MUSIC HISTORY: Buffalo Springfield

(This interview was conducted on June 3rd and 4th, 1997 in conjunction with the publication of the book John Einarson co-authored [with Buffalo Springfield member Richie Furay], There's Something Happening Here: The Story of Buffalo Springfield – For What It's Worth. Einarson is also the author of Neil Young: Don't Be Denied – The Canadian Years, American Woman: The Story Of The Guess Who, and co-author [with John Kay] of Magic Carpet Ride: The Autobiography of John Kay & Steppenwolf.)

John Einarson: Thank you. The idea to do a Springfield book stemmed from several factors, really: the subject seemed logical given that I covered Neil's career up to that point in a previous book; I have always had a great appreciation and fascination with the Springfield's music and troubled history; and because there is a strong Canadian connection and all my previous books tend to have that thread through them.

JE: About two years which is about the average length of time it takes me to do a book from inception to printed copy. It's not eight hours a day, five days a week but it does take a lot of time to track people down to do interviews and research through archives, then write the final product.

R: It seems to me there were three main reasons why the band never reached its potential success: mismanagement, infighting and a lack of hit singles (other than "For What It's Worth"). This is simplifying it a bit, but do you concur and is there anything else you would add to the list?

JE: You've go it correct. Although all bands go through turbulent periods with egos and frustrations, the Springfield story seems to be quite legendary for its missteps largely because the band started out with so much promise and potential. In their early months, they were unstoppable. Even members of the Byrds acknowledge that.

Unfortunately they made many mistakes and as a result the infighting eroded that initial camaraderie and sparkle, hindering much forward progress. It was always one step forward, two steps back. At the time they first came together, no one could touch them for talent - they had three experienced songwriters in one group - and energy. And they were one of only a handful of groups recording all their own material, no covers.

JE: My contact with both was minimal for this book. Richie, who collaborated with me, was disappointed that Stephen refused all entreaties to cooperate even after he personally attempted to break through. It seems Stephen doesn't share the same regard for the past as some others do and I was informed that he was planning his own book down the road sometime. When I interviewed Neil for my previous book we spoke about the Springfield on several occasions. Much of that wasn't used then so I used it here. Besides, Neil has his own book in the works, too and doesn't like competition. By collaborating with Richie, it gives the book a unique perspective because he was the man in the middle between these two creative yet often combative factions, Stephen and Neil. His insights into their personalities are quite revealing. He is also a man of integrity who had no particular agenda or axe to grind. He tells it like it was. I did manage to interview several dozen key people who were either members, associates or contemporaries of the group such as Dickie Davis, Dewey Martin, Doug Hastings, Bruce Palmer, Chris Hillman and notorious manager Charlie Greene.

JE: Richie and I first hooked up back in 1992 when I was researching Don't Be Denied. When I decided to pursue a Springfield book, I first contacted him because I viewed his participation as pivotal to the book's development. We renewed our friendship and took it from there. You couldn't meet a nicer guy than Richie.

JE: Yes and no. They were all immature and confused as the group began to unravel in early 1967 after Bruce (Palmer) was deported. However the others hung in whereas Neil didn't. I think, as Richie does too, that Neil's commitment was always tentative and that in the back of his mind he saw himself as larger than the whole, and separate from it. Also, given his career both before and after the Springfield, he has always been firmly in control, not second fiddle to anyone and not just a member of the band. The fact was that the Buffalo Springfield was not and could not ever be his band. It was Stephen Stills' band right from its inception to the end, and Neil had problems with that especially after "For What It's Worth" when the focus of attention was even more on Stills. And the way Neil deals with conflict is to simply withdraw from it. Which he did, several times.

JE: When most people think of the Springfield, they tend to focus on who came out of it and the success achieved by the individual band members following the demise of the group. Though they only had one bonefide hit record, their achievements remain quite dazzling. Frankly, almost all their recorded work was never fully appreciated because it was ahead of its time. That masterpieces like "Bluebird," "Expecting To Fly," and "Rock And Roll Woman" could fail to crack the Top 40 remains bewildering.

As to their legacy, their folk rock was quite different from the Byrds' jingle-jangle Rickenbacker 12-string sound. The Springfield instead drew on an earlier folk tradition that incorporated acoustic and electric guitars together, laying down intricate lines woven around each other. Theirs was a truly unique sound that later found success in groups like The Eagles. As well, their emphasis on developing individual singer/songwriting styles within one group, as evidenced by their Buffalo Springfield Again album which is highly diverse, helped set that whole singer/songwriter trend of the early seventies and the whole California country rock/soft rock genre. So many artists acknowledge the Springfield as an important influence.

