BuffettNews.com

http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/4104.html

Report: Neil ready for War

By Jim Welte

Six months after Prairie Wind hit stores and with Heart of Gold still in theaters, Neil Young has reportedly finished an anti-Bush album.

At last month's South by Southwest (SXSW) festival, rock icon Neil Young was asked about his songwriting process, and how he gets himself ready to make a record.

"When you get on a roll, you can't disturb it," he said at the time.

Young reportedly just finished another one of those rolls.

Even though he released his latest album, Prairie Wind, last September, and Jonathan Demme's Heart of Gold performance documentary hit theaters in February, Harp Magazine reported today that Demme himself said Young just finished writing and recording a new album.

This time, Young reportedly eschewed the mellow flavor of Prairie Wind in favor of a "a brilliant electric assault on Bush and the war in Iraq," according to Demme.

According to HITS, the new album's linchpin track, "Impeach the President," features an edited-together Bush speech set to a 100-voice chorus chanting "flip"/"flop." The album reportedly took three days to finish.

A Warner Bros. Records spokesman declined to comment on the report.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/200 ... lbum-life-
in-war-wont.html

NEW NEIL YOUNG ALBUM-- LIFE IN WAR-- WON'T PROVIDE ANY CAMPAIGN
DITTIES FOR BUSH AND THE RUBBER-STAMP REPUBLICANS

I smoked my way through college-- I mean like every single day-- and
then I went for a two year drive across Asia and a few months smoking
black Mazar-i-Sharif hash in Afghanistan-- the psychedelic stuff that
never gets exported-- and... presto... I was cured. All interest in
drugs were gone. Forever. It was great while it lasted but it was
gone. Years later I washed up on the shores of corporate America and
somehow wound up as president of Reprise Records-- Neil Young's label.
Every time Neil delivered a new album-- or if I'd go up to his ranch
to listen to a work in progress-- I'd take a toke, just one (and one
was all I needed), from whatever he was smoking. I'd be high all day.

I'm retired now and Neil won't be delivering his new album to me and I
won't be taking any tokes off anyone's joints. But I was thrilled this
morning when a small company I work with, JamBase, reported that Neil
has a new record, and, apparently, he's as sick of the corrupt, lying
Bush Regime as the rest of us are!

Neil made it pretty clear with GREENDALE, a truly incredible but
underrated album, that he isn't happy with the direction George Bush
has taken the country. He told David Fricke of ROLLING STONE "This is
a time, I believe, of great inner turmoil for the majority of the
American people. There is a new morality coming out of this
administration -- fundamentalist religious views; a holier-than-thou
attitude towards the rest of the world -- that is not classically
American. I don't think Americans felt holier-than-thou in the
twentieth century. We were happy and successful, with a great
lifestyle. But something else is going on now. That's what Greendale
is about. That's what Grandpa's problem is. He can't understand what's
going on. He sees all of these things that the Patriot Act has taken
away from what he feels is America."

Just after debuting his new film at SxSW Neil shocked the music world
by announcing, kind of off-the-cuff, that he had recorded a brand new
album and that it's all ready to go. (The guy introducing him, SxSW
director Roland Swenson, had referred to how important Neil's song
"Ohio," about the National Guard shooting down college students at
Kent State, was to another generation then gearing up to end an
earlier unpopular war, and how we needed something like that now. Neil
took it seriously.) The new album is called LIFE IN WAR.

One of Neil's collaborators, filmmaker, Jonathan Demme, describes it
as "a brilliant electric assault on Bush and the war in Iraq." The
linchpin track, "Impeach the President," features an edited-together
Bush rap set to a 100-voice chorus chanting "flip/flop." The album,
with Young on Old Black, Rick Rosas on bass and Chad Cromwell on
drums, took three days to finish. Yep; that's Neil. No release date is
set yet but... hopefully it'll be before November.

