Comment of the Moment: Americana by Neil Young & Crazy Horse
As we indicated yesterday, quite a bit of discussion surrounding the themes and interpretations of the upcoming album Americana.
Here is the Comment of the Moment on More Developments on New Album Americana by Neil Young & Crazy Horse by Greg "A Friend Of Yours":
I've studied mostly the big points of history, the back story behind the various versions of these songs, but never understood the songs beyond their surface interpretations. Truthfully, I don't even know most of these songs, and was relying on the liner notes, and Neil being Neil.
Thos makes a very good point when he says: "music takes on a life of its own, often at odds with its author's original intentions, and it is unfair to judge a singer covering a song today because of what that song meant to someone in the past, or because of the kind of person who wrote it." However, Mother Nature on the Run makes the perfect rejoinder with: when a major recording artist is compiling an album reflecting upon the significance of Americana music, I expect that the liner notes should at least be truthful about the songs origin." This is a legitimate point, and I agree with it.
This makes the whole subject of Americana that much more interesting, and makes me ask myself the questions that have gone unasked in all this discussion: why did Neil make this album in the first place? What is his intent? Some more questions are: is Neil aware of the original song lyrics? Did he simply set out to give a fresh treatment to songs he holds dear, that bring him back full circle to his early days in Canada and with the Squires? Or is he trying to make a larger point? Does he feel that he is just making a contribution to keeping the songs alive, with the added dynamic of taking his turn adding another turn of the screw to an ongoing fish story, in the tradition of folk music? There must be a lot more questions I'm not thinking about right now besides.
I think it is controversial, and worth raising objections, but assuming that Neil is in fact aware of the first origins of these songs, I think it is his prerogative as an artist to put it out there the way he sees it, although I agree with Mother Nature on the Run that at least a few explanatory lines would be both wise and fair.
In the light of all this, I hope Neil does some extended interviews exploring his understanding of the songs, and why he chose to treat them the way he did. And I hope he will share his perspective if he too comes to find that he was not aware of the songs true origins. This is as fascinating a subject as I can remember surrounding any of Neil’s albums, and maybe even more so. I hope this discussion doesn't end here on TW, but that we hear much more along these lines. I know I for one will never hear Oh Susanna quite the same way ever again. THANK you, MNOTR.
A Friend Of Yours
Thanks A Friend Of Yours, This, MNOTR and everyone else who jumped in the fray.
Americana promises to make for interesting listening -- at the least.
by thrasher@PermaLink: 3/29/2012 07:51:00 AM
25 comments
>> Pre-Order on Amazon.com << 
Human Highway
Concert Review of the Moment
This Land is My Land
FREEDOM In A New Year
*Thanks Neil!*
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.thrasherswheat.org/gifs/free-speech.gif)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Neil Young
Pardon My Heart
"We're The Ones 
Thanks for Supporting Thrasher's Wheat!
This blog 
(... he didn't kill himself either...)
#AaronDidntKillHimself
Neil Young's Moon Songs
Civic Duty Is Not Terrorism
Orwell (and Grandpa) Was Right
What's So Funny About 
25 Comments:
Why do I get the sense that Neil Young is being put to some vague ideological litmus test about his understanding of the meanings of these songs, as well as about his intentions in reworking them? He must be held responsible and answer questions; only then will "Americana" be deemed acceptable or not.
The simple answer to Greg's questions is, "Yes, all of the above." Neil Young's ways and methods are predictably paradoxical, unpredictable and usually teeming with contradictory impulses. As an American, Jimi Hendrix presented the "Star Spangled Banner" in such a paradoxical way. He turned an iconic patriotic tune into a deeper and richer evocation of a yearning that was beyond knee jerk nationalism, while at the same time being an indictment of the horrendous results that such nationalism can produce.
I don't know what NY's treatment of "GSTQ" will be. I know the lyrics and that they represent a nationalist gloss on empire. I also know that the musical structure is antique and has roots further back than the 18th century song. I also know that, just on a simple level, both it and "The Star Spangled Banner" are evocative of one's youth in what memory shapes as a simpler and more innocent time.
So fascinating to see all the reaction when we haven't heard the MUSIC yet. The music is all that matters.
