Music/Popular Culture

Tournament of Rock – Legends: The Rolling Stones vs Neil Young

Welcome to the Tournament of Rock – Legends Final Four. Let’s get it started. Up first, The Rolling Stones and Neil Young, the winners of the Budokan and Red Rocks regions, respectively.

#2 The Rolling Stones: Listen #5 Neil Young: Listen

Polls close Wednesday morning.

<br /> <a href=”; mce_href=””>Which band/artist deserves to advance in the Tournament of Rock: Legends?</a><span style=”font-size:9px;” mce_style=”font-size:9px;”>(<a href=”; mce_href=””>answers</a&gt;)</span>

The updated bracket looks like this:

Image credit: Raymond Pronk and Rock God Cred.

28 replies »

  1. Went with Stones. Would have picked Neal Young, whose work was breathtaking. Emphasis on was — the quality nose-dived in the early 90s.

  2. @ Russ: Wait … when it comes to Neil & the Stones in the ’90s, you said that Neil’s quality nose-dived then???? What have the Stones done since maybe ’82 that didn’t totally suck?

  3. So … continuing to slog through the old catalog live is a meaure of greatness in this tournament? I suppose with the final four we have, some level of that is inevitable, but seriously, is that the only thing the Stones have given rock since ’82?

  4. Probably. Actually, I would peg it earlier than that–when Mick Taylor left in 1974, and Ron Wood came in.

    “So … continuing to slog through the old catalog live is a meaure of greatness in this tournament? ”

    Sure. Didn’t you get the rulebook?

  5. :: Puts his fingers in the shape of a cross in front of him defensively ::

    “Back, you interlopers from Neil Young fan sites! Back I say!”

  6. Well, this one’s tough. The Stones are one of the great bands, and did seminal work in the 1960s through the mid 1970s. How many people discovered the blues through the Stones? Lots. The fact that nothing since then has been up to par isn’t necessarily a problem for me–that’s true for lots of groups. What is a problem is the fact that they stole from everyone. And it’s one thing to steal from old blues guys–lots of people did that. It’s another to steal from Ry Cooder and Mick Taylor, and not give credit where it’s due to people you’ve actually worked with. And even though they’re probably more important musically than Young, somehow for me Young embodies what rock should be more than the Stones do. Because great music or not, the Stones have always been about posing and pulling a fast one. I hate to bring up the “authenticity” tag–but Young deserves it more than the Stones do. So I’m going with Young, for reasons that don’t really have much to do with the music. In fact, I don’t even own a single Neil Young record. But there’s a certain spirit that I want to see represented, and he carries it, and the Stones don’t.

    • Depending on how you feel about the post-Roger incarnation of Floyd, it’s at least safe to say that Neil has done the most of any F4 artist since 1982. But even at that, it’s been awhile since any of them were terribly relevant. Maybe that’s another criterion for greatness: must not have been relevant since Reagan.

  7. Mike, I had that album but got rid of it. Two good songs are not enough (I will say Rockin’ in the Free World is one of the best songs of the late 80s). I also like what wufnik had to say.

  8. Even the stones concerts suck right now : look at shining light, the guys can’t play anymore. I’ve been in a gig at Paris, it was bad. And I am a big fan of mister Keif fuckin Richards. Neil is still here, he is still able to blow the audience with his metallic guitar. The Stones belong to the past. So Neil, you win dude.

  9. i’ve come to believe that this entire process is a lesson in american politics. it’s not about the best candidate, it’s about who can motivate their base. we seem to have our own microcosm of grassroots groups, too.

  10. @Mike: Agreed. Trans was a solid album. It could be argued that, with Trans, Neil got to New Order’s signature sound two years before they did. Everybody’s Rockin’ was also quite good.

  11. Fikshun wrote:

    Russ: Wait … when it comes to Neil & the Stones in the ’90s, you said that Neil’s quality nose-dived then???? What have the Stones done since maybe ‘82 that didn’t totally suck?

    I agree. It’s just that I loved Neil Young so much, my disappointment was that much greater.

  12. It wouldn’t suprise me if the Stones won. As a shadow of their former selves, Neil continues to be just as relevant if not more so than at any point in his career. Not many artists or bands can make that claim. Not many artists had an entire genra of music and styles atributed to them as Neil had with the so called ‘grunge movement’. He never set out to start trends, He never followed a successful record with a duplicate to be a commercial success even if he could had, he just continued to follow the muse and create what moved him at the moment even to the point of being sued by his own record company for not making ‘Neil Young’ records… thats integrety … his biggest record is yet to come. I don’t think that can be said of the Stones.

Leave us a reply. All replies are moderated according to our Comment Policy (see "About S&R")

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s