From neilyoung.com:

I just finished a new record
a power trio with trumpet and 100 voices
recorded earlier this month
i think this is a metal version of Phil Ochs and Bob
Dylan

metal folk protest?

its called living with war
the title song is the second of 10 songs on this
record
we will be releasing lyrics on this ticker

i would like to thank Warner /Reprise for the support
as well as the 100 vocalists ands my 3 musicians chad
rick and tommy brea trumpte
and Niko Bolas larry Johnson John Nowlands, Tim
milligan Darrell
Brown and rosemary butler redwood digital stufios
capital records

living with war

I'm living w. war everyday
I'm LWW in my heart every day
I'm LWW right now
and when the dawn breaks I see my fellow man and on
the flat screen
we kill and we're killed again
and when the night falls, I pray for PEACE
try to remember PREACE(visualize)

I join the multitudes
I raise my hand in peace
I never bow to the laws of the thought police
I take a holy vow
to never kill again
to never kill again

I'm LWW in my heat
I'm LWW in my heart and my mind
I'm LWW right now

Don't take no tidal wave
don't take no mass grave
don't take no smoking gun
to show how the west was won

but when the curtain falls, i pray for peace
try to remember peace (visualize)

in the crowded streets
in the big hotels
in the mosques and the doors of the old museum

I take a holy vow
to never kill again
try to remember peace

the rockets red glare, bombs bursting in air
give proof through the night, that our flag is still
there

I'm LWW everyday
I'm LWW in my heart everyday
I'm LWW right now

http://billboard.com/bbcom/news/article ... 1002345410

Young Urges Bush Impeachment On New Album



Veteran rocker Neil Young has recorded a protest album featuring an anti-Iraq war track with "a holy vow to never kill again" and a song titled "Let's Impeach the President. The 10-track set, Living with War, was recorded this month by a "power trio" -- electric guitar, bass and drums -- plus trumpet and a 100 voices, Young announced on his web site.

Young's longtime manager, Elliot Roberts, told Reuters the album, which has been the subject of Internet buzz for several days, will be played tomorrow (April 18) for executives at his label, Warner Music Group's Reprise Records.

"It's devoted to the state of America, or the direction that America is moving in," Roberts said of the album.

In a message crawl along the bottom of his Web site, Young drew parallels to two of the leading protest singers of the 1960s, saying of his new record: "I think it is a metal version of Phil Ochs and Bob Dylan ... metal folk protest?"

The crawl goes on to reveal the lyrics of the album's title track, with such lines as: "I raise my hand in peace / I never bow to the laws of the thought police / I take a holy vow to never kill again / In the big hotels / in the mosques and the doors of the old museum / I take a holy vow / to never kill again."

Roberts confirmed that a separate song on the album is titled "Let's Impeach the President" but declined to disclose any further details about the record.

According to some online reports, the song accuses President George W. Bush of "lying" and features a rap with Bush's voice set against a choir singing "flip-flop." One member of that choir, a California-based musician, wrote on a blog entry last Friday that the recording session wrapped with an a cappella version of "America the Beautiful."

Young's latest offering comes just seven months after the release of his last album, Prairie Wind. Music from that set was featured in the recent concert film Neil Young: Heart of Gold, directed by Jonathan Demme.

Living with War appears to bring Young full circle from a more pro-Bush administration stance he took in the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

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.

neil rocks, i would buy anything he puts out just hope he tours again this spring

If its an ANTI-BUSH CD you bet I will have it.

A Balding Fan wrote:If its an ANTI-BUSH CD you bet I will have it.

If it's an ANTI-BUSH CD you bet I will burn it.

Wino you know wrote:

A Balding Fan wrote:If its an ANTI-BUSH CD you bet I will have it.

If it's an ANTI-BUSH CD you bet I will burn it.

So much for "free speech", eh?

Personally I'm more interested in what it sounds like than the subject matter but that may just be me.

Jahfin wrote:So much for "free speech", eh?

No, Jahfin, NO, JAHFIN, NO, JAHFIN!!!
SHOVE the "free-speech" crap, will you!
He has the right to record whatever the hell he wants, and I (your favorite combat veteran) have the right to say what a f'ing washed up gas-bag he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any questions?

Wino you know wrote:

Jahfin wrote:So much for "free speech", eh?

No, Jahfin, NO, JAHFIN, NO, JAHFIN!!!
SHOVE the "free-speech" crap, will you!
He has the right to record whatever the hell he wants, and I (your favorite combat veteran) have the right to say what a f'ing washed up gas-bag he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any questions?

Yeah. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Neil is a "f'ing washed up gas-bag" when he had one of the most successful albums of 2005 (Prairie Wind for those of you keeping score at home)? Could you possibly be letting your opinion of his politics cloud your view of his music? I also realize both of you have a right to free speech but what on earth would burning one of his discs accomplish just because you don't like what he says on it (not to mention you forming an opinion before you've actually even heard the disc). Did you reactionary right wing folks not learn a thing from the years when rock records were burned just because people disapproved of Elvis being shown on TV from the waist down, Beatles albums being burned because John Lennon was misquoted as saying the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, and the Dixie Chicks speaking out against Bush? Censorship accomplishes nothing so you can burn or ban all the records you want. The truth will prevail anyway.

