It's sort of interesting to compare the Billboard chart position with the survey results. Not surprisingly, there is little correlation between the Billboard position and current "popularity". "Harvest" being the most obvious example where a #1 hit album is not even in the RUST top five.

The other interesting observation is the inverse correlation between Neil's poorly regarded (at the time) 70's and 80's material and their Billboard position. 70's material like JTTP (#45) and TFA (#22) did fairly well chart wise yet were critically regarded as "bad" Neil albums. On the other hand, "bad" Neil albums of the 80's like TRANS went Top 20, while Reactor went to #27.

Another point of interest (hey Randy are you listening?) is that Comes a Time is Neil's 2nd highest charting album at #7, even ahead of RNS which only went to #8. Yet CAT was ranked only #16 on RUST. So go figure? On the other hand, with only one post-79 album making the top 5 (Ragged Glory), RUST has a definite preference for the early-Neil.

BTW, anyone who has the latest info on Billboard stats for '92 and forward stuff like H. Moon, please let me know.

Finally, it should be clearly evident that album sales, critical acclaim, and popularity on RUST are not the truest measure of how great (or not so great) Young's work really is. It's all relative, afterall.

Thanks. It's been fun. Looking forward to a great '94 on RUST - the best music/artist list on the INTERNET!

Compiled by Thrasher