| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 667.1 | question for the Enquirer crowd | EZ2GET::STEWART | an E-ticket ride at Neuro-Disney | Wed Sep 07 1994 11:15 | 9 |
|
I got a copy of the CSN album on one of those gold CD re-re-releases
and was leafing through the little booklet that comes with it. I think
I'd known for awhile that Suite: Judy Blue Eyes was written about
Stills & Judy Collins, as was 49 Bye Byes. The question I have is: did
JC leave SS for another musician? If so, who?
|
| 667.2 | | LEDS::BURATI | My other keyboard's on a Hammond B-3 | Wed Sep 07 1994 11:21 | 7 |
| Yeah, she did. Leonard Cohen. I kid you not. Mr. morose himself.
That first CSN album was one superb piece of work. Amazing vocal
arrangements. Outstanding songcrafting. Second one was pretty good too,
but the first was their best.
--Ron
|
| 667.3 | Tight Harmonies Rool | AIMHI::KERR | Lost In Cyberspace | Wed Sep 07 1994 12:16 | 8 |
|
One of my most played CDs is "So Far" which is a greatest hits (at the
time) album. The richness of the vocal harmonies is what always draws
me in. I don't think there have ever been three voices that intertwine
and harmonize as well as CS+N. I long to hear more music like that.
Acoustic_Al
|
| 667.4 | | BABAGI::COOK | The Cookster...237-2638 | Wed Sep 07 1994 12:41 | 4 |
|
I thought they did a good job at Woodstock '94. And I'm not a CS&N
fan!
|
| 667.5 | | LEDS::BURATI | My other keyboard's on a Hammond B-3 | Wed Sep 07 1994 12:56 | 8 |
| >I don't think there have ever been three voices that intertwine
>and harmonize as well as CS+N.
Right up there with CS&N:
Beatles
Beachboys
|
| 667.6 | | PCBUOA::LEFEBVRE | PCBU Asia/Pacific Marketing | Wed Sep 07 1994 13:09 | 9 |
| <<< Note 667.4 by BABAGI::COOK "The Cookster...237-2638" >>>
> I thought they did a good job at Woodstock '94. And I'm not a CS&N
> fan!
I thought they sounded miserable at Woodstock '94, and I *am* a fan.
Mark.
|
| 667.7 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Wed Sep 07 1994 13:54 | 5 |
| > I thought they sounded miserable at Woodstock '94, and I *am* a fan.
Let's face it, they've almost always sounded bad live.
-Hal
|
| 667.8 | | PCBUOA::LEFEBVRE | PCBU Asia/Pacific Marketing | Wed Sep 07 1994 14:18 | 4 |
| Not true. I've seen them twice during the late 70's and they were very
good both times.
Mark.
|
| 667.9 | | LEDS::BURATI | My other keyboard's on a Hammond B-3 | Wed Sep 07 1994 14:42 | 1 |
| Only when the tapes rolling then.
|
| 667.10 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Wed Sep 07 1994 15:30 | 21 |
| Heck, as long as I'm being heretical anyways, I might as well go all the way...
Don't get me wrong, I like CSN a lot. But as far as really impressive vocal
harmony they're more significant historically than on an absolute basis.
There's been plenty of groups with better quality harmony, but CSN brought
three-part harmony singing to the masses by being the right sound at the right
time. Not to mention that they had some very good songwriting.
Someone earlier in this thread said something about CSN having "intertwining"
vocals. I couldn't disagree more. One of the hallmarks of the CSN sound is
parallel vocal harmonies, not intertwining. If you want to hear some really
intertwining vocals listen to the Beach Boys, or listen to the Dead during
their country-influenced period (Workingman's Dead, American Beauty). Now
I admit that the Dead of that era weren't particularly known for singing in
tune (especially on Workingman's), but the choice of notes was inspired.
On many of the songs from that era it can be a real challenge to listen to
the recording and follow any individual vocal part all of the way through
without losing it as the parts cross each other. (Major exception for the
Pigpen songs, of course :-).
