Talk:Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The opening sentence: "Crosby, Stills, & Nash (at times known as Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young) are a pioneering folk rock/rock supergroup" is not only ungrammatical (supergroup is a singular noun), but it also suggests that they are still a "pioneering" group. What exactly are they pioneering on the 1960s nostalgia circuit? They may have been pioneering 35 years ago but today they are a bunch of old hippies living off their fame. Adam 3 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

So what's the big fuzz? I changed "are" to "is". Surely you can think of a better wording for the "pioneering" thing. --130.238.5.5 09:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure that i would say that they are living off their fame, they still tour and neil young was nominated for a grammy in 2007. so to say that they are living off their fame would not in any way be accurate. Steven Kovax—Preceding undated comment added at 05:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Crosby, Stills, & Nash (at times known as Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young) are a folk rock/rock supergroup, and were folk rock/rock supergroup pioneers." 98.164.64.98 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Solo and CN information

KitH- I'm not going to rv back, but I would note that there is as much text in this article on the "Solo years" as there is in the sections "Early years" and "reunion years". If I expand on what you commented, it would then make sense to remove the whole "Solo years" section, as it is not CSN/CSNY. You say "This is an article about CSNY, not CN", but I would think most people would look for information in CN in this article, not in the solo articles. In fact, the only place to find any text on CN is in this article. (There's no mention in Nash, and only a discography in Crosby). So I think this is an article about CN. As for Chicago, I included it because CSNY performed it on a released album. (Same reason I included Southern Man, but Young is a different case because of much greater success of his solo career).

I added the theme section to show that some of the music was related. All 4 members clearly had similar political leanings, and Four Way Street shows this in a number of ways. To me, whether a song was officially a CSN/CSNY song, or a solo/duet song, shouldn't keep the songs out of this section.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Simon12 01:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that there isn't a common theme among the music of all four (both in CSN/CSNY and as solo artists). However, this is a CSN(Y) page so the songs under themes should be CSN(Y) songs. I can illustrate this with examples from other artists. The Beatles were also a band where members had similar political leanings. "Revolution" was meant as their statement on the events ofthe late 1960s. However, Lennon also wrote "Give Peace A Chance" and "Instant Karma" as solo songs about the events of the late 1960s, but you wouldn't include those songs on a Beatles' entry. KitHutch 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If they had been performed by the Beatles and released on an album by the Beatles, then, yes, I certainly could make the case that they could be mentioned in a Beatles entry. (They would clearly belong in a Beatles discography). I would bet more people own "Chicago" on 4 Way Street then on Nash's solo album, not to mention the song is partially about two other members of the band. Many lyric sites on the web list "Chicago" as a CSNY song. I think for "Chicago", the song is part of their discography, and deserves inclusion in the CSNY entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon12 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So that means "Southern Cross" is a Jimmy Buffet song because it was on one of his live CDs? I have been to Allman Brothers Band concerts where they have played "I'm No Angel." That was a solo hit for Gregg Allman, but because it was played at an ABB concert, then it is now a band song? Can Paul McCartney now claim "Something" as his song because it was on his "Back in the USA" CD even though the original Beatles' version was written and sung by George Harrison? How about the McCartney version of Harrison's solo song "All Things Must Pass?" Is that now a McCartney song as well? When it comes to writting some about other people, I guess Neil's acoustic "Needle and the Damage Done" is a Crazy Horse/CSNY song because it is about the death of a Crazy Horse guitarist and a CSNY roadie. KitHutch 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what I briefly said in the change comment, this article contains the only information on Crosby/Nash in Wikipedia. This article is the accepted place for the Crosby/Nash discography. Crosby & Nash redirects to this page. Therefore, it is clearly appropriate to include information on Crosby/Nash songs in this article. As before, I would appreciate hearing what other people think. Simon12 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is now a Crosby & Nash page. If you can add any information to it, please do so. KitHutch 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

