i dunno... that blt song is really just as boring and putrid and obvious as the neil young song... but neil young is neil young and blt is a sandwich... jesus christ... my mother thought of that name for a band back in the 70's... stood for bruce, lois and tom. icky. dr. blt... larf.

You obviously are not a Neil Young fan. Neil can play a couple of notes and we can tell it's "Old Neil". It't good to hear how the other side thinks though.

Zingzing, "BLT" are Bruce L Thiessen's initials.

Mr Biagini, I'm a part time Neil Young fan. Thirty years ago he made some outstanding records. Far be it from me to deny Harvest or Tonight's the Night.

Again though, I'm not picking as a representative "for the other side." My "side" in this debate is the cause of good music. Note that I am giving Neil a reasonably good review here- and if anything, I'm being a little generous.

i know. i just wouldn't go by my initials if they were blt. would you?

if your name was alan aaron schmidt, would you go by your initals? nope. what if your name was nathan adam-zachary ignacio?

OK Zing, but I bet you remember Dr BLT longer than you'd remember Bruce Thiessen.

AB,
I think your review is way off base and sounds very subjective based either on your political views or your hungering for BLT sandwiches. How in the world could you dare to review these two on the same page? BLT must pay his dues before he's mentioned on the same page as Neil Young. As far as Neil's record goes, I think it will go down as one of his greatest of all time. It's hard driving and angry and illustrates why this record had to be made and the times we are living. You make think the lyrics simple and a bit out of bounds, but quite frankly I think it's direct and refreshing and leaves nothing to the imaginatiion. The arrangement is beautiful and the rythmn is urgent and passionate. I don't know if you've ever taken a ride out in the country at midnight, but this record rings true anywhere, but at this time. Listen to this record after you've read the news on the Iraq war or a letter from a mother who's lost her son and tell me it doesn't pound home.
As far as Dr. BLT, no disrespect intended, but go pay somebody credible to write your bogus review next time, because anyone who has the nerve to mention you in the same review as Neil Young, just doesn't have any credibility with me.
Sell it somewhere else.

Martin, not to put too fine a point on it, but your comments are illegitimate. For starters, you're obviously the one judging stuff based on politics. I went to some effort to sort out the musical craft of both of these songs from my political beliefs.

Also, this "how dare you mention BLT in the same sentence with Neil Young" is absolute nonsense. You're purely arguing from Neil Young's supposed authority, without regard to what kind of records they've actually made. This record of BLT's is musically superior on pretty much every level to "Let's Impeach the President."

Worst of all, it sounds like you haven't actually listened to BLT's song to be making any judgment of it at all.

"Let's Impeach the President" has the strength of Neil's convictions, and I like some of that raw rock sound- but there's no way in hell that this will be regarded as one of his best songs a generation from now. There's just not enough song to it.

My objection to the lyrics isn't that they're simple, but that they're largely stupid and ridiculous. It's not that the song's "out of bounds" or goes too far- but that it's just dumber than shit, especially that baseball stuff.

I will, however, admit to liking a BLT sandwich- though I prefer to substitute spinach for lettuce.

I see you don't like Neil Young but how can anyone argue with anything he sings about on this CD?The Bush administration has got to be the most corrupt that this country has ever seen.How anyone that can think for themself's still support bush?Just renbember all you super moral people (NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!)

al, blt's song is really bad. it's poorly produced, repeditive, out of tune and worst of all, dull. i tried to listen to the whole thing, but after about 3 or 4 minutes of it, my head was starting to hurt and i had really stopped paying attention to the lyrics... toby keith writes better. ugh.

the neil young song may not be great. i haven't heard it. but crap is crap and blt's song is really, really crap. no offense to anyone associated with it. just a bad song.

Zing, I'm glad to see that you're talking about the actual song rather than the politics. However, I don't see how you get so negative a view based on the record.

It's not out of tune. I'm not saying that he's the greatest singer ever, but BLT is competent to carry a tune. Perhaps you're reacting to the flat affect of the composition of the vocal melody- the part that I'm likening to Midnight Oil.

