I think it's because George was always very deliberate with his leads and wanted them to sound perfect, while Neil would just wing it and play whatever he was feeling.
I don't think Neil could have done the many note-perfect lines, riffs and short solos George has. They're very different styles, Harrison was always "third guy in a band" who's job was mostly to write catchy guitar parts to compliment 2-3 minutes pop songs (and he's fucking amazing on it), Neil guitar playing shines in jam situations when he's the bandleader and can solo for 5-6 minutes at a time. Also I think Neil is better on acoustic. They're just very different.
That being said, as a songwriter Neil is in a whole other galaxy to George.
Harrison definitely had his thing, but in terms of who I'd be first to call an "artist" vs who I'd call "hugely talented pop star," there's no question. And I frickin' love the Beatles, so it's not like I'm unaware of Harrison's brilliance.
But, I mean, Cowgirl in the Sand vs (Got My Mind) Set on You, those are in two different universes.
(Edit: just learned Got My Mind Set on You is a cover. I like the original James Ray version, which I just now heard for the first time).
Plus, Harrison just comes across like a dick in this quote--petty, jealous, high-school girl style. It's disappointing to hear him act this way.
Eh. It's actually pretty common for the old-school British blues-and-rocknroll types to look at the roots of punk and metal with disdain. Same for jam-bandy stuff. Neil Young live kinda represents both sides of that equation, not surprising that Clapton and Harrison would say "ThAts NOt mUsic"
I've heard similar shit from that general cohort regarding Sabbath, the Dead, the first wave of Punk Rock, etc.
Not exactly. When the Ramones toured England in 1976 all the future British punks from Lydon to Joe Strummer to Dave Vanian to Billy Idol, etc were in the audience getting wowed & blown away & taking notes.
Not in 1975 they didn’t. But yeah, now Ramones soundtracks are featured in Ford truck commercials. Mass consumer culture most always absorbs & neuters the counterculture/subculture.
Kinda ironic that Neil has said he wasn't really a fan of The Grateful Dead's style of jamming. That was more Crosby's scene. I'm not sure if they were big on him either since they never covered him despite covering Dylan constantly and playing with Crosby.
Where can you find Neil’s comments on the Dead and their jammyness? I’d be inclined to agree with Neil on that one; the Dead’s jams feel like they go on longer than they should for me. I know others like them more though, and they could grow on me. I’ve always loved Neil’s jams though. I’m just curious to read whatever he’s said about them. I know they played a couple shows together and had the Forever Young moment.
I couldn't tell you. It is often true that musicians are more open-minded than their fans. On the audience side, though, I definitely know people from that 60's rock scene who saw them live and thought they sucked. And sure, I bet if they heard Warning, they'd be like, alright, I can work with that. But then they'd hear Symptom of The Universe and be like, what the fuck is that lol Sabbath absolutely has a fuck-ton of blues in the mix, and grew from those roots, but it doesn't follow the "right formula". Innovation often sounds like shit to people who are set in their ways.
Reminds me of the segment in “It Might Get Loud” where the Edge explains his simplified C chord and Jimmy Page almost breaks a rib asking him if that’s right sarcastically five times.
lol have you seen the clip where Paul McCartney and Ozzy Osbourne run into each other backstage or something (I think sometime in the 1990s) and Ozzy is SO hyped to meet him and Paul clearly wants nothing to do with the conversation and walks away after like 3 seconds? I couldn’t believe how disrespectful Paul was to him.
George didn't write (Got My Mind) Set on You. It's a cover. I love Neil and George. All Things Must Pass and some of his earlier solo work is right up there with anything Neil wrote. Once again, love them both!
this quote just seems like the typical egotistical guitarist of that era that can’t understand how anyone who’s not at Clapton level skill could make good music. I bet George hated punk lol meanwhile we wouldn’t have Dinosaur Jr without Neil Young
George was a man of very large contradictions. Loving spiritually , but also loving cocaine, singing about love, but also being a womanizer. A good songwriter and great melodic guitarist though.
He had pretty conservative taste in music. John had to explain to him that David Bowie was in fact good. And there’s a quote from him in the early ‘90s where he says that he didn’t think much of modern music until his son turned him on to this new band called the Black Crowes.
Meanwhile Paul was writing with Elvis Costello and making ambient techno albums under a pseudonym with the original bassist from Killing Joke.
(He’s currently listening to St. Vincent and Khruangbin, apparently. And he’s the guy who put the tape loops in “Tomorrow Never Knows,” he’d like people to know.)
I agree with everything you've said. I've actively sought Neil Young while never having gone out of my way to listen to post-Beatles Harrison. The FarmAid 94 version of Down By The River cemented Uncle Neil near and dear to my heart.
I disagree. While I’m a huge Beatles fan, I always found Harrison’s solo stuff made great background music, but nothing that really grabbed me. I think trimming All Things down to one record would have been an improvement. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Yeah, the difference is that with a Neil solo, you're on Neil's time, not your own. With George, his parts are more compact. Both favor melodic qualities over pure technique, which I like. (And both operate on verrry different emotional levels/frames of mind).
Neil had some pretty memorable “pop songs” himself. Mr. Soul, Cinnamon Girl, Ohio, Rockin in the Free World. I can hear all those guitar parts in my head plain as day.
There are few soundtracks that I would consider **\*perfect\*** and this is one of them.
To be fair, Dead Man is my favorite all time movie so I'm a little biased, but I think the soundtrack highly compliments the movie and without it, IDK if it would be nearly as good.
IIRC, he had 3 tv's set up playing the movie and he did 2 freeform passes of the full film and everything was taken from those 2 takes.
Then again George did do Wonderwall Music - both a soundtrack and one of my favorite albums. How much George personally played on it I'm not sure. Peter Tork totally shreds on banjo on one track though.
Yeah their styles are wildly different. I love Neil and enjoy his solos but also as a guitarist I can totally see that he isn't a great player, he just has a lot of feelings and enjoys playing.
What's weird to me about Harrison's criticism is that he completely disregards all of neil's other abilities - mostly as a songwriter. Like fair, you don't have to like the 20 minutes Crazy Horse jams, but surely you can't deny Neil is a fucking insane songwriter?
Acoustic is an unnecessary caveat, his electric guitar playing is absolutely iconic. Everybody knows the riff from Ohio, from Cinnamon Girl, from Powder Finger, from Hey Hey My My. Those are killer riffs. I would say Neil is at least as competent as George, but he expresses himself differently.
ATMP is great, but it's one album (and I can name 5 Neil albums I like better). George's peaks are very high but quantity matters too, Neil has like 10 times the amount of great songs Harrison ever wrote.
It’s a matter of taste, but I disagree. To me, George Harrison stumbles on good songs every so often, but Neil Young is a legend and a true genius.
I have a couple songs from ATMP on my playlists, but that album is mostly filler.
Exactly. Neil isn't the most technically brilliant guitarist or singer. But being a great artist (which I'd say he is) involves so much more than just technical brilliance.
Similarly, Celine Dion (edit: arguably) blows Nina Simone out of the water for vocal range and power, but in terms of who moved the needle for their art form, it's Nina. And Neil Young.
Plus, as I said above, it's disappointing to hear George talk like this. Never meet your heroes, I guess.
George Harrison and Eric Clapton both come off as extremely insecure about their place in history. For Clapton, he spent a year or two as the greatest guitarist in the world before being overshadowed by a handful of other guitar gods. For Harrison, I think living in the shadow of John and Paul created a big chip on his shoulder.
Let’s also take note of how both of these guys treated their wives and girlfriends and conclude that they were not going to win any congeniality awards, even in the forum of rock stars.
Clapton walked off stage and cried when he heard Hendrix for the first time. Instead of enjoying the insane talent he had the chance to watch he threw a hissy fit because he knew he wasn't the best guitar player anymore.
“I’ll Have You Any Time” is the only song I really like from that album.