discography

hello KitH and others - I don't want to be a nuisance about this, but the reason I keep altering the discography is simply because this is the correct way to categorize it. I know allmusic.com places the entries together, but that is to keep their links all on one page - the links here are on one page as well. Also, allmusic is often rife with errors, and is problematic to use as a guide for accuracy. If you check most discographies from books on the group, at least a book published before the rise of the Internet, the format used is the one I am duplicating here. (Although, I was wrong in crediting Long May You Run to Stills & Young as the correct moniker for their one-off project is the Stills-Young band - thanks for correcting me on that.) So the heading for the article should be Crosby Stills & Nash (and Young) as it would be silly to have two articles on the collaborative, but the discographies should be separate, both for syntax reasons, and for the fact that CSN is a very different band with Y on board, as CN is so without S. By the same token, the individual members' discographies belong on their own pages and not here, even with all the cross-pollenization and showing up on each other's records. PS also, please don't quite put this article up as a featured one quite yet - I want to tighten up the organization a bit, add a section on the Crosby & Nash 1970s offshoot, and add a few details here and there. I'm doing a little more research - hope to be done by the end of the month. Thanks all and have a good day.PJtP 00:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with listing CSNY's discography separately from CSN's. While the band sounds different with Young onboard, it is still the same band. If you listem to the CSNY album Four Way Street, Nash refers to Deja Vu as their SECOND album. This means that CSNY is count Crosby, Stills & Nash as the first CSNY album. Also several songs from Crosby, Stills & Nash's Greatest Hits come from Deja Vu. That means that Deja Vu counts as a CSN album even though it was released as a CSNY album. We need to correct the discography immediately. KitHutch 14:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello KitH - I understand that you disagree with this format; I disagree with many things myself. Certainly, Deja Vu is both CSNY's first album and CSN's second album, and the 1991 box set counts as a CSN record even if a good percentage of its tracks are songs from C&N and various solo albums. I must point out again that this is the correct, and I emphasize correct, way to do this discography. I refer you please to the authorized biography of Crosby Stills & Nash by Dave Zimmer and Henry Diltz, published in 1984, St. Martin's Press, New York, ISBN 0-312-17660-0, the first book written specifically about the band. The discography starting on page 263 lists the albums by CSN, CSNY, the Stills-Young Band, and Crosby & Nash separately. Graham Nash contributed the foreword, and again this biography and its format was authorized by the band, including the discographical listings. I am simply duplicating the authorized format; also, most other books that I have read that refer to the group present their discography in this fashion as well. PJtP 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

LP covers

To whomever added all the LP cover images - It's a fine idea, but the addition of all those covers running down the side of the page swamp the text and make the layout look far too busy. I moved cover image templates to fledgling pages for CSN albums, at least in the case of those yet to have a page, so the cover images are not lost. I'd really prefer to leave the current covers, just the debut, Deja Vu, So Far, and CSN from 77, as is for two reasons: one, they're the CDs I think people should be guided to if they really know little about the band; two, they're the best looking covers of the lot. Better for the page as a whole please would be a good band photograph - do you have one of those kicking around that satisfy the copyright parameters? Thanks.PJtP 05:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Britain/Canada

Is it right to describe them as "North American" when Nash was English? Furthermore...why are they credited as being from "United States" on their info box when Nash is from Blackpool and Neil Young is a native of Toronto? When only 50% of the band are from the States why is that the only country mentioned? I've changed the 'country' entry to United States/UK/Canada...whether the group should be referred to as solely 'North American' I leave up to others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenL77 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "origin" field in the infobox is meant to indicate where the band was formed and got started, so the birthplaces of the members are irrelevant. I think United States is appropriate in this case. Strobilus 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Neil Young is not a native of Toronto. He is a native of Winnipeg. Just because he was born in Toronto does not mean he is a 'native' of Toronto. Generally, one is a native of where one's formative years took place. Mr. Young's musically formative years took place in Winnipeg. That's a fact.

