Neil Young Ready for War

[green1]

I'm not saying that artists should be able to say what they want without opposition or consequences, I'm saying it is censorship when someone tries to silence the voice of the opposition just because they don't agree with it. Yeah, it might be well within their rights to do so but as history has shown; record bannings, book burnings, etc. haven't accomplished a damn thing. If anything they only help feed the fire (so to speak).

I agree with you. As far as I am concerned Young can say or play whatever he wants. That is his right and I will never try to limit it. But at the same time it is Wino's right to burn the CD if he wants to. That is his right. It is no more censorship on Wino's part as it is un-patriotism (if Young were an American) on Young's part.

In terms of the effectiveness of burning as a method of expression. I agree that it is not effective. Too many bad conotations. I will simply not buy his music, and I will turn off any station that plays it. I will express my views with my wallet.

[Jahfin]

In terms of the effectiveness of burning as a method of expression. I agree that it is not effective.

Nor is the banning of music from radio stations. It makes me think of the PRMC hearings when even the likes of John Denver and Donny Osmond stood up against censoring records along with Frank Zappa. Like I said, if anything, slapping one of those Parental Advisory stickers on a record only helps increase it's appeal.

[green1]

Nor is the banning of music from radio stations. It makes me think of the PRMC hearings when even the likes of John Denver and Donny Osmond stood up against censoring records along with Frank Zappa. Like I said, if anything, slapping one of those Parental Advisory stickers on a record only helps increase it's appeal.

The difference with the Dixie Chicks is that the music that they refused to play was not political in nature. It was their usual fare. Nothing extreme, my wife has the album and we listen to it still. The refusal to play the music stemmed from the audience, angry at the political position espoused by the Dixie Chicks during what was not a politcal event. This is not censorship. If the music or message that was being refused air time was politcal in nature, that is censorship. This is the market responding to an artists assertions. Nothing more. To call it censorship, to make it akin to the book burnings, that have occured is to cheapen that image.

I do agree that the parental warning label is a "BUY MY NOW" sticker.

[Jahfin]

Nor is the banning of music from radio stations. It makes me think of the PRMC hearings when even the likes of John Denver and Donny Osmond stood up against censoring records along with Frank Zappa. Like I said, if anything, slapping one of those Parental Advisory stickers on a record only helps increase it's appeal.

The difference with the Dixie Chicks is that the music that they refused to play was not political in nature. It was their usual fare. Nothing extreme, my wife has the album and we listen to it still. The refusal to play the music stemmed from the audience, angry at the political position espoused by the Dixie Chicks during what was not a politcal event.

Contrary to popular belief they can say whatever they want at their concerts (as can any performer), it doesn't have to be a "political event".

This is not censorship. If the music or message that was being refused air time was politcal in nature, that is censorship. This is the market responding to an artists assertions. Nothing more. To call it censorship, to make it akin to the book burnings, that have occured is to cheapen that image.

Music, other forms of live performance, literature and movies that others have tried to stop do not have to be political in nature to be considered censorship. As I mentioned earlier in this thread when Elvis was shown only from the waist up on television that was censorship and was in no way political in nature. The establishment was trying to shield young eyes from what they considered taboo.

[captenuta]

Neil Young, Born 12 November 1945.Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He's not even an American. Who cares if he thinks Our President should be impeached.

"Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ol' Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow"

[Jahfin]

Neil Young, Born 12 November 1945.Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

He's not even an American. Who cares if he thinks Our President should be impeached.

Yeah, he is. He just happens to be from North America. Just because someone isn't from the United States of America doesn't mean they have no right to express an opinion about our President. And by the way, if you've got something to say by all means don't hide it by typing it in white ink.

