that's like giving the stones credit for everything Jack Nitzsche or Jimmy Miller did.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:50 (thirteen years ago)
And I think Nitzsche worked with the Stones before he worked with Young, so the Stones should get credit for Neil Young.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:51 (thirteen years ago)
we need some kind of flowchart
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:52 (thirteen years ago)
can we blame the Stones for Primal Scream? Neil gets Dinosaur Jr.
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:53 (thirteen years ago)
well, not the Kennedys -- that was you and me.
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:54 (thirteen years ago)
I just don't get why you wouldn't count Brian Jones collaboration with the MMoJ. Because he's not the whole Stones? Or because he doesn't play on the record? I would consider a Neil Young produced album to be a NY collab.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:54 (thirteen years ago)
cuz he didn't do jackshit on that MoJ record besides getting it financed
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:56 (thirteen years ago)
unless you think phasing effects are really important
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:57 (thirteen years ago)
actually, I do
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 21:58 (thirteen years ago)
d'oh I forgot Neil's Dead Man sdtk in my list
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:00 (thirteen years ago)
which is def better than Mick's sdtk for Invocation of my Demon Brother (so glad Anger got Beausoleil for the final version)
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:01 (thirteen years ago)
used/got whatever
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:02 (thirteen years ago)
what about his soundtrack for Alfie
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:03 (thirteen years ago)
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cohCR3rUh0
haha okay I had to look this up
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:07 (thirteen years ago)
NEIL. How is this even a question.
― these albatrosses have no fear of man (La Lechera), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:07 (thirteen years ago)
god Jagger is responsible for so much garbage. I think the Stones' lows are waaaaaaaaaaaay worse than Neil's lows.
peaks are all that matter to me
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:11 (thirteen years ago)
this is a pretty gd-great run of seven studio albs in a row:
beggars banquetlet it bleedsticky fingersexile on main stgoats head soupit's only rock 'n rollblack and blue
but this is better:
neil youngeverybody knows this is nowhereafter the goldrushharveston the beachtonight's the nightzuma
― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:25 (thirteen years ago)
I would take neil's post-80s output over the stones' career
― iatee, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:29 (thirteen years ago)
not sure why you would leave out the 3 before that which are all classics. Plus in terms of singles before Beggar's Banquet you have:
It's All Over NowTime is On My SideThe Last TimePlay With FireSatisfactionGet Off of My CloudAs Tears Go By19th Nervous BreakdownPaint It BlackMother's Little HelperLady JaneHave you seen yr mother...Let's spend the nightruby tuesdaywe love youetc
at least 2 brilliant albums worth of material right there.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:44 (thirteen years ago)
The Joujaka guys are on Steel Wheels.
― 50 Shades of Greil (C. Grisso/McCain), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 22:46 (thirteen years ago)
Funny poll. Neil Young, based only on the music they've made that I care about. By now, they've probably both made more that I don't care about (or don't know) than I do. Predicted final score: Rolling Stones win 74-57, even though posted comments seem to point towards a win for Neil.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 00:12 (thirteen years ago)
heh neil just placed at #41 on 80s rock poll (tracks)
― Algerian Goalkeeper, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 00:18 (thirteen years ago)
If this was a poll as to which act is more likely to release an album I hold on par with their best work, then Neil. Cumulative ... tougher to pick than I thought. Neil's certainly got more compelling deep cuts that don't get played on the radio, which could be the deciding factor. I'd certainly rather be locked in a room with his complete solo/band/collaboration discography than the equivalent for the Stones.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 00:38 (thirteen years ago)
neil young for sure, as much as i love the stones. imo neil's freedom-sleeps with angels run stands pretty strong alongside his best work and the stones imo never came close to their peak again once 'exile' was out there. i do really like 'some girls' and 'emotional rescue' but not at that level.
― omar little, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 00:48 (thirteen years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxmZw3mVTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czTIjYwGlc
― buzza, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:19 (thirteen years ago)
Predicted final score: Rolling Stones win 74-57, even though posted comments seem to point towards a win for Neil.
no way, Neil will win this easily.
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:27 (thirteen years ago)
the loser's supporters will blame random googlers either way
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:43 (thirteen years ago)
I think it comes down to what decade you like the best. For me the Stones win the '60s. Young wins the '70s to the present. But since I like music from the '60s at least 5x as much as any of those other decades, the Stones still win.
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:51 (thirteen years ago)
Like I think Trans is cool but the idea that someone would rate Trans and not Satanic Majesties is dumb to me.