Neil Young, on the other hand, does struggle somewhat trying to hit the intended notes in his song. He was never much of a vocalist, and age hasn't improved that.

"Repetitive" is, I suppose, an arguable point. Paul Simon talks in interviews about discussing the idea of repetition with Brian Eno while they were working on Surprise. How much repitition is good, and when does it become boring?

The bass part under BLT's song is perhaps repetitive, though I would describe it instead as "relentless" rather than simply repetitive. Mileage may vary, but there's enough other stuff going on melodically and lyrically on top of those basic guitars to more than justify them in my mind.

The whole song clocks in at 4:33, so it's not like it's drug out. There's no good reason based on the record for it to cause your head to hurt, but perhaps like Jethro Tull, you're too old to rock and roll. Perhaps you might prefer a nice Celine Dion record.

dude. blt is NOOOOOOOO brian eno. i'm a big fan of repetition when done correctly. like the fall. or faust.

too old to rock n roll? nah. you don't know me too well. i liiiiive to rock, if i must say so. blt's song is weak, and that's about as nice a thing as you can say. if that is rock, i'll go listen to some fucking squeeze. and i fucking hate fucking squeeze. i won't list off any artists that rock 1000 times better than this, because that would take the whole day and all of bc's bandwidth just to load it.

oh, that last one was me... zingzing... i was just fucking with someone over on the b5 post... i don't know why i do these things.

Well gee Zing, I won't feel so bad about you not liking BLT if Squeeze singing "Pulling Mussels from a Shell" or "Tempted" are considered not up to snuff.

AB,
I agree I AM judging based on politics as this is obviously what BOTH songs are about. Neil's whole album is a PROTEST album and it must be taken in that context. Your friend Dr. BST (spinach) wrote his silly song in response to Mr. Youngs. Therefore, we both (you and I) must listen to both of them in that context. Regardless, BLT is all fat and no meat and is trying to profit from taking an opposing view and on top of that his music sucks. I had my kids listen to this song and they all agreed that it blew. This Dr. BLT is a shameless promoter of himself and he's hired hacks like you to jump on his bandwagon and to create a stir by going against Neil Young. These transparent tactics of both of yours' is comparable to George Bush using a aircraft carrier to declare the end of military combat operations in Iraq. It's nothing more than a ploy to tug on the hearts of passionate people to benefit your own agenda. You and the Dr. should be ashamed.
PS: Impeach the President is not the best song on this album and it is an album.

Martin, you're factually wrong and malicious and hateful, among other things. For starters, I'm certainly not in any form being paid by BLT. He seems like a nice enough fellow, but I'm not particularly "friends" with him. I think we've had maybe two email exchanges, in which I asked permission to post his mp3 to my site and sent him the URL for my review.

Oh, and Neil Young isn't a cheesy publicity hog? You think he didn't contemplate and relish the publicity buzz for his waning career in writing a song called "Let's Impeach the President"? Why is it legitimate for Young to write about the president, but not legitimate for another musician to write about him?

Also, that IS the best song of the album, and the promoted single.

I suppose I could substitute the reported opinions on music of some liberal hacks' supposed children for my own, but that ain't happening, is it?

Also, you're taking a really stilted view based on politics. There's more to life than politics. If I want to go on about foreign policy and such (and I sometimes do) then that's what I'll write about.

But this story is about MUSIC, and I do separate out issues of songwriting and craft from how much I agree or disagree with someone's politics. That's not really all that difficult. They're completely different issues.

From anything I can tell in your remarks on this thread, you neither know nor care about MUSIC, which is the topic here. You're absolutely insistent on just hacking away with you leftwing conspiracy stuff to the extent of conjuring up some fantasy scandal on my part because I like a record that expresses a political sentiment that you disagree with.

I should be ashamed. After all, obviously no honest person could disagree with your idea of what is necessary and appropriate to defend the country.

