donjunio

amazing movie

straight among the recommendations, great blackdog

@azzo. I'm glad I'm not alone in my crusade...Forever Young! @bubi I couldn't tell you...keep up the wild downloading!

no problem for the harshness, everyone has their own style: I’ll keep my "redundant and snobbish." That said, I don't think I've filled the review with references to Sonic Youth: it’s just one, very subtle among other things. As for the album, I stand by everything I've written. Bye!

I fully endorse post #44 by azzo.

@Bubi. The comparison between Dylan and Young was functional to the discussion about Stills. Like it or not, Young is considered on par with Dylan by many critics today, both for absolute value and for the influence he has exerted. Therefore, it is inevitable that his present-day charisma, especially strengthened in the 90s when the champions of noise, grunge, alt-country, and many other genres recognized him as an inspiration (not to mention his artistic rebirth during the same period), has overshadowed an author like Stills who, in the last thirty years, has stood out only for the melancholic reunions with Crosby and Nash (occasionally also Neil). You’re preaching to the choir here because I love Stephen as well, and in the reviews I’ve written about Buffalo Springfield, I didn't hesitate to call him the leader of that inimitable band. I fully support the debaserian campaign "More space for Stills!". The point in your comment when you state that Stephen "burned more briefly but more intensely" compared to Neil (wonderful hidden quote from Neil himself.....), even though in that decade Neil’s artistic flame burned just as intensely, at least as much as it warmed. Anyway, in a hypothetical Dylan-Young duel, Neil wins for me, but I’m tremendously biased..... @mien_ The roots vein is practically inexhaustible, and I believe it is still fairly well represented on debaser. The same can’t be said for other genres. I'll name three that are completely absent from these pages: John Barry, Phil Spector, and Bo Diddley. Let’s hope someone remedies that soon!

I preferred ro-ro-ro-ro rocky joe....

I had "booked" the review on Manassas; as soon as bronchitis grants me a reprieve, I plan to finish it, always assuming someone doesn't beat me to it... The anecdote about "Déja vu" is authentic; after all, it's well known that Stills and Nash were the musical souls of the supergroup. Crosby was the mystical, lysergic guru while Neil, well, notoriously didn't get too involved, adding at most some compositional value... what a crazy horse he would have been otherwise? However, a clarification must be made regarding critical consideration. Today, Young is regarded as the best of the three due to what has emerged over time, but back then it wasn't the case at all. Just to mention a couple, "After the Gold Rush" was panned by the then-influential Rolling Stone magazine, while the official scribes massacred it after jumping ship from "Harvest." Among the Buffalo Springfield, Stills was considered the driving force, and even in CSNY, Neil did not enjoy the same regard as the other two. But, as they say, time is a gentleman, even though the charisma and greatness of a Young who competes with Dylan for the highest spot on the podium have today undeservingly overshadowed Stills' fame in their joint experiences. By the way, among the highlights of Stephen's career, the reviewer should have mentioned the epoch-making "Rock and Roll Woman"!

you provided a perfect overview of Stephen Stills, well done... I think the album hovers between 3 and 4 stars.

Wow, nibilo... this is telepathy!