Vis-a-vis Neil's alleged decline...

I've been intrigued by this week's threads discussing Neil's recent decline. I
think specifically the threads relating "New Songs" and "Last Killer Song"
caught my interest, as they tend to agree on a number of points that illustrate
Neil's decline over the past decade and a half or so, for some running back to
RNS. The theory, stated or implied, is that Neil's abilities are declining with
age, or other factors, or both, and that a resurgence of sorts is hoped for.

My argument will be this: that Neil hasn't changed nearly as much as many have
supposed him to. One thing that has changed in many cases is the lens through
which he is viewed. I believe that as the listener ages, they are less and less
open to new forms or directions of art. In this case that means you are less
likely to find new music that you like, especially if it moves in new
directions, as you age. What that means, specific to Neil, is that while I agree
that the nature of his work output is changing, I think few would dispute that
that has been the only constant of his career.

The problem, then, is in the quality of the work, or rather in the subjective
view of that quality. To boil that down, what I'm saying is that, in my opinion,
Neil isn't changing or declining nearly as rapidly as some fans' appreciation of
his work, whether because of interest or ability.  This itself caused by aging
of the subject (the fan), at least as often as, if not far more than, the object
(Neil), in my respectful opinion.

I'll lay my reasoning on you, with examples, but first my rebuttals, in no
particular order.

"Neil has been knocking off songs too quickly" idea. I think that one is pretty
moot, since we know that Neil has always written music in rapid bursts (Cowgirl
DBTR the same day, etc). I think that this has been a hallmark of his career,
and is no new development. And I think many artists have alternating periods of
creativity and inactivity.

"What was the last killer song Neil wrote?" idea. Put "the Painter" or "Only a
Dream" on "Harvest" and you have two more hits on that album, in my opinion.
"Bandit" is my favorite acoustic song of his, and I don't just say that for
intricate personal reasons; I think it is The Best. Capital letters. The most
radio friendly? No, but clearly he has no interest in that. I think "No Hidden
Path" and "Going Home" walk in exactly the same territory that "Big Time" and
"Change Your Mind" did. I might actually play "After the Garden" or "Falling
From Above" more often on the electric than some of the "hits." I think the
conversation about a "killer" song lurks dangerously close to the conversation
about what is catchy or a what is a hit, and I don't those things interest
Neil-- which is not to say he doesn't have the ability to write them, because he
does.

The problems with albums as a whole- that they are rushed, uneven, feature
shoddy production or song-selection, and seem to be the product of an obsessive
focus, ie Greendale or "Praire Wind." But. Neil knocked off most of "Tonights
the Night" on a drunken binge with the surviving members of Crazy Horse. But the
album also features a Stray Gators cut and a live track from 3 years earlier.
Did that one become "classic" because he mulled it for ages, or because he
tinkered? Joel Bernstein said that the best form of TTN was the one from before
he doctored it. But take it as you will, Neil himself described that album, an
obsessive look at the consequences of the drug culture, by saying, "I'm sorry.
You don't know these people. This means nothing to you" in the liner notes. I
think its his best one.

Neil likes to record on the fly. He used to like to have expensive professional
session musicians switch instruments and play fresh on his albums. Neil is the
guy who ended "Harvest" with "Words" and "Comes a Time" with "Motorcycle Mama."
That is about as willy-nilly as they come. If he has an even, polished record,
I'm not sure I particularly want to hear it. Any of us could revisit "classic"
albums of Neil's and find throwaway tracks. The question is not one of ability,
but of inclination.

Has Neil been unable to make a "classic" album without David Briggs? "Harvest"
and "Freedom," vs "Reactor"and "Life" tells me that this is just not the case. I
don't buy that. There is only one person who is credited on every single
excellent (and every single shabby) Neil Young album as a producer and that
person is Neil Young.

I don't think Neil's methods have changed as much as they are supposed to have
done. I think he could make a "considered" recording, sit on it for a period of
time, tour the songs first (as he is now), and release it after multiple
sessions over a period of months, and it would still fail to please many of the
people here on the list. And for that matter I don't think he'd spend
appreciably much more of his own time in the project. He'd just have it lying
around somewhere while he changed his mind this way and that. He is like Dylan--
he does recordings in the moment. It has always been that way, for the most
part.

I also think that he is writing songs that are just as interesting and pointed
as songs have ever been; it is just that the subject matter is not thematically
and musically as inquisitive as it once was. He is not as much into finding out
about the way the world works as he once was. But hey, he's past 60, I'll give
him that. He talks now about how he sees and has seen the world. It is a process
that has taken place over time, a shift in subect matter and tone, but again, I
don't think it is a loss of quality, just a change of subject.

So what I'm saying, then, is that I think that Neil is not changing
qualitatively, but rather in terms of focus. What he wants is changing. But the
more what Neil wants to change and grow as an artist, the more expectations of
him remain the same. That is how I break down the "archives vs new album" divide
amongst his fans. Some of us want to hear different takes on old material/old
ways of thinking more, being more interested in eras past, and some of us are
more interested to know what comes now and what comes next. If you compare the
shows from a year ago to the ones now, you see that Neil himself is clearly
split with the rest of us. But he leans towards forging ahead.

I also think there is a very large and widespread tendency to attribute all
changes in perception of quality to Neil, which I do not believe is a method of
fandom that will produce felicity or satisfaction. Another car driving away from
yours at sixty produces the same visual effect, relatively speaking, as yours
driving away from it at sixty, or each of you leaving the other at thirty a
piece. Thats Einstein, right?

Regardless, the main thing to take away, if any find my theory persuasive, is
that there is not likely to be any sudden "return to form" or "killer song"
produced out of the blue, based on these criteria, because they are not Neil's
criteria.  I could sooner imagine Neil playing any song from Greendale in my
house for me tonight than I could imagine him trying to recreate his way of
doing things from twenty or thirty years ago in 2009.  The fact that he made
"Harvest Moon" at all still confuses the hell out of me, and I tend to chalk it
up to mid-life crisis. I think if you want a roadmap for the future with this
guy, you draw some kind of map based on the gradual changes he's been making,
beginning arbitrarily with AYP? if you like, and then you throw that map out the
window, because its Neil -- who knows what the hell the guy has up his sleeve?

Aaron, That Old Country Insufferable Knowitall





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]