AB,
The song and the entire album was called a protest album by Mr. Young all along. The lyrics were meant to spark debate and it appears they have. All I'm stating is that it has to be listened to in that context and so does the "nice enough fellow" Dr. BLT response song.
Now in regards to the music itself, without this context and no lyrics, I am not an expert on musical arrangements or compositions and I'll have to take your word for your opinion on this matter. I am not objective in this matter because I can't listen to Mr. Young's album without hearing the words and putting it in the context that Mr. Young states that he intended. In regards to Mr. Young being a cheesy publicity hog, I doubt you could find any person within the industry and with any knowledge of his career that would agree with you on this. It is flat out wrong and proven by sheer common sense. Why would a man at 60 and with his impeccable record as an artist, resort to anything cheap for publicity? That does not make sense and just like not liking this song or his album (of which you obviously did not listen too if you think this is the best song and publicized one) because of the context it was produced (creating dialog) you can't truly critic anything if you don't know or consider all of the facts. Therefore as I stated before, your credibility is bogus and your opinion is questionable.

neil young's career is doing just fine. and you know that, al.

as for squeeze, they are boring pop-lite. there was so much more intersting stuff going on at the time. i will admit that they did have a way with an arrangement, but the arrangement just plays second fiddle to their fluffy m.o.r. pop-rock songwriting, which is cliched and derivative. it has all the edge of a marshmallow.

and al, the 'political sentiment' of blt's song is "but, neil, they, well, not "they," but someone with similar arab features, bombed us, well, something like that anyway, and now... and now we have to go kill lots of them in an unrelated way, not because they bombed us, not quite, but because, how did he put it... oh yes, "to spread freedom and democracy..." wait, what does that have to do with bombs, i mean airplanes... shitfire, i'm fuckin myself up here..."

zingzing,
Thanks for the help.
Truth be know, BLT has shamelessly promoted/posted to a NY fan website previously, along with his "free" downloads, so I'm pretty sensitive to who this guy gets to promote his crap.
Hey Al, .... you may not be getting anything from Dr. Spam, but he's getting his from you. If you are an innocent pawn in all this, I apologize, but really his song sucks and I wish you would listen again. In fact why don't you listen to Neil's "entire" album which is streaming on his website for free. Yes that's right Dr.$$$ free, not something you are willing to do on yours...

Martin, I've got most of the album, including specifically "Flags of Freedom" "Roger and Out" and "Shock and Awe." There's not a memorable bit of a tune between them. "Let's Impeach the President" is the only thing he put even half a real effort into.

When you carry on about how we have to listen to it "in context" as a protest album, that sounds to me like what you're saying is that you agree with his political sentiment, so we have to recognize that this makes it a great work of art. That is incorrect.

Even if I were crazed with hatred for President Bush, this album would suck, and the single would still be about halfway decent. I could give a rat's ass about "context" if there's no tune under it.

Plus, it's ridiculous that you act like it's some kind of evil blackhat trick that BLT might "shamelessly" try to promote himself to Neil Young fans. What would be the supposed shame in that, exactly? What, marketing is categorically illegitmate?

Hell, he's GIVING the song away- where exactly is your wartime profiteering here? He wrote a simple rock song, and is giving it away for free downloads, and you're getting some kind VRWC thing out of it. You know, talking like that's liable to make people think that you're a couple of fries short of a full Happy Meal.

You're just so far out of whack from reality with this stuff, like you're trying to claw for some little piece of moral highground. Pay attention. This isn't about moral highground, it's about songwriting and playing.

So for the sake of argument, I'll concede that you're better and more moral, you and Neil. When you finish your little superior dance, perhaps you can entertain us with your alternate ideas on how better to defend the country.

In the meantime, Neil Young conjured up one half-decent song in a whole crappy gimmick of an album. BLT is a heartless, souless bastard, and I'm a mercenary bastard- though I don't see how any of this pays me other than the satisfaction of contribution to the public discourse. Still, the evil BLT conjured up a clearly superior piece of actual songwriting in at least this one case than did the aging master.

However, I will not only echo but amplify your insistence that my opinion is questionable. That is good. Do take my opinions with a grain of salt, and do keep in mind the possibility that on any given topic I may possibly be full of it. Of course this applies to you and everyone else as well.