"Well I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ol' Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow"

RONNIE AND NEIL(Patterson Hood / Drive-By Truckers)

Church blew up in Birmingham
Four little black girls killed for no God damn good reason
All this hate and violence can't come to no good end
A stain on the good name.
A whole lot of good people dragged threw the blood and glass
Blood stains on their good names and all of us take the blame

Meanwhile in North Alabama, Wilson Pickett comes to town
To record that sweet soul music, to get that Muscle Shoals sound

Meanwhile in North Alabama, Aretha Franklin comes to town
To record that sweet soul music, to get that Muscle Shoals sound

And out in California, a rock star from Canada writes a couple of great songs about the
Bad shlt that went down
"Southern Man" and "Alabama" certainly told some truth
But there were a lot of good folks down here and Neil Young wasn't around

Meanwhile in North Alabama, Lynyrd Skynyrd came to town
To record with Jimmy Johnson at Muscle Shoals Sound
And they met some real good people, not racist pieces of shlt
And they wrote a song about it and that song became a hit

Ronnie and Neil Ronnie and Neil
Rock stars today ain't half as real
Speaking there minds on how they feel
Let them guitars blast for Ronnie and Neil

Now Ronnie and Neil became good friends their feud was just in song
Skynyrd was a bunch of Neil Young fans and Neil he loved that song
So he wrote "Powderfinger" for Skynyrd to record
But Ronnie ended up singing "Sweet Home Alabama" to the Lord

And Neil helped carry Ronnie in his casket to the ground
And to my way of thinking, us Southern men need both of them around

Ronnie and Neil Ronnie and Neil
Rock stars today ain't half as real
Speaking their minds on how they feel
Let them guitars blast for Ronnie and Neil

[captenuta]

I was going for good old RED WHITE and BLUE look.

Again I don't care what Neil Young has to say about our President.

[Jahfin]

Again I don't care what Neil Young has to say about our President.

Fair enough but just because he's from Canada doesn't mean he can't speak out about Shrub. It also doesn't make anyone any less American or patriotic if they speak out against our government. Our country was founded on the very principle that we are allowed to speak out against. If you want to live in a dictatorship I'd say the U.S. of A. may not be for you.

[green1]

You have said that the people can speak out against these performers. Yet you say that when they do, by confronting the radio stations and advertisers, that is cencorship.

So, in your opinion what is an effective method for we the people to fight against the bully pulpit that these artists have, and not be accused of censorship?

[captenuta]

What's Shrub?

And you keep saying we, he's not one of us. HE'S FROM CANADA.

By the way where are you from?

[Jahfin]

You have said that the people can speak out against these performers. Yet you say that when they do, by confronting the radio stations and advertisers, that is cencorship.

So, in your opinion what is an effective method for we the people to fight against the bully pulpit that these artists have, and not be accused of censorship?

First of all, I don't think these artists have a "bully pulpit". I'm just saying that by banning or burning their records you're trying to silence the voice of opposition, which is censorship.

[Jahfin]

What's Shrub?

George Bush

And you keep saying we, he's not one of us. HE'S FROM CANADA.

When did I ever say "we" or that "he's one of us"? I didn't. I also have to wonder if you've even been reading my posts as I know very well that he's from Canada. What I did say was that just because someone is from another country it doesn't mean they can't speak out about our government.

By the way where are you from?

The land of the free and the brave, at least the last time I checked.

[green1]

First of all, I don't think these artists have a "bully pulpit". I'm just saying that by banning or burning their records you're trying to silence the voice of opposition, which is censorship.

Of course they do. Come on. If they did not have a bully pulpit then why were the Dixie Chicks on the front page of every paper for a week or so? Why is Charlie Sheen making the front of the Post saying he does not belive the 9/11 commission. Celebrities command an audience because the media flocks to them, especially when they are making hay, hence they have a bully pulpit.

I'll ask it again, if going to the advertisers or a radio program and threatenign to not buy their products if they support a radio which plays a certain artist is censorship, then what is an equally effective, non-censoring method? Personally, in my view, this is not censorship. This is capitalism. That radio market looked at what the Dixie Chicks said and they rose up and said enough is enough.