I should mention that I am one of those Beatles fans who sees “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” in people’s top ten lists and makes this expression: 🤨.
He didn't specifically, but he did say "I'm not a Neil Young fan" and than referred exclusively to his guitar playing. Since he was giving his general opinion on Neil, you think he would at least refer to his most obvious quality. That's kinda saying "Dylan sucks because I don't like his harmonica playing", ok dude, but what about the thing he's actually legendary for...?
They are both great guitarists in their own way. Harrison is more melodic, Young is more ambient, but they are not as far apart as all that. They both have their unique signature sound and fit nicely into Rock and Roll history.
>I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism
“I don’t want you here, in the room or in my country,” Clapton declared. “Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch’s our man. I think Enoch’s right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans and fucking… don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want fucking wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country. What is happening to us, for f\*ck’s sake?”
Most racists I know love reggae. I mean, Bob Marley and white boy ska are about as deep as they go, but they will use the word “jah” unironically and know all the words to “redemption song.” It is what it is.
He was always threatened by it and always want to take it for himself. His co-option was never respectful, was never an accident, was never with honour. He stole because he hated.
This isn't universally the case, of course, and I won't get drawn into a debate on your favouritr white artist. But it was the case with him. And it's the case more often than many like to admit.
Interesting. I love George’s guitar work, he has some incredibly tasteful solos, but his style is very composed compared to Neil’s. Neil might hit a few stray notes here and there, but he was all about capturing a moment, flaws and all, rather than a perfect take.
The one time George actually needed to make his guitar weep, he called Clapton.
Also Paul took lead guitar over him for other songs too (Taxman is a prime example). George is a phenomenal lead player for short, well crafted solos and for playing parts underneath verse/choruses, but he's not a great freestyle soloist.
He also completely wrote off hip-hop as a genre. For a Beatle and somebody who was into spiritual development and experimentation, he was actually very conservative. If it wasn't 50's skiffle performed behind a factory in Liverpool, he wasn't into it.
Clapton is the poster boy for unimaginative blues-rock. The idea of either of them scoffing at Neil is pretty funny. He shits all over them as a musician, as a songwriter, and as a general creative force.
i agree, always thought clapton was just a very traditional blues player, nothing wrong with that, but wasn't as much a gtar pioneer as maybe jimmy page, hendrix, or even young for that matter
I think Clapton's playing got less adventurous, exciting, and experimental as time went on if you look at his work with Cream and Derek & the Domino's compared to his later work. I agree that I would rate Page and Hendrix higher as guitarists, and songwriters. Neil as a songwriter certainly and he's not a bad guitarist by any means just not as technical.
This. Never read about George's feelings towards punk/post-punk but it goes without saying that Neil was one of the first BIG ROCK STARS to actively embrace it.
And as much as he talked about spiritual development he was racked by serious cocaine and alcohol addiction.
Clapton is like a bowl of unseasoned oatmeal. He creatively atrophied sometime in the early 70s and his only good work was with good collaborators anyway. On his own he writes crap.
I think David Gilmour is what happens if you take Clapton’s beautiful tone and vibrato and give it to someone who can actually compose original music.
I mean I love Neil too but to say that he “shits all over” George Harrison as a songwriter is pretty plainly ridiculous. We all have bad takes from time to time, doesn’t mean George isn’t one of the greats.
It's not ridicolous. For me Harrison has actually became a bit overrated when all the hipsters keep calling about how he was a huge genius that John and Paul cruelly ignored because of their egos.
Up until 1968 George was miles behind John and Paul, he would have 2 songs per record and they would still usually be among the weakest in it. He stepped it up a bit in 1968 (which was recognized by the rest of the Beatles - "Something" was a single, "While My Guitar" a major track) and wrote some all time classics at that time, had one fantastic solo album ("All Things Must Pass") and kinda went back into mediocrity. It's hard to name even a few great songs he wrote after 1972.
All and all he had a very short peak with some great classics but career wise he was mostly mediocre, he had nowhere near the longevity and consistency of John, Paul and Neil, all of them in a class of their own compared to him. I'd argue that in one year (let's say 1974) Neil could match pretty much everything Harrison ever wrote.
He had 2 songs per album because they signed with their label before George wrote and they wanted Lennon/McCartney songs. All Things Must Pass is mostly songs he wrote during his time with the Beatles. Sorry but you’re talking out your ass.
So where are all those unreleased 1965 Harrison masterpieces? Can you name them?
ATMP songs were written in 1968 onwards. Up until 1968, George (by his own admission!) wasn't writing much, and other than "Taxman" (Which was recognized by the Lennon/McCartney - they chose it as the album opener!), none of his other songs are genuine album highlights. That doesn't mean they're bad - I like "If I Needed Someone" for example - but it's just not up to par with the L/M masterpieces of the time.
L/M were actually super generous with him, they put his songs on the albums, they let him sing covers when he didn't have his originals, they even let him put his Indian tunes when clearly none of the other Beatles were into them. Up until 1968, George can't have ANY complaints.
In 1968 he made his jump, and the Beatles responded accordingly - "Something" was a lead single, While My Guitar and Here Comes the Sun all got major spots in the album. Yeah, they missed out on a few ATMP songs that were already written - but it's not necessarily a deliberate Harrison snub. They rehearsed ATMP but couldn't get it right. - Lennon had "Jealous Guy" ready and rejected by the Beatles, McCartney had most of Ram already written. Not everything was ready in time - they had plenty of songs, were barely functioning as a band at this point, so they recorded what they felt worked. Neil himself sometimes took years to record great songs until he "got them right", that's what songwriters do. Plus, Harrison "wasted" some of his spots on relatively mediocre songs like "For You Blue" and "Savoy Truffle". At this point the Beatles were a known quantity so it's not like they would have put an entire album of Harrison material. He did ATMP which was great, but the rest of his solo career his pretty forgettable.
None of it is to diss George, he's a legend, great guitar player, great harmony singer, he's a fucking Beatle. Literally my entire argument is, "he isn't on par with literally 3 of the best humans to ever write pop music" (John, Paul, Neil). Almost nobody is. He could match their quality in his best moments but had nowhere near the quantity. I just feel some people fell so hard for the "underdog" narrative that they actually think he's Lennon/McCartney level.
Disagree. After ATMP, it’s not like he started churning out classic records either. And ATMP is very good but I would pick most of Neil’s albums well before it, personally. It’s not an album that makes me think “man, I wish more George songs made the Beatles albums.”
The short peak includes some of the most beautiful songs in my lifetime. (Here comes the son rivals any Beatles song). Also would quibble that the 2 songs he'd contribute were the weakest on the earlier records, and would say All Things Must Pass is the most significant post-Beatle solo album.
I'm a big Neil fan so don't love that he was slagging Neil if he was, but doesn't change my POV on him as a musician and songwriter.
That's a strange conclusion. If you were to list their greatest songs, Neil's list would absolutely dwarf George's. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. He's a far superior songwriter.
I never said George wasn't great. I said it was funny that he scoffed at a superior musician and songwriter.
Didn't Neil outplay Clapton at his own rock and roll hall of fame induction? I remember reading that Neil was on fire that night, and Clapton couldn't keep up and just let Neil shred when it came time for the live performance part of the show.
> If it wasn't 50's skiffle performed behind a factory in Liverpool, he wasn't into it.
Are you missing the fact that GH was into Indian music, wasn't he the one that introduced Indian musicians to the Beatles with people like Ravi Shankar? Not exactly skiffle.
I’ll take Neil’s playing over George’s. He had to bring in Clapton for While My Guitar Gently Weeps. He’s also talked shit about Neil’s voice too. George had a big ego that didn’t match his solo output imo. He was even talking shit about Paul wanting to write with him after his 1987 comeback with Jeff Lynne producing. George had several chips on his shoulder. Odd for such a spiritual guy to be so egotistical and negative
I'm a big George fan, but I've always thought there was a disconnect with his spiritualism and his sort of archness. Within You without You, which I think is beautiful and groundbreaking, is also focusing on belittling how spiritually dead inside other people are. Taxman is awesome and funny but full of real resentment. He was a genius. So is Neil.
