Neil Young & Crazy Horse - RDS - 15th June

C.K Dexter Haven

Really...Jesus wrote: »

Correct!

What? Hotdoggirl slept for 12 hours?:P

seachto7

To a previous poster who thought The Waterboys were a novelty act like mumford ot the sawdoctors!!! Gah!! An insult to The Waterboys!!!!

thebaz

martybike wrote: »

S However, the biggest surprise amongst the support act was the Waterboys. I really didn't have time for them in the past (they were in the same novelty bin as Mumford and Sons and the saw Doctors) but they were really terrific last night. Really tight and a fantastic sound. Just lose the stoopid hat Mike. That goes for you too, Neil.

spot on , I'm old enough to remember when the Waterboys were nearly as big as U2 in the mid 80s Ireland; after Fishermans Blues, they took one step too many into diddly aye land - thought they were forever lost; - but last night they turned back the clock and were back - they must come alive only in recessionary times

Really...Jesus

From Block M (semi middle of stand) in new stand section, I saw nothing, therefore, I had no connection with being at a concert. From the stand, while I could hear Old Black's thunder roar just fine, the playout mix of Young's vocal, Poncho's rhythm and Talbot's bass, was dismal. Sound improved for Cortez right at the end for some reason, but it was obviously too little too late. The stage looked like a recession proof Halloween costume (wrapped in one giant black bin bag). Why does the RDS "keep ****ing up?" Peter Aiken should be ashamed of this pharce & I should have known better than to expect anything else from previous visits to the dump that is the RDS! "My my hey hey, rock n roll lost out today. It was burnt out and it faded away. My my hey hey." Muck of the highest order.

Really...Jesus

Mental Mickey wrote: »

This sums it up perfectly.

Sums it up perfectly nothing! You obviously weren't in the stands. Rubbish gig...nothing to do with Neil Young & CH...the venue was ****e. Ok! That sums it up in my opinion!

Really...Jesus

PropJoe10 wrote: »

To be honest, if you dont like self indulgent jamming then you really shouldnt be buying a ticket for a Crazy Horse gig. They've been playing long self-indulgent guitar jams since 1970, they arent going to change their approach now. People should be given their money back for what exactly? Sure, the feedback section at the end of Walk Like a Giant went on a bit, but I cant really see why people are getting their knickers in a twist over it. This is Neil Young we're talking about, who has been doing exactly what he wants since 1967.

The sound from stands was bleak mate. The view even bleaker without a big screen. It's 2013 and no big screen at an outdoor music concert featuring the heavyweight champions of grunge rock? Piss poor by Aiken!

oorrccaa

I enjoyed watching Neil/CH play as if no one was watching. I think if you were near the front, like I was, and did not enjoy watch them having the time of their lives and playing to a tee, you did not deserve to be there.

The audience was dead. I was too indulged, particularly in Neil, to let that bother me however.

It seems some people would rather have him playing the songs he doesn't want to play and not enjoy it. I'm glad Neil has never listened to them people.

Flysfisher

Lots of people saying that the gig was good up front close to the stage. Fine. But what about everybody else? Can everyone fit right up tight to that pathetic excuse of a 'stage'?

The venue really is awful for a NYCH concert. Probably any concert.

Even a few days later I still think the self indulgence killed it for a lot of people, the end of giant killed the show dead. it was never going to recover after that. I am a NY fan for 30 years and know all about NYCH gigs and what to expect. I dont need to look up the set list from last shows to know what's coming track wise. But personally I feel they got this one wrong.

Good point about the ads being misleading but leading up to the gig I knew that was the case. And that was a clear indication that's its all just about the €€€€€ for the promoters. When I got to the horse field and saw the effort of production that confirmed everything.

Didn't go to the bar, food stands or toilet and really don't care what they were like. I don't worry about those things, I go to see the act and hear the music, not to get buckled. Pity I couldn't see fleck all or hear a lot.
Very sad to see people leaving and I hate booing. Overall one big cock up by Aiken.


Would I go to see NYCH again? Of course, hopefully not in that horse paddock they call a venue, horrible, horrible place.

Guill

It was practically Neil Young and Crazy Horse's greatest hits!!

What a gig, What a Man!

AwayWithFaries

I was near the front so the sound to me was good. But I can understand the the complaints from people further back. It's a pity because Young himself was pretty good (bar the end of Walk Like A Giant, wtf?).

