Neil's had a busy year. Two albums released (the second one a double) and a stream of conciousness/autobiography published. Psychedelic Pill came out a couple of weeks ago, but I wanted to let it stew a little bit before reviewing it, to see if my initial reaction turned out to be off. It wasn't.
As loyal readers well know, Neil Young is my favorite musical artist. And the reviews for his latest venture with his garage band stalwarts Crazy Horse have been generally glowing, but I'm not feeling it on this one. These sprawling tunes came from the same marathon sessions that produced Americana earlier this year, but whereas that was a wonderful ramshackle romp through the American folk canon, these are all originals.
The spirit here was to capture the raw Crazy Horse at its best, but as hard as they try, there is no "Down By the River" here. And oh do they try. I find it funny how the critics fawn over the 27-minute (!) opener, "Driftin' Back" (or, as I would retitle it, "Driftin' Through Neil's Random Thoughts (For 30 Minutes)"). It's got a decent groove and I like the sharp effect of starting it off acoustically and then fading in the Horse. But the song is basically 6 minute spurts of Neil jamming with Crazy Horse separated by random, half-baked verses about, well, anything. It sounds like, and I bet this is what it was, a preliminary jam that instead of honing it and editing it into a real song, Neil just said "use that one, let's move on." A jam that is fun to play if you are one of the musicians, but a bit tedious to listen to. Would've made a fine 15 minutes or so, but not 27. One verse is about how he used to enjoy Picasso paintings until they were used as wallpaper prints, and then another about his well-known war against the sound quality in MP3's ("When you hear my song now / You only get 8% / You used to get it all now / You used to feel it all"). Then another verse about writing his book this year. Then something about "Gonna get a hip hop haircut." I doubt he even wrote anything down before singing this one. I would like to ask these critics, honestly, how many of them are going to return to "Driftin' Back" and ever listen to all 27 minutes again?
There are a couple of worthy keepers here. I really like the melancholy groove of the 17 minute "Ramada Inn," but whereas many critics point to this one as a lyrical highlight detailing the dying flame of a once passionate relationship, I find the lyrics a bit obvious and nothing remarkable. The groove and Neil's soloing, however, are quite hypnotic. The 16 minute "Walk Like a Giant," with its "My My, Hey Hey" bassline, is a bit inspired. Neil often revisits the 60's in his work, but mostly, as he does here, it is with regret and bitterness that the ideals were not fulfilled. And he also, significantly, usually blames himself and his comrades for the failures, not outside forces. (By far the best treatment of this theme is his acerbic 1986 shot at Crosby and Co. in "Hippie Dream," one of his best overlooked gems).
I also really enjoy the short title track, a blatant but fun retread of his classic "Cinnamon Girl." I especially like the over the top effects on the song, making it sound like it is swirling around in a jet turbine (there is also a "clean" version tacked on the end).
The bottom line with Neil Young for me is that even in failure, I still love the guy's spirit and cajones. The only time he can do wrong is when he's boring and safe, which fortunately is very rare (late 90's and early 2000's). In triumph or failure, he is pushing himself and taking risks. I view Psychedelic Pill as a sprawling miss, but an adventurous one. Another weird transmission from your crazy Uncle Neil.
** out of *****.
7 comments:
Had an extended conversation with a friend last week about that old chestnut, the possibility of being relevant as an old rocker. Wish you had been there to add your thoughts.
This album sounds pretty bad, but an entertaining review. Nice last line.
What were your conclusions?
Well, as you might guess, I was coming down on the side of it being a young (and young-ish) man's game. On my side was the Stones, Springsteen (sorry), and all the millions of bands who don't even make it past the 40th birthday of their members. He was marshaling Dylan and Young as counter-examples, and my point was that they continue to do interesting things, but the canon would be no worse off if they had stopped recording 25 years ago. We were each very stubborn about our side. You would have enjoyed it.
Interesting. I tend to agree with you on this one. The key is that you did not say that everything after is crap. It can be good and interesting, and occasionally capture a flash of brilliance, but as far as consistently vital work that can make a real impact, you are correct.
One of the smartest things you ever said was when we were having a similar discussion over dinner in our college days, and you said something like an artist only has about ten years, give or take, when they are truly vital. I have stuck by that ten year rule. Again, they can make good and occasional great music beyond, but ten years is about what they have to really make their mark.
Take the Stones: 1965-75, with 1978's Some Girls being the outlier. Beyond that, some good songs here or there. Neil Young, even, who has remained more vital than most. His real impact period was 1969-79. After that, his greatest moments echoed (well) that vital decade. The rest has been interesting.
Well I hate to say the predictable thing, but Bowie produced one of his two or three greatest albums in 1996 [Outside], many many years after his heyday in the 70s. The album after that [Earthling] can also stand up to his best work from the 70s.
I can't remember all the dates of the U2 albums but, granting that, let's say, Zooropa, counts as one of their 'good period' albums, didn't they also have a pretty good run?
Yes, as I was writing my response, I was already mentally preparing my Bowie rebuttal. Sorry, ANCIANT, but Bowie fits the model too. Bowie impact period was 1971-83 ('Hunky Dory' through 'Let's Dance'). 'Outside' is the perfect outlier scenario. Great, great record (I give it **** out of *****), but it was an anomoly. A last great gasp, and seriously, how influential was it? I think it was more a reaction to some things already happening plus a reflection of Bowie/Eno's own Berlin trilogy style, but updated. As for 'Earthling,' solid outing, but nothing that shook the musical landscape. 'Heathen' is great too, by the way. But recall, the argument allows for excellent music outside the Decade, just not the same impact music.
Neil Young is my Bowie, and 'Freedom' (*****) (1989) is my 'Outside.' 'Freedom' is brilliant Neil, in my Top 5 Neil records. But it is the classic outlier, and as brilliant as it is, it did not influence the musical world like Neil's 1969-79 period did.
Bowie's 'Outisde' is to Neil Young's 'Freedom' is to The Stones' 'Some Girls.'
You bring up U2. U2 is perfect: 1983-93. 'Boy' and 'October' were still searching for their sound (both great records, though). But the first impact record was really 'War' (1983). So 'War' ('83) through 'Zooropa' (1993).
Post a Comment