1)Yes, my OPINION does probably cloud my view on his music. If someone hates America THAT much, I don't have time for them.

2)Elvis was only allowed to be shown from the waist up because of the times we lived in. Too bad they don't apply that practice to some of these "artists" of today. (not trying to advocate censorship-just good taste)

3)The statement of John Lennon about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus was perhaps one of THE most mis-quoted ones of all time.
He simply said that a young female fan went up to him and told him the Beatles meant more to her than Jesus Christ. His reaction was what got him in trouble with the prudes-"WOW-I guess we're more popular than Jesus."

4)The Dixie Chicks weren't criticized for speaking out against President Bush-they (rather, NATALIE) was criticized for speaking out against President Bush IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY while they were SUPPOSED to be giving a concert. People don't go to concerts to hear that crap, just as when I turn on the TV to hear some politician speak, I want to hear about the issues at hand, NOT to hear some congressman/congresswoman/Senator/President sing Margaritaville.

Whats he doing with the profits? he should go to Iraqi and sell it

Wino you know wrote:1)Yes, my OPINION does probably cloud my view on his music. If someone hates America THAT much, I don't have time for them.

Where did anyone ever say they "hated America"? Fact is, they didn't. If you're gonna complain at least take the time to get your facts straight. Young is calling for the impeachment of our President, he never said he "hated America". A big part of being patriotic is being able to voice your opinion about your country. Despite the severely misguided notion that it's considered "un-American" to do so by some, it's most definitely not. In fact, our country was founded on our right to speak out against our government. If you want a dictatorship, I strongly suggest you find another country to live in since the U.S. of A wasn't founded on those principles.

Wino you know wrote:2)Elvis was only allowed to be shown from the waist up because of the times we lived in. Too bad they don't apply that practice to some of these "artists" of today. (not trying to advocate censorship-just good taste)

Yes, it was due to the times we lived in but burning his albums and banning him from being shown from the waist down accomplished nothing. Nor would applying that practice to today's artists. If anything, it would only make them more appealing to the very people who you'd prefer to shield their eyes.

Wino you know wrote:3)The statement of John Lennon about the Beatles being more popular than Jesus was perhaps one of THE most mis-quoted ones of all time.
He simply said that a young female fan went up to him and told him the Beatles meant more to her than Jesus Christ. His reaction was what got him in trouble with the prudes-"WOW-I guess we're more popular than Jesus."

Well, they were.

Wino you know wrote:4)The Dixie Chicks weren't criticized for speaking out against President Bush-they (rather, NATALIE) was criticized for speaking out against President Bush IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY while they were SUPPOSED to be giving a concert. People don't go to concerts to hear that crap, just as when I turn on the TV to hear some politician speak, I want to hear about the issues at hand, NOT to hear some congressman/congresswoman/Senator/President sing Margaritaville.

What does being in a foreign country have to do with anything? She (and anybody for that matter) should be able to speak her mind whereever she likes. Being on foreign soil does not preclude you from having an opinion about your own country. Should Neil Young also be exempt from having an opinion about American politics simply because he's Canadian? As for what people go to concerts for, that is your view and is not necessarily shared by everyone. Music used as a vehicle for protest has been in place for a very long time and will continue to be for a very long time to come.

El mojito wrote:Whats he doing with the profits? he should go to Iraqi and sell it

Why? Merle Haggard, R.E.M., Willie Nelson, John Fogerty and many other musicians have spoken out against this war and they have every right to do so. Do you want a country where both sides aren't allowed to speak their minds?

Wino you know wrote:1)Yes, my OPINION does probably cloud my view on his music. If someone hates America THAT much, I don't have time for them.

Disliking Bush is not the same as hating America.

Read back and saw how old this thread is, sorry for bringing it back up.

green1 wrote:[quote="Jahfin]

So much for "free speech", eh?

How is this an infringement on free speech? If wino wants to buy the album and then destroy it in a display of his views of the artist in question, isn't that wino's free speech?[/quote]

Yes, it is but what is buying Neil's album only to burn it going to accomplish?

green1 wrote:I am so tired of hearing censoriship when someone comes out and says that they disapprove of x or y. It is a tired argument that has no basis in truth. So what if Wino dislikes Young. Is his burning of the CD physically impairing Young from speaking his mind?