I too was born in Toronto and lived there until I was 5, but do not consider myself a 'native' of Toronto, since I was raised in Northern Ontario. If you are as concerned about geography as you purport to be, you should correct your entry to state that Neil Young is a native of Winnipeg. (REF: Neil Young ). He formed his musical heart in Winnipeg -- coincident with the formative years of the Guess Who in the 'Peg, as well -- and next door in Northern Ontario where he spent many a weekend doing gigs in smoky bars, so there is absolutely no question that Mr. Young should be depicted as a native of Winnipeg. Thank you.
--Atikokan (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just looked in the dictionary and the definition for "native" was "being the place or environment in which a person was born." Therefore, Neil Young is a Toronto native. KitHutch (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-known songs

What is this list based on? It seems entirely subjective to me and should be removed as POV. I suggest replacing it with a list of songs that charted or something with criteria for inclusion. Thoughts? Strobilus 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FM radio hit in Europe, 1989/90

An interesting song is missing in the article, "Chipping Away", recorded by CSN (with James Taylor as the fourth vocalist) in 1989 to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was quite a success on FM-style radio (if not in terms of sales) in Germany at the time.

I don't have any sales figures for it, but I do have the single! Very typically Nash-oriented as far as its political "feel". Jtnet 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Stills link is bad

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this? I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia (although not new to editing). I discovered that the link to the album Stills redirects to a band called The Stills. If you type Stills into the main Wiki search box, the only link it brings up is The Stills. However, when I punch STILLS ALBUM into Google, the first hit is the Wiki page on the Stills album, which comes up with no problem. Help! How do we fix this? Songsmyth (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The link has been fixed. Stills should really be a dab page, but I'll leave that for someone else. Simon12 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To get the album, you need to type "Stills (album)" into the search box. 63.215.27.32 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Article name

This may have been discussed before, but is the current article title "Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)" really appropriate? I understand the reason behind it, but information on alternate names of the subject should be handled in the lead, not with parenthetical information in the article title (parentheses usually being reserved for disambiguation). The article title should be one or the other, with the lead and article explaining the difference (which they already do perfectly well, I think). Unless there has been some previous consensus on the subject, and I see nothing on this page to indicate that... If there are no objections, I'd like to move the article to "Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young" (choosing that over just "Crosby, Stills & Nash" mostly because it's more inclusive, and makes the infobox much easier to manage). --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I say go and change it. KitHutch (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Where did the band originate? 67.188.45.27 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern California KitHutch (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discography

This is an article about Crosby, Stills, Nash & sometimes Young. The discography should list albums by CSN or CSNY. Solo and duo albums by the four should be listed in solo or duo articles. KitHutch (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It makes no sense to add all the other individual or duo albums in one article. The would be like adding all of the individual albums of John, Paul, George and Ringo as part of the Beatles page. Time to revert it back to the original version. User:BoffoHijinx —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Woodstock Clarification

The article more or less implies that Neil Young was with CSN at Woodstock, when this does not seem to be the case. Having watched the movie, it seemed Young wasn't there, and the group was credited as Crosby, Stills, & Nash, not CSNY. Neil Young was not present at Woodstock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.36.223 (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neil was at Woodstock, but he refused to be filmed. He thought that the filming would detract from the music. On the Woodstock soundtrack, there is a CSNY song called "Sea of Madness," which was sung by Neil. KitHutch (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.36.223 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Trio? Quartet? Both?

