Neil Young on Tidal
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
http://pitchfork.com/news/65207-neil-youngs-discography-available-on-tidal/?mbid=social_facebook
What does it mean?
He's bitter about pono flopping
surely no one even uses tidal
>>64535336
I've been using it since Kanye's album released. It's...alright. I might unsubscribe. I was listening to Kid A the other night (I've heard the album a million times) and I think that the BPM was off.
What a fucking cuck. I like Neil young but he should have never pot his music on that nigger second
I torrented all of his albums anyway 2bh
>>64535460
Might be mistaken but I think Young's one of the artists who's said he's cool w people torrenting his stuff. "The internet's the new radio" is a quote of his.
he'll be fine
>>64535790
don't you fucking dare
(though desu he's getting dangerously close to full on senile old man territory)
>>64535194
It means Neil Young will be on Tidal I suppose.
>>64535535
>>64536104
IDK. He seems to at least understand how modern technology works unlike Don Henley.
Though he was already on Tidal for a while now. That's where all musicians go when they hate how shitty Spotify and other streaming services treat artists.
>>64535535
Prolly because he's an old-ass hippie and still believes in the whole My music is you music thing.
>>64536430
Since you're on /mu/ I'm 100% sure you've downloaded music in the past week.
>>64535194
Neat
>>64535194
Why the fuck is this news? He's literally been on Tidal since day one
>>64536720
It's news because Pitchfork are sell-outs that base their articles around how much Tidal is willing to pay them.
>>64535535
He doesn't care about Piracy, he just gets buttfrustrated about his music being distributed in low bitrates. That was his whole deal with Pono. He doesn't really care if he gets paid as long as you're listening in HD.
If you really want to cheese him off torrent his music and then transcode it to 64kbps
Grrr, kids these days missed out. They never got to experience Quadrophonic Sound (TM).
>implications of all the people in 1973 who listened to music on tinny AM radios and portable turntables
>>64537576
Never mind the fact that Young has permanent tinnitus and released an album literally recorded in a phone booth the year he started promoting pono.
I know...since when did a 67 year old man with severe tinnitus become a good judge of audio quality.
He trashed his ears recording Ragged Glory and was unable to play electric guitar for most of the 90s (similar to Pete Townshend who also spent years unplugged).
Not to be a dick...but I've never gotten the sense that Neil Young's a particularly bright guy. Talented, yeah, and definitely one of the most emotional songwriters out there, but not that smart.
>>64537825
I think his politics should be evidence enough of that.
Neil got lucky that he caught a second wind in the 90s when Pearl Jam made him cool to a new generation of kids while most of his peers were totally irrelevant by that point.
>>64537909
Maybe it's confirmation bias but...personally, I think Young's solo (and Crazy Horse stuff of course) from the late 60s to the 70s really has aged really well.
>>64537909
Everyone knows Dylan and Young had their worst decade in the 80s. Both of them were as far removed from what was popular during that decade as you can get.
>>64538079
It must be the worst feeling in the world knowing you were once literally the most important person in music to becoming entirely irrelevant.
>>64537909
Actually it's kind of like Chuck Berry being introduced to 70s kids by the Stones and Zeppelin and enjoying a new burst of relevance instead of playing the county fair circuit like Fats Domino and Roy Orbison were then.
>>64538144
Virtually everyone associated with the hippie era was completely outdated in the slicked-back, technology-driven 80s. Not to mention the political landscape - during the Reagan years, anything 60s or hippie was very uncool.
>>64538144
I'm sure your millions of dollars, mansion on the French Riviera, and imported Pinoy hookers will make you sleep well at night.
Neil Young tried all sorts of weird stuff in the 80s which led to Geffen suing him for making unsellable albums. Bob Dylan I think just never wanted anything to do with 80s music styles. He didn't even tour in the US at all from 1981 to 86.
>>64537274
who knew he was the oldest FLACfag around
You should watch Live Aid. Mick Jagger's performance didn't impress anyone since by that time it was all like "Yawn. We've seen it all before." and Dylan and Young just looked like old dinosaurs compared with the hot, contemporary acts there like Madonna and U2.
>>64538144
honestly don't remember a decade where the last decade's stuff become so irrelevant and so distant so fucking fast
its like 1981 hit (i guess mtv, but even then the music was far removed from any current movement) and they become outdated.
Was Tom Petty the only similar guy to make it out of the 70s-80s transtion?
>>64538536
Dude, Tom Petty released his first album in 1976. He'd been in the game all of 5 years when MTV happened. The Rolling Stones, McCartney, Harrison, The Who, they'd been at it almost 20 years at that point.
>>64538536
The 60s British Invasion and Phil Spector/Motown basically made 50s rock and roll/rhythm and blues instantaneously irrelevant.
but uh, Springsteen made it out of the 80s pretty good I think. Same with Petty, even if it was on a very, very small scale.