R: After everything Young put Stills and the rest of the Springfield through, credit must be given to Stephen Stills for being able to let it all slide and invite Young to join Crosby, Stills & Nash. What do you think of that notion?

JE: Well, that's true, he certainly appears to be a more tolerant person than Young. However, I tend to concur with Doug Hastings' assessment of Stephen that he's a fairly calculating guy and that, at the end of the day, if he figured he'd achieve more success with Neil in the group, then Neil was in. And I think that was proven at least commercially with the huge success of CSN&Y and Deja Vu though artistically I preferred the debut CSN album because it was so dominated by Stills' genius.

It wasn't necessarily altruistic, but that's my opinion. You'd have to ask the man himself and from what I understand, he's not talking. One associate of Stephen's suggested to me that it gave Stephen great pleasure to be able to invite Neil to join his band, which at the time had the number one album in the world while Neil's career was still getting off the ground. As Richie observed, "On the surface, sure, they had their arms around each other and loved each other, but underneath, they were just waiting for the opportunity to show the other one up." Frankly, I don't think much has changed.

R: "For What It's Worth" was one of the first protest songs in rock 'n' roll, and the beginning of a long string of politically conscious material that was later continued in such songs as Graham Nash's "Chicago", David Crosby's "Almost Cut My Hair" and Neil Young's "Ohio". This trend has continued right up to CSN's last release After The Storm (1994). How do you think the Springfield influenced the political angle of rock 'n' roll?

JE: Well, the whole protest song or topical song tradition goes right back to Woody Guthrie and was one of the cornerstones of the late fifties, early sixties folk revival that Stephen, Richie and so many others emerged from. What "For What It's Worth" did was give voice to the youth/hippie/counterculture rapidly growing in numbers and attention. It was the first song to articulate the generation gap, and it did it very effectively, transcending its local theme of a Sunset Strip altercation to become a kind of anthem of the sixties.

But the Springfield didn't get caught in the protest song trap, though Stills did come up with a couple of political statements with "Special Care" and "Four Days Gone," though less blatantly. I think Stephen was always aware of the folk protest tradition and assimilated that into rock, as he did so well with other genres, without being lumbered with the protest singer millstone. He certainly carried that on in CSN&Y again without getting trapped in it.

R: As you know Neil Young was a no show at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction honoring (among others) Buffalo Springfield. His reason for this was explained as a form of protest against the absurdedly high ticket prices and/or VH-1's packaging of the event as a TV special. In my opinion, I think there was more to it than that. Seems to me it was also another case of Young not wanting to stand in the shadows of a night that belonged to the double induction of Stills. Any comments?

JE: Well, I've since heard from one Springfield member that, in fact, Neil's no show was perceived by the others as an attempt to steal some of the thunder away from what could be seen as Stills' night. And in fact much of the press conference focused on Neil's abrupt withdrawal, much to the chagrin of a few. However, you have to hope that these guys have outgrown that kids-in-the-sandbox trip.

One wonders though when a stunt like that is pulled. For what my opinion is worth, I think it was a self-centered move that neglected to consider the feelings of the four other band members whose only chance at this kind of recognition was that night and he robbed them of making it a perfect moment. Will the five ever share a stage together again? That's doubtful. Some feelings have been hurt. A moment in history has been lost, and for what? Neil's a multi-millionaire. Bruce, Dewey and Richie certainly aren't but they paid for their families and showed up. I venture to say that Stephen would have paid for those guys if they couldn't have afforded it. As Richie commented, Neil did it to them again.



MUSIC HISTORY: JAZZ / ROCK / BLUES / ETC. Reviews, News, Commentaries and Music Biographies by *Randy* INDEX

	______________________________________________________________________________________________________


			Buffalo Springfield (Left to right): Stephen Stills, Neil Young, Dewey Martin, Richie Furay, Bruce Palmer. John Einarson's book is the first and only publication dedicated solely to the history of the innovative and volatile band.