I love you Brother Zing, but you seemed to have swallowed this pinko kool-aid to enough of an extent that you're hallucinating re-writes of BLT's lyric to make him say the stupid things that you want to criticize rather than anything like what he actually said.

Plus, politics aside, I suspect that his feelings wouldn't be too badly hurt to hear you say that he's no better than Squeeze.

Al,

You really need to meet RUBBERNECK. The guy who has been flaming my Neil Young articles for months. He dosen't have your sense of humor, but I think you'd like him. I really do. He's great at getting hits for one thing.

The BLT single is mediocre at beat by the way.

-Glen

Al,
I went to Dr. BLT's website, I couldn't find a free download or any streaming. The link you had earlier on your review, does not work. He's charging for all of his music, which I don't hold against him, however, he is "shamelessly" promoting himself on Neil Young's back. Hell his song has NY name in the title. That's profiteering in my book.
I wish you would have picked a different song to review though, cause it's not my favorite. Restless Consumer is by far the best song on this album and that's without the "context" that I continually mention that you abhor. My only point of the context is that Neil Young publicized this as a protest song and you criticized the simplistic lyrics. You made fun of the lyrics, so I pointed out what the artist himself was trying to convey based on his own word. I think it's fair and balanced for me to cite this and if you missed the point, then please read your own critique to understand.

Again, anyone can make a BLT sandwich it's a common recipe, however, no one can claim to be the original maker of it....my analogy is simple Neil Young is the original, he is consistent in his style, grace and art and your beloved BLT is nothing but a cheap profiteer using Neil's name to make his own, even though his own is also another copy.

Nice review on your site Glen.

Martin, BLT has some stuff available for free, and some that he wants paid for. Overall though, I will say gently that I'm not impressed with the layout of his website. I found it hard to use- which is a big reason I went to the bother of getting the Neil Young song over to my site. I know that link does work- though anyone might have a momentary glitch now and again.

You're awfully anxious to cast BLT as some horrible exploiter because he would dare write a song about Neil Young, but I find that argument to be utterly without merit. Why should his holy f'ing name be sacrosanct, and beyond criticism? This song is a perfectly legitimate point of public discourse, whether you dig the song or not.

Al,
I'm not anxious at all, I'm just pointing out the obvious and expressing my opinion just like you did. In fact I think I'm giving Dr. BLT and you a lot of lee-way as compared to your BarBQn of Neil Youngs song, his "common" rock and roll style, is slopped out half assed crap, comparing his artistic passion with your 2 years old Godson's whinning. I mean come on man. You total trash one of the most respected artists of all time, claim not to be influenced by your "philosophical" political differences and then go on to rave about a guy that "beat" Neil's protest record to the airwaves, by jumping on the bandwagon that was made possible by Neil Young in the first place. I mean if Neil Young hadn't written this album what would the good Dr. have to beat? You sir are a fraud and your sanctimonious tone is as tranparent as your lack of objectivity and political leanings. And unless Dr. BLT is the only other musical artist to write a retort of sorts to anyone elses WAR PROTEST ALBUM, I would still suspect that you are somehow beholding to him.
Your review was mean and nasty and now your replies to me are more of the same. Typical.

Martin, I don't see how I've been "nasty" to you. Indeed, I've tried to be careful to be extra polite as you're slinging allegations of cheap venality at me, being on some mythical BLT payroll, like we're on some orders from the VRWC. I should be "ashamed" of myself for liking this song more than Neil's. Oh, and I'm a "fraud."

Frankly, that kind of crazy paranoid leftwing foolishness directed to me is just an invitation to vicious but highly entertaining mockery. I'm sorely tempted to make such sport of you, but I have so far used angelic restraint. Don't tempt me.

Get thee behind me, Satan.

Also, in your determined us vs them setup that you've conjured in your mind, you seem incapable of comprehending what I'm actually saying. If you can get past what it is you think you are expecting to hear, you'd see that I gave the Neil Young song a pretty positive review. I certainly did not "totally trash" Neil Young.

