Greendale

Anyone else make the trek out to Columbia last night to see Neil Young and Crazy Horse perform Neil's latest project "Greendale"? Called a "musical novel" Greendale which Neil staged by having onstage actors playing the characters in his songs. Had it been almost anyone else the staging of Greendale could have been a bit pretentious, but Neil has that air of being a regular down to earth guy. It was folksy a bit like a rock and roll version of "News from Lake Wobegon". Looking forward to the release of "Greendale" later this fall.

Kosmette went along in part to hear Lucinda Williams an artist she really enjoys. I ended being converted and will definitely want to see her headline sometime. Anyone who uses Paul Westerburg as a song insipiration is alright by me.

Ticket sidebar… My tickets which were once thought to be in the pit even though they were located in the left loge. Ended up being the first row of the loge, and while great seats for seeing the bands not so hot for seeing the all the action in the Greendale performance.

I went to the Neil show last night and came away disappointed. Had I known this was the show we were going to get, there's no way I would have plunked down ~$90/ticket (including service charges). It wasn't bad, but the novelty of the stage show wore thin after about an hour. The highlights for me were the acoustic song, the song on the organ and the rockin' last tune of the main set. All in all - I was hoping Crazy Horse would have rocked a little harder. It was just kind of dull.

And, of course, the encore was terrific, but it was also a little annoying. It was almost like he was saying "This is the show you could have had."

"They give you this, but you paid for that." Indeed.

Well this sounds like a bummer. We're going to his show in upstate NY on July 4.

So how much older material did they actually play? And what songs?

I used to be much more of a Lucinda fan. Haven't cared too much for the last two albums. I've seen her at least a half dozen times in the last 10+ years…though I always found her to be better on record than live.

I rather enjoyed the new material which could some of the songs could have been trimmed a little. the last song "Bring the rain" with all the students dancing on stage was a bit to up with people for me. the Greendale stuff is mellow in comparsion to his usual Crazy Horse material. But then again "Silver & Gold" was mellow as well.

The old songs played in the encores where

Hey Hey My My (Into The Black)
Powderfinger
(one i don't know the title too)

And a snarling version of Rocking in the free world. I hate how it a became a post 9/11 anthem because of the chorus, when it's actually a commentary on the seedy side of American life.

checkout http://www.hyperrust.org/Tour2003/ for other show setlists

Originally posted by kosmo:
Anyone else make the trek out to Columbia last night to see Neil Young and Crazy Horse perform Neil's latest project "Greendale"?

I posted a live show of this tour about a week ago on here and got exactly no response.Before forking over that much cash,you might want to listen to what your in store for.Look for it in the archives.

their other song was "prisoners of rock and roll"… and isn't the live show on the internet just the acoustic sans crazy horse version?

Originally posted by kosmo:
their other song was "prisoners of rock and roll"… and isn't the live show on the internet just the acoustic sans crazy horse version?

Yes,but I think the setlist is about the same,from what I understand.

Those were students, eh? They looked like Abercrombie and Fitch models to me.

I'm glad I went but I'd have to agree that it was disappointing. I guess when you're Neil Young you can do whatever you want.

I was there and thought it was a really good show. Definitely unique and a totally cool production. Sounds like I'm in the minority though. I can't wait for the album to come out so I can dig into the story more. If you were looking for Neil's greatest hits, you were SOL.

"For me, it's about the chance to be new, rather than a big celebration of me, which we had to avoid at all costs," he says of his decision to play nearly two hours of new material before his audience gets its nostalgic itch scratched for oldies such as "Old Man" and "After the Goldrush." "I don't believe in just doing my hits, because you can only do that so many times, and then you just repeat yourself. At this stage in my career, that would be the kiss of death. You might as well go to Vegas and just collect. I don't want to do that yet, and hopefully I can avoid doing that for a long time."

From this article

Originally posted by emmy:
Those were students, eh? They looked like Abercrombie and Fitch models to me.