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 01:53 (thirteen years ago)
did you use some algorithm to determine which classic-rock titans had never been matched up before? kinda pointless, but I'm a desperate Neil fan so my vote is an easy one. spose I could break it down with some fake rigor, let's see:
pop stones era vs commerical Neil w/Harvest, Stones win; OTOH Neil gets a little cred for not totally sucking since 1980; so really it all comes down to Exile vs Beach/Tonight/Zuma: exile beats any one, sure, but overall? gotta give it to neil.
― theStalePrince, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 02:22 (thirteen years ago)
they were much better at singles than albums for most of the 60s. I find a lot of early Stones stuff fairly laughable tbh - next to their contemporaries (the Who, the Kinks, the Beatles, etc.) it's kind of ridiculous the amount of crap they got away with releasing.
wtf, the first stones album is like a light-year ahead of any of those bands' debuts (all of which i like).
ilm love for neil young amazes me.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 03:05 (thirteen years ago)
I wonder what the results would be if it was just Neil Young vs. Keith Richards?
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 03:19 (thirteen years ago)
Jagger even got dumped from Fitzcarraldo
no fault of mick's - the shoot was much delayed, conflicting with his schedule, and he had to leave.
― fit and working again, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 03:33 (thirteen years ago)
oh really? I was just remembering those before and after clips from My Best Fiend where they cut from a Robards/Jagger scene to the same thing with Kinski and the difference was hilarious.
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 03:52 (thirteen years ago)
It's also weird to compare the Stones debut (1964) to Neil Young's debut (68) without factoring in the massive changes that took place in those few years. If you're going to compare the Stones to their early contemporaries, you need to compare Young's debut to what other L.A. artists were doing in '67/'68 and imo he comes up pretty damn short compared to Byrds, Beach Boys, Love, Van Dyke Parks, Beefheart, Zappa, Doors, et al.
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 03:57 (thirteen years ago)
I completely misremembered that Fitzcarraldo story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUh0diX3b-8
― wk, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:01 (thirteen years ago)
I've loved the stones longer but neil deeper
― vincent black shadow giallo (Edward III), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:13 (thirteen years ago)
Stones 68-72Neil 73-75Stones 76-78Neil 79Stones 80-81Neil 82-present
― da croupier, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:21 (thirteen years ago)
and yes, I am saying landing on water is better than dirty work
― da croupier, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 04:22 (thirteen years ago)
i'd extend the stones 80-81 to whenever undercover is but that breakdown works for me. i love neil young but this is stones pretty easy for me. blame it on disco.
― balls, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 05:05 (thirteen years ago)
yeah undercover is 83, and i def can see why someone would push that over everybody's rockin. it's really only 89 on where you GOTTA give it to Neil.
― da croupier, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 05:46 (thirteen years ago)
i'm really excited to hear psychedelic pill. i've looked forward to hearing other new neil young records in the relatively recent past, too. i'm 32, and i've never looked forward to a new stones record being released in my lifetime. i doubt i ever will.
gotta give it to neil though i love the stones too.
― bizarro gazzara, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:06 (thirteen years ago)
most chances the Stones won't release a new record anyway
― nostormo, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 09:10 (thirteen years ago)
it's really only 89 on where you GOTTA give it to Neil.
It's remarkable that this mock rivalry of so many decades is only definitively settled that late in the game. '89 is when the Stones were totally subsumed into corporate stagnation (as much as Keith can ever be tamed). They lose Wyman, and everyone in the band gets this perma-bemused look in their eye save Jagger. Yet that's when Neil got his, what, fifth wind, and started releasing some of his best music ever.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:57 (thirteen years ago)
I think I'm giving it to the stones for rhythm section related reasons. If this was Neil vs Bob (the other act Neil says he was actively trying to steal from) I'd probably vote Neil.
― da croupier, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:01 (thirteen years ago)
― da croupier, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:22 AM
This comes down to "Winning Ugly" vs "Pressure" imo
― taking tiger mountain (up the butt) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:06 (thirteen years ago)
really 82-88 says more about the listener than the band
― da croupier, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 13:07 (thirteen years ago)
voted Stones, due to this unassailable run:
Out of Our Heads (1965, UK) / Out of Our Heads (1965, US)December's Children (And Everybody's) (1965, US)Aftermath (1966, UK) / Aftermath (1966, US)Between the Buttons (1967, UK) / Between the Buttons (1967, US)Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967)Beggars Banquet (1968)Let It Bleed (1969)Sticky Fingers (1971)Exile on Main St. (1972)Goats Head Soup (1973)It's Only Rock 'n Roll (1974)Black and Blue (1976)Some Girls (1978)
― dronestreet, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:43 (thirteen years ago)