Politics? Yeah, politics and music interact. But I never take my political views from my music any more than I take my musical tastes from politicians. Nixon's was a better piano player than Clinton was a sax player. So what?
In general (and yes, there are many exceptions) the more political music gets, the less interesting it is. Political music simplifies complex issues and makes them rhyme. I love music to be more personal and passionate (and yes, political music can be personal and passionate, like Ohio, which is when it works).
Give me the passion of Tonight's the Night over the mechanical politics of Living With War any day. Music can touch on the political, and do so successfully. But it does so at the great risk of being boring and pedantic. If the SONGS work, that is all that matters.
Neil is doing a set of songs here that reflect a place and time in English language folk music. What if some of the songs are from one side of the great divide and some are from the other? Who cares? If Neil can somehow make a version of God Save the Queen that works, God bless him. I want to hear the music. Political fights come and go. Great music is timeless.
First listen comments from Uncut:
http://www.uncut.co.uk/blog/wild-mercury-sound/neil-young-crazy-horses-americana-first-listen
I'm reacting to the insensitivity of the cover art and superficiality of the liner notes which really has nothing to do with the quality of the music.
Americana in the folk music tradition is an oral history of the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of Americans.
How is it that Gallows Pole, which comes out of the Old English-Middle Ages tradition, find its way into the Americana tradition of folk music? How is it that "Oh Susanna" outlived the bigotry and white supremacy from which she was conceived?
Good post, Greg. Thoughtful, intelligent. Thanks.
My one big question on this, though, is, and I don't mean to insult the thoughtful folks among us like Greg, MNOTR, etc... but... really, who cares?
Is it really Neil's, or any artist's "responsibility" to either the song, history or the music fan, to adhere to or at least reference or explain the original purpose of a piece of music, and the political, social or spiritual climate of its time, in some way, so that the authenticity and history of something isn't lost or disrespected?
Does he owe it to the song, the song's author or the music fan to prostrate himself before the energy that created that piece of music and deliver it into the 21st century in a way that retains, and even helps to convey or preserve a clear idea of the song and its history? Or, more importantly, to not undermine reality or contribute to confusing, or even rewriting, history?
This is definitely a very important topic, and I feel strongly about retaining the purity of historical accounting, but I would argue "no" to the question of Neil's responsibility as an artist toward either some kind of historical or social accuracy, or toward supporting a certain political identification, or simply toward NOT doing something that could be perceived as insulting to those of us with touchy emotional triggers about American Indians, the dark history of Colonial America, or the authenticity of music history.
Why?
Because that is the job of historians. It is the job of artists to paint the sky with beauty, not to write history books.
They are free to be as accurate as they wish, should they desire to do so, or feel a sense of personal responsibility, but they should not be required to do so.
Neil has already explored American History many times in his songs, and has as much (ore moreso) converted it into dreams that reflect his own inner reality as address the significance of the topic's outer significance.
Take Pocahontas, my favorite Neil Young song. A deeply touching, overflowing statement about reducing the living, flowing passions of a thriving culture into a dusty historical relic admired by the very people who destroyed that culture.
It's so beautiful, haunting, thoughtful, everything that makes a passionate song something to revere. But is it a historical document, or a voyage through the soul of Neil Young himself, and his own internal contradictions, feelings of loss and yearning, a sort of poetic emoting from the past that he's channeling through the paint brush of his own inner being, that emerges in a wholly unique form from being filtered through him?
Or Peaceful Valley Boulevard. A very similar lament to Pocahontas, but much broader in context, that explores the relationships between scenes of early American settlers, this time being attacked and massacred by Indians, and how the brutality of ignorance, selfishness and fear have translated from one time period to another. From the peaceful valley to Peaceful Valley Boulevard, again crass American materialism sucking the life out of something beautiful and natural and turning it into something lifeless, meaningless and culturally or spiritually dead.
But are either of these songs really "accurate" in some important historical sense? Certainly they make references to terrible things that happened, in a general way, in the history of early America, and convey very poignantly the sense of hopelessness as industry and materialism annihilate the beauty of the world, which is all very important and meaningful...