Note: Rubberneck has visited.

"Rubberneck has visited" Should I be alarmed?

Al,
You must be delusional because that's not the way I see it at all. I'm a centrist by nature and pride myself on my objectivity, however, I am human and can become somewhat of a conspiracist at times. I mentioned previously that Dr. BLT posted on a Neil Young fan website, which I thought was proof of his profiteering ways. But then again, his song actually has Neils name in it....so point made and I rest my case. As far as your apparent unflappable appreciate for his work, I may be wrongly jumping to conclusion....I'll claim guilt. As far as your review of Neils work, there are 19 bad things you say about his work and 2 backhanded compliments. Don't leave the ditch now and head for the middle lane Al, when you obviously trashed Neils song based on your political views. Be honest.

AL...LOOK AT THIS REVIEW AND LOOK WHO'S DONE ALL THE POSTINGS ON THIS GUYS REVIEW....YOU'RE BELOVED DR. BLT....

April 28, 2006
Neil Young: 'Living With War'
When I wrote the other day about the current cultural climate seeming just right for a topical album from Bruce Springsteen, I clearly should have been writing about Neil Young.

Young wrote and recorded "Living With War" in just two weeks earlier this year, and it's a scathing, poignant and overwhelmingly passionate anti-war statement. These 10 songs (streaming here and available through digital retailers Tuesday) rock harder than anything he's done in ages -- it's loud, lean and visceral rock 'n' roll, with growly guitars all tangled up in Young's twangy, nasal vocals.

His pointed lyrics land with the force of kidney punches, but he avoids the strident monotony of 2003's "Greendale" concept album, even when he rips Bush for "hijacking our religion and using it to get elected" on "Let's Impeach the President." He sounds angry at times, but mostly he sounds sad. "I live with war every day," Young sings mournfully on the title track.

Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, there's been a sense over the past few years that questioning what we're doing there, and especially how we got there, is unpatriotic. That's a load of tepid dog vomit, of course, and "Living With War" shows why: Young, a Canadian by birth, shows here it's possible to love the notion of America and the things this nation stands for without buying into the propaganda put forth by its leaders. Sure, he advocates impeaching Bush, but he sounds almost awed on "Flags of Freedom" when he sings about families crying at the sight of their brave children in uniform on their way to battle. As he watches the "flags of freedom flyin'," though, he can't help but wonder about the people for whom we are ostensibly building democracy, asking: "Do you think that you believe in yours more than they do theirs somehow?"

That's not seditious. On the contrary, it's thoughtful and realistic -- two traits our leaders haven't always shown during the Iraqi expedition. Young's album won't be easy for everyone to hear, but it's a vital addition to what should be an ongoing discussion about what we're doing where, and why.

April 28, 2006 in Music | Permalink
Comments
All I have to say is this:

Neil Young (Have you Forgotten)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006

Perhaps this will jog your memory:

United 93
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006

or this:
Let's Roll (written, recorded and air prior to Neil Young's Let's Roll)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006

and for those of you who think I lack sympathy for old Neil, I wrote this for him after his father passed away:

Fathers Day Song of Sympathy for Neil Young
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.com/music/Fathers
DayYoung.mp3

No hard feelings, Neil, as Dave Mason once said in a song: "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy. It's only you and me and we just disagree."
www.drblt.

Extreme credit for the review on post #28
Goes to: Eric R. Danton | Sound Check

OK Martin, BLT added comments and links to a comments thread. That's what they're there for. And your point is?

I'll note that the actual review isn't anything at all to do with music other than maybe one sentence, but just saying yes to the NY politics.

My point is that he "trolls" around anything Neil Young and makes money off of his back, even while he's stabbing it....

The review above is not important as everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, as I've mentioned before taken in the context that this is a WAR PROTEST ALBUM, I believe this apparently liberal media type was enthusiastically supporting the urgent delivery of this album, based on his own feelings of the urgent nature of our peril. Just as urgently as you feel the need to stand firm with your beliefs and your review showed that loud and clear. I have no problem with that at all, but to coyly claim that you are judging solely the composition of the music and the simplicity of the songcraft, I believe could be/should be considered just as disingenuous as the above critics viewpoint, or for mine for that matter.