[Jahfin]

First of all, I don't think these artists have a "bully pulpit". I'm just saying that by banning or burning their records you're trying to silence the voice of opposition, which is censorship.

Of course they do. Come on. If they did not have a bully pulpit then why were the Dixie Chicks on the front page of every paper for a week or so? Why is Charlie Sheen making the front of the Post saying he does not belive the 9/11 commission. Celebrities command an audience because the media flocks to them, especially when they are making hay, hence they have a bully pulpit.

You answered your own question when you said the media flocks to them. Besides, if that is your reasoning don't the likes of Toby Keith also have a "bully pulpit"?

I'll ask it again, if going to the advertisers or a radio program and threatenign to not buy their products if they support a radio which plays a certain artist is censorship, then what is an equally effective, non-censoring method? Personally, in my view, this is not censorship. This is capitalism. That radio market looked at what the Dixie Chicks said and they rose up and said enough is enough.

I don't have an answer to your question but I will say (again) that attempting to silence an opposing viewpoint via burning and banning records is without a doubt censorship.

[green1]

Yes, all celebrities have a bully pulpit, and Toby Keith used his in this instance to counter the Dixie Chicks.

So, when celebrities say something we don't agree with. Is it censorship if I get a bunch of people together, truthfully convey what that celebrity said and then tell them that if they do not agree with this then boycott this celebrities works, be they film, or recording? These are my rights of assembly and free speech.

If this is what you are saying then we are just going to have to agree to disagree because you will never be able to convince me that this is censorship rather than the free speech of those people expressed through their wallets.

[Jahfin]

Of course people have the right to protest Neil Young's album, just as Neil Young has the right to speak out against the President of the United States but by burning or banning records, isn't that an attempt to to silence the voice of opposition? Yes, it may be well within your rights but trying to totally eliminate records or books that express a viewpoint you disagree with smacks of censorship to me.

[green1]

Of course people have the right to protest Neil Young's album, just as Neil Young has the right to speak out against the President of the United States but by burning or banning records, isn't that an attempt to to silence the voice of opposition? Yes, it may be well within your rights but trying to totally eliminate records or books that express a viewpoint you disagree with smacks of censorship to me.

I have never espoused burning anything. If you read back you will see that I said exactly the opposite.
I also said the Neil Young (if he were an American) would not be un-American for calling for impeachment. He and I will simply disagree.
But just as he has a right to say one thing and use his celebrity status to reach millions of people I have the right to do everything in my power to send my message to as many people as possible. If the result of this is that people do not buy his records it is not censorship. If the result is that people do not listen to radio stations that play his music this is not censorship. This is people hearing both sides of an issue and then deciding for themselves what they want to listen to or buy. This is freedom from being forced to listen to something you don't agree with. They are in effect turning off the radio.

[Jahfin]

Of course people have the right to protest Neil Young's album, just as Neil Young has the right to speak out against the President of the United States but by burning or banning records, isn't that an attempt to to silence the voice of opposition? Yes, it may be well within your rights but trying to totally eliminate records or books that express a viewpoint you disagree with smacks of censorship to me.

I have never espoused burning anything. If you read back you will see that I said exactly the opposite.
I also said the Neil Young (if he were an American) would not be un-American for calling for impeachment. He and I will simply disagree.
But just as he has a right to say one thing and use his celebrity status to reach millions of people I have the right to do everything in my power to send my message to as many people as possible. If the result of this is that people do not buy his records it is not censorship. If the result is that people do not listen to radio stations that play his music this is not censorship. This is people hearing both sides of an issue and then deciding for themselves what they want to listen to or buy. This is freedom from being forced to listen to something you don't agree with. They are in effect turning off the radio.

Thanks for explaining, I see more clearly now.

[jbfinscj]

WOW It looks like a war zone in here.

[Jahfin]

WOW It looks like a war zone in here.

It's comments like that which make me wonder if some of you even take the time to read the posts in the thread before commenting, particularly the last few.