...but are not both of these songs simply avenues for Neil to explore the confused and intense feelings inside himself, and in essence capture and discuss the commonality of these feelings in a more universal way that speaks to the human condition itself?
In the end, does it have to be pedantically accurate, or contain a specific accounting of history that is responsible in the way a history book should be (should be) responsible, or should it be a free-flowing statement of art that cries out from the soul of humanity, and is evocative, and causes people to feel and explore their own intense emotions and internalized confusion about life??
No, and yes. Neil has played around with history before, and used it in a way that furthers the latter process.
So why does altering a photograph constitute some kind of slap-in-the-face to history when it is not a historical accounting, but an artistic statement?
Why is accurately and clearly explaining a song's origination necessary?
None of the inaccuracies or alterations that Neil either willfully chooses to do, or simply accidentally does out of his own ignorance, are important to the artistic explorations themselves.
Altering things is as much a part of art as anything else, and in fact, throughout history, art has served as a vehicle for re-imagining things. And while the artist has every right to be as accurate as he or she wants, the very nature of artistic license makes it unnecessary to do so.
It's just not the purpose or responsibility of art, and in fact, if we perceived art to have that kind of responsibility, it would serve only to undermine the very free-flowing expressions and nature of art itself.
That said, is it really necessary for an artist like Neil to cater to everyone’s sensitivities? Altering a historical photograph is an artistic statement, not a historical statement. Is it necessary for an artist to say, “This is Americana and that is not Americana” in some sort of agreed-upon way because of some kind of universal social agreement that we have? Neil is not a historian. If he says God Save the Queen and Gallows Pole are going to appear on his “Americana” album, then well, dammit, that’s what he’s gonna do. It doesn’t invalidate the record, the music, or anything he’s doing. At all.
And as far as bigotry goes, I think we can all pretty much see the reality that Oh Susanna is always going to exist. It is a part of the lexicon of music from which America was born. I’m not sure whether Neil has altered the lyrics or something, or simply left in the racist overtones, or what. But it’s his right. Neil does not have to answer to anyone else’s sensitivities, and that’s not only his right as an artist, but it’s absolutely necessary. If Neil gave in to everyone’s sensitivities throughout his career, would half of his music even exist, and would the other half be nearly as good?
Getting offended at Neil Young is a laughable, ridiculous thing to do. Any Neil Young fan should know by now that Neil’s art, as well as his ACTIONS, ARE sometimes offensive to peoples’ sensibilities, but that they are obviously necessary in order for his art to retain its biting, courageous spirit and authenticity.
I don't know if it's possible to listen to Americana folk music without considering the meaning or origins. For Neil fans, I imagine this will be a challenge because so many are drawn to the sounds he makes on the guitar and not to the meaning of the song.
It really is unfortunate that one cares that many of these folk songs actually open a door into a past for which many are still in denial -- a time when we had our own brand of "racism" and "bigotry" that delayed the economic mobility of millions of Americans.
But we have to remember that the very nature of most folk music is "political." Folk music is a reaction and response to events in the lives of everyday people.
I don't think we can allow anyone to sing Hattie Carroll as "just a song."
So Mother Nature, are you saying that Neil is somehow fueling this denial?
Personally, I'm well aware of the bigotry and racism that has permeated our culture, and continues to do so.
I don't think that Neil resurrecting a song like Oh Susanna is going to have some kind of negative effect on the psyche of America (or the world) (unless I'm totally misinterpreting what you're saying).
The streak of racism throughout Americana / early folk music is in itself a historical document. Should we forget, or remember? Should we pay homage to reality, or shape reality into an artistic expression?
I also don't see how the cover art is insensitive. Trust me, I'm totally on the side of the Native Americans vs. the Colonial Oppressors, but I don't see how artistic reimaginings of historical documents, particularly in the way Neil and CH have done it (replacing the figures in the original with their own images, which conveys the simple message of "Neil Young and Crazy Horse Re-Imagine American Music History in their Own Likeness").
Just not seein' it. I dunno. Maybe I'm too much a victim of my own white, male privilege to really see the damage this kind of thing does. Seriously.
