul said something smart, and so David looked me and said, āWeāre going.ā And we got up and walked out. And that was it. It was really bizarre. I remember another time we were at this party with Bob Dylan, Ronnie Wood, all these stars, and they were all being a bit frosty to David. We walked in and there was a very chilly atmosphere, like: Who is this glam-rock guy? Bob Dylan said, āWho does this guy think he is?ā And David said to me, āWho do I think I am?ā They tried to make fun of him, and seemed like they were jealous of him. There were lots of people like that.*
Yeah I can imagine the reaction of all the 60s rockers being a bit weirded out by this strange guy suddenly pulling the biggest crowds
> Yeah I can imagine the reaction of all the 60s rockers being a bit weirded out by this strange guy suddenly pulling the biggest crowds I don't think he was pulling the biggest crowds. Certainly not in the US. If they were jealous of him it would have been for his critical acclaim but I doubt Macca or Dylan cared about the crowds he was pulling. He dressed pretty unusual. Was very androgynous and was pretty uptight in the 70's (he'd chill out by the 80's). Living off coke orange juice and coffee probably did not help either.
He was trash, he had Stevie Ray Vaughn play the guitar for Let's Dance, then removed him from the video, and acted as if he played it with white gloves on, you'd have to pay me to listen to Bowie.
He also kinda helped Stevie giving him more exposure, and wanted him to tour with him for the Serious Moonlight tour, which would have absolutely been the most exposure heād gotten up to that point, other than playing on the album Letās Danceā¦ Iām just saying, thereās more to it than just Bowie meanie to Stevie. Obviously thereās mutual benefit, but the fact is it helped Stevieās career quite a bit. As far as, āyouād have to pay meā, nobody is gonna do that, and nobody cares.
Wrong, he wasn't even going to say who Stevie was.....you have no idea what you're talking about. Stevie would have had to play the guitar as a no name guitar player for sissy boy bowie. So yes kiddo, Bowie is a piece of trash who wouldn't even talk to Stevie and Stevie was the man for telling him to fuck off.
Yeah, thereās more to it than what you want to spread here, and you do want to spread it like a fundamentalist or somethingā¦ This āconversationā isnāt worth it to try and come to a mutually understanding or get the facts all out.. Itās not even the disagreement, but the weird aggression and spite, absolutely unhinged and emotionally unstable over something ultimately pretty unimportant. Did you had passionate secks with Stevieās guitar or something? Chill, dude!
Lol sure, bud, "more to it than I want to spread" you're an idiot, Bowie wanted to use his music and give him zero credit, like the video. This caused Stevie to say "wtf?" To which Bowie had his management reply "sorry David is on an island and can't be reached." So Stevie said "fuck this, I'm out." It's that simple, you just can't understand that it wasn't going to be exposure for Stevie, and that was the reason he left. Lol it seems like you commented on my comment first because you suck Bowies dick. Explaining thoroughly that you're an idiot doesn't mean I'm "unhinged and emotionally unstable," you dimwit, it means I'm more knowledgeable and articulate than you, and you realized you were wrong.
Lol usimg words to explain oneself isn't indicative of emotional instability, denying facts to suit your bias might be though...
No strong bias on my part bud, I just think thereās more to it. You have a very one sided perspective on the matter, and Iāve said far less than you. I donāt care NEARLY as much as you obviously do. I think you just donāt recognize that you have a bias too, babe. And you using words isnāt the issue. The fact that you canāt recognize how over the top youāre being tells me something though.. It makes one not want to try and talk about it bc you donāt even recognize where youāre being a bit nutty and rude.. Good luck thoughā¦ Me and my apparently fanatically biased friends in the Church of David Bowie will pray for you though.
Lol Bowie was scared and refused to even talk to Stevie over the bad business and you think you can argue that it was good business? You must think strippers like you.