I'm a little confused as to whether or not we should classify CSN&Y as either a trio, a quartet, or both. Is there any opinion on the matter? Mr. Brain (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian influence on their harmonies

In Barry Miles book Zappa: A Biography, on page 121 Miles asserts that the album The Music of Bulgaria was one of Zappa's favorite albums and that it "influenced the harmonies of Crosby, Stills and Nash". Miles is a well-respected music journalist and I have seen this reference in other books. Al Kooper introduced the same album to Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. Other than the Cass Elliot story, there is nothing in this article about CSNY's signature harmonies. This might be a useful addition. K8 fan (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Crosby Stills and Nash

Crosby Stills and Nash is the name they are most known by and the name that was used when they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I suggest that Crosby, Stills, and Nash be the name of the article and that (&Young) redirect here. Soxwon (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

oppose last studio album (all of them) - last live album (all of them) - last music video released (all of them) last film released (all of them) - not sure that moved was done correctly so i reverted it (was that a copy and past move?)Moxy (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was and WP:MOS clearly states using the common name. I would assume that the name they used to induct them into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was their common name. Soxwon (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No i mean the redirects - was the page moved or was it all done by copy and pasting (in other words have we lost any history)Moxy (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the talk page, everything having to do with the talkpage was copy and paste. Soxwon (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok i will look over what happened and see if there is anything to fix from the copy and past.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

strongly oppose The history of this band is the history of the four songwriters/guitarists that have comprised this band. Eliminating Neil's name from the title reduces his importance in the band. Just because he is not in the band during its entire history, does not mean that his name should not be in the title of this article. KitHutch (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating Neil's name from the title reduces his importance in the band. Ladies and Gentlemen, in the center ring, I present to you, KitHutch, Master of the Obvious!. CruncherMon (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Danny Whitten

Did he die of Heroin abuse, or an OD of valium and alcohol? This page states Heroin, then links to Danny's article which states the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.130.103 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed sources from External links to the talk page

Most of these sources do not all belong in External links. Example: when each individual in a band also has their own solo careers. memberships in other bands, etc., and have their own websites for those ventures, those websites do not belong on the band page. As for other sources, be careful. I didn't check them to see if they follow criteria per WP policy, so use caution in choosing any potential references I've moved here. Thank you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• 4 WaySite - The unofficial CSNY site
• Official CSN site
• Official David Crosby site
• Official Stephen Stills site
• Official Graham Nash site
• Official Neil Young site
• Official Crosby-Nash site
• A Neil Young Archives - Concert and album/CD reviews
• Concert Pictures 2006
• 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' Vocal Group Hall of Fame Page
• [1] - Interviews with Crosby, Stills & Nash

I re-added the official CSN website. This article serves both CSN and CSNY. It is appropriate for the CSN site to be on this page since there is no separate article dedicated solely to CSN. KitHutch (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The name issue again

I bring this up because there seems to be a lack of understanding of the naming guidelines for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the "official" name is or even the last name used (which is, once again, CSN at the moment). The most commonly used name is "Crosby, Stills & Nash". Young joins when he can and wants to, but they always revert to "Crosby, Stills & Nash", the original and most commonly used name. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose See above again. KitHutch (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Support It's pretty obvious to me. CSN is the most commonly used name, the name used for the most time, the name used for most of the records, and the name used for their induction in the RRHOF. I spent several minutes trying to find an article on CSN, only to realize that we've decided to ignore WP policies and make this oddly inaccurate title for the article.LedRush (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia naming conventions would indicate that Crosby, Stills & Nash is the correct title, if we must treat the two incarnations as one entity. They could be split, as Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship and Starship (band) cover different aspects of that long-interconnected group of performers. So Crosby, Stills & Nash and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young could each have their own pages just as Crosby & Nash do. 24.149.45.52 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Richie Furay's label affiliation?