>>64538486
But mick and tina tho. "State of Shock." In the immortal words of Ms Mavis Staples, Goot Gawd!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wGXK9eEYuo
>>64538590
oh true i forgot about that
All I can think of is Peter Gabriel (who probably doesn't count because he wasn't solo in the 70s) and Paul Simon
Anyone else?
>>64538144
Neil keeps making combacks though, he's far from irrelevant. He had a bad decade in the 80's but then early 90's released some of his best albums and gained a new audience by collaborating with bands like Sonic Youth and Phish.
>>64538536
Woops, completely misread Petty as Waits, but he's another one (and possibly the only one) who made it out of the 80s better than he was in the 70s.
>>64538644
I meant at that specific time. Entirely might've not been the best word to use admittedly.
>>64538614
you sure? You're probably right, but wasn't motown really big in the 50s too? I guess since Elvis went full movie and didn't come back til the 70s, what you said makes sense
oh right! springsteen transitioned well, but it did take 5 years to make it, i think his first couple 80s records tanked
alright, so
Tom Waits
Paul Simon
Springsteen
and Tom Petty to a lesser extent
anyone else make it through the mass extinction?
Van Morrison has a solid '80's discography. His '90's stuff however... Not bad, just not inspired.
A lot of 70s artists didn't do so well in the 80s and it was especially hard on most 60s guys. Some like the Beach Boys, Jethro Tull, and Blue Oyster Cult basically packed it in and became nostalgia acts.
>>64538799
I mean, does it count if they eventually made creative/commercial comebacks or does it have to be artists who survived mostly intact back then?
Leonard Cohen also did okay.
>>64538768
Motown was created in 59 bro.
>>64538911
i meant artists that survived mostly intact when they entered and during the 80s
basically like springsteen or paul simon
To go down the list:
>Aerosmith
Came back in the late 80s after totally disappearing from the radar in 1980-84.
>Kiss
Revolving door guitarists and material of variable quality.
>Alice Cooper
Spent the early 80s in limbo making bizarre pseudo-New Wave albums that were critically panned and sold about 5 copies. Then came back in the late 80s.
>Elton John
Still kept churning out good singles but not good albums and Leather Jackets is possibly the absolute rock bottom of his career.
>Iggy Pop
I have absolutely no idea; not that familiar with his discography.
Paul Simon struggled for a while like most of them did, but then Graceland became a mammoth critical and commercial success for him (he still maintains that the title track was the best thing he ever did).
I know /mu/ must hate them because of how overplayed they are but...Journey's only period of relevancy was during the 80s.
And if we're including things from the RnB side, obviously Jackson and Prince did well.
>>64538799
Randy Newman
>>64538995
>Iggy Pop
The 80s were a nightmare for him. Blah Blah Blah and Instinct are his only 80s album that sold more than five copies and Soldier is his only 80s album that's worth listening to. He had a bit of a revival in the 90s though with Brick by Brick and American Caesar.
>>64539085
>Journey's only period of relevancy was during the 80s
78-83 really. Raised On Radio is the album that officially ended their relevance.
>>64539085
MJ and Prince are a bit of an asspull because the former, while a big child star, only released his first adult album at the very end of the decade, also Prince's debut came at the tail end.
Judas Priest of course. :-D
Although the 80s was the peak of their commercial and cultural relevance, their best and most groundbreaking albums were Sad Wings through Hell Bent.
Heart also died out in the early 80s, then came back in 87-90.
Say, just how many 70s rockers did Desmond Child rescue anyway?
REO Speedwagon and Foreigner. They managed to have hits for most of the 80s, but both bands somehow completely forgot how to rock and turned into nothing but shitty ballads.
>>64538995
Iggy Pop's 80s career was pretty bad. For a while he made decent New Wave albums that didn't sell, then he made a mediocre pop album with David Bowie and then he made a mediocre glam metal album with Bill Laswell and Steve Jones.
Black Sabbath had a strong early 80s comeback (Tony Iommi is the only guy who could go through three frontmen and still produce classic albums with each of them) but after 84 they weren't relevant outside Japan and Europe. The Tony Martin era completely passed Americans by.
Lou Reed did okay-ish. Only 2 albums below 3.00 on rym
Devo essentially stopped existing after 82.
>61 replies
>Billy Joel not mentioned
In the 70s he was merely popular. The 80s is when he became a superstar.
>>64539500
Lou put out two great albums in the 80s, one of which became one of the highest selling albums of his entire career. I would say Lou did good.
Rod Stewart. After 1981, he didn't make good albums anymore despite many hit singles.
>>64539562
70s Billy Joel=lounge lizard piano
80s Billy Joel=pop icon
His 80s material tended to tamp down the New Yorker/Northeastern stuff a bit to become more marketable to a wide audience.
David Coverdale. 8-)
ZZ Top partially because they were one of the first bands to catch onto MTV.
>>64539760
They were also pretty brave to stick with their blues rock sound since that was pretty uncool in the 80s.
>>64539841
I know, le shredder funny hairspray man guitar.