The promoters really left down the fans, the tickets weren't cheap but stage etc. looked like it was done on a shoestring budget, Money grabbing of the highest order. The lack of a big screen and a big sound for an outdoor gig is a disgrace in this day and age.

Mental Mickey

Really...Jesus wrote: »

Sums it up perfectly nothing! You obviously weren't in the stands. Rubbish gig...nothing to do with Neil Young & CH...the venue was ****e. Ok! That sums it up in my opinion!

YOUR opinion. I was in the wheelchair area at the front left of the stage. View was perfect. The sound problems were down to something neither NY nor the promoters have any control over - the weather. I've been to plenty of gigs in the very same arena when everything was fine.

Think you just had a bad night??

Mental Mickey

Really...Jesus wrote: »

Sums it up perfectly nothing! You obviously weren't in the stands. Rubbish gig...nothing to do with Neil Young & CH...the venue was ****e. Ok! That sums it up in my opinion!

YOUR opinion. I was in the wheelchair area at the front left of the stage. View was perfect. The sound problems were down to something neither NY nor the promoters have any control over - the weather. I've been to plenty of gigs in the very same arena when everything was fine.

Think you just had a bad night??

flasher0030

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjoying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

I’ve been to gigs where there is a level of interaction between the performers and the crowd (Pearl Jam, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen), and you leave the gig with a reflection of how good the music is, but also with a sense of a bond to the performer. Realistically, going on youtube and searching for Neil Young live songs in 2012/2013, then listen away for 2 hours – would have been better sound, and a lot warmer.

Some people are blinded by “god-like status” of their favourite band. If that band sat in the middle of the stage reading out the Irish times to the crowd for 2 hours, it would be seen as “art”. Neil Young is not a God to me. He’s someone whose music I like to listen to.

tommy2bad

flasher0030 wrote: »

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjoying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

The thing is Niel is not a live jukebox, he is an artist. He doesn't do it as a job where he's hired to entertain the crowd.
You know this going, Neil is going to put on a show that he thinks you should see not a show he thinks you want to see .

Catmologen

flasher0030 wrote: »

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjoying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

I’ve been to gigs where there is a level of interaction between the performers and the crowd (Pearl Jam, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen), and you leave the gig with a reflection of how good the music is, but also with a sense of a bond to the performer. Realistically, going on youtube and searching for Neil Young live songs in 2012/2013, then listen away for 2 hours – would have been better sound, and a lot warmer.

Some people are blinded by “god-like status” of their favourite band. If that band sat in the middle of the stage reading out the Irish times to the crowd for 2 hours, it would be seen as “art”. Neil Young is not a God to me. He’s someone whose music I like to listen to.

You sound like you are blinded by your own of like stq

PropJoe10

Really...Jesus wrote: »

The sound from stands was bleak mate. The view even bleaker without a big screen. It's 2013 and no big screen at an outdoor music concert featuring the heavyweight champions of grunge rock? Piss poor by Aiken!

If the sound was that bad then thats unforgivable in this day and age. I must say, I was surprised at the lack of screens, considering how far away the people at the end of the stands/at the back would've been from the stage. I dont like the RDS anyway. Its an outdated venue and not a nice place to watch music.

Flysfisher

Don't think I have ever been at a concert where opinion was so divided.
Generally you get a few unhappy punters, but there's just way too many in this case. Not good.
There were issues with everything really, most but not all issues raised and discussed above. Its a pity i was looking forward to it and still a bit upset. Off now to give Aiken a bolocking, whatever good would that do :rolleyes:

Guill

flasher0030 wrote: »

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjoying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

I’ve been to gigs where there is a level of interaction between the performers and the crowd (Pearl Jam, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen), and you leave the gig with a reflection of how good the music is, but also with a sense of a bond to the performer. Realistically, going on youtube and searching for Neil Young live songs in 2012/2013, then listen away for 2 hours – would have been better sound, and a lot warmer.

Some people are blinded by “god-like status” of their favourite band. If that band sat in the middle of the stage reading out the Irish times to the crowd for 2 hours, it would be seen as “art”. Neil Young is not a God to me. He’s someone whose music I like to listen to.

They've been saying this about Neil on and of for forty years. Yet still some people expect the "Jutebox".

They complained when he used to have fits and be taken of stage in the 60's.
They complained when he stopped showing up for Buffalo Springfield gigs.
They Booed him when he toured Tonight's the night instead of Heart of Gold.
His own record company tried to sue him for making Un-Neil Young like Music!!!
They complained about Trans, reactor, Greendale, Le Noise.
And an Awful lot of stuff in between all of that.