-Hal
|
| 667.11 | | RICKS::CALCAGNI | gray folded | Wed Sep 07 1994 15:49 | 11 |
| Hal, wouldn't you consider the break (or bridge, or coda, or whatever
the heck that thing is) from "Carry On" as an example of 'intertwining'
harmonies? It's not just parallel movement; there's separate movement
of individual voices in there. Come to think of it, they do that sort
of thing all over that tune. Perhaps at least that's the kind of harmony
the original poster was referring to.
For myself, I would certainly rate the second record over the first.
CS&N is great, but CSN&Y is outstanding! Just imo, of course
/rick
|
| 667.12 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | db | Wed Sep 07 1994 15:57 | 11 |
| I have a strong suspicion that what was meant was there have never been
three voices that blended together so well.
I'd certainly agree with that.
If you define "intertwining" as going beyond parallel movement than
all you bluesers are way off cause some progressive bands have done
some really incredible things with vocals (Yes and Renaissance come to
mind immediately). ;-)
db
|
| 667.13 | | LEDS::BURATI | My other keyboard's on a Hammond B-3 | Wed Sep 07 1994 16:07 | 1 |
| as have some bluegrass groups.
|
| 667.14 | Terminology is a tricky thing | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Wed Sep 07 1994 16:50 | 30 |
| re: .11
> Hal, wouldn't you consider the break (or bridge, or coda, or whatever
> the heck that thing is) from "Carry On" as an example of 'intertwining'
> harmonies? It's not just parallel movement; there's separate movement
> of individual voices in there. Come to think of it, they do that sort
> of thing all over that tune. Perhaps at least that's the kind of harmony
> the original poster was referring to.
I also love "Carry On", it's up there for my favorite cut on the album.
I guess parallel isn't *exactly* the right word, at least if you take it
literally. The voices in "Carry On" aren't strictly parallel, but neither
do they cross each other (pitch wise). They might not be exactly "parallel",
but they aren't "intertwining", either. And for that matter, "Carry On" isn't
really typical CSN, either, it's much more creative harmony-wise then most of
their stuff is. Hmmm, was "Carry On" co-written by Crosby? (sorry, I don't
remember without looking it up). I have this fuzzy recollection that the
Crosby songs tended to be more complex harmony-wise than the others. Might
have something to do with the fact that Crosby was really into unusually-tuned
guitars.
For a comparison, try listening to "Uncle John's Band" on the Dead's
"Workingman's Dead" album sometime. Randomly pick one vocal part and see if
you can follow it through the song. I suspect you'll find it isn't easy.
> For myself, I would certainly rate the second record over the first.
> CS&N is great, but CSN&Y is outstanding! Just imo, of course
I'd probably agree with you, although it wouldn't be a landslide.
|
| 667.15 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Wed Sep 07 1994 16:54 | 19 |
| re: .12
> I have a strong suspicion that what was meant was there have never been
> three voices that blended together so well.
I suspect that's what was meant as well, but as a certified curmudgeon I
couldn't let the "intertwining" thing go unchallenged. :-)
> If you define "intertwining" as going beyond parallel movement than
> all you bluesers are way off cause some progressive bands have done
> some really incredible things with vocals (Yes and Renaissance come to
> mind immediately). ;-)
Hey, who are you calling a "blueser"? :-) :-) :-)
But yes, db, you're right. Queen comes to mind, for instance. And *lot's*
of non-pop (or at least non-mainstream) stuff too.
-Hal
|
| 667.16 | | TAMRC::LAURENT | Hal Laurent @ COP | Wed Sep 07 1994 16:57 | 11 |
| re: .13
>as have some bluegrass groups.
Well, yes, but as a general rule bluegrass harmony tends to be quite parallel
(in the sense of non-intertwining). Gospel bluegrass being a notable
exception. Actually, I've always found bluegrass gospel quartets to be
very fascinating vocal-wise, which is kind of ironic given that I'm a
certified agnostic and don't identify with the lyrics at all.
-Hal
|