George was a grumpy man and yes, snooty. It's the primary flavor of his music. Don't Bother Me. Think For Yourself, you moronic imbecile. Give the guy a box of chocolates, he writes a song about tooth decay.
Eric Idle talked about trying to Introduce George to David Bowie, and George was too snooty. He'd just giggle and go "oh Bow-ie!!" Like some teenybopper pronouncing it like bow-wow.
If memory serves, Harrison was talking about Neil at the Dylan 30th Anniversary show in New York. It comes from informal conversation recorded at Tom Perry's studio (prompted by Bob Geldof asking if they'd all heard Neil's latest record, which was maybe the Freedom or Ragged Glory album).
Agreed, it would help with context. A lot of hardcore Neil fans regard *Arc-Weld* as "oh dear God, what's he gone and done *now?*" I'm not one of them, but I can see how people might think Neil's work was an acquired taste.
It makes sense that a Bob Dylan celebration show would bring out some of the most talented people who might have very strong creative differences, given the twists and turns his style took through the years
This was the song they both soloed on. I believe it was also the last time George sang at a concert, but I might be wrong. I think he only did TV or radio appearances after that before he became ill.
George was in awe of somebody like clapton, who mostly stuck to pentatonics. Neil is a much more melodic soloist and his style is unorthodox. But if you watch the video where he says it, George is referring to an specific moment in the Dylan concert where Neil just went insane on one note and George is like "it sounds like a hive of bees flying", which is an apt descriptor. He then went on to say his songs were alright. I guess George was not into noisy kind of stuff.
Yeah George liked things polished and intentional. Neil is rough around the edges and unpredictable. I love them both for what they've brought to me musically...but Neil is what got me to pick up a guitar and understand that I don't need to be the best guitar player to write a great song or play an emotive lead. I owe him so much.
Edit: and I'm not trying to say Neil isn't a great player (his chording and melody can be deceptively complex), but I think you guys in here know what I mean.
Some people will never understand "playing with feeling". Neil is not the best technical guitarist, but man oh man if you feel nothing listening to Cortez The Killer amongst dozens and dozens of other Neil songs you got something wrong with you. This type commentary on Neil feels like a bit of jealousy sometimes. George Harrison and Eric Clapton have nothing to be jealous of, but they can't see past themselves to give Neil proper credit.
I obviously love Neil’s guitar playing: it is intense and expressive. Some people prefer discipline over passion: I think they are missing the point.
I also greatly admire George’s songwriting and some of his guitar playing.
I found it very telling and sad in the Peter Jackson Beatles documentary when George was gushing about how Clapton knew how to improvise. All Clapton did was memorize a couple of 5-7 note blues scales and play them with a fat tone: basic blues theory. If George spent a week on it with the right teacher, he coulda played that style as well as Clapton. But getting caught up in the Beatles probably didn’t leave much opportunity to take lessons. I wanted to take George aside and tell him that Clapton is a derivative poser who wants to fuck your wife, and not to put that clown on a pedestal.
Clapton’s guitar playing was much more then memorizing a few scales and George’s ability in guitar is often underrated his ability to create melodies with in the frame work of pop hits that made these songs instantly recognizable is quite genius. Neil didn’t play by rules and is one of the all time great song and truth tellers of all time
I was watching the Beatles documentary and there's a part where George is talking to Paul and saying he can't just improvise a solo..he needs to take his time and work it out so it's like all his solos fit perfectly within the song. Neil's guitar playing is just different in how he improvises and almost never plays the exact solo twice (during live performances). They are completely different guitar players and it is rather strange how George can't appreciate uncle Neil's style.
For me, the most amazing part of George's take on Neil's playing is that George is talking about "Bobfest". Neil single-handedly saved that show and far and away had the best performances of anyone there. The Watchtower was amazing and the Tom Thumb Blues was great too. Neil's playing was on point!
Neil Young is something more in the line of a medium gods use to communicate with people. George Harrison is a practiced artisan. They’re two things different entirely.
I'll take Neil's planets-colliding lead guitar work any day over Harrisons sleek perfection. I can respect Harrison, of course, but yeah gimme Old Black shaking the earth. I don't give a shit if Neil's only playing one note that's out of tune, because it's communicating an entire universe within it. Harrison communicates nice music.
And Clapton's playing is the equivalent of nursing home oatmeal. Fuckin snore.
Co-signing every word of this. I am obsessed with the Beatles, I love George Harrison, but Neil's influence as a guitar player--literally the simple act of foregrounding his rejection of sleek perfection--is arguably right there with George's, and I prefer it too.
What's weird to me is that George couldn't see that. Like, if it wasn't his taste sure, but his vibe is mockery. That's lame and surprisingly shortsighted.
It's kind of funny, growing up listening to classic rock, I just kind of assumed everybody from the 60s more or less all got along, and it was like one big hippie family.
But just like everybody else, there are personality clashes, petty conceits, and outright hatreds etc. George wrote some timeless, amazing songs. Neil wrote a whole lot more. And although criticizing the Beatles is blasphemy to many people, I think it's pretty clear that Neil had more years of writing consistently influential material than George.
Yeah, people really didn’t understand impressionists either at first. when folks practice and produce precision, anything but that looks/sounds awful in comparison. Totally get why he would think that.
I bet Lennon got it.
Harrison shouldn’t be critiquing anyone’s playing. He was barely passable. He’s always got to take shots. What he said about hip hop was supremely obtuse and narrow-minded. Bless George, but he couldn’t touch Neil w/ a 10-ft. pole, artistically.
Like Neil’s playing or not, it’s spontaneous and he doesn’t rely on a library of canned licks stitched together. It just kind of comes out of him. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Listen to “Cowgirl in the Sand” sometime. It definitely works there…
It sort of started to get oxygen when some bell end who knew George would be in his store a certain day set up a video camera which he claimed wasn't operable. He then steered the subject to Neil and asked George his opinion. Basically George said he didn't like the long one note solos like say, Cowgirl and started to talk about other matters. The store owner kept going back to the subject of Neil and it was clearly getting awkward. The video used to be online but haven't seen it in ages. Maybe the guy who released it seen how immature he was in setting someone up and filming without permission
I’m pretty sure George’s reasons for not liking him is why Neil is considered The Godfather of Grunge. His playing is frequently messy, distorted, and more emotional than technical. I love how Neil plays but it doesn’t entirely surprise me that someone like Harrison wouldn’t be a fan
Unlike these responses which are pretty predictable, I wont compare Neil to George in a who's better battle.
George is entitled to his opinion and his rep is secure as a fucking BEATLE.... not like he was an underachiever.
But if anything their styles were somewhat consistent - you don't get Will to Love unless you have Long Long Long. You don't get Neil's symphonic grandeur tracks like Country Girl unless you have George's epic Phil Spector period.
Love both of them.
I mean, to be fair, I’d say Neil is a great rhythm guitar player.
My dad’s favorite artist since 1975 has been Neil Young, and even he says Neil’s leads are like one note with the bendy thrown in occasionally. Haha!
Neil's probably top five guitar players of all-time. I wouldn't rank George higher than 300. Taxman and Guitar Gently and they're both such basic 60's songs. World left Clapton behind starting with Hendrix. Neil is the exact kind of riffing I want to play, there's not many I put higher.
His songwriting is also stellar, one of the top musicians of all-time.
