It could be interesting, but only time will tell. Rock
documentaries aren't always as good as we'd like them to
be. I don't need two hours of concert footage. I need
historical or background info on the man. A man with this
much history has to have stories to tell. If he's going
to offer himself up to the cameras, don't give us the old "my personal life is off limits" business. Now here is where I cut my own throat, but bear with me.
I am not slamming Neil Young. I have all the Buffalo
Springfield stuff, two CSNY recordings along with the
Stills-Young Band record, so I am a bit of a fan. My
question is if we hadn't gotten to know Neil thru his
early work with those bands, would he be anywhere near as
popular as he is. He's got a horrendous singing voice that
has not gotten better with age, it's gotten worse. Of course
he's not the only one, consider Dylan, John Prine or even
John Fogarty (who sometimes sounds like a cat's being strangled"). I guess I like to think us baby-boomers prefer
substance to style (and I'll gladly take the above mentioned
artists over the over-the-top vocal gymnastics of groups
like Boys to Men or any number of current female singers),
and that's why we've made these guys multi-millionaires. Can you imagine any of those guys going to Capital, RCA or
Columbia in the forties or fifties and trying to get a
recording contract alongside Sinatra, Martin, Perry Como and
Nat King Cole? Anyway, hold the hate mail. I was just curious. |