		Interview (June 1997) For What It's Worth: An Interview with Author John Einarson (This interview was conducted on June 3rd and 4th, 1997 in conjunction with the publication of the book John Einarson co-authored [with Buffalo Springfield member Richie Furay], There's Something Happening Here: The Story of Buffalo Springfield – For What It's Worth. Einarson is also the author of Neil Young: Don't Be Denied – The Canadian Years, American Woman: The Story Of The Guess Who, and co-author [with John Kay] of Magic Carpet Ride: The Autobiography of John Kay & Steppenwolf.) *Randy:* Well you've done a great job with the Springfield book. After your previous books on Neil Young, what made you decide to write about the Springfield? John Einarson: Thank you. The idea to do a Springfield book stemmed from several factors, really: the subject seemed logical given that I covered Neil's career up to that point in a previous book; I have always had a great appreciation and fascination with the Springfield's music and troubled history; and because there is a strong Canadian connection and all my previous books tend to have that thread through them. R: How long did it take you to write the book, from the time you first started gathering information to when you finally submitted it to the publisher? JE: About two years which is about the average length of time it takes me to do a book from inception to printed copy. It's not eight hours a day, five days a week but it does take a lot of time to track people down to do interviews and research through archives, then write the final product. R: It seems to me there were three main reasons why the band never reached its potential success: mismanagement, infighting and a lack of hit singles (other than "For What It's Worth"). This is simplifying it a bit, but do you concur and is there anything else you would add to the list? JE: You've go it correct. Although all bands go through turbulent periods with egos and frustrations, the Springfield story seems to be quite legendary for its missteps largely because the band started out with so much promise and potential. In their early months, they were unstoppable. Even members of the Byrds acknowledge that. Unfortunately they made many mistakes and as a result the infighting eroded that initial camaraderie and sparkle, hindering much forward progress. It was always one step forward, two steps back. At the time they first came together, no one could touch them for talent - they had three experienced songwriters in one group - and energy. And they were one of only a handful of groups recording all their own material, no covers. R: Were you able to contact Stephen Stills or Neil Young when you put this book together? JE: My contact with both was minimal for this book. Richie, who collaborated with me, was disappointed that Stephen refused all entreaties to cooperate even after he personally attempted to break through. It seems Stephen doesn't share the same regard for the past as some others do and I was informed that he was planning his own book down the road sometime. When I interviewed Neil for my previous book we spoke about the Springfield on several occasions. Much of that wasn't used then so I used it here. Besides, Neil has his own book in the works, too and doesn't like competition. By collaborating with Richie, it gives the book a unique perspective because he was the man in the middle between these two creative yet often combative factions, Stephen and Neil. His insights into their personalities are quite revealing. He is also a man of integrity who had no particular agenda or axe to grind. He tells it like it was. I did manage to interview several dozen key people who were either members, associates or contemporaries of the group such as Dickie Davis, Dewey Martin, Doug Hastings, Bruce Palmer, Chris Hillman and notorious manager Charlie Greene. R: How did you come in contact with Richie Furay? JE: Richie and I first hooked up back in 1992 when I was researching Don't Be Denied. When I decided to pursue a Springfield book, I first contacted him because I viewed his participation as pivotal to the book's development. We renewed our friendship and took it from there. You couldn't meet a nicer guy than Richie. R: Neil Young has attributed his leaving the band on multiple occasions to immaturity, youth and general confusion. Do you think that's an accurate assessment? Is there more to it than just that? JE: Yes and no. They were all immature and confused as the group began to unravel in early 1967 after Bruce (Palmer) was deported. However the others hung in whereas Neil didn't. I think, as Richie does too, that Neil's commitment was always tentative and that in the back of his mind he saw himself as larger than the whole, and separate from it. Also, given his career both before and after the Springfield, he has always been firmly in control, not second fiddle to anyone and not just a member of the band. The fact was that the Buffalo Springfield was not and could not ever be his band. It was Stephen Stills' band right from its inception to the end, and Neil had problems with that especially after "For What It's Worth" when the focus of attention was even more on Stills. And the way Neil deals with conflict is to simply withdraw from it. Which he did, several times. R: How do you think Buffalo Springfield influenced the history of rock 'n' roll in a musical sense? JE: When most people think of the Springfield, they tend to focus on who came out of it and the success achieved by the individual band members following the demise of the group. Though they only had one bonefide hit record, their achievements