At least I'm honest about it.

Brother Martin, come now. You look the least wee bit silly as the defender of the big multi-platinum establishment corporate rock star Neil Young bitching repeatedly about the financial venality of an unknown guy who's giving his answer song away for free. How bizarre is that?

And I do judge largely by musical criteria. As music, I don't hold Young's silly politics against the record, but the shoddiness of the execution. I'm just saying there's no way that this nonsense lyric about Bush owning a baseball team was worthy of the author of "Ohio."

On the other hand, I did give Neil a reasonably good review here. And if you write "London Calling," I won't care if you're a commie, you'll make a couple of capitalist bucks off ol Al for creating an all-time jam.

Al,
I point this out solely to add ammunition to my subjectivity to find more fault with this guy that you say: "has just flat out wrote Neil Young". Again this guy who in your expert, 'objective' opinion apparently outdid Neil, is unabashedly making money off Neils name, his websites et al....Since you claim to barely know the man who "seems like a nice enough fellow" and are not being paid by him to promote his trash, then I feel it is my duty to inform you that Dr. BLT maybe using you as he using so many others. If you are unknowing pawn in the good Dr.'s publicity machine then you ought to demand fair restitution for your services. Good luck.

As far as Neils lyrics about Bush's baseball team or whatever else he wrote about in this song, again....I don't think Neil needs any validation for his writing skills from the likes of some unknown blogger. Besides if you looked at the link on Glen Boyd's website to the CNN interview, then you would know that Neil more than adequately explained the reason for the simple and direct lyrics.
Anyway he got most people talking/debating this war which was his intent anyway. With the exception of you, Mr. Al Barger, music critic, non-political, just sticking to the lyrics, musical composition and blah blah blah.....

Transparently pathetic

i tried listening to the blt song. painful. sounds like a retread from the ferris bueller soundtrack.
the neil young song is, take or leave it, a neil young song. most people know by now whether they're liable to like that, review or no.

also, i got the impression that neil young was pointing out the irony that bush and company are making a bigger deal of the steroids issue than the real issues. thus the sarcastic "thank god." i'm not sure how anyone, especially someone making a living as a man of letters could think he is actually saying
"we should impeach the president because they're using steroids in professional baseball, and George Bush used to OWN a baseball team." no offense, but that reveals a lot about the critic's competence.

as far as well-crafted rock songs, there used to be a band that made them. they were called "styx" and they sucked. people who could do better with just 3 chords knocked them out. i'm always amused when critics want to have it both ways, raising their fist to the punk revolution, then knocking acts because their songs aren't complex enough.

Awake, you're just being hateful to BLT with that "painful" stuff. Did you really feel his pain? It's broadly in Neil Young style. Do you find Neil Young painful to listen to?

Now perhaps I misunderstand about Neil and the steroids. Maybe Neil was just so sloppy about making his supposed point that he failed to explain himself. My interpretation seems like the obvious one though, based on what's actually in the song. Perhaps if he took more than 10 minutes writing a song he'd be able to make himself more clear. Also, I've never seen Bush carrying on about steroids, so there'd be no basis for that.

I would definitely take prime Styx over anything Neil Young has done in the last 20 years. They weren't particularly the most arousedly passionate, but they took the time to actually write a song and put it together right. People will still be listening to "Come Sail Away" long years after this Neil Young album is long forgotten

Plus, you're setting up a false dichotomy between passion and craft. I enjoy the rock and roll Pentecostal fire of punk rock, but most of that three chord stuff has nothing to it, and is of little lasting value. But there's no reason why you can't have passion AND skill, which would get you, say, Elvis Costello.

that blt song is definitely painful to listen to. i had to go at it a good three times just to make it through, and it wasn't because of the politics, which get by on a laugh. it's fucking awful, al, and that's pretty obvious.

as for styx... um yeah. keep em. the fact that your styx review has a link leading to the smiths as "far worse" is... indicitive of your tastes. beatles, yes (they're universal)... but styx?