I'm glad I went but I'd have to agree that it was disappointing. I guess when you're Neil Young you can do whatever you want.

i'm figuring a majority of the young extras were either local high school or college students hired to perform. possible via the performing acts departments. it would be expensive to bring them all long for the entire tour.

neilyoung.com has most of the info one would need about the greendale record/dvd. it has a map of the town, family tree, neil's in between song narrative and the script.

Yes, but why not do this sort of thing in a theater rather than in front of 20,000 people? Or bill it for what it is, not as a Neil Young concert.

it is a neil young concert, it's just he decided to instead of just doing the greendale album with just crazy horse as his backup. to bring the "musical novel" alive. i was a bit sketical when i found out what he was doing, but as one reviewer pointed it's still crazy horse so you can get off on the music.

unlike the glass spider tour fiasco david bowie did way back… which was horrid, this actually was a great way to present an album and concept.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Yes, but why not do this sort of thing in a theater rather than in front of 20,000 people? Or bill it for what it is, not as a Neil Young concert.

My guess, Neil gets more money this way.

1. It's his bill, hence most of the profits.

2. More seats resulting in many more dollars.

I've heard he's a major control freak and that his farm is almost cult-like with his followers; I mean his fans; living, working and worshipping there.

Yes, but the point is balance. Most artists strike a balance between their new stuff and their old stuff.

With newer acts, you might get quite a bit more new stuff, especially if they only have a couple of albums.

With the rock legends, you usually get mostly old stuff, with some new stuff thrown in to (hopefully) show that the artist is still relevant.

For a rock legend to do all new unreleased material and then tack on a few of the classics at the end strikes me as reeking of self-indulgent asshole-ism.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:

For a rock legend to do all new unreleased material and then tack on a few of the classics at the end strikes me as reeking of self-indulgent asshole-ism.

either that or they are just so conceited that they think their new material is so good that the old material is obsolete. But I guess if you are a legend its pretty easy to get out of touch with reality and what fans want.

But its hard to draw the line as REM look sad and desperate doing their greatest hits tour….

Cinerama did well 3 new songs 3 wedding present songs (from the 80's). About 5 songs from last years album and about 3 from the one before that.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:

For a rock legend to do all new unreleased material and then tack on a few of the classics at the end strikes me as reeking of self-indulgent asshole-ism.

i don't know all the details, but the release date of the greendale cd/dvd has become later and later.

what difference is it anyways whether or not the material is has been released or not… those jimmy buffet fans showing up at a neil young concert wouldn't have bought the new record anyways and wouldn't have appreciated it released or unreleased. the neil young fans sure seem to appreciate the show.

Originally posted by Jaguär:
\My guess, Neil gets more money this way.

1. It's his bill, hence most of the profits.

2. More seats resulting in many more dollars.

I've heard he's a major control freak and that his farm is almost cult-like with his followers; I mean his fans; living, working and worshipping there. [/QB]

well the same could be said for Radiohead, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, etc etc etc

Perhaps I'm prejudging the show without having gone to it yet, but as a longtime Neil Young fan…I'd be happy to hear 30-40 mins of his new stuff mixed into a 2-2.5 hour show. I would welcome it with open arms. Sure, he's had high and low points in his career, but he managed to make great albums in the 70's and 90's, and even one in the 80's….So it's not that his new music would be irrelevant.

But the fact remains that he has a long storied career and I want a balance of materials from various parts.

Originally posted by kosmo:

Originally posted by Jaguär:
\My guess, Neil gets more money this way.

1. It's his bill, hence most of the profits.

2. More seats resulting in many more dollars.

I've heard he's a major control freak and that his farm is almost cult-like with his followers; I mean his fans; living, working and worshipping there.

well the same could be said for Radiohead, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, etc etc etc [/QB]

Yes but they aren't presenting a play of sorts, which is why, I'm assuming, Rhett asked his original question. I wasn't there so don't know for sure but it does sound like something that may have been more suited to a smaller setting.

Depends on the production. Some shows can shrink a venue and others can't.

i know what your saying… and had the new material sucked it would have been a crap show. many reviewers are calling this his best material in years. drive by trucker patterson hood is quoted as saying it's his favorite neil young record since "freedom". in all honest the dramatization of the songs does detracts from the experience, especially if one can't see the entire stage.