No way Neil young is a top 5 guitar player of all time…I’m 61 and have been playing for 50 years…I cannot write as well as Neil can and my childhood was filled with dozens of his songs…his acoustic work was the first songs I learned how to play…thr first being “Heart of Gold”. You don’t get any easier than that…I love his playing on the Crosby song “Almost Cut my Hair”…one of my favorite pieces of music…but guys he’s NOT a great guitar player, he would be the first to tell you so…I think he’s evolved into a better piano player over the years…I know this is a Neil subreddit, and I’m not a huge Harrison and Clapton fan either…so many modern players blow all three away…remember this all subjective…
I really like Neil’s acoustic playing, but his lead playing is an acquired taste. I like it, but it’s odd - and I get why anybody wouldn’t necessarily like it. Very choppy, sloppy-sounding, but undeniably Neil. It’s got a lot of personality.
Hey guys, casual un-subbed Neil Young Fan here just stopping by to say Neil Young may not be George Harrison on guitar. However, Neil's vocals, song writing, production, and topics behind his work can't be matched. Yes, the Beatles sold Millions of records and had millions of fans comparable to modern day "Swifty's". Neil wrote music about very cool subjects and topics of his time that are timeless. The Beatles are great 👍 .... I'd rather listen to Neil Young around a campfire than a Beatles record.
George and Neil play lead guitar on the exact opposite sides of the spectrum so this makes sense. (in a nutshell, George is tidy/precise and Neil is like a fucking hurricane. I love both).
On the flipside, Neil and Paul are good friends, and Neil did a bang-up job filling in for John when he and Paul did a rendition of A Day in the Life a few years back.
Neil is Feel. GH had very little feel. EC had even less, though both were prolific and had incredible talent... they lacked much of the soul. my opinion. I respect all 3
There are those who play with spirited passion despite mistakes, I.E The Replacements, Niel Young. I think Niel once stated he always used the first take. His music isn't delivered to be a wanking display of musical prowess like say, Steve Vai, it's political, humane, heart on sleeve rock that's about more than the technical exhibition. I find it helps people connect more and see him as more real when he hits a bad note and doesn't give two shits. Clapton is literally one of if not the most boring guitar wankers in history. If I want blues proficiency I'll take Albert King, SRV, John Lee Hooker or BB King. But that's just me.
Used to love Harrison until I watched Get Back. It was painfully obvious he was miserable due to the realization over the years that he was not in the same league as Lennon and McCartney and instead of accepting that he blamed them. No doubt he was talented but without Lennon/McCartney I'm not so sure the world would have ever known him. The same cannot be said about Neil Young.
we watched different documentaries i think. he was pissed off at being treated like a hired hand, and when the beatles ended he took the bevy of great songs john and paul ignored, and made what's now widely considered the best solo album by any of them.
If I had to pick someone to be my best friend, It would be George. Hands down. He was just a great human being. Very humble and giving. Neil's a great guy too, but he's a bit full of himself.
British vs American culture. Beatles sort of picked what elements of r&b and soul they wanted to use with their songs and styles, but they are British. They missed out on the messiness and a lot of the vibe of blues guitar being from feeling, not so much form as George or Eric Clapton play. That being said I know Neil young is Canadian, but to me there is that loose feeling to American rock that comes from soul influences that the Brit’s just can’t emulate. They’re such an orderly people who love chateaus and jelly molds and queues and stuff lol.
It’s just my theory. Maybe at the point that George’s comment was made in 1992 he’s also maybe become a little crotchety in his age and Eric Claptons always sort of been his buddy and agreed with him and it has nothing to do with them being British. Just to me, his style has always been on the orderly side, not like other British garage rock stuff. The Beatles grew to be very polished very quickly even if at their roots they were looser.
George Harrison spent his entire life being overshadowed by other musicians around him.
Neil Young is just another example of one of his contemporaries doing what he did better than him.
Massively talented, of course. But maaaaaaan was Harrison a bitter jealous twat.
He's right. George is not one to pretty up an opinion for optics sake, and he's usually spot on. Obviously he and Neil are very different stylings, George has a very composed, melodic and thoughtful solo style. I'd say his chord structures are often complex and identifiable as well.
I really like Neil Young, but his solos are really goofy and sloppy and inspired/in the moment. Each song he writes is like 2 chords repeated forever so ...
I think it's because George was always very deliberate with his leads and wanted them to sound perfect, while Neil would just wing it and play whatever he was feeling.
Exactly. I don’t know that George could’ve done what Neil did for the Dead Man soundtrack.
I don't think Neil could have done the many note-perfect lines, riffs and short solos George has. They're very different styles, Harrison was always "third guy in a band" who's job was mostly to write catchy guitar parts to compliment 2-3 minutes pop songs (and he's fucking amazing on it), Neil guitar playing shines in jam situations when he's the bandleader and can solo for 5-6 minutes at a time. Also I think Neil is better on acoustic. They're just very different. That being said, as a songwriter Neil is in a whole other galaxy to George.
Harrison definitely had his thing, but in terms of who I'd be first to call an "artist" vs who I'd call "hugely talented pop star," there's no question. And I frickin' love the Beatles, so it's not like I'm unaware of Harrison's brilliance. But, I mean, Cowgirl in the Sand vs (Got My Mind) Set on You, those are in two different universes. (Edit: just learned Got My Mind Set on You is a cover. I like the original James Ray version, which I just now heard for the first time). Plus, Harrison just comes across like a dick in this quote--petty, jealous, high-school girl style. It's disappointing to hear him act this way.
Eh. It's actually pretty common for the old-school British blues-and-rocknroll types to look at the roots of punk and metal with disdain. Same for jam-bandy stuff. Neil Young live kinda represents both sides of that equation, not surprising that Clapton and Harrison would say "ThAts NOt mUsic" I've heard similar shit from that general cohort regarding Sabbath, the Dead, the first wave of Punk Rock, etc.
British punk doesn't even get along with American punk, viz. Johnny Rotten's comments on Patti Smith, and hers on the Pistols.
Not exactly. When the Ramones toured England in 1976 all the future British punks from Lydon to Joe Strummer to Dave Vanian to Billy Idol, etc were in the audience getting wowed & blown away & taking notes.
Everybody GETS the Ramones.
Not in 1975 they didn’t. But yeah, now Ramones soundtracks are featured in Ford truck commercials. Mass consumer culture most always absorbs & neuters the counterculture/subculture.
Except Neil.
Very sad but true.
Capital eventually consumes all
I mean it was the RAMONES after all..
Kinda ironic that Neil has said he wasn't really a fan of The Grateful Dead's style of jamming. That was more Crosby's scene. I'm not sure if they were big on him either since they never covered him despite covering Dylan constantly and playing with Crosby.
Where can you find Neil’s comments on the Dead and their jammyness? I’d be inclined to agree with Neil on that one; the Dead’s jams feel like they go on longer than they should for me. I know others like them more though, and they could grow on me. I’ve always loved Neil’s jams though. I’m just curious to read whatever he’s said about them. I know they played a couple shows together and had the Forever Young moment.
The way they played "Slip Away" on *Year of the Horse*, it sounds a lot like the Dead.
There was a brief in Shakey where he said he didn't get them initially but I think he said he came around to it eventually.
Interesting. I haven’t gotten around to reading Shakey yet but I’m sure I will soon.
I mean the dead is a f ing mess, musically. I can see Neil young not being into their train wreck
That's harsh. I mean he did get into them later on but wasn't an immediate fan.
I thought Sabbath was pretty universally respected by 60s and 70s british bands? Sabbath has a lot more jazz and blues than people realize.
I couldn't tell you. It is often true that musicians are more open-minded than their fans. On the audience side, though, I definitely know people from that 60's rock scene who saw them live and thought they sucked. And sure, I bet if they heard Warning, they'd be like, alright, I can work with that. But then they'd hear Symptom of The Universe and be like, what the fuck is that lol Sabbath absolutely has a fuck-ton of blues in the mix, and grew from those roots, but it doesn't follow the "right formula". Innovation often sounds like shit to people who are set in their ways.