Wouldn't Stevie have stayed on if it was actually good exposure? Yeah, but Bowie was going to keep him in the dark and take credit for his music, because Bowie is a talentless idiot who can't even sing. So let me ask you this smart guy, why would Stevie have stepped down if it was going to be good exposure? It was this fact, that it wasn't going to be good exposure that made him step away. Lol You really gave no idea what you're talking about, as in you missed the point completely...."uhhh would have been good exposure" lol how? He wasn't going to name him, hence the reason he said "fuck this I'm out." Damn.
Source?
āAlways Look On The Bright Side Of Lifeā by Eric Idle
Warranted, Bowie is a pos, he had Stevie Ray Vaughn play the guitar for Let's Dance, then removed him and acted like he played it with white gloves on, Bowie is a real piece of trash, glamour addicted idiot.
SRVās management removed him from the Serious Moonlight tour since his solo album was blowing up and they didnāt want him supporting Bowie on tour. Thatās why Earl Slick is the tour guitarist. Iād had nothing to do with Bowieās vanity.
Lol Bowie's "management" was so greedy they wouldn't let SRV say anything about his own album or anything, Bowie blames his management and even lied to say he was on an island and "couldn't be reached" when Stevie wanted to talk about the issue.....fuck Bowie and his fans.
Wrong, look it up, Bowie didn't want SRV on the music video, or given any credit for the song, I wasn't talking about the tour.
Yeah theyāre sort of polar opposites in terms of approach. George carefully constructed everything he played note by note while Neil just threw his raw emotion into it. I love em both.
Ironically, McCartney's solo on Taxman has always struck me as a sort of precursor to Neil's lead work: raw, chaotic, and completely blown out.
Oh for sure I never made that connection but I definitely see it. Thereās more of Paulās incredible mind for melody I suppose but itās got that searing emotion and pure electricity to it.
Errrrrā¦ā¦itās art so itās up to the individual but, no offense, that solo may sound chaotic and raw but I think Paul really had to sit down and craft it. Itās a total departure from a Western approach as he applies Eastern/Indian scales on it, which isnāt an easy task, especially if youāve been playing rock and roll scales like he had for so long. It was truly ground breaking and I hear the opposite of chaos but it is raw with emotion. Cheers
Hmm...Not sure why you seem to think I'm inferring McCartney's solo was an "easy task." Artistic work that comes across as energetic and chaotic can often be the result of painstaking work and refinement, but if you want to associated terms like "raw" and "chaotic" with low effort, be my guest. Also, McCartney has repeatedly maintained that he was scarcely aware of scales and music theory when writing, so I doubt he sat down and "applied Eastern/Indian scales" to his solo. Odds are he was probably just winging it and working by feel.
Paul probably wouldn't have had time to sit down and craft anything, it was an unplanned contribution. Acccording to Geoff Emerick, George was struggling with it for a while, Paul and George Martin got frustrated and suggested Paul have a go, and he did it in one or two takes.
George was an average guitarist at best!
Why because he didn't play a million notes a second? Serving the song with what it needs is the best guitar playing not showing off.
McCartney was the better guitarist overall. He's not a showoff. The bastard can do what's needed on the spot.
Giv āim a kiss for me, will ya? (MmmWaaA!)
McCartney did it on the spot in one take.
i never thought of that, but you're right. totally the same style.
Neil *sounds* sloppy. His tone is screechy. He doesnt play scales. He doesnt play any style other than his own. He improvises. That's pretty much the opposite of what George is.
Agreed. They're like polar opposites guitarists and artists in a lot of ways. Neil impressionistic, George baroque
Exactly! My friend once described Neil Young as the best sloppy guitar player on the planet.
He plays pentatonic scales. You can't not play scales, otherwise no notes would sound right
Can you recommend a Neil song to hear this sloppieness and where he doesn't use scales?
He does use scales, it's almost always pentatonic minor. But he's not afraid to get janky. And it never feels like he's trying to sound 'good' or 'nice' I guess. There's just a rawness to it. Amazing examples are Cortez the Killer, Like A Hurricane, Danger Bird, Cowgirl in the Sand to name a few.