>>64539992
All the same there were plenty of good ol' boys in the American heartland who related more to ZZ Top and Stevie Ray Vaughn than Van Halen.
>>64537274
15%
>>64540099
I agree. It's the same as the 90s. Trust me, the Seattle sound was far from universally loved and there were lots of unhappy people who felt robbed that their Motley Crue/AC/DC party rock had been taken away from them and they were forced to watch music videos of some junkie whining how bad he smells.
I'm going to sound like a generic stuck up boomer but generally speaking it seems that most of the artists after the initial rock wave were a lot more one note than the initial rock wave itself.
>>64540631
You saying that like, Metallica didn't have the wide variety of sounds that the Rolling Stones or Zeppelin did.
>>64540728
Exactly that. Those eclectic mixes of sounds you saw 60s-70s bands do wasn't there anymore by the 80s.
>>64540728
If I didn't know they were by The Who I never would've guessed My Generation and Baba O'Riley were by the same band. The Times They Are A-Changin' and Lay Lady Lay don't even sound like the same artist.
>>64538799
yeah, the Grateful Dead hit their commercial peak in 1987-89ish dude
>>64540919
I've theorized that that's because the boomers were the last generation to have a close personal connection to America's pre-WWII roots/folk music traditions. Many of those guys were still alive and performing in the 60s but by the 80s had mostly all died off.
British groups of course had their own native folk/trad music (which factors quite prominently in 70s prog) but post-WWII technological advances also brought them into contact with American roots music.
>>64540991
My Generation and Baba O'Riley came out 6 years apart and are very much in line with the trends of their times, same with the Dylan songs even though they only came out 4 years apart
>>64541067
Yeah, but the start and middle of the 80s didn't treat them kindly. We're talking about artists who survived for the most intact throughout.
A lot of artists who hit lowpoints had comebacks in the late 80s, actually.
>>64541142
yeah, i gotcha. although to be fair, that early '80s shit is mostly due to internal band issues. but i see ur point
>>64541140
The fact that the trends were changing doesn't make the point that 60s and 70s artists changed their sound a lot more than 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s artists. The Cure and The Smiths never had changes in their sounds that drastic, just for example.
>>64541140
He means the sound of them is different enough that you'd have a hard time telling it's by the same band whereas AC/DC, Motley Crue, and Metallica songs have a high degree of uniformity to them. The sound of them varies very little from album to album while the Rolling Stones could sound considerably different on each record.
literally who?
>>64541248
orrible
>>64541225
For example, Between The Buttons, Sticky Fingers, and Emotional Rescue all sound very different from each other and individual tracks often vary widely as well.
If you listen to all nine Metallica records, none of them vary much, if at all from "crunchy E-minor riffs and pissed off angry metalhead man" songwriting.
>>64541183
The Smiths released all of their music in the span of like 3 years, dude. The Cure have variety, compare Just Like Heaven to Faith, for instance.
Does Funeral sound like Reflektor? Does Lonesome Crowded West sound like Good News For People Who Love Bad News? In a lot of ways they do, but they're different in just as many ways. The same is the case with the songs you listed -- what really makes Lay Lady Lay drastically different than The Times etc?
I do think MTV was at least partially responsible for bands having a cleaner, more uniform sound. This was also reflected in live performances where by the 80s it became more commonplace to play songs like the record instead of improvisation.
>>64541426
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I just finished listening to a track of Funeral and Reflektor and stand by the statement that rock bands generally don't change styles (or maybe it'd be more apt to say trends don't change as drastically) like they did in the 60s and 70s. The vocals weren't as drastically different as they were in the four songs I mentioned and the general feeling of the Arcade Fire songs were still the same. Still very dance-able, still very party-ish type song, etc. (The songs I listened to were Rebellion (Lies) and Reflektor in case you're wondering). My Generation was an ode to teenage rebellion and probably the only one of the four songs I mentioned that was really meant for a dance audience and has a very rock and roll/protopunk flavor, whereas Baba O'Riley has very operatic vocals and instrumentals and has far more of an "epic" feel. The Times They Are and LLL pretty much only have Dylan and guitars in common. The subject matter and overall feel of the songs are entirely different and for the most part the instrumentals are completely different in the atmosphere they produce.
And the two Cure songs still have that signature bass style and Smith's vocal styles aren't different...like at all on those songs, at least don't nearly as much as Roger Daltrey's and Dylan's were on the four songs I mentioned. Yes, there were differences in the examples you gave but I stand by my statement that they weren't nearly as drastic.
idk, maybe I have a bias I haven't noticed until now
>>64538536
Rush did pretty solid in the 80's. That's when they released Moving Pictures. Then a few poppy synth albums and only have been relevant recently due to all the pop culture references and recent documentary
>>64539085
Journey's first album is a solid prog album. Seriously, nobody's listened to it but Steve Perry killed that band.
I'll never forgive the 80s for killing all the prog bands
can I stream this to my Pono?