you should probably look into this "cheap nihilism" of the sex pistols a bit more before you judge it. do you really understand what went on behind it? do you really fall into the "sex pistols couldn't play for shit" crowd? have you really listened to the album? ever gone beyond the sex pistols to pil? or even beyond nevermind the bollocks to the great rock n roll swindle? hmm?

costello has his good points (before 1982), but he also represents the rather poppy side of a movement that went much further and deeper... i would suggest you take your interest in costello and look at other stuff of the time, because you will find that the sex pistols certainly influenced an incredible amount of very good music. if you want to see passion, craft and politics colliding, british and american post-punk is the place to look.

Really Zing, you act as if I wouldn't be familiar with the Sex Pistols. I've only been listening to Bollocks for a quarter century. They actually had some good songs there, but they didn't have the chops or mental stability to go anywhere with it.

No, the Sex Pistols could not play for crap. They managed to focus their minds and play against their limits enough to make one good record, but don't kid yourself that these guys are any kind of serious musicians. Pearl Jam bores me, but at least those guys are competent to play their instruments.

Plus, that nihilistic crap is not deep and profound. It's NOT meaningful, or reflecting any special understanding of the world or human experience. The constant misery and hostility bore me after anything past their one album. There's nowhere for it to go. Just go out and shoot yourself and be done with it, if you're that goddam miserable.

FU, FU, FU!!!! does not constitute profundity. The Swindle stuff was just scraps, though the Sid Vicious suicide note "My Way" is somewhat memorable. PiL didn't even have the passion of the Sex Pistols' nihilism. It was just crappy professional product that Lydon did to make a boring living. I'd rather listen to the Dixie Chicks.

I understand people liking some Elvis Costello records or styles better than others, but dismissing him post 1982 is ridiculous. That's just saying that you wouldn't know a real song if it bit you in the ass.

Yes, Styx was FAR better than the Smiths, song for song. The Smiths were better at expressing self-pity, which seems to appeal to a lot of people. However, Styx wrote much more memorable songs. Plus, prime Styx had a lot more heart and soul than whiny-ass Morissey.

Zing, I'm all in favor of you as a human being, but you don't seem to have much understanding or appreciation of good music. If you think that BLT is "painful" to listen to and Elvis Costello sucks, but the Smiths and PiL are "deep," then you're just out to lunch.

okay, first, you need to listen to EARLY pil. their first three albums. there you will find what i am talking about. after keith levene (the jimi hendrix of post-punk) left in 1981, they were not the same. "meaning behind the moaning," if you please.

second, listen to the smiths again. some of their songs are about self-pity, sure, but the majority are not, and the guitarist is amazing. you are falling for the myth of morrissey. his detractors created the myth. "vicar in a tutu" is about self-pity? "some girls are bigger than others?" "ask?" "panic?" please...

third, the sex pistols could play just fine, and their nihilism was expressing certain social conditions in stark terms--learn your history and don't dismiss something out of hand. no, they weren't traditionally trained musicians, but they certainly had chops in the studio.

fourth, i like early costello. i pointed that out. i just can't sit through his later albums waiting for the couple of good songs. i haven't the time. give me quality, or fuck off.

and fifth, i never said the smiths were deep. i find them poetic lyrically and musically, and one of many bands where the surface is a facade to throw off the general public. pil, on the other hand, is--and i'm talking about sound here--one of the handful of truly amazing bands to come out of rock n roll. listen to metal box, then get back to me.

Zing, I listened to that crappy PiL stuff when it was current. Tried to like it. But there wasn't much there.

I don't know what planet you're from to say that the Sex Pistols could play. They were purely technically incompetent. By that, I don't mean simply that they lacked conservatory training, or even just that they couldn't read sheet music. By the way, is learning to actually read musical notation to much to expect of a professional musician?

Don't even come talking to me about needing to learn history to understand the Sex Pistols. Puh-lease. You need to know history to fully appreciate Shakespeare. You don't need a history degree to get "I am an anti-Christ."