Reminds me of the segment in “It Might Get Loud” where the Edge explains his simplified C chord and Jimmy Page almost breaks a rib asking him if that’s right sarcastically five times.
And funny enough some of Eric’s “most popular” songs he are jj Cale’s.
lol have you seen the clip where Paul McCartney and Ozzy Osbourne run into each other backstage or something (I think sometime in the 1990s) and Ozzy is SO hyped to meet him and Paul clearly wants nothing to do with the conversation and walks away after like 3 seconds? I couldn’t believe how disrespectful Paul was to him.
Wow not how I read that situation at all. Ozzy's worshipful approach sorta forced Paul to play it down. He was not disrespectful. What could he do?
George didn't write (Got My Mind) Set on You. It's a cover. I love Neil and George. All Things Must Pass and some of his earlier solo work is right up there with anything Neil wrote. Once again, love them both!
never knew that was a cover. Great music video
this quote just seems like the typical egotistical guitarist of that era that can’t understand how anyone who’s not at Clapton level skill could make good music. I bet George hated punk lol meanwhile we wouldn’t have Dinosaur Jr without Neil Young
He thought Clapton was a Guitar god, I love George's music, but a lot of his opinions were off.
You win that bet, he absolutely hated punk. George Harrison was practicing being a grumpy old man since his twenties though.
George was a man of very large contradictions. Loving spiritually , but also loving cocaine, singing about love, but also being a womanizer. A good songwriter and great melodic guitarist though.
He had pretty conservative taste in music. John had to explain to him that David Bowie was in fact good. And there’s a quote from him in the early ‘90s where he says that he didn’t think much of modern music until his son turned him on to this new band called the Black Crowes. Meanwhile Paul was writing with Elvis Costello and making ambient techno albums under a pseudonym with the original bassist from Killing Joke. (He’s currently listening to St. Vincent and Khruangbin, apparently. And he’s the guy who put the tape loops in “Tomorrow Never Knows,” he’d like people to know.)
Further reinforces Paul being my favorite Beatle.
I agree with everything you've said. I've actively sought Neil Young while never having gone out of my way to listen to post-Beatles Harrison. The FarmAid 94 version of Down By The River cemented Uncle Neil near and dear to my heart.
Come on now. All Things Must Pass is the greatest post-beatles album by any member and an amazing album by its own regards
It's good, my vote is for Plastic Ono Band though. Now that's an emotional record.
I disagree. While I’m a huge Beatles fan, I always found Harrison’s solo stuff made great background music, but nothing that really grabbed me. I think trimming All Things down to one record would have been an improvement. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Was that the year he played DBTR with Phish? That was some hot fire. It was 98. If you haven't heard it, get after it.
Yeah, the difference is that with a Neil solo, you're on Neil's time, not your own. With George, his parts are more compact. Both favor melodic qualities over pure technique, which I like. (And both operate on verrry different emotional levels/frames of mind).
Neil had some pretty memorable “pop songs” himself. Mr. Soul, Cinnamon Girl, Ohio, Rockin in the Free World. I can hear all those guitar parts in my head plain as day.
There are few soundtracks that I would consider **\*perfect\*** and this is one of them. To be fair, Dead Man is my favorite all time movie so I'm a little biased, but I think the soundtrack highly compliments the movie and without it, IDK if it would be nearly as good. IIRC, he had 3 tv's set up playing the movie and he did 2 freeform passes of the full film and everything was taken from those 2 takes.
I adore that thing man
Then again George did do Wonderwall Music - both a soundtrack and one of my favorite albums. How much George personally played on it I'm not sure. Peter Tork totally shreds on banjo on one track though.
Yeah their styles are wildly different. I love Neil and enjoy his solos but also as a guitarist I can totally see that he isn't a great player, he just has a lot of feelings and enjoys playing. What's weird to me about Harrison's criticism is that he completely disregards all of neil's other abilities - mostly as a songwriter. Like fair, you don't have to like the 20 minutes Crazy Horse jams, but surely you can't deny Neil is a fucking insane songwriter?
He is a great guitar player
Ya his acoustic guitar playing is some of the greatest
I agree, he has a great percussive style
Acoustic is an unnecessary caveat, his electric guitar playing is absolutely iconic. Everybody knows the riff from Ohio, from Cinnamon Girl, from Powder Finger, from Hey Hey My My. Those are killer riffs. I would say Neil is at least as competent as George, but he expresses himself differently.
Yeah I agree. Neil is a great improvisational player, something George wasn’t. No hate for George, he was amazing in his own way too.
Yeah, George Harrison being part of all his hits etc still did not write the masterpiece album that is ‘After the Goldrush’.
Let’s not act like George didn’t write a masterpiece album though. I’ll take Neil over George but ATMP is amazing
ATMP is great, but it's one album (and I can name 5 Neil albums I like better). George's peaks are very high but quantity matters too, Neil has like 10 times the amount of great songs Harrison ever wrote.
Oh I agree. I’m just saying that the commenter sounded like George was only “a part” of a bunch of hits.
It’s a matter of taste, but I disagree. To me, George Harrison stumbles on good songs every so often, but Neil Young is a legend and a true genius. I have a couple songs from ATMP on my playlists, but that album is mostly filler.
Exactly. Neil isn't the most technically brilliant guitarist or singer. But being a great artist (which I'd say he is) involves so much more than just technical brilliance. Similarly, Celine Dion (edit: arguably) blows Nina Simone out of the water for vocal range and power, but in terms of who moved the needle for their art form, it's Nina. And Neil Young. Plus, as I said above, it's disappointing to hear George talk like this. Never meet your heroes, I guess.
George Harrison and Eric Clapton both come off as extremely insecure about their place in history. For Clapton, he spent a year or two as the greatest guitarist in the world before being overshadowed by a handful of other guitar gods. For Harrison, I think living in the shadow of John and Paul created a big chip on his shoulder. Let’s also take note of how both of these guys treated their wives and girlfriends and conclude that they were not going to win any congeniality awards, even in the forum of rock stars.
Clapton walked off stage and cried when he heard Hendrix for the first time. Instead of enjoying the insane talent he had the chance to watch he threw a hissy fit because he knew he wasn't the best guitar player anymore.
His horrendous racist outburst in the 70’s doesn’t add to his legacy either.
Unpopular opinion, ATMP is mostly dreary and uninteresting. The jams are the best parts.
You’re entitled to your opinion
“I’ll Have You Any Time” is the only song I really like from that album. I should mention that I am one of those Beatles fans who sees “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” in people’s top ten lists and makes this expression: 🤨.
Where did Harrison comment on Young as a songwriter?
He didn't specifically, but he did say "I'm not a Neil Young fan" and than referred exclusively to his guitar playing. Since he was giving his general opinion on Neil, you think he would at least refer to his most obvious quality. That's kinda saying "Dylan sucks because I don't like his harmonica playing", ok dude, but what about the thing he's actually legendary for...?
He said some of his songs are alright.. https://youtu.be/rdHPQxJfG40?si=iWjSiwoL-1I8usEL
They are both great guitarists in their own way. Harrison is more melodic, Young is more ambient, but they are not as far apart as all that. They both have their unique signature sound and fit nicely into Rock and Roll history.
Doh! I literally JUST read yours after I posted mine. 🤦♂️ Yes to what you wrote. Lol
Everyone is capable of a shockingly bad take haha
Even Clapton…/s
"I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism" \-Eric Clapton, 1976 Truly a quote.
