Neil Young Vs Rolling Stones

well, not the Kennedys -- that was you and me.

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.

cuz he didn't do jackshit on that MoJ record besides getting it financed

unless you think phasing effects are really important

actually, I do

d'oh I forgot Neil's Dead Man sdtk in my list

which is def better than Mick's sdtk for Invocation of my Demon Brother (so glad Anger got Beausoleil for the final version)

used/got whatever

what about his soundtrack for Alfie

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cohCR3rUh0

what about his soundtrack for Alfie

haha okay I had to look this up

NEIL. How is this even a question.

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

this is a pretty gd-great run of seven studio albs in a row:

beggars banquet
let it bleed
sticky fingers
exile on main st
goats head soup
it's only rock 'n roll
black and blue

but this is better:

neil young
everybody knows this is nowhere
after the goldrush
harvest
on the beach
tonight's the night
zuma

I would take neil's post-80s output over the stones' career

this is a pretty gd-great run of seven studio albs in a row:

beggars banquet
let it bleed
sticky fingers
exile on main st
goats head soup
it's only rock 'n roll
black and blue

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 Now
Time is On My Side
The Last Time
Play With Fire
Satisfaction
Get Off of My Cloud
As Tears Go By
19th Nervous Breakdown
Paint It Black
Mother's Little Helper
Lady Jane
Have you seen yr mother...
Let's spend the night
ruby tuesday
we love you
etc

at least 2 brilliant albums worth of material right there.

The Joujaka guys are on Steel Wheels.

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.

heh neil just placed at #41 on 80s rock poll (tracks)

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxmZw3mVTk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czTIjYwGlc

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.

the loser's supporters will blame random googlers either way

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.

Like I think Trans is cool but the idea that someone would rate Trans and not Satanic Majesties is dumb to me.

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.

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.

I wonder what the results would be if it was just Neil Young vs. Keith Richards?

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.

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.

wtf, the first stones album is like a light-year ahead of any of those bands' debuts (all of which i like).

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.

I completely misremembered that Fitzcarraldo story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUh0diX3b-8

I've loved the stones longer but neil deeper

Stones 68-72
Neil 73-75
Stones 76-78
Neil 79
Stones 80-81
Neil 82-present

and yes, I am saying landing on water is better than dirty work

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.

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.

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.

most chances the Stones won't release a new record anyway

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.

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.

and yes, I am saying landing on water is better than dirty work

― da croupier, Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:22 AM

This comes down to "Winning Ugly" vs "Pressure" imo

really 82-88 says more about the listener than the band

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)

wtf, the first stones album is like a light-year ahead of any of those bands' debuts (all of which i like).

I just disagree. Stones debut has one good song on it (Tell Me). The Who has two classics, both of which are better than anything on the Stones debut (My Generation and The Kids Are Allright) plus The Ox and a couple other decent tracks. Kinks debut has You Really Got Me and Stop Your Sobbing. and the Beatles debut is obviously the best of the lot imho. But beyond the debuts, these other bands had a rapid and remarkable increase in quality over the next couple years while Jagger and Richards were puttering around making inferior versions of things like Staple Singers songs before they came anywhere close to hitting their stride.

and then there's Jagger's pitifully embarassing James Brown-emulating routine...

Yeah, but why worry too much about whether they had too much filler on early albums? Their early singles run is what counts.

yeah, i tend to agree about the early stuff. obviously the idea of the "album" was rapidly evolving at the time (acceptability of throwing in obvious filler material, covering songs vs original material, etc), so for the early stuff, to me, it just makes sense to lay out the top songs for the stones, like wk did a little earlier, and evaluate them like that without worrying about which album it technically belonged to.

Their early singles run is what counts.

this is true, but Neil wasn't around for the pre-album period, really, so it's hard to compare. what I think is true is that for the milieu he was operating in (first in BS and then solo), Neil was hitting it outta the park right from the beginning, which was not the case with the Stones. Neil never really did "filler" at any point in his career imho. He may have had bad ideas, but they weren't cranked out out of economic necessity.