He does what he want's and we're entitled to follow him for the ride or not. I would assume if people were spending 80 quid on tickets (and considering it expensive) they would have at least looked into what they are paying for. The RDS set-up is down to the promoter.

PropJoe10

flasher0030 wrote: »

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjoying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

I’ve been to gigs where there is a level of interaction between the performers and the crowd (Pearl Jam, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen), and you leave the gig with a reflection of how good the music is, but also with a sense of a bond to the performer. Realistically, going on youtube and searching for Neil Young live songs in 2012/2013, then listen away for 2 hours – would have been better sound, and a lot warmer.

Some people are blinded by “god-like status” of their favourite band. If that band sat in the middle of the stage reading out the Irish times to the crowd for 2 hours, it would be seen as “art”. Neil Young is not a God to me. He’s someone whose music I like to listen to.

I dont think its a matter of anyone being blinded by someone's God-like status, I think its just a matter of knowing what to expect when going to a Neil Young & Crazy Horse gig. Neil Young has been around since the mid 60's and never, at any point in his career, has he shown any interest in doing anything other than what he feels like doing at the time. I'm not saying that thats right or wrong, I'm just saying that the man is now 67 and is very unlikely to change. If you want a greatest hits set, or to be guaranteed to hear Old Man and Heart of Gold, you should go to a Neil Young tribute gig. If he doesnt want to interact with the crowd, then thats OK by me. I'd prefer that than him standing up there making some contrived jokes about how Ireland is the world's best country, like some acts seem to do.

seachto7

The problem with people moaning at Neil Young gigs are people who might have the "greatest hits" or "unplugged" thrown in the car, or know that song about needles off the radio. If they had any clue of what a Neil Young gig would be like or his career, they would know to expect the unexpected. Expect anything.

"Well, I paid €80. I want to hear the hits". Well, if you knew anything about a Neil Young show etc. and so on...

PropJoe10

I remember seeing an interview with Neil a few years back, where the interviewer asked him if he was interested in bringing new fans to his music. His answer was "I'm always interested in appealing to anyone that wants to listen, but ultimately I'm doing it for myself". I guess that summed him up for me - like it or not, thats the way he is.

Ash.J.Williams

flasher0030 wrote: »

From following this thread, there is one theme that I cannot quite understand.
There are a lot of posts by people who were at the gig (and obviously enjoyed themselves), advising others to get over the bad sound, endless jamming etc.
And that the most important thing is that Neil Young was enjioying himself and even smiled. And of course, it’s acceptable as “Neil will do whatever he wants”.

When you put this into context, you have an individual who is getting paid a hell of a lot of money, who is supposed to be carrying out a service to those who pay for it, and in a satisfactory manner – not whatever he wants to do himself. If he were doing it for nothing, then fair enough. But punters paid €60/€80 and expect good entertainment. And is there not some onus on the performer to make sure that the sound is right, that there are adequate screens, and even just to think for a minute – what tunes would the crowd like.

I’ve been to gigs where there is a level of interaction between the performers and the crowd (Pearl Jam, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen), and you leave the gig with a reflection of how good the music is, but also with a sense of a bond to the performer. Realistically, going on youtube and searching for Neil Young live songs in 2012/2013, then listen away for 2 hours – would have been better sound, and a lot warmer.

Some people are blinded by “god-like status” of their favourite band. If that band sat in the middle of the stage reading out the Irish times to the crowd for 2 hours, it would be seen as “art”. Neil Young is not a God to me. He’s someone whose music I like to listen to.

thats boll0x ...go see a tribute band if you want the hits

Econoline Van

I didn't go on Saturday because I hate outdoor shows (Malahide felt empty to me a few years back) and I saw him in Austria and London in 2008, which were just incredible and will probably never be topped so I have "my fix" as such.

Anyway, there seems to be two arguments here:

1. He didn't play enough "greatest hits". That's a load of cobblers and anyone who paid for a ticket without doing research is a fool.

2. The sound was crap and there was no big screens.

The second one is the one people should be focusing on. If enough people complain, maybe if Neil tours again, Aiken will put him on indoors in the o2, or, Vicar Street. I wouldn't care about ticket prices for a show in Vicar Street. Because if bottom line and profit is their main game then if Neil tours again, I really don't think the RDS will be viable because it'll be a quarter full. I live 500m away, am as big a Neil fan as there is and I wasn't bothered with it.