>I used to be into dope, now I'm into racism “I don’t want you here, in the room or in my country,” Clapton declared. “Listen to me, man! I think we should vote for Enoch Powell. Enoch’s our man. I think Enoch’s right, I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white. I used to be into dope, now I’m into racism. It’s much heavier, man. Fucking wogs, man. Fucking Saudis taking over London. Bastard wogs. Britain is becoming overcrowded and Enoch will stop it and send them all back. The black wogs and coons and Arabs and fucking Jamaicans and fucking… don’t belong here, we don’t want them here. This is England, this is a white country, we don’t want any black wogs and coons living here. We need to make clear to them they are not welcome. England is for white people, man. We are a white country. I don’t want fucking wogs living next to me with their standards. This is Great Britain, a white country. What is happening to us, for f\*ck’s sake?”
Guy who loves black music hates black people
Most racists I know love reggae. I mean, Bob Marley and white boy ska are about as deep as they go, but they will use the word “jah” unironically and know all the words to “redemption song.” It is what it is.
The irony
How many racists do you know?
Good point. Clapton has really sunk low in my impression of the man.
He was always threatened by it and always want to take it for himself. His co-option was never respectful, was never an accident, was never with honour. He stole because he hated. This isn't universally the case, of course, and I won't get drawn into a debate on your favouritr white artist. But it was the case with him. And it's the case more often than many like to admit.
I thought him being a piece of shit was fairly new, but I see now he was always a piece of shit…thanks for sharing
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say he really wanted to keep Great Britain white.
It's pretty nuanced.
🙌🏻
Interesting. I love George’s guitar work, he has some incredibly tasteful solos, but his style is very composed compared to Neil’s. Neil might hit a few stray notes here and there, but he was all about capturing a moment, flaws and all, rather than a perfect take.
George makes his guitar weep. Neil makes his guitar scream.
The one time George actually needed to make his guitar weep, he called Clapton. Also Paul took lead guitar over him for other songs too (Taxman is a prime example). George is a phenomenal lead player for short, well crafted solos and for playing parts underneath verse/choruses, but he's not a great freestyle soloist.
He also completely wrote off hip-hop as a genre. For a Beatle and somebody who was into spiritual development and experimentation, he was actually very conservative. If it wasn't 50's skiffle performed behind a factory in Liverpool, he wasn't into it. Clapton is the poster boy for unimaginative blues-rock. The idea of either of them scoffing at Neil is pretty funny. He shits all over them as a musician, as a songwriter, and as a general creative force.
i agree, always thought clapton was just a very traditional blues player, nothing wrong with that, but wasn't as much a gtar pioneer as maybe jimmy page, hendrix, or even young for that matter
I think Clapton's playing got less adventurous, exciting, and experimental as time went on if you look at his work with Cream and Derek & the Domino's compared to his later work. I agree that I would rate Page and Hendrix higher as guitarists, and songwriters. Neil as a songwriter certainly and he's not a bad guitarist by any means just not as technical.
This. Never read about George's feelings towards punk/post-punk but it goes without saying that Neil was one of the first BIG ROCK STARS to actively embrace it.
And as much as he talked about spiritual development he was racked by serious cocaine and alcohol addiction. Clapton is like a bowl of unseasoned oatmeal. He creatively atrophied sometime in the early 70s and his only good work was with good collaborators anyway. On his own he writes crap. I think David Gilmour is what happens if you take Clapton’s beautiful tone and vibrato and give it to someone who can actually compose original music.
I mean I love Neil too but to say that he “shits all over” George Harrison as a songwriter is pretty plainly ridiculous. We all have bad takes from time to time, doesn’t mean George isn’t one of the greats.
It's not ridicolous. For me Harrison has actually became a bit overrated when all the hipsters keep calling about how he was a huge genius that John and Paul cruelly ignored because of their egos. Up until 1968 George was miles behind John and Paul, he would have 2 songs per record and they would still usually be among the weakest in it. He stepped it up a bit in 1968 (which was recognized by the rest of the Beatles - "Something" was a single, "While My Guitar" a major track) and wrote some all time classics at that time, had one fantastic solo album ("All Things Must Pass") and kinda went back into mediocrity. It's hard to name even a few great songs he wrote after 1972. All and all he had a very short peak with some great classics but career wise he was mostly mediocre, he had nowhere near the longevity and consistency of John, Paul and Neil, all of them in a class of their own compared to him. I'd argue that in one year (let's say 1974) Neil could match pretty much everything Harrison ever wrote.
He had 2 songs per album because they signed with their label before George wrote and they wanted Lennon/McCartney songs. All Things Must Pass is mostly songs he wrote during his time with the Beatles. Sorry but you’re talking out your ass.
So where are all those unreleased 1965 Harrison masterpieces? Can you name them? ATMP songs were written in 1968 onwards. Up until 1968, George (by his own admission!) wasn't writing much, and other than "Taxman" (Which was recognized by the Lennon/McCartney - they chose it as the album opener!), none of his other songs are genuine album highlights. That doesn't mean they're bad - I like "If I Needed Someone" for example - but it's just not up to par with the L/M masterpieces of the time. L/M were actually super generous with him, they put his songs on the albums, they let him sing covers when he didn't have his originals, they even let him put his Indian tunes when clearly none of the other Beatles were into them. Up until 1968, George can't have ANY complaints. In 1968 he made his jump, and the Beatles responded accordingly - "Something" was a lead single, While My Guitar and Here Comes the Sun all got major spots in the album. Yeah, they missed out on a few ATMP songs that were already written - but it's not necessarily a deliberate Harrison snub. They rehearsed ATMP but couldn't get it right. - Lennon had "Jealous Guy" ready and rejected by the Beatles, McCartney had most of Ram already written. Not everything was ready in time - they had plenty of songs, were barely functioning as a band at this point, so they recorded what they felt worked. Neil himself sometimes took years to record great songs until he "got them right", that's what songwriters do. Plus, Harrison "wasted" some of his spots on relatively mediocre songs like "For You Blue" and "Savoy Truffle". At this point the Beatles were a known quantity so it's not like they would have put an entire album of Harrison material. He did ATMP which was great, but the rest of his solo career his pretty forgettable. None of it is to diss George, he's a legend, great guitar player, great harmony singer, he's a fucking Beatle. Literally my entire argument is, "he isn't on par with literally 3 of the best humans to ever write pop music" (John, Paul, Neil). Almost nobody is. He could match their quality in his best moments but had nowhere near the quantity. I just feel some people fell so hard for the "underdog" narrative that they actually think he's Lennon/McCartney level.
Disagree. After ATMP, it’s not like he started churning out classic records either. And ATMP is very good but I would pick most of Neil’s albums well before it, personally. It’s not an album that makes me think “man, I wish more George songs made the Beatles albums.”
The short peak includes some of the most beautiful songs in my lifetime. (Here comes the son rivals any Beatles song). Also would quibble that the 2 songs he'd contribute were the weakest on the earlier records, and would say All Things Must Pass is the most significant post-Beatle solo album. I'm a big Neil fan so don't love that he was slagging Neil if he was, but doesn't change my POV on him as a musician and songwriter.
That's a strange conclusion. If you were to list their greatest songs, Neil's list would absolutely dwarf George's. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. He's a far superior songwriter. I never said George wasn't great. I said it was funny that he scoffed at a superior musician and songwriter.
He’s not. A collection of good songs, then 30 years of trash. Neil has him clobbered 10x over.
The apple didn’t fall far from the tree. Harrison’s son shitting all over Prince’s solo at the RRHOF performance. Such a narrow minded snob.
Didn't Neil outplay Clapton at his own rock and roll hall of fame induction? I remember reading that Neil was on fire that night, and Clapton couldn't keep up and just let Neil shred when it came time for the live performance part of the show.
> If it wasn't 50's skiffle performed behind a factory in Liverpool, he wasn't into it. Are you missing the fact that GH was into Indian music, wasn't he the one that introduced Indian musicians to the Beatles with people like Ravi Shankar? Not exactly skiffle.
I didn't Mr.Spock. We humans often use hyperbolic statements for comedic effect.
I’m just glad no one came in here to defend Clapton’s milquetoast white man’s blues.