The Smiths just suck. Apparently, they suck in a way that appeals to the suckingness in some people. Personally, I'd be inclined to navigate away from dwelling on whatever kind of feelings would cause one to like this sound.

But that doesn't come up for me, for starters because there was very little memorable about the craft of their crappy songs. Is there a hook on a Smiths record somewhere, and I just missed it?

if you don't like early pil, then you don't like it--but don't tell me the sound wasn't something completely alien. i think it's fantastic, the absurdly deep bass, the chordless guitars swirling and biting into each other, the mixture of disco and dirge in the drums... and lydon's voice, careening from high to low, excstacy to scream... all over structures that ignore traditional patterns for solid, yet fluid repitition.

if you haven't listened to "anarchy" and "gstq" recently, you may not have noticed the huge amount of guitar lines interweaving to create that racket. steve jones knew how to play and how to put things together so that it sounded both monolithic and impressionistic.

as for your question, i don't think it is at all necessary for musicians to be able to read notation. the beatles couldn't. and you like the beatles. btw-glen matlock could read music. so there goes that theory.

don't reduce lydon's lyrics to one-liners. that's no way to think about it. where did punk come from? why was there anger? how did such a liberal bunch of people come up with obviously conservative music as the path to a better future? how much was pose? did they or did they not start a musical revolution in england? what do you know of english politics of the time?

as for the smiths... have you heard the guitarist? he is full of "hooks." ten or twelve a song. the man was a master melodicist and could create fantastic textures on his guitar. depending on your point of view, moz's voice is either a hook or a smelly fish carcass, but marr's guitars are some undeniable gold.

Awake,
Your comments are right on. Appreciate your point of view and not only because it's exactly like mine, but because it's true. This Al Barger critic is obviously to enamored with his supposed expertise on musical talents and lyrics that he can't even hear Neils message much less read yours. It's obvious the lyrics about the baseball team and steriods is sarcasm and any fool could see that or understand it if they weren't blinded by their political leanings to the point that they can't even give an honest review. Also, as you will see on this trail of messages and once again our esteemed critic estoles the virtues of the SANDWICH, while discounting Neil entirely. One would think that the SANDWICH will probably name his next song:
I Love My Blogcritic

You're clearly a man of some intleigence, simply to be capable of using a computer for long enough to type this. But sir, how in the name of God you could possibly beleive some of the B.S. you've spouted off there-in, it is completely beyond me.

First of all, BLT's song is lyrically comparable to The Itsy Bitsy Spider, while Neil Young's full album, while not by any means his best musical work is easily on par with Pearl Jam, and dising Pearl Jam in a reply will be futile, as I am never going to look at this thread again.

Furthermore, the muical aspect of BLT's release is slow, difficult to understand, even when compared to Neil, and lacking any real point, much less backing one up, as the combined album Living With War does in a very elequent way.

I think you've completely missed the point of Young's entire album, and I think you've done so while at the same time vastly overrating that putrid scum bellowed out by BLT.

To compare his kind of low brow songwriting to that of Neil Young takes either a pair of utterly massive balls, or else the mind of a common rodent.

I'd suggest a few things for you Mr. Barger.

#1. Get a different job, as both a collumest and a musical critic you suck.

#2. Sit down with all of the lyrics from Living With War, and google the subjects Neil discusses, and tell me you don't agree that everything he sings of warrants, promotes, or evidences either the impeachement of George Walker Bush, or the peaceful recovery of our fine nation from the villinus rule of that idiot's devious regime.

[Personal attack deleted]

Finally someone else that sees this trash for what it is while seeing the brilliance of Neils new record. Point is being made in that it is still being talked about or as Neil says "there needs to be a debate about this".
Oh and by the way Neil has the SANDWICH's song posted to his website www.neilyoung.com.

Smurphy, the booger is on the take

BLT is really lame. I agree that some of the lyrics on Neil's record need work. But for an album that was made in 9 days, it got it's point across. And that after all is the point.

Check out flow's song Drugs Against War for some refreshing lyrics and an even fresher outlook.