Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch New Album by Big & Rich Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Amazon.com Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Music forum

Why The Buffalo Springfield Might Be The Most Important Band Of All Time (And Certainly More Important Than The Kinks !)

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 579 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 19, 2012, 10:09:15 AM PDT
GQ says:
A myopic member of the lunatic fringe who shall go nameless as MiBoDoCa, commented that the Buffalo Springfield had their time in the sun for a "lunch hour" compared to the Kinks and implied their dubious significance. In reflecting on that lack of perspective (and class), it is most worthy of note that the Springfield are responsible for more great music than produced by any other band. Thus spoketh the music gods: "And the Springfield begat Poco, and begat Loggins & Messina, and begat Crosby Stills & Nash, and begat Crosby Stills Nash & Young, and begat Crosby & Nash, and begat the Stills - Young Band, and begat the Souther-Furay Band, and begat Stephen Stills, and begat Neil Young, and begat Neil Young & Crazy Horse, and begat Richie Furay, and begat Jim Messina." That's a lot of begat-ting ! No other group lineage produced the quantity of great music as did the Buffalo Springfield.
And the Kinks begat . . . wait, I need more time to think . . . well, they begat the Kinks I guess and the Davies Brothers. Wow - that's really impressive . . . I guess.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 10:41:22 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012, 10:43:39 AM PDT
clearcutter says:
Don't forget the grandchildren of all those begats. Poco in turn gave 2 of their finest members to The Eagles, so they also owe it big time to Buffalo Springfield.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 11:06:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012, 11:13:00 AM PDT
tmoore says:
The Kinks were together for 30+ years. If the Buffalo Springfield had been together 30 years, they wouldn't have begat any of the acts you mentioned, and would have been huge (I say Beatleesque) if everything else played out the way it did (but it wouldn't have, because none of those people would have had the artistic freedom (or the recording time) they eventually had by going on their own - which kind of sounds like what happened to the Beatles, doesn't it?). As it was, Buffalo Springfield were only together for about two years, and had only three albums, one of which (the last one) is just a collection of solo projects which both Young and Stills seem to diss, if you read the liner notes of Neil Young's 1963-72 box set. Because of the tremendous difference of the length of time the two groups were together, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

I'm a big fan of both groups. I'm very sorry I never got to see the Buffalo Springfield, but I didn't even hear of them until 1982 when a Vietnam Vet talked to my high school US History course about said war (he played "For What It's Worth"). I got teased by college "friends" in 1985 when I liked them over more contemporary acts. So I'm more sympathetic to Buffalo Springfield than most.

Also a big Kinks fan; they were still together when I was heavily into Buffalo Springfield. In my opinion, their 1984 song "Do It Again", which came out at that time, was one of the best tracks of the year.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 11:27:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012, 12:49:59 PM PDT
Dugan Nash says:
Yeah, there's a difference between a band having extreme importance and widespread influence through the music they themselves played (as with The Kinks) and a band having members who went on to great things but didn't have massive success or influence with the group they played in together (as with Buffalo Springfield).

Looking solely at the contributions of these 2 bands in terms of the music they produced as a functioning unit, I would have to say the Kinks were considerably more important and influential than Buffalo Springfield. Looking at it the way you have above is a little different though. Obviously the various members of Buffalo Springfield went on to lots of different bands, projects, solo careers, etc. You could argue that Neil Young ALONE was more "important" or more "influential" than the Kinks, but... that's Neil Young, not "Buffalo Springfield".

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 1:01:07 PM PDT
EvenSteven says:
I am a Buffalo fan. but, lets call a spade a freakin spade here.
At least the Kinks could submerge their huge egos & rocky infighting to last 30+ yrs.
BS, lasted what 2.5 yrs? & admittedly their recorded output is consistantly amazing but I truly would not bother to mention all of their so called "family tree" as the BS totally eclipsed each & everyone of the artists you mentioned. Really cant stand most of that CA hippy crap anyway.
BS were "pioneers" of sorts in country rock, psychedelia & good writers & 1 of the more original US bands along with Byrds.
But, unfortunately, they couldn't stand each other & split.
Furay received quite shabby treatment on the BS Box set & they should never have let Young control or do the final edit on that. It could have been a great box if anyone outside the band was in control....but getting off track here.

I would conceed the BS were certainly one of the most imprtant US bands ever to come down the pike & their LP's have stood the test of time.

As far as BS eclipsing the Kinks???....I dont think so, not by a long shot.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012, 1:46:13 PM PDT
B L T says:
"No other group lineage produced the quantity of great music as did the Buffalo Springfield."

John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers lineage did.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 3:25:49 PM PDT
Throw the Byrds in the mix, you have most of the LA music scene.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012, 3:35:24 PM PDT
RE: John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers lineage did.

You could throw in the Yardbirds as well, obviously, though their link to Mayall is noted. They were together only a little longer than the Springfield.

The OP has a point to make, but it's useless to compare the Springfield and the Kinks head to head. Apples and oranges, for the reasons that others here have already explained well.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012, 3:47:55 PM PDT
JandJ says:
I don't understand why all these "begats" matter. I thought the discussion was focused on the relative merits of buffalo springfield vs the kinks. After all, the mynah birds "begat" both neil young and rick james - does that make them more important than, say, the troggs?

buffalo springfield had a few cds and a few good songs - the kinks had a career with a number of outstanding songs, particularly during their first several years together. I like buffalo springfield, but the kinks are clearly more important.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 6:45:18 PM PDT
R. Zormeir says:
This is silly. Kevin Bacon begat everything.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 7:28:10 PM PDT
Working Man says:
I always thought it was Adam and Eve.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012, 7:32:06 PM PDT
me too...