Also, lest we forget... Neil has made a career out of bouts of irreverence. Expecting him to suddenly turn around and express reverence is a self-defeating expectation.
Nope. Not at all. It's clear
he's singing the songs purely for enjoyment of singing songs and wants no ownership or responsibility outside of just singing the song.
On the other hand, he is missing an opportunity to tell people in his liner notes that Stephen Foster's "Oh Susanna" is like a rosetta stone for the popular Americana culture that dehumanized blacks.
About the photograph -- photojournalism for me is an art form. I respect the power that photojournalism has in capturing the human spirit -- the light-hearted side of people.
Come on MONOTR, just singing a song won't change the world!
Remember the old folkie days of Living With War:
"Written and recorded in just nine days and sounding like the tracks were done in one take and the CD artwork is virtually non-existent. Frustrated at the unwillingness of any younger generation of musicians of any genre of music, Young figured out it was up to himself".
Photojournalism is an art form? Photojournalism never will become a piece of art. Neil's music is a piece of art. He's one of the best artist ever.
In a nutshell, his liner notes avoid the controversy that define many of the songs as "Americana."
However, liner notes don't effect the quality of the music. People don't buy the music because of the liner notes, right?
You don't think Annie Leibovitz's photojournalism is art? Have you seen the photograph she did of Willie Nelson?
Annie Leibovitz is a very good photographer. No doubt. Her pictures intend to be art according to the definition of art which we are familiar with. We all know what art looks like and her pictures, no matter how good they are, try to please us according to that knowledge. When old Neil was young he wanted to be a rock star. Soon he became an original and genuine artist. That's true rock 'n' roll from the heart. And that's why I think he is an artist.
Does no one else think that by replacing the faces on the photograph with that of themselves, that the band are identifying with the Native Americans? Like those cardboard cut outs you could stick your head into so it was like you were Batman or whatever as a child. It looks like hero worship to me rather than insensitivity.
Well only if you consider native americans as one big giant "race" like the way we kerplunk Japanese, Chinese, Koreans into one giant racial group called the "Asians."
BTW, Geronimo and Crazy Horse were two very different people who spoke very different languages and had very different customs.
IF I understand correctly MNOTR feels that OH SUSANNA has no place in American culture in 2012...As far as *I* can see racism and bigotry are alive and well in this country in 2012...
I didn't understand one of the main distinctions being drawn here until MNOTR posted this on another thread:
"... "Oh Susanna" was initially a hateful white supremist song. Omitted from the song is this stanza which was performed in blackface mocking African-American slave history:
"Jump'd aboard the telegraph and trabbled down de ribber,
De lectrick fluid magnified, and kill'd five hundred Nigga.
De bulgine bust and de hoss ran off, I really thought I'd die;
I shut my eyes to hold my bref--Susanna don't you cry."
We re-write our Americana the same way - we omit or exclude what doesn't serve our purpose and move on."
A Friend Of Yours
Wow, some really thoughtful comments here, starting with Zuma Band’s leeriness over the possibility that Neil is being held to some “vague ideological litmus test about his understanding of the meanings of these songs, as well as about his intentions in reworking them? He must be held responsible and answer questions; only then will "Americana" be deemed acceptable or not.” I personally am not making any demand in terms of ideology. I think Neil’s iconoclastic sensibilities are fairly well known, and in no danger of misinterpretation. Likewise, Raincheck says “I never take my political views from my music any more than I take my musical tastes from politicians. Music can touch on the political, and do so successfully. …But it does so at the great risk of being boring and pedantic. If the SONGS work, that is all that matters.” Matt sums it up this way: “I would argue "no" to the question of Neil's responsibility as an artist toward either some kind of historical or social accuracy, or toward supporting a certain political identification, or simply toward NOT doing something that could be perceived as insulting to those of us with touchy emotional triggers …”
Matt then starts to narrow down to the heart of the matter, which I take the point of on the one hand, but disagree with on the other:
“Is it really Neil's, or any artist's "responsibility" to either the song, history or the music fan, to adhere to or at least reference or explain the original purpose of a piece of music, and the political, social or spiritual climate of its time, in some way, so that the authenticity and history of something isn't lost or disrespected?