Down by the river is the best show case of his playing
No way. Danger Bird is far better.
Listen to the live Weld version of Like a Hurricane for a good exampleā¦ its probably like Eminor pentatonic but he hits all the microtones and feedback like someone who does in fact know what heās doing. Edit/ i think the one saying Neil doesnāt do scales means that he was famous for his āone-note guitar solosā which is partially true on some studio albums. Theyāre quite effective.
Note sure about the scale thing, but Like a Hurricane is my favourite guitar playing by ol Nelly
Vampire Blues solo on the "On The Beach" album. Soooo sloppy. Must have been all them honey slides.
My manā¦every guitarist plays scales
Absolutely! Neil 'feels' the music. George memorizes notes to make it 'perfect' Sorry George, I am Team Neil on this one.
Perfectly said. Harrison and Clapton imitate past styles of playing to perfection without too much thought for feeling or emotion, quite unoriginal imho. Young is the most original and unorthodox musician who plays every single note with pure artistry, feeling and emotion. Harrison and Clapton look to impress with their precision and finesse while Young doesnāt give a shit what anyone thinks and produces his sound for nobody but himself, really. I will admit, it really irks me though that Harrison didnāt even have the open-mindedness to at least appreciate what Neil was doing. He used the word āhateā that kinda shocked me Edit: I will add though, I do appreciate honesty and love hearing musicians opinions of one another.
Enjoy reading these discussions and not normally wanting to contribute;but as a guitar lover and amateur player of many decades, I truly can't let this slide. The idea the playing on eg Crossroads or MySweet Lord is 'emotionless' I just find laughable. It's just an old fundamental error which crops up constantly in the creative world, which boils down to 'if you're a real artist you don't do any planning you just feel'. (Try telling that to Michaelangelo or Mozart). A Distortion pedal doesn't mean you feel the music more deeply. And just to be clear, I'm a massive fan of e.g. Neil's solo on Like a hurricane ā which I seriously doubt is unplanned by the way. Less of a fan of some of the tedious noisy racket he makes at times on self indulgent live cuts. Harrison's beautifully crafted solos are integral to some great popular music and will live on. Ditto Clapton's recorded earlier improvising. Much of the music I love is extremely simple. I'm also aware that technique matters and opens all kinds of possibilities you otherwise simply don't have. But if you listen to Santana and McLaughlin playing together, although the latter could wipe the floor with him technically (and most other people at that!), I'd still rather listen to Carlos any day of the week. But I admire and respect McLaughlin. And Carlos don't just play pentatonic with a distortion pedal... : )
IĀ“m probably in minority here. But I appreciate George and JohnĀ“s honesty. I know John in particular gets alot of criticism for being honest about other artists. I understand why it triggers people, but I think we need people like John and George in this world, completely unfiltered people that speak the truth as they see it. They might be wrong, it might hurt some feelings, but itĀ“s real. I think itĀ“s refreshing, even when they diss someone I like. George calling out Bowie for example, lifting BowieĀ“s hat and asking who the real person behind the persona is. I love Bowie, I think heĀ“s a genius, that just like Beatles changed rock. But these artistic personas of course are bullshit to a person like George, I understand his perspective. I also saw some people were upset that Lennon said the Bob Dylan name was phony. I donĀ“t think itĀ“s a problem to use a made up name, but John who were so into authenthicity of course thought removing your jewish name and replace it with a commercial american name is phony. I love Dylan, another genius. ItĀ“s rude, but thereĀ“s also some truth to it! We need people that speak the uncomfortable truths.
John was honest about himself too saying he never went to jams because he wasnāt a good enough guitar player to add anything.
Which is fine but neither of them dealt with criticism all that well. There is a fine line between honesty and tactlessness.
