^ Am I ? I thought that with its fuzzed up guitar Rumble was approaching what the OP was asking about:-

Still, I'm really ignorant about music theory. For instance he talks about "modern day chord progressions" which I wouldn't recognise if I tripped over them in the street.

Well the OP hasn't demonstrated the ability to articulate a clear question so I suppose your guess is as good as mine.

^ Haha! Thanks.

BTW, I've also had the pleasure of seeing Neil Young live, at a huge concert hall in London. Easily one of the best concerts I've seen, with NY playing an acoustic first half, at the piano for some songs like Sky About To Rain. Second half he blasted through his rock repertoire, including some songs -do you remember? - that Giffen complained about as not being proper NY material.

lol

I like Trans!

^ Do you ? I prefer the early albums really. I secretly agree with Giffen; why couldn't he keep on making Everybody Knows... and After The Goldrush again and again?

I wonder if you have an opinion on Sedan Delivery? I' ve never heard it. Does the music do justice to the concept?

Why don't you just listen to it?

I guess Rust Never Sleeps is kind of like Blood on the Tracks in that at this point it's borderline blasphemy to say anything critical about it.

To answer your question, I don't think anything Young did after After... measures up except Cortez and Old Man and who knows maybe something I'm overlooking. But anyway, I'm with you. I figure the reason why he didn't keep creating Gold Rushes is because it simply wasn't in his head anymore.

Now when I say I like Trans I'm not saying it's a 5 Star masterpiece. I'm saying I understand that he liked to keep reaching out and building on new ideas as an artist and when I listen to Trans and his other stuff as well I enjoy it for what it is. In my opinion, it's better to enjoy Trans for what it is (a fun record) than to compare it with his other stuff. It's also easier to be forgiving when you weren't anticipating the release and expecting something else. With Sonic Youth I was very disappointed with Goo and Dirty because all I wanted was more Bad Moon Rising but now I look at their discography as a whole and enjoy it all.

Everything written before 1965 was modern for that time. This is a very bad question.

I think the OP is asking how many artists wrote things before 1965, then released them after 1965.

I read Modern Classical ends around 1977. I forgot where I read this, but I wish I knew so I could cite it. That oddly enough coincides with the Disco/Punk movement. A year later NWOBHM starts in 1978, (at least according to wiki nwobhm article). Even AOR came into its own in the mid-70s. The OP compares Cortez to music from the 80s and 90s which would really be Post-Modern. That aside, I can totally relate to the OP.

TRAFFIC John Barleycorn Must Die


Having recently listened to and enjoyed Traffic's John Barelycorn Must Die (recorded February–April 1970), which has many similarities to more recent Acid Folk from the mid 00s. I chose to research the song on Wikipedia. It claims that the song was written in the sixteenth century, and that Robert Burns had a version in 1782. I don't see how it could have been written this early. Even in acoustic form, it still doesn't fit into the 16th to 18th century era, either lyrically or melodically.

So was there an underground scene in circa 16th to 18th century that was creating music like John Barelycorn, which had little or no outside exposure until later? If so, could you give some examples, or if not, what is some early 16 to 18th century folk music that has modern day chord progression (if there is any)?

at its heart, Cortez could be distilled down to about three or four chords, and structurally it's incredibly simple.

Young could have easily written the chords and lyrics and vocal melody as a complete beginner. All that crazy electric guitar stuff could have come much much later.