In the section describing the problem with the group releasing records on Atlantic it mentions that Richie Furay/Poco were similarly affiliated. At that point in history wasn't Poco's recorded output released on Epic Records, part of Columbia Records? If that is true it seems that Richie's association with Atlantic - which was due to Buffalo Springfield being signed to that label - would have been dealt with by the time CS&N were recording their first release. I know this can - and most likely is - a convoluted history to untangle. To my mind it comes off as speculation without specific citation. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. The way that sentence is worded was not clear to me. After reading up on Poco - where this information is better presented - I understand what happened.THX1136 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Split the article into CSN and CSNY

The issue of the name of this article is discussed twice above, with the last contribution suggesting the possibility of splitting the article into two. For several reasons such a split seems the most sensible approach to me. First, consistency. If Crosby & Nash have a separate entry, then all line-ups should be treated separately. Second, Young's participation makes it a genuinely different band: A) Young and Stills's guitar duelling has been credited as highlights of the group's live performances from the beginning. This element is absent when Young does not participate. B) Young has developed as the major creative force, and with him on board the dynamics in the group are different than without him. While the three members of CSN are of more or less the same level, with a CSNY project the Young contributions are anticipated to be highlights. So it makes sense to contemplate splitting the article. MackyBeth (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split. The groups are clearly considered separate, with different official web sites, etc. The precedent (which I think is mentioned elsewhere) is Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship (band), three conjoined, but separate, bands that each have their own identities, web sites, etc. Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the article. The history between the two entities is so intertwined that each article would constantly have to reference the other to make sense. The Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship (band) analogy is flawed because those three bands existed sequentially. CSN and CSNY went back and forth so many times that it makes sense to just keep them together. If the article is well-written, people can follow it. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This has come up before, if I'm not mistaken, and should there be two different articles for CSN and CSNY respectively, no doubt there would soon be a call for combining them back into one article. CSN is the central unit, with Young joining for three of their eight studio albums and tours in 1969-70, 1974, 2000, 2002, and 2006. As stated by the editor above the Airplane/Starship analogue doesn't completely fit. They actually are two separate bands: the Airplane broke up in 1972; the Starship started as a project for Paul Kantner and Grace Slick in 1974, and once Kantner left the remaining band could no longer use the word "Jefferson" in its name for legal reasons. CSN and CSNY may have differing websites but that's a business decision, not one that is necessarily pertinent to encyclopedic criteria. PJtP (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship/Starship analogy is not relevant to this article. Aso, the history of CSN/CSNY is so intertwined that separate article would incomprehensible. KitHutch (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why it's not relevant. They both have multiple incarnations that sometimes occur simultaneously (or close to it). They both treat the different incarnations as separate entities (web sites, etc.) I think they are a lot more similar than dissimilar. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong considering the Airplane/Starship analogy. They did not occur simultaneously. Read above. For this article, CSN existed for one album, became CSNY to tour and make another album, went their separate ways for a while, came back as CSNY for one tour, split up again, reformed as CSN off and on for ten years or so, did one album as CSNY with no tour (to fulfill a promise Young made to Crosby if he cleaned up), went back to CSN for another ten years (a couple of albums and tours), did one more CSNY album with tour, went back to CSN, toured again as CSNY (when Young had an album to promote) with a live album, and existed as CSN since then. Breaking this into two articles would be ludicrous. The group (which was enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) is CSN and sometimes Y. As I stated before, if the articles were split, each of them would have to reference facts in the other article so often as to make them difficult to read. The current article works fine. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Works fine for you. Clearly not for everyone, since this comes up all the time. The fact is, no matter how intertwined they are, the actual participants treat them as separate entities. It seems odd that Wikipedia refuses to follow suit. 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.16 (talk)