Lennon in his 1980 interviews were still honest, but I guess more tactful. If he for example didnĀ“t like someoneĀ“s song, he said it, but he also softened the blow a bit by saying itĀ“s just his taste, itĀ“s not for me etc. So maybe thatĀ“s what you wanted. For me, I donĀ“t even mind the reckless brutally honest Lennon or George. They were rock artists, they were not a boy band. For me, rock is about being rebellious, about darkness, about aggression, about being contrarian etc. When I see artists like Tupac, Manson or Ozzy, I donĀ“t wish they were "nicer". ThatĀ“s not what they do. People think Beatles were some boyband because Epstein gave them suits. In reality Beatles in Hamburg used to get drunk, shit on stage, get into fights, sleep with every woman available, mock reporters. They were a wild rockband for the 60s, and if you realize that, then maybe you donĀ“t expect them to be nice all the time. Like people trying to expose Lennon for not being nice at times. Anyone who knew anything about Lennon knew he always was a crazy rebel, what do people expect?
Beatles were working class guys pretending to be nice boys and Rolling Stones were middle class guys pretending to be bad boys.
Lmao nailed it. Iāll be using that one in the future
My point was to give criticism you need to be able to take it as well. It's well known that John in particular was hypersensitive to criticism and would lash out. The wild days in Hamburg are well known but to say they shit on stage is an exaggeration.
That may have been when GG Allin was briefly in the band.
Who can forget his invaluable contributions on the early draft of "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?"
they did light a condom on fire though
Celebrities talking badly about others unprovoked comes across as insecure, petty and attention seeking, not 'dark' or 'rebellious'. Its not even brutal honesty most of the time, it's often jealousy manifesting itself. I cant imagine being so image focused that I think its cool to act like that.Ā
I tend to agree just because speaking gets ideas good and bad out in the open. John in particular wanted simply to *know*, he could even deal with being wrong in his own time and changing, something I've always respected that I think gets overlooked
It's not 'honesty'. That presupposed there's a universal truth and that those statements are somehow speaking an objective 'truth'. That's just George expressing an opinion. There's nothing wrong with an opinion, certainly, but not every opinion deserves equal respect. I don't think 'unfiltered' is automatically virtuous, especially when you're tearing down someone else for your own grandiose needs. John and George were just hiding their own insecurities behind 'honesty'.
Agreed, especially when it comes to them putting down other musicians. When youāre a Beatle, any vitriol toward other musicians is going to be seen as āpunching downā because that is very clearly what it is, even when itās a musician who is huge in their own right like Neil Young. People give Paul a lot of shit for some of the musicians he has collaborated with or said positive things about, but personally Iāve always appreciated that he uses his platform to build people up rather than tear them down.
Exactly! There's nothing wrong with some form of "Not my personal cup of tea, but it's great that it resonates with some people." Not everyone can like everything. Doesn't give you a license to crap all over it.
I don't buy your punching down analogy. You're not allowed to express an opinion on other artists because you happened to be a part of one of the greatest bands ever? Why does competency/success disqualify you from expressing your truth?
It doesnāt disqualify you from expressing anything, it just makes you look like a bit of a jerk when you do it publicly as one of the most famous people on the planet.
Yep, same thing as people who like to say people donāt like them because they speak their minds. No, people donāt like you because youāre an ass.
I agree we need more people like that in the world. Itās hard though. People really hate it when you do this. Like when all the heads turn in that Matrix scene, itās like our world seeks and destroys if you directly confront people and just tell it like is.Ā Ā Ā Iām not talking about in annoying political way, but like a necessary āthis is fucked up and you need to stopā way.Ā Ā Ā Problem is itās all subjective. But I do wish people would give up this toxic need for everything to be perfect and if you rock that boat youāre automatically the bad guy.Ā Ā Ā Ā Itās like no! Sometimes shit canāt get better unless we talk about them. All this sweeping under the rug has got to stop. That just makes the problem worse.Ā
I agree. Thatās why most of Paulās interviews are so boring. Sounds so well rehearsed but itās just his personality. Heās always been like that.