Comedic effect. Interesting (Raised eyebrow)
Cleptons an anti-vaxxer too lol
I’ll take Neil’s playing over George’s. He had to bring in Clapton for While My Guitar Gently Weeps. He’s also talked shit about Neil’s voice too. George had a big ego that didn’t match his solo output imo. He was even talking shit about Paul wanting to write with him after his 1987 comeback with Jeff Lynne producing. George had several chips on his shoulder. Odd for such a spiritual guy to be so egotistical and negative
I'm a big George fan, but I've always thought there was a disconnect with his spiritualism and his sort of archness. Within You without You, which I think is beautiful and groundbreaking, is also focusing on belittling how spiritually dead inside other people are. Taxman is awesome and funny but full of real resentment. He was a genius. So is Neil.
George was a grumpy man and yes, snooty. It's the primary flavor of his music. Don't Bother Me. Think For Yourself, you moronic imbecile. Give the guy a box of chocolates, he writes a song about tooth decay.
Haha 🤣 yeah you nailed him to a T here.
Savoy truffle
Eric Idle talked about trying to Introduce George to David Bowie, and George was too snooty. He'd just giggle and go "oh Bow-ie!!" Like some teenybopper pronouncing it like bow-wow.
If memory serves, Harrison was talking about Neil at the Dylan 30th Anniversary show in New York. It comes from informal conversation recorded at Tom Perry's studio (prompted by Bob Geldof asking if they'd all heard Neil's latest record, which was maybe the Freedom or Ragged Glory album).
Geldof was asking if he had heard Arc-Weld https://youtu.be/rdHPQxJfG40?si=aLZYlaPbOSTmibGa
And, to be fair, Arc -Weld is weird.
OP should update post to include this link.
Agreed, it would help with context. A lot of hardcore Neil fans regard *Arc-Weld* as "oh dear God, what's he gone and done *now?*" I'm not one of them, but I can see how people might think Neil's work was an acquired taste.
I love that response. So funny. I love to watch and listen to a creative genius... but it doesn't mean I want to listen to it more than once!
Well, that was my mom's reaction to Hendrix's performance at Woodstock! (No, she wasn't there, nor was I, more's the pity. Saw the film on tv.)
I’ll trade you three Arcs for one Weld. (C’mon Weld itself is solid!)
It makes sense that a Bob Dylan celebration show would bring out some of the most talented people who might have very strong creative differences, given the twists and turns his style took through the years
That's what I figured. I went to that show, probably the best concert of my life, and I've been to hundreds.
This is so sad because My Back Pages from that show is one of my favorite recordings of any song of all time 😭
This was the song they both soloed on. I believe it was also the last time George sang at a concert, but I might be wrong. I think he only did TV or radio appearances after that before he became ill.
It kind of makes sense. George is so reserved and deliberate. Neil is anything but. They are polar opposites.
Young > Harrison and Clapton.
Combined.
Neil's electric soloing is very much more emotion than technique.
One is the Grandfather of Grunge, one isn't.....
Everyone has the right to state their own wrong opinion.
That’s just like, your opinion, man.
And yet he was huge Eric Clapton fan Tells you all you need to know
George was in awe of somebody like clapton, who mostly stuck to pentatonics. Neil is a much more melodic soloist and his style is unorthodox. But if you watch the video where he says it, George is referring to an specific moment in the Dylan concert where Neil just went insane on one note and George is like "it sounds like a hive of bees flying", which is an apt descriptor. He then went on to say his songs were alright. I guess George was not into noisy kind of stuff.
Yeah George liked things polished and intentional. Neil is rough around the edges and unpredictable. I love them both for what they've brought to me musically...but Neil is what got me to pick up a guitar and understand that I don't need to be the best guitar player to write a great song or play an emotive lead. I owe him so much. Edit: and I'm not trying to say Neil isn't a great player (his chording and melody can be deceptively complex), but I think you guys in here know what I mean.
Some people will never understand "playing with feeling". Neil is not the best technical guitarist, but man oh man if you feel nothing listening to Cortez The Killer amongst dozens and dozens of other Neil songs you got something wrong with you. This type commentary on Neil feels like a bit of jealousy sometimes. George Harrison and Eric Clapton have nothing to be jealous of, but they can't see past themselves to give Neil proper credit.
I obviously love Neil’s guitar playing: it is intense and expressive. Some people prefer discipline over passion: I think they are missing the point. I also greatly admire George’s songwriting and some of his guitar playing. I found it very telling and sad in the Peter Jackson Beatles documentary when George was gushing about how Clapton knew how to improvise. All Clapton did was memorize a couple of 5-7 note blues scales and play them with a fat tone: basic blues theory. If George spent a week on it with the right teacher, he coulda played that style as well as Clapton. But getting caught up in the Beatles probably didn’t leave much opportunity to take lessons. I wanted to take George aside and tell him that Clapton is a derivative poser who wants to fuck your wife, and not to put that clown on a pedestal.
Clapton’s guitar playing was much more then memorizing a few scales and George’s ability in guitar is often underrated his ability to create melodies with in the frame work of pop hits that made these songs instantly recognizable is quite genius. Neil didn’t play by rules and is one of the all time great song and truth tellers of all time
I love Neil, I love George. Clapton can fuck off!
I was watching the Beatles documentary and there's a part where George is talking to Paul and saying he can't just improvise a solo..he needs to take his time and work it out so it's like all his solos fit perfectly within the song. Neil's guitar playing is just different in how he improvises and almost never plays the exact solo twice (during live performances). They are completely different guitar players and it is rather strange how George can't appreciate uncle Neil's style.
Neil is among the most exciting lead guitarists of the classic rock era. I love George, but he's not not in Neil's league as a lead player.
not a good look for harrison
Neil’s genius is his use of chords and harmonics. George would have never come up with a progression like Old Man.
can't tame the crazy horse lol
neil's playing and style are pretty eccentric i would say which ultimately leads to a more divisive opinion of him
I love a neil young guitar solo. His lead style is as unique as his voice. Harrison and Clapton just sound like a million other people
Neil wrote Harvest, amongst other things. He gets a pass on his lead guitar playing.
For me, the most amazing part of George's take on Neil's playing is that George is talking about "Bobfest". Neil single-handedly saved that show and far and away had the best performances of anyone there. The Watchtower was amazing and the Tom Thumb Blues was great too. Neil's playing was on point!
And this is why we don't refer to George as the godfather of grunge.
George Harrison liked granny guitars.
Neil Young is something more in the line of a medium gods use to communicate with people. George Harrison is a practiced artisan. They’re two things different entirely.
Whenever one successful artist denigrates another, they just come off like dicks. Stop already..
I'll take Neil's planets-colliding lead guitar work any day over Harrisons sleek perfection. I can respect Harrison, of course, but yeah gimme Old Black shaking the earth. I don't give a shit if Neil's only playing one note that's out of tune, because it's communicating an entire universe within it. Harrison communicates nice music. And Clapton's playing is the equivalent of nursing home oatmeal. Fuckin snore.
Co-signing every word of this. I am obsessed with the Beatles, I love George Harrison, but Neil's influence as a guitar player--literally the simple act of foregrounding his rejection of sleek perfection--is arguably right there with George's, and I prefer it too. What's weird to me is that George couldn't see that. Like, if it wasn't his taste sure, but his vibe is mockery. That's lame and surprisingly shortsighted.
It's kind of funny, growing up listening to classic rock, I just kind of assumed everybody from the 60s more or less all got along, and it was like one big hippie family. But just like everybody else, there are personality clashes, petty conceits, and outright hatreds etc. George wrote some timeless, amazing songs. Neil wrote a whole lot more. And although criticizing the Beatles is blasphemy to many people, I think it's pretty clear that Neil had more years of writing consistently influential material than George.
Well there was the Lynyrd Skynyrd - Neil Young feud.
Pretty much tempest in a teapot
As someone who likes George’s Beatles songs the most, he ain’t fit to lace Neil’s boots.