I agree that the article should be split. close but not the same. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No. This has come up before; it is superfluous to split up CSN and CSNY. Crosby and Nash's duo career does merit a different entry as an offshoot, just as the trio's individual solo careers come after the initial appearance of CSN. Young is the occasional fourth member, having initiated his own career prior to joining the band for three of eight studio albums and six tours. The biographer of the band, Dave Zimmer, does not make any distinction, including CSNY in his CSN biography ISBN 0306809745 and articles on CSN only in his CSNY reader ISBN 0306812770. CSN is a continuous band that takes regular breaks from existence and that Y has joined from time to time. Certainly Y adds something to CSN, just as CN is different without S, but everyone who has ever chronicled the group so far has kept CSN and CSNY together. Wikipedia editors have a tendency to reinvent wheels that need no reinvention; do not do so in this case, please. PJtP (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If your point about "CSN is a continuous band that takes regular breaks from existence and that Y has joined from time to time." is accurate, then this article should be at Crosby, Stills & Nash, since that is the original and default configuration. But they are distinct entities, so should be separated. 128.151.71.16 (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, no, actually. Such an approach would be unnecessarily convoluted - the phrase is adding epicycles. Again, all print biographers that predate Wikipedia have not separated CSNY from CSN. Wikipedia is not the final arbiter on all things and needs to take its cue from work done long before Wikipedia ever existed, especially pertaining to historical analysis and summary. PJtP (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Combinations

So, this article covers Crosby, Stills, & Nash and Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young but Crosby & Nash is separate and The Stills-Young Band redirects to Long May You Run? I would have expected either one article covering all the combinations or separate articles for each, not this half and half. Any comments? --Khajidha (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Crosby, Stills & Nash and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young should, of course, be separated. But vested interests have decided to keep them merged together despite the bands themselves being treated as separate entities by the parties involved. I do understand The Stills-Young Band not having an article, since they only released the one album and all info on the band *and* album can be covered there. 24.149.37.233 (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether the full 4-member lineup, the original 3-member lineup, or either of the pairs is so tied up into the interactions between the members, their feuds and reconciliations, that I don't see any real distinction here. What we have is 3 guys who decided to record together, then invited in a 4th, and then collaborated and feuded off and on resulting in various combinations recording or touring at different times. If you read the Crosby & Nash article, the history contains several incidents of the two rejoining or leaving CSN/CSNY. One album even started as a C&N album but became a CSN effort. Another CSN album began as a S-N recording. --Khajidha (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate a point posted above, in general non-online biographies in either rock or popular music encyclopedias that existed long before Wikipedia was ever created do not make separate entries for CSN and CSNY. The biographer of the band, Dave Zimmer, does not differentiate between the two either. The 1990 CSN box set includes CSNY tracks but is still labeled as a "CSN" release. CSN is a some time aggregation that on occasion also includes a fourth member to make it CSNY. So, CSN and CSNY should not "of course" be separated; they should "of course" not be separated. Keeping the Crosby and Nash partnership separate does make sense, and is generally done so. PJtP (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What Khajidha, PJtP, and others in the previous thread said. Before coming to this talk page, I'd never heard anyone (whether a reliable source or a random person on the street) suggest that CSN and CSNY are separate entities. The nature of the band's name required the name be changed when they gained a new member, that's all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Band not over

Wikipedia editors may feel that this group is over because of recent public animosities between members, specifically Crosby and Nash along with Crosby and Young, with statements from Nash specifically saying the band is over. However, such statements by one or many of this group along the lines of "I'll never work with (fill in the blank) again" go all the way back to 1970. As long as all four of CSNY or at least all three of CSN continue to trod the Earth, reunion activity of a tour or even an album is not out of the question. All continue to be musically active since the CSN tours of 2015: Crosby has released two albums; Stills one with his band the Rides and one with Judy Collins; Nash one; and Young two along with several archive releases. Please continue to keep the group in the present tense. PJtP (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Language

There seems to be an issue on the language button. I‘m not able to switch to German and from German I‘m not able to switch back to English. Roooooon (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Roooooon - the problem would likely be with your browser, the links are working OK. SilkTork (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tours section

It is useful to have a tours section, and this section has collected together some data. The section now needs to be built on - at the moment it is notes toward an informative section, though doesn't allow the reader to understand the significance of the tours or to adequately differentiate them as the section simply contains (in two different formats, duplicating the information) a list of (mostly non-notable) backing musicians. It takes up a lot of space while saying very little. I have flagged the section for attention as I don't know if I'll have the time to work on it myself. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)