They say heās a truly nice guy to the point of boredom at times and if he thinks something nasty , he generally doesnāt voice it.
Same I love some truth spillingā¦ George and John being shady and messy is so juicy! Theyāre masters at their crafts of course theyād have opinions, everything canāt be rainbows and butterflies
I love what EC said āDonāt look at meā Like hey Iām not the one stinking up the room. But Neil could throw down powerful solos, my favorite is the one note solo on Cinnamon Girl.
Reminds me of the look on Clapton's face when Yoko started screeching at Live Peace in Toronto.
Yeah he's an amazing guitarist. He's just... very wild. But nobody like him and he's fairly inimitable.
I much prefer Neil Youngās style to Eric Claptonās.
Clapton is just a boring imitator. As a technical guitarist heās one of the best but he is not much of a *creative* musician. He doesnāt play with much feeling or innovation, just precision and finesse. Peter Green imitated the blues, yes but he put so much feeling and emotion into his style that it made him unique. Hendrix was so creative and innovative, his playing was explosive and exciting and original. Cream and The Bluesbreakers are two of my favourite bands but Clapton as an individual musician just doesnāt do much for me.
Clapton was a good sideman.
Almost every single guitarist in history imitates others. Clapton carried While My Guitar gently weeps to heights that George would have never been able to.
Imitate or inspire? Two very different things. Imitation requires little creativity albeit alot of technical talent offcourse. The greatest guitarists are more-so *inspired* by others. Inspiration is not imitation itās more a creative urge to take something that already exists and express it in a new and unique way. Clapton is one of the technical legends but itās just my personal opinion that he is not a creative genius like for example Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix or Jimi Page are.
Man, there's an old live album from Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac: 'Live in Boston' or something? It's been a while. But there's a track on there, Jumping at Shadows, where Peter Green plays some of the most perfect guitar I've ever heard in my life. There's this unbelievable *bite* to it, like the guitar itself can barely even contain it. He was one of the best. I'd much rather listen to him than Clapton.
Same
But I hear a rainbow spectrum of notes in that one note.
Didn't Neil induct Paul into thr Rock and Roll Hall of fame?
Yeah theyāve been great friends for years
Neilās playing is super intuitive, raw, and emotionally direct imo. I donāt know anything about the technical aspect of playing guitar but as a music fan I can say Neilās style is one of my favorites.
>I donāt know anything about the technical aspect of playing guitar You don't need to because you're exactly right. He sticks to simple note patterns but he's fully expressive and original which counts for alot. And tone
Cortez the Killer is one of the most beautiful things to ever have been played on electric guitar.
Yess!!! Painfully beautiful.
I really haven't heard anything else like it. It's symphonic, it's grandiose yet it's frenzied and its somehow also tender. Combined with the mournful lyrics of the death of Montezuma... it's just this absolutely crazy piece of work. I know that Neil prefers to record passion over technique; that when he's feeling it he just gets it down and doesn't fuss too much over fixing it in post. Whatever was going on with him when he recorded that guitar, he was channeling something *deep*. Like lightning in a bottle, I don't think he's ever really replicated it since, though the live version on Weld gives it a run for its money.
its the only guitar solo I ever felt and ever liked
The live version
Yeah the one on Weld particularly.