Lightbulb Sun

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I remember seeing an interview with Neil a few years back, where the interviewer asked him if he was interested in bringing new fans to his music. His answer was "I'm always interested in appealing to anyone that wants to listen, but ultimately I'm doing it for myself". I guess that summed him up for me - like it or not, thats the way he is.

I think songwriters should write songs for themselves, as Neil does, and not for fans or critics.

flasher0030

Didn’t mention anything about wanting the hits. I love Neil Young’s music, and that includes with Crazy Horse. One of my favourite albums 20 years ago was the blistering Arc/Weld live album, from which many songs were played on Saturday night. Incredible energy to the songs. Unless that recording was edited, there was no meandering off into endless solos. In terms of songs, if they played Rockin.. and Like a Hurricane, then it would have been practically a greatest hits package plus a few other tunes.

The point was that, despite getting paid serious money, many performers don’t give a damn about the paying punter. For the 2 and a bit hours that Neil Young was on stage, would it have crossed his mind at any second – “I wonder what do the crowd think. Are they getting a bit bored”. “What can I do to lift it a bit”.
I doubt it. But with Neil being a tad moody and difficult, it alright to say that it is acceptable. My point is to those people who say get over it, that’s just the way he is. Well that’s not acceptable. It would be acceptable if Neil Young said “Look guys, I’m just going to concentrate on enjoying myself tonight and have a good old-fashioned jam here tonight, with plenty of feedback”. “And as I’m just thinking of myself, I’m not going to charge you for coming along”.

If I hired a painter to paint my house, and told him to paint it white. But he painted it pink, because it’s his favourite colour – would you pay him?

PropJoe10

flasher0030 wrote: »

Didn’t mention anything about wanting the hits. I love Neil Young’s music, and that includes with Crazy Horse. One of my favourite albums 20 years ago was the blistering Arc/Weld live album, from which many songs were played on Saturday night. Incredible energy to the songs. Unless that recording was edited, there was no meandering off into endless solos. In terms of songs, if they played Rockin.. and Like a Hurricane, then it would have been practically a greatest hits package plus a few other tunes.

The point was that, despite getting paid serious money, many performers don’t give a damn about the paying punter. For the 2 and a bit hours that Neil Young was on stage, would it have crossed his mind at any second – “I wonder what do the crowd think. Are they getting a bit bored”. “What can I do to lift it a bit”.
I doubt it. But with Neil being a tad moody and difficult, it alright to say that it is acceptable. My point is to those people who say get over it, that’s just the way he is. Well that’s not acceptable. It would be acceptable if Neil Young said “Look guys, I’m just going to concentrate on enjoying myself tonight and have a good old-fashioned jam here tonight, with plenty of feedback”. “And as I’m just thinking of myself, I’m not going to charge you for coming along”.

If I hired a painter to paint my house, and told him to paint it white. But he painted it pink, because it’s his favourite colour – would you pay him?

The only way I can answer that is: If you hired someone to paint your house white, that had only ever painted things pink before, and only had pink paint, then you'd be the fool if you ended up with a pink house, not them!

tommy2bad

flasher0030;
If I hired a painter to paint my house, and told him to paint it white. But he painted it pink, because it’s his favourite colour – would you pay him?

If the painter was Picasso?

flasher0030

Good point.

It's just that I had not researched into Neil Young gigs. Hadn't been to one before. I'm not a die-hard fan. I do love much of his music.
I don’t think you should need to have carried out research into what a gig will entail. For me, the surprise element is what makes a gig – not knowing what will be played next. As I say, it’s not the actual songs that I have the gripe with or the musical ability – it’s the attitude – “we’ll play 10 minute solos if we want, and tough luck if you don’t like it”. But no problem charging well for that “privilege”. I know some of that goes to the promoter, but the artists do have a say in ticket prices.

rick_fantastic

i was around 20/30mtrs from front centre of stage and sound was reasonable... wasn't amazing but wasn't too bad.. the wind had a lot to do with this...

it was my 5th time seeing neil play and 2nd with crazy horse and i have enjoyed every concert immensely.. thought the setlist was good..

really felt sorry for people in the stands, id say it was a terrible experience.. but their own fault, who goes to a rock concert to sit down

mikom

rick_fantastic wrote: »

really felt sorry for people in the stands, id say it was a terrible experience.. but their own fault, who goes to a rock concert to sit down

Bob Dylan.