remain quite dazzling. Frankly, almost all their recorded work was never fully appreciated because it was ahead of its time. That masterpieces like "Bluebird," "Expecting To Fly," and "Rock And Roll Woman" could fail to crack the Top 40 remains bewildering. As to their legacy, their folk rock was quite different from the Byrds' jingle-jangle Rickenbacker 12-string sound. The Springfield instead drew on an earlier folk tradition that incorporated acoustic and electric guitars together, laying down intricate lines woven around each other. Theirs was a truly unique sound that later found success in groups like The Eagles. As well, their emphasis on developing individual singer/songwriting styles within one group, as evidenced by their Buffalo Springfield Again album which is highly diverse, helped set that whole singer/songwriter trend of the early seventies and the whole California country rock/soft rock genre. So many artists acknowledge the Springfield as an important influence. R: After everything Young put Stills and the rest of the Springfield through, credit must be given to Stephen Stills for being able to let it all slide and invite Young to join Crosby, Stills & Nash. What do you think of that notion? JE: Well, that's true, he certainly appears to be a more tolerant person than Young. However, I tend to concur with Doug Hastings' assessment of Stephen that he's a fairly calculating guy and that, at the end of the day, if he figured he'd achieve more success with Neil in the group, then Neil was in. And I think that was proven at least commercially with the huge success of CSN&Y and Deja Vu though artistically I preferred the debut CSN album because it was so dominated by Stills' genius. It wasn't necessarily altruistic, but that's my opinion. You'd have to ask the man himself and from what I understand, he's not talking. One associate of Stephen's suggested to me that it gave Stephen great pleasure to be able to invite Neil to join his band, which at the time had the number one album in the world while Neil's career was still getting off the ground. As Richie observed, "On the surface, sure, they had their arms around each other and loved each other, but underneath, they were just waiting for the opportunity to show the other one up." Frankly, I don't think much has changed. R: "For What It's Worth" was one of the first protest songs in rock 'n' roll, and the beginning of a long string of politically conscious material that was later continued in such songs as Graham Nash's "Chicago", David Crosby's "Almost Cut My Hair" and Neil Young's "Ohio". This trend has continued right up to CSN's last release After The Storm (1994). How do you think the Springfield influenced the political angle of rock 'n' roll? JE: Well, the whole protest song or topical song tradition goes right back to Woody Guthrie and was one of the cornerstones of the late fifties, early sixties folk revival that Stephen, Richie and so many others emerged from. What "For What It's Worth" did was give voice to the youth/hippie/counterculture rapidly growing in numbers and attention. It was the first song to articulate the generation gap, and it did it very effectively, transcending its local theme of a Sunset Strip altercation to become a kind of anthem of the sixties. But the Springfield didn't get caught in the protest song trap, though Stills did come up with a couple of political statements with "Special Care" and "Four Days Gone," though less blatantly. I think Stephen was always aware of the folk protest tradition and assimilated that into rock, as he did so well with other genres, without being lumbered with the protest singer millstone. He certainly carried that on in CSN&Y again without getting trapped in it. R: As you know Neil Young was a no show at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction honoring (among others) Buffalo Springfield. His reason for this was explained as a form of protest against the absurdedly high ticket prices and/or VH-1's packaging of the event as a TV special. In my opinion, I think there was more to it than that. Seems to me it was also another case of Young not wanting to stand in the shadows of a night that belonged to the double induction of Stills. Any comments? JE: Well, I've since heard from one Springfield member that, in fact, Neil's no show was perceived by the others as an attempt to steal some of the thunder away from what could be seen as Stills' night. And in fact much of the press conference focused on Neil's abrupt withdrawal, much to the chagrin of a few. However, you have to hope that these guys have outgrown that kids-in-the-sandbox trip. One wonders though when a stunt like that is pulled. For what my opinion is worth, I think it was a self-centered move that neglected to consider the feelings of the four other band members whose only chance at this kind of recognition was that night and he robbed them of making it a perfect moment. Will the five ever share a stage together again? That's doubtful. Some feelings have been hurt. A moment in history has been lost, and for what? Neil's a multi-millionaire. Bruce, Dewey and Richie certainly aren't but they paid for their families and showed up. I venture to say that Stephen would have paid for those guys if they couldn't have afforded it. As Richie commented, Neil did it to them again. R: Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts in this interview about Buffalo Springfield. JE: My pleasure. Thanks for taking the time to do this interview. Copyright © 1997 Lark Publishing, Inc. (Randy). All rights reserved. Duplication prohibited. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ INDEX