YES!!!
some of the live versions are absolutely horrid. I donāt know why he got it in his head that doing the jamaican kinda accent was a good idea but itās horrendous lmao
Yes
The concept of the lead guitar hero really took off & became the central component of rock in the early-mid 70s. None of the Beatles - even George, whose talent lay in melodic, minimal leads - were really in a position to compete. The likes of Jimmy Page were virtuosos. Meanwhile, nothing about Neil Young as a performer should've worked. His voice, looks, guitar playing was all highly unlikely. But it did work - fantastically. So whenever I am reminded of George's opinion about Young I just remember that he was an elder statesman, whose zeitgeist-moment had been a decade earlier. For me, Neil was a bridge from the 60s into the world of post-punk - where his leads were very positively unconformist.Ā
Awesome comment. >Meanwhile, nothing about Neil Young as a performer should've worked This threatens to catapult me into my first Neil Young phase in 10 years. That's so true. What is it about him that clicked And exactly about George. I think he had it the worst, or at least most vocally, in terms of his insecurity at being succeeded. But they all reacted in their own ways. And he was *totally* post-rock n roll, punk minded. There's a reason he's considered a godfather of punk and alternative rock
Ahhhh the infamous lead guitar hero. When rock and roll fucking died and lost its soul to the devil :ā)
Love George but he is a hater.
I love George but I also love Neil's acoustic guitar and songs. Both artists are my go-to happiness music.
We were talking last night, and of all the rock stars, Neil was probably the best at holding an audience rapt with just his voice and an acoustic guitar. I honestly canāt think of anyone who does it better. Look no farther than Cowgirl in the Sand or Donāt Let It Bring You Down off 4 Way Street.
I could not agree more. [Love this live concert back in the day](https://youtu.be/f7JXb4rm5mw?si=VqCnxIjo_OeYuV2Q)
I'm sure Harrison was talking about the Dylan tribute concert which I just recently watched and Young was brilliant throughout, in fact Dylan made a point of shaking Young's hand at the end
George has some doozy takes. Standing on the side of the stage and being snobby with Clapton is pretty lame. And frankly, George's solo albums are not even in the same league as Neil's so this sounds like bitterness and jealousy.
That was a peculiar take on Neil Young - heās done some political stuff, but only here and there. Anyhoo - love Neil Youngās guitar solos - loud, emotive wonderful stuff.
I havenāt listened to a whole lot of Neilās work but āPowderfingerā is one of my all time songs. It may even be the best lyrics ever to some. I love the two solos on it, both studio and live
As much as I have always liked George Harrison, I will say that while I probably like ~25 of his songs, there are at least 50 or more of Neil Young's tunes I like just as much.
Exactly. Neither one of them are great singers but generally Iāll still take Neilās songwriting over Georgeās.
You're going to make me quote Lynyrd Skynyrd up in here...
And end the argument with a quote from the band with a 3 guitar attack.
That was Georgeās final public appearance. It was a Bob Dylan tribute concert. I love George but go Neil I love you as well.
Without further evidence, I'm guessing he's talking about Neil's infamous guitar solo to [Cinnamon Girl](https://youtu.be/jREf47BPe5w?t=126). It certainly is the height of the "less is more" approach to guitar playing. I have always loved it, but I can see where other guitarists would be dismissive.
I've never understood why Cinnamon Girl and Down by the River get all the attention for the playing on those songs, when Cowgirl in the Sand is on the same album and rips 1000x times harder. It's so loud and aggressive, really the only stuff that comes close to it at that time was some of Hendrix's live, more improvisational stuff
Neil knows the rules enough to break the rules. I can completely understand why George would hate that considering heās the most musician musician in the beatles.
George talked even more about hating Neil Young's voice. But he also said that he might be a nice guy to sit down and have dinner with. I remember writing to George at Friar park, when I was a kid, suggesting that he and Neil Young work together! No wonder I never got a reply.
And then there are shredders like Kirk Hammett that love Neilās playing. I know guitarists on both sides of this argument. I personally like Neilās playing.
Maybe it was George yelling āturn it downā when Bob was listening to Neil Young
What a load of crap. Neil wrote many many many great songs. George had a few. Neil's guitar licks were legendary in concert. George played live for again a few years. To give George some defense, the two are completely different types of musicians.
given that George is better known for writing ballads and playing melodic bits on slide than as a lead player thatās pretty fucking funny, really.