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 7:34:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012, 7:34:59 PM PDT
Adam and Eve is a dirty junk mail catalog!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012, 8:33:01 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 15, 2016, 2:41:46 PM PDT]

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 9:49:35 PM PDT
Lew Archer says:
So much for this thread!

Posted on Apr 19, 2012, 10:36:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2012, 10:36:37 PM PDT
I never understood why Stills and Young dislike "Last Time Around" so much. It's a fine album with plenty of classic songs like "On The Way Home", "I Am A Child", "Kind Woman", "Pretty Girl Why" and "Questions". Just because the group were fracturing when it was recorded and might have bad memories of it, doesn't make the music any less good. Those kinds of chaotic, acrimonious circumstances didn't prevent "The Notorious Byrd Brothers", The White Album or "Rumours" from being any less classic than they were!

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 7:23:46 AM PDT
EvenSteven says:
Hey Topp,

You hit the nail on the head re "Last Time Around".
The BS were clearly in a fractured state & you cant understate the importance of Jim Messina (bass/vcl/producer) on that one. He (JM) even states that Young & Stills were seldom in the studio at the same time & they were working their tunes as more or less "solo" artists. Stills could practically track every instrument & vcls *save drums* & Messina would help out with finishing touches. A very beautiful track called "In the Hour of Not Quite Rain" by Furray never even made it on to "youngs" BS Box set which is why you need to own this record. It is also one of the best "swan songs" by anyone. It's a very good LP.

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 8:03:39 AM PDT
naldo says:
Strange though how Stills & Young were the two who wound up working together the most later on.

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 8:49:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2012, 8:57:59 AM PDT
crater face says:
If begatting makes you great,lets hear it for the Graham Bond organization or blues incorporated.

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 9:00:29 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> Strange though how Stills & Young were the two who wound up working together the most later on.

Because Stephen Stills recognized how brilliant Neil Young was. Otherwise why would Stills have put up with Young's mercurial -- and often butt-tastic -- behaviour?
Neil Young would work with almost anyone. He's the kind of guy who didn't mind when a risky project didn't turn out too well.

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 9:11:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2012, 9:12:50 AM PDT
vivazappa says:
THE KINKS would eat the Buffalo Springfield for lunch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and still be hungry)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012, 9:25:08 AM PDT
Zaplightning says:

RE: Adam and Eve is a dirty junk mail catalog!


Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 9:30:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 21, 2012, 5:55:05 PM PDT
Eddie H. says:
A lot of begats were mediorce at best,
1)David Crosby is by far one of the most overrated person in rock...when I was younger, even before CSN, when he was with The Byrds I skipped his music....The Byrds didn't care for him either,The notoriuos Byrd Brothers had a horse on the cover with the band not Crosby, to this day I think that is funny, they couldn't wait for him to leave
2)I like Nash, but The Hollies had their biggest fame after he left
3)After 1970 what has CSN done that was groundbreaking or even good for that matter..to matter
4-Steve Stills had a couple of good albums, what was groundbreaking(mannasas was good)
5-Neil Young had his s........t together no question about it,
6-After their 1st live album Poco was a completely different band, they were nice for an album or 2 but groundbreaking, I am sorry, not quite
7-after all the begats you have a handful of mediorce to okay albums
8-Buffalo Springfield had talent for the 2.5 years together, one of the biggest travesties in the '60s is the importance of the BS...when all along the Beau Brummels were ahead of them and better than them
PS I added david Crosby and Nash because they ended up in a begat!!!!That is hilarious,freeakin begats!

and by the way with pure songcraft, none of these guys and begats could be spoken about in the same breadth as Ray Davies ....No Disrespect to anyone....

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 9:50:13 AM PDT
D. Mok says:
> David Crosby is by far one of the most overrated person in rock...

David Crosby was a harmony singer extraordinaire. His own songwriting was nothing to write home about, same for his lead singing. His voice could blend with almost anybody, but that's probably why it lacked a great deal of personality -- the kind that makes a great lead singer.

> THE KINKS would eat the Buffalo Springfield for lunch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (and still be hungry)

The Kinks would eat anything. And spew anything. Offkey singing, recycled riffs, repetitive songwriting...

Posted on Apr 20, 2012, 10:12:03 AM PDT
Eddie H. says:
I might have left out a couple of begats!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Music forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
mesical reality artists TV and what became of them after 17 7 hours ago
Large CD collections 405 7 hours ago
Musical Diary 8651 7 hours ago
Those magnificent drums!! 168 7 hours ago
Why is Bob Marley so popular nowadays? 87 7 hours ago
** In The Time of Our Lives ** 567 7 hours ago
Montrose Remastered And Expanded 21 8 hours ago
What are you listening right now? 4475 8 hours ago
Song Game - Part V 9981 8 hours ago
best trippy psychedelic bands from 1966-68 552 8 hours ago
Alphabetical Song Game 1 4103 9 hours ago
The Cult - Hidden City 0 9 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  Music forum
Participants:  88
Total posts:  579
Initial post:  Apr 19, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 28, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers