Recently I was asked, “What is wrong with CSN? They sold millions of generationally anthemic records, why do critics hate them?” and this is my response:
Among the relevant arguments, with which I largely concur: Each of them emerged from a notably SUPERIOR band (The Byrds, The Hollies, Buffalo Springfield); the “American Beatles!” hype with which they were launched, and for a few years bathed in, seemed a tad ridiculous even at the time (unless it was meant purely as a comparison of box office receipts and/or record sales, and even then their achievement wasn’t really comparable, especially when compared to their near-exact contemporaries, Led Zeppelin, who were as critically-despised during 1969-70 as CSN(&Y) were acclaimed); the legendarily-arrogant cocaine millionaire self-indulgence and pointless rock divadom that kept breaking them up or derailing their prospects/projects eventually opened folks’ eyes to the lack of great (or even good) music coming forth, especially when contrasted with Neil Young’s concurrrent 1970s “solo” career; the fact that their trademark harmonies were so damned TWEE, and eventually unbearable to the ears of a goodly chunk of both the public and the rock press; the generally lame, if not outright awful, quality of the (very intermittent) LPs released post-DEJA VU; the fact that they more or less spawned The Eagles, who actually outdid them as both record makers and sellers, appalling as THEY often were/are; the sheer buffoonery of David Crosby’s life, post-1970’s admittedly rousing “Almost Cut My Hair“, culminating in the ca.-1984 Texas drug offense imprisonment; the fact that there is really no “there” there, certainly compared with the undying hype; the fact that Neil dashed off their two greatest songs (“Helpless” and “Ohio“) on a brief coffee break from Crazy Horse; the general backlash against the more self-righteous wing of privileged Sixties Rock Star excess and idiocy. Et cetera…
I saw them in Missoula in 1984, a hippie town if ever there was one, post-1972, and was both appalled at their general irrelevance/arrogance, and also amazed that it was CROSBY (then awaiting trial/incarceration re: the Texas business) who possessed the only rock and roll fire or notable voice among them, despite the OCEAN of chemicals he’d by then ingested! Though I must add that it did require TWO roadies to heft him onto a stool to perform a quite-lovely version of “Guinnevere”! Graham Nash looked like an anorexic Gibb Brother at the time, though he made a reasonably good master of ceremonies, but Stephen Stills seemed a disinterested hulk. And the past 28 years have not exactly been kind…
Re: liking their music: Millions do, including me, to a moderate extent. But a good bit of what I wrote above is most certainly ABOUT said music. And one needn’t be a critic by any means to make the obvious comparisons to both Neil Young and The Eagles, much less the still underheralded Gram Parsons/Flying Burrito Brothers, or any number of fine country-ish rock contemporaries (to CSN). I was simply attempting a reasonably comprehensive answer to the query back at the top of this entry. For myself, as a passionate lover of music, I’m just sorry CSN has garnered so much attention for so many decades when there are so many better artists of every stripe, including CSN’s own, who’ve been neglected by comparison…in my opinion, at any rate. Happy listening! And try Gram Parson’s 1974 GRIEVOUS ANGEL, if you haven’t already heard it, for one sublime example…
Finally, in truth, critics had a great deal to do with facilitating the rapturous reception for both CSN and DEJA VU, way back when (1969-70), when both Rock and Rock Criticism were young! Your point re: commercial success is quite obviously correct–much best-selling music is NOT critically-acclaimed, though much GREAT music, especially post-1972 or so (when radio formats were deliberately narrowed down to exclude most genres of music) does not sell when it’s new (or sometimes EVER, alas), however much critical acclaim it receives. But talking about “success” purely in terms of record sales or fame/wealth misses the larger point, at least as I see it, which is to find and enjoy as much GOOD music as possible, while avoiding the mediocre or lousy stuff as much as one can, regardless of popularity! As an example, no band has been more critically-acclaimed than The Beatles, and one could easily argue that a big reason their cd reissues have been so wildly successful is that huge body of ongoing critical acclaim, which continually indoctrinates (correctly, in my view) audiences not yet BORN when they broke up in 1970. Re: “Importance”, that can be Historical or Symbolic, in addition to Commercial and Artistic. To my ears and sense of music history, CSN most certainly merits the first three, but falls well short in terms of Artistry, especially when compared with their great contemporaries and immediate predecessors (Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Who, Hendrix, Zeppelin), not to forget 40-plus years’ worth of great artists who’ve emerged since their 2nd (and last arguably good studio album). That’s really all I’m sayin’…
I HATE mediocre and terrible music (and such art in general), particularly when it sells in the millions and chokes out better music (art). Critics are one of the few mechanisms in place to point us toward the good stuff, and to warn us about unwarranted hype and b.s. Given budgetary and time limitations, I’m happy to find good advice wherever it exists. Once a person acquires their own sense of things, critics and biz hype become less helpful/harmful. But it never hurts to get a good tip, and how often will those being paid to hype their own corporate product provide such?! Especially these days, with for-pay media outlets all-but-dead, critics are in it as purely for love as the most passionate fans are; I’m quite happy to pitch my tent in both camps!
– Tom Kipp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FStkcfnpcdk