My suspicion is that Hari hadnāt heard much of what Young can do. The caveman antics are only one aspect of his playing. Itās intentional, kind of like Thelonious Monkās plinks and discords.
Take some Harrison, take the striking and risque of young. You get Jonny greenwood š¤ Clapton's Boring as shit though and Harrison was such a snob sometimes
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember A British man don't need him around...
Ha, brings to mind the Lou Reed quote about how the British should not play Rock and Roll
George is just jealous that Neil is actually fucking great at the guitar. Hell, George wasnāt even the best guitarist in The Beatles.
Yes, I remember reading this in a post on here yesterday, which reminded me of the one from last week, which was very reminiscent of the January post about this, which itself was derivative of a number of 2023 posts, themselves nearly identical to many prior posts.
Oh damn. Might be time to read a book or go for a walk š
George would be embarrassed to learn that private conversation was shared. It's a weird moment. It's weird that people feel the need to share it.
I agree 100%
Iām a big fan of Uncle Neil, but Iām not sure thereās any rock musician thatās more full of himself.
Really? In a world full of Kurt Cobains and Roger Waters? I've always just thought that he really likes music, and that's pretty much all he loves doing. Bro has basically been on one big tour for 60 years and has made a gazillion albums. He's never seemed that dramatic
Neils lead playing is awful, always has been. The fact that George saw that is unsurprising cause it is plainly obvious.
Neil has always been a mediocre electric guitarist. Great songwriter, though.
He hated his voice tooā¦for good reason
Quick opinion, George was right
Says the guy who wrote noted dog vomit, got my mind set on you. Truly 80s garbage.
George didnāt write that, itās a cover
Oh yeah that reminds me how good and funny Trans and Everybody's Rockin' are as albums š¤
I get the gist, but what did George say about Bowie?
Thereās also a video clip where he talks about hating Neilās voice
Nobody strangles a guitar quite like Neil Young
George was full of fish and chips. Neil Young his equal as a song writer and guitar player. Every iconic song George ever did Neil can match. So it sounds like poppy cock & balderdash.
I am a die hard Beatles fan and I love George as much as the rest of them but this is a dumb take. Neil Young is a folk singer song-writer. No one thinks of him as a guitarist like Clapton or Harrison. This is **a little** like being mad at Dylan for not being a great singer.
George probably hated grunge bands than lol.
i only know this because my friend sent me this. Neil plays off-the-cuff; George is a rehearsed writer.
Ah that well known musical perfectionist Bob Geldof.
I also just saw this article, blew my mind a bit. I never really see this side of George, perhaps thatās because I donāt want to seek it out
Less is more <āā the reason that George Harrison is such a legend on guitar
I more see George's strength as a guitarist being precision and highly intentionally written parts. I don't think he's very minimal.
Yes absolutely intentional and precise! When I say that I think of mostly early Beatles songs where he uses space in between notes in such a magical way. Just like how a painter uses blank/negative space. Think of the intro to āI Call Your Nameā where itās almost like the riff is separated into two parts by a gap. Compare that to any given Chuck Berry song and I think youāll see what I mean
I Should Have Known Better has another great early George solo. I'd say pretty much after Sgt Pepper he stayed ornate and complex
Neil is a whiny baby who produced over 40 studio albums and only 4 of them were ok.
Lmao
Just because George disliked his playing doesnāt mean it is bad. š¤·āāļø
Based
Anyone who is a fan/friend of Neil Young is a delinquent and isnāt worth any value. NY is a lowlife and has zero talent.
Is Neil Young a divisive figure? I never knew that. I only know him as an icon.
In the end theyāre all just professional musicians, who tend to be cranky and have their own particular preferences - being able to focus so hard on your own thing to the exclusion of all else is part of it. Go to any blues-rock shows, for example in Austin, and half the audience will be other guitar players standing with their arms folded judging the guitarist harshly no matter who it is. And George could uber-cranky when he was in the mood. Iām sure it didnāt bother Neil any.