Yeah, people really didn’t understand impressionists either at first. when folks practice and produce precision, anything but that looks/sounds awful in comparison. Totally get why he would think that. I bet Lennon got it.
Harrison shouldn’t be critiquing anyone’s playing. He was barely passable. He’s always got to take shots. What he said about hip hop was supremely obtuse and narrow-minded. Bless George, but he couldn’t touch Neil w/ a 10-ft. pole, artistically.
L
Neil brought in something totally different; no care for anything but feeling. And I'll put Neil's rhythm playing over George's and Eric's any day.
That is surprising. I consider Neil young one of my favorites
Like Neil’s playing or not, it’s spontaneous and he doesn’t rely on a library of canned licks stitched together. It just kind of comes out of him. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Listen to “Cowgirl in the Sand” sometime. It definitely works there…
George should eat a peach
Neil would play circles around George, and I love me some George!
And Neil's work on that song at that concert sounded fantastic. So much better than the rote Clapton solo.
The more I read about George, the more he seems like kinda a dick.
It sort of started to get oxygen when some bell end who knew George would be in his store a certain day set up a video camera which he claimed wasn't operable. He then steered the subject to Neil and asked George his opinion. Basically George said he didn't like the long one note solos like say, Cowgirl and started to talk about other matters. The store owner kept going back to the subject of Neil and it was clearly getting awkward. The video used to be online but haven't seen it in ages. Maybe the guy who released it seen how immature he was in setting someone up and filming without permission
Was this about Bob Dylan's 30th anniversary concert?
Was thinking the same thing
I’m pretty sure George’s reasons for not liking him is why Neil is considered The Godfather of Grunge. His playing is frequently messy, distorted, and more emotional than technical. I love how Neil plays but it doesn’t entirely surprise me that someone like Harrison wouldn’t be a fan
Unlike these responses which are pretty predictable, I wont compare Neil to George in a who's better battle. George is entitled to his opinion and his rep is secure as a fucking BEATLE.... not like he was an underachiever. But if anything their styles were somewhat consistent - you don't get Will to Love unless you have Long Long Long. You don't get Neil's symphonic grandeur tracks like Country Girl unless you have George's epic Phil Spector period. Love both of them.
I mean, to be fair, I’d say Neil is a great rhythm guitar player. My dad’s favorite artist since 1975 has been Neil Young, and even he says Neil’s leads are like one note with the bendy thrown in occasionally. Haha!
Neil's probably top five guitar players of all-time. I wouldn't rank George higher than 300. Taxman and Guitar Gently and they're both such basic 60's songs. World left Clapton behind starting with Hendrix. Neil is the exact kind of riffing I want to play, there's not many I put higher. His songwriting is also stellar, one of the top musicians of all-time.
No way Neil young is a top 5 guitar player of all time…I’m 61 and have been playing for 50 years…I cannot write as well as Neil can and my childhood was filled with dozens of his songs…his acoustic work was the first songs I learned how to play…thr first being “Heart of Gold”. You don’t get any easier than that…I love his playing on the Crosby song “Almost Cut my Hair”…one of my favorite pieces of music…but guys he’s NOT a great guitar player, he would be the first to tell you so…I think he’s evolved into a better piano player over the years…I know this is a Neil subreddit, and I’m not a huge Harrison and Clapton fan either…so many modern players blow all three away…remember this all subjective…
We should start this same topic in the Beatles subreddit and see what the response is there.
I really like Neil’s acoustic playing, but his lead playing is an acquired taste. I like it, but it’s odd - and I get why anybody wouldn’t necessarily like it. Very choppy, sloppy-sounding, but undeniably Neil. It’s got a lot of personality.
I'd love to read the whole article. Does anyone have the link?
For all his elevated spiritually, George could be a dick.
not sure why reddit recommended this thread to me, but Neil is the goat. subbed, love the passionate defense of his artistry and ability in here.
Welcome to the Neil Lovefest.
Hey guys, casual un-subbed Neil Young Fan here just stopping by to say Neil Young may not be George Harrison on guitar. However, Neil's vocals, song writing, production, and topics behind his work can't be matched. Yes, the Beatles sold Millions of records and had millions of fans comparable to modern day "Swifty's". Neil wrote music about very cool subjects and topics of his time that are timeless. The Beatles are great 👍 .... I'd rather listen to Neil Young around a campfire than a Beatles record.
George Harrison hated everything
George and Neil play lead guitar on the exact opposite sides of the spectrum so this makes sense. (in a nutshell, George is tidy/precise and Neil is like a fucking hurricane. I love both).
On the flipside, Neil and Paul are good friends, and Neil did a bang-up job filling in for John when he and Paul did a rendition of A Day in the Life a few years back.
I wonder if this is connected to the shot that Neil Young took at Eric Clapton with the This Note's For You video.
Neil is Feel. GH had very little feel. EC had even less, though both were prolific and had incredible talent... they lacked much of the soul. my opinion. I respect all 3
Eric Clapton is so incredibly overrated.
There are those who play with spirited passion despite mistakes, I.E The Replacements, Niel Young. I think Niel once stated he always used the first take. His music isn't delivered to be a wanking display of musical prowess like say, Steve Vai, it's political, humane, heart on sleeve rock that's about more than the technical exhibition. I find it helps people connect more and see him as more real when he hits a bad note and doesn't give two shits. Clapton is literally one of if not the most boring guitar wankers in history. If I want blues proficiency I'll take Albert King, SRV, John Lee Hooker or BB King. But that's just me.
Used to love Harrison until I watched Get Back. It was painfully obvious he was miserable due to the realization over the years that he was not in the same league as Lennon and McCartney and instead of accepting that he blamed them. No doubt he was talented but without Lennon/McCartney I'm not so sure the world would have ever known him. The same cannot be said about Neil Young.
we watched different documentaries i think. he was pissed off at being treated like a hired hand, and when the beatles ended he took the bevy of great songs john and paul ignored, and made what's now widely considered the best solo album by any of them.
Then 30 years of mediocre-to-decent rock.
I came away from that doc with an entirely new appreciation for McCarthy and a less enthusiastic outlook towards Harrison for sure.
If I had to pick someone to be my best friend, It would be George. Hands down. He was just a great human being. Very humble and giving. Neil's a great guy too, but he's a bit full of himself.
British vs American culture. Beatles sort of picked what elements of r&b and soul they wanted to use with their songs and styles, but they are British. They missed out on the messiness and a lot of the vibe of blues guitar being from feeling, not so much form as George or Eric Clapton play. That being said I know Neil young is Canadian, but to me there is that loose feeling to American rock that comes from soul influences that the Brit’s just can’t emulate. They’re such an orderly people who love chateaus and jelly molds and queues and stuff lol.
So why am I British yet (vastly) prefer Neil Young? That's a lot of generalising you're doing there.
It’s just my theory. Maybe at the point that George’s comment was made in 1992 he’s also maybe become a little crotchety in his age and Eric Claptons always sort of been his buddy and agreed with him and it has nothing to do with them being British. Just to me, his style has always been on the orderly side, not like other British garage rock stuff. The Beatles grew to be very polished very quickly even if at their roots they were looser.
George Harrison spent his entire life being overshadowed by other musicians around him. Neil Young is just another example of one of his contemporaries doing what he did better than him. Massively talented, of course. But maaaaaaan was Harrison a bitter jealous twat.
I like Neil Young. His acoustic stuff is great. His electric music, kind of a turn off for me.
He's right. George is not one to pretty up an opinion for optics sake, and he's usually spot on. Obviously he and Neil are very different stylings, George has a very composed, melodic and thoughtful solo style. I'd say his chord structures are often complex and identifiable as well. I really like Neil Young, but his solos are really goofy and sloppy and inspired/in the moment. Each song he writes is like 2 chords repeated forever so ...