Does he owe it to the song, the song's author or the music fan to prostrate himself before the energy that created that piece of music and deliver it into the 21st century in a way that retains, and even helps to convey or preserve a clear idea of the song and its history? Or, more importantly, to not undermine reality or contribute to confusing, or even rewriting, history?
Why?
Because that is the job of historians. It is the job of artists to paint the sky with beauty, not to write history books.”
Where I disagree is that with the inclusion of liner notes, as well as the production of an entire concept album surrounding a body of folk tradition, or “Americana”, Neil takes momentary leave from a purely artistic effort, and enters the purview of the historian. But this is not something I would ever want to use to beat him over the head with, it’s just as I said, it would be both wise and fair to include a few lines drawing a distinction, where present, between the songs original meaning, and what it has come to mean in the retelling.
But quibbles aside, we’re talking about Neil here, and what I think he should or shouldn’t do in terms of justifying his artistic viewpoint is so much hot air. History is only peripheral to the music with Neil, and that is as it should be. Zuma Band said “Neil Young's ways and methods are predictably paradoxical, unpredictable and usually teeming with contradictory impulses”, and Matt continues the thought by saying that Neil “… has already explored American History many times in his songs…converted it into dreams that reflect his own inner reality as address the significance of the topic's outer significance…is it a historical document, or a voyage through the soul of Neil Young himself, and his own internal contradictions, feelings of loss and yearning, a sort of poetic emoting from the past that he's channeling through the paint brush of his own inner being, that emerges in a wholly unique form from being filtered through him?”
Using the examples of Pocohontas and Peaceful Valley Boulevard, Matt puts it this way:
“But are either of these songs really "accurate" in some important historical sense? Certainly they make references to terrible things that happened, in a general way, in the history of early America, and convey very poignantly the sense of hopelessness as industry and materialism annihilate the beauty of the world, which is all very important and meaningful... but are not both of these songs simply avenues for Neil to explore the confused and intense feelings inside himself, and in essence capture and discuss the commonality of these feelings in a more universal way that speaks to the human condition itself?... In the end, does it have to be pedantically accurate, or contain a specific accounting of history that is responsible in the way a history book should be (should be) responsible, or should it be a free-flowing statement of art that cries out from the soul of humanity, and is evocative, and causes people to feel and explore their own intense emotions and internalized confusion about life?? Why is accurately and clearly explaining a song's origination necessary?... Altering things is as much a part of art as anything else, and in fact, throughout history, art has served as a vehicle for re-imagining things. .. That said, is it really necessary for an artist like Neil to cater to everyone’s sensitivities? Altering a historical photograph is an artistic statement, not a historical statement…”
As far as the album cover photo goes, I agree with John: “Does no one else think that by replacing the faces on the photograph with that of themselves, that the band are identifying with the Native Americans?” Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to hear Neil expand on the subject, tho.
MNOTR again makes the point, tho: “I don't know if it's possible to listen to Americana folk music without considering the meaning or origins… It really is unfortunate that one cares that many of these folk songs actually open a door into a past for which many are still in denial -- a time when we had our own brand of "racism" and "bigotry" that delayed the economic mobility of millions of Americans. But we have to remember that the very nature of most folk music is "political." Folk music is a reaction and response to events in the lives of everyday people.”
I take MNOTR’s point here, but in general I side with Matt when he says “Personally, I'm well aware of the bigotry and racism that has permeated our culture, and continues to do so.” I think most people are aware, Neil included, so I don’t think that every historical allusion needs to be accompanied the self evident truth of America’s exploitative past, both in its official capacity, as well as the cultural and personal character of its people. Still, what would it hurt to expand the liner notes to give the songs a more complete historical basis?
Great stuff, but I can’t wait to (he said with tongue planted firmly in cheek) actually hear the album…
A Friend Of Yours
Wow, Greg, you & Matt just rocked my world a little bit today with your insightful thoughts and observations.
Going back to John's question, I always wondered what is left of the American indigenous culture to worship or respect? Hasn't it been mostly obliterated or diluted to suit the white culture for their entertainment? Isn't most of what we believe about the indigenous culture based on earlier "one size fits all racial stereotypes?"
