What a bizarre comment. He most definitely did do it in hopes of forcing Spotify to drop Rogan. Appearing on the same streaming platform as Rogan costs him nothing (neither financial nor moral). Nobody believes that he and Rogan share beliefs just because they're both on Spotify.
If his principles are that he won't be streamed on the same app as somebody he disagrees with, that's seriously pathetic. He's literally the polar opposite of the coexist bumper sticker.
The other comment said it best. Also, note that Young has dropped out of Spotify before. He made a hue and cry about its audio quality, dropped out, launched his own music player, it didn't do very well, and then he came back.
I feel like he just wanted an excuse to leave, to be very honest, so he could promote competitors that encourage high-quality streaming.
Yes, the title of the article is misleading. It's not Spotify that is removing Neil Young, it's Neil Young removing his music from Spotify as a protest against them hosting Joe Rogan.
It's kind of annoying to me that Spotify went all in with podcasts (in the name of "growth"?), and promotes them so heavily. That's really different from music. Do people really decide to subscribe to Spotify because of podcasts? Would they change providers if Joe Rogan was on another service? I doubt it.
It's because they can get better margins from podcasts. Personally I want music and no podcasts but I understand the business pressures that have caused this.
Yea, he just blackmailed a platform to censor fellow content creator. Perfectly fine principled gentleman. Because that's how we all should do with each other, and the peace would come upon us
With great power comes great responsibility. You don't see spiderman ripping in pieces that reporter who harassed him, and if you did, it would be a completely diff character. You don't abuse your power to punish people you disagree with. It's evil. Call it whatever you like, what this guy did is very very bad
Let me lay down some parallels here: reporter posting fake news, damaging reputation of good people. Actually causing tangible harm to innocents by his bad reporting. Spiderman was given powers to be his judge, jury, and executioner, but he chose to not use them in that manner. Because you can not exercise your power on people just because you can, and because they piss you off. It is morally reprehensible. Good people don't hit somebody like a ton of bricks just because they don't like what this somebody said. You must learn to coexist with people you disagree with. You can't just bully the others to make them exclude people you don't like.
Look: if you think you have a case, ask Joe to invite you to a program, and argue your point. I don't think he is of the anchors who would argue with you in bad faith. I am pretty sure that if Neil actually had something valid to say in favor of his position, that road was and likely still is available to him. He just preferred to strike below belt, because he thought he could get away with it. It also demonstrates that he likely does not have a valid point he can present and defend in a fair debate.
I am not particularly fond of Joe Rogan, but I respect Rogan's principles a lot more than Neil Young. Neil Young wanted to make a political statement and the media ran with it to try to pressure Spotify into breaking a large multi-million dollar contract. Neil Young's music on Spotify is prob worth very little. I'd be surprised if Neil Young was making a $2k/mo from Spotify. Neil Young had very little to lose by making this political statement to help the media, which I'm guessing he prob got some money from the attention of pro-vax people that wanted to try to censor Rogan and thought by supporting Young that they were going to be able to have any pull.
At least 6 million monthly listens at $0.00331 per listen is about $20k per month, so you're off by an order of magnitude. Still not terrible for a wild guess based on nothing. My numbers may be wrong for all kinds of reasons. Young himself apparently said it's 60% of his streaming revenue.
>Neil Young had very little to lose by making this political statement to help the media, which I'm guessing he prob got some money from the attention of pro-vax people that wanted to try to censor Rogan and thought by supporting Young that they were going to be able to have any pull.
> He was a big supporter of the Iraq war, even making a song "Let's Roll".
“Let's roll” was released in 2002, and was very explicitly about the passengers of United 93 and the story constructed from the available information from that flight of the passengers fighting back against the hijackers after becoming aware of the earlier attacks. Neither the timing nor the lyrics nor anything else about it supports the idea that it is about the 2003 Iraq War.
As I recall, that song came out in the days following 9/11, and was based on the account of Todd Beamer and others who fought back on United 93. It was not about support for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Neil Young ever came out in support of the wars. He spoke out plenty against the Iraq war, including the song "Living With War".
"Let's Roll" was adopted as a Bush slogan at the time. The lyrics also talk about going where evil hides and rooting them out.
He clearly supported the administration. I replied to another comment in this thread with sourced quotes.
The vast majority of Americans were of the same mind as Neil, and they all eventually turned against the administration when it was clear what was going on.
Please tell me that you don't consider the later appropriation of "Let's Roll" to somehow mean that people like Neil Young had committed the original sin of supporting the wars. By that logic, is Todd Beamer guilty of the same?
It's startling the ease and quickness with which some people will see a way ascribe some perceived right-wing guilt to someone like Neil Young. I'm not a fan of Young, and my politics are very different than his, but I certainly won't lay blame at his feet for being too right-wing or supporting wars, as this was never the case.
This is so far off base it strains credulity. Charitibly I'll ask for citations.
Young's 2006 album "Living With War" was specifically critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq war.
"Let's Roll" was a Bush slogan when Neil released that song.
If you read my comment carefully, I said he "eventually came around", i.e. the 2006 album.
I specifically remember him being on TV supporting war in the middle east. I found some quotes to corroborate my memory:
"Many artists also seemed to take unpredictable positions as spokespeople. Neil Young shocked his audience at the 2001 People for the American
Way gala, at which he received a Spirit of Liberty Lifetime Achievement
Award, when he endorsed administration policy by saying that “we’re
going to have to relinquish some of our freedoms for a short period of
time.” [1]
"We're going to do the job, and then we're going to get back to being who we are." [2]
But somehow my comment gets flagged, because everyone can't believe that their hero made a mistake, which over 90% of the US population made by the way.
But neither of those quotes are about actually going to war. If we read both of your cited sources, there's nothing in context before, during or after each quote that says war is what he was referencing. Rather, he was speaking each time about giving up our freedoms for a bit and then getting back to where we were; think additional security screening at airports, not being allowed to bring water bottles on a plane, beefed up security presences elsewhere, etc.. He's very specifically talking about civil liberties, not war.
Do you have an actual quote where he talks about war itself?
Edit: So, both of your links reference the exact same event that Neil Young spoke at, the People for the American Way gala in 2001. The timing of this event is key. The second article you cited was published on 12/13/2001, and says Neil Young claimed that "Bush's anti-terrorism measures were necessary". The PATRIOT Act had just gone into effect on 10/26/2001[1], but we didn't go to Iraq until 2003.
It's terribly obvious that Young discussing Americans giving up certain freedoms temporarily is in regards to a law that was just passed that stripped away certain levels of freedom. I'm not sure how sending troops to Iraq two years later would have stripped away freedoms from citizens domestically. I'm also not sure how Neil Young - a famously anti-war individual - would be speaking out in support of a war that wouldn't happen for another two years without ever actually saying anything about fighting, military, "war", etc.
Edit 2: Even USA Today confirmed this way back when[2]...
>Not long after recording the song "Let's Roll," a tribute to passengers who apparently fought back against hijackers on doomed United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, Young came out publicly in support of the U.S. Patriot Act.
>The legislation, which gave law enforcement authorities broad new powers aimed at bolstering the administration's war on terror, was harshly criticized by some as threatening Americans' civil liberties.
>But at a December 2001 ceremony accepting an award from the free-speech advocacy group People For the American Way, Young said he believed the measure was necessary, though he urged the audience to ensure that its more controversial provisions were only temporary.
Your bias is predictable. I actually lean left and do support peoples choice, just not mandates. I am not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but you can believe whatever helps you sleep at night. You can think I'm a racist Nazi Trump supporter if it helps you build images in your mind of what you think people that have different thoughts of you must be like.