Fine, if that is the case then it's tragic. But nothing Neil Young can do will undo that, you are asking for something that cannot be done. It is possible for someone British to sing an old folk song from India without having to mention that, for a while in the past, India was a part of the British Empire, and that in some areas of their rule they were less than perfect. (for example)
Art now needn't reflect a past for which the artists are not to blame. I cannot and should not be made to feel guilty for crimes of the past, and nor should Neil Young.
Thos
No one can "undo" the past. This isn't about "undoing" the past.
Yes, while the British Raj did exploit Indians, they did not succeed in the snuffing them out like a lighted cigarette. The Indians won their independence I understand. Chapter closed and one less sunset that hasn't set over Empire in years unless of course your country is oursourcing, too.
The difference is that when you dilute the "folk" out of the folk song," it loses it's significance as an "Folk" song from the Americana tradition.
This about giving real dignity through historical accuracy. Picasso's "Guernica" wasn't exactly historically accurate but we got the message anyway. And Matt, artists have the responsibility to be truthful -- not lie -- when they are painting or sculpting something inspired by history. The Burghers of Calais say it all, don't you think? Oh, is that not art because it actually says something about to the victors go the spoils? I'm confused.
Artists can do whatever they want. Joni painted herself as Van Gogh I suppose because she identified with him as artist. Maybe she even liked his work. Who knows? The difference is that because his art work and style is world reknown, people know right away, "Ah, that's Joni's vace over Van Gogh."
No one knows that's Geronimo, a fricken famous guy from our American history in a most endearing pose out with his friends. Yes, he did assimilate. He liked American gambling & drinking and living at both ends of the poles. Only at his death did a have regrets.
Is this Geronimo before he left for the Worlds Fair where he met other indigenous Americans for the first time? Or is this Geronimo before he was kicked out of Christianity because he liked gambling?
In any case, no one cares because we're okay with out diluted racial stereotypes of indigenous Americans. We'd rather see them in feathers because it restores the dignity they once owned before we wiped them out leaving them nothing more than a footnote in history books. Historians haven't been at all cooperative here, either. We can't rely on them to do much of anything except be "politically correct" instead of telling it like it was. Artists were actually the one group of people who preserved the real history that the victors left out.
We also use to rely "once upon a time" on the folk traditions but most of that is being diluted and whitewashed so no one is offended.
God save the Queen.
“…what is left of the American indigenous culture to worship or respect? Hasn't it been mostly obliterated or diluted to suit the white culture for their entertainment? Isn't most of what we believe about the indigenous culture based on earlier ‘one size fits all racial stereotypes?’”
Well, these are multi layered questions that require multi layered answers, but I think that like anything in life it’s a double edge sword. A “one size fits all racial stereotype” cuts both ways. Like all peoples, Native Americans were widely diverse and unique from each other, both geographically and culturally. Too often we “worship and respect” a wisdom and way of life that we attribute to Native American culture as a rule, without also acknowledging that conflict and subjugation existed there as well. I don’t know that indigenous cultures were obliterated for purposes of entertainment tho, so much as the white culture just wanted its own way to their detriment, to say the least. I think that many of us feel a “sense of hopelessness as industry and materialism annihilate the beauty of the world”, as Matt has said, such that at least as a metaphor we find ways to identify with the Native American experience. Please, of course very few of us have suffered the way the Indian has suffered, but everything really is relative, and there are those among us who have not ruled out the potential for a similar latter day effort on the part of the elite to revisit this past onto our future. Then we may all feel the full measure of identification with Native experience. Sorry, I probably shouldn’t say that out loud. Are Neil and CH identifying with Indian experience? Don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Have I mentioned that I sure would like to hear Neil’s thoughts on the subject of the cover art?
Thos, I agree with you for the most part. The only thing that we can be guilty about as a people is to ignore or excuse away the lessons of the past, and fail to utilize them in avoiding the same thing in the future. Art “needn’t reflect” the past, but it is one of many ways that we can, but even the attempt is dependent on the audience. Somehow we have to create the awareness in ourselves, and a discussion like this is a good start.
A Friend Of Yours
Post a Comment
<< Home