No, it's not but what purpose does it serve?

green1 wrote:[Natalie Holloway and the Dixie Chicks are the perfect example of this. They made a politcal statement during one of their concerts and when their fan base exercised their right of free speech by telling the record companies what they thought of it, they were pulled off of radio station programming lists, and their record sales plunged. This is not censorship, just other Americans exercsing their rights.

First of all, who is this Natalie Holloway you refer to? I'm also not sure where you get your figures from but sales of their record did not "plunge". This incident also did not directly affect their concerts as they continued to sell out venues for the remainder of their tour. I saw a news piece on it and the protesters at their concerts were like two or three people holding up signs in the parking lot. If banning an artist from the airwaves is not censorship, I wonder how you define it? One station in Texas took it too an even further extreme by refusing to play not only the Dixie Chicks but any record that included work by Natalie Maines' father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That was completely ridiculous. About as ridiculous as thinking you're going to help people to think like you by banning something you don't like. Free speech my ass.

green1 wrote:[But come to think of it, if Young is Canadien, than the American concept of free speech does not apply to him.

[/quote]

green1 wrote:Read back and saw how old this thread is, sorry for bringing it back up.

I'm not sure how you define "old" but it was started on April 14, all of four days ago.

Jahfin wrote:

green1 wrote:[quote="Jahfin]

So much for "free speech", eh?

How is this an infringement on free speech? If wino wants to buy the album and then destroy it in a display of his views of the artist in question, isn't that wino's free speech?

Yes, it is but what is buying Neil's album only to burn it going to accomplish?

green1 wrote:I am so tired of hearing censoriship when someone comes out and says that they disapprove of x or y. It is a tired argument that has no basis in truth. So what if Wino dislikes Young. Is his burning of the CD physically impairing Young from speaking his mind?

No, it's not but what purpose does it serve?

green1 wrote:[Natalie Holloway and the Dixie Chicks are the perfect example of this. They made a politcal statement during one of their concerts and when their fan base exercised their right of free speech by telling the record companies what they thought of it, they were pulled off of radio station programming lists, and their record sales plunged. This is not censorship, just other Americans exercsing their rights.

First of all, who is this Natalie Holloway you refer to? I'm also not sure where you get your figures from but sales of their record did not "plunge". This incident also did not directly affect their concerts as they continued to sell out venues for the remainder of their tour. I saw a news piece on it and the protesters at their concerts were like two or three people holding up signs in the parking lot. If banning an artist from the airwaves is not censorship, I wonder how you define it? One station in Texas took it too an even further extreme by refusing to play not only the Dixie Chicks but any record that included work by Natalie Maines' father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That was completely ridiculous. About as ridiculous as thinking you're going to help people to think like you by banning something you don't like. Free speech my ass.

green1 wrote:[But come to think of it, if Young is Canadien, than the American concept of free speech does not apply to him.

[/quote][/quote]

Got the name wrong on the Dixie Chick. My bad. The fact that that one station refused to play anything from the Dixie chicks started at the listener level. People called into the station and said don't play it, then those same people called the sponsors of the station and said if you continue to sponsor this station and if they continue to play Dixie Chicks then I will refuse to buy your product. This is not censorship. This is American Free speech. You are free to say almost anything you want. But you are not free from the consequences that arise from what you say, and you must deal with them. That is the necessary corrollary to any freedom. To say that thos people in Texas should not have refused to play the Dixie Chicks is to say that they do not have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. What you are saying, if I am understanding it correctly, is that Young and the Dixie Chicks should allowed to say whatever they want without any consequences except good ones. This is by definition squashing the freedom of expression of everyone who disagrees with them. As you so quaintly put it "Freedom of Speech my ass".

Wino burning a CD may or may not have any effect, but it is his right of expression and speech, and by hindering him from doing that you are trampling upon the freedoms you are espousing for Young.

As for the age of the post, I thought I read it was started in 2003. Tired eyes I guess.

green1 wrote:Got the name wrong on the Dixie Chick. My bad. The fact that that one station refused to play anything from the Dixie chicks started at the listener level. People called into the station and said don't play it, then those same people called the sponsors of the station and said if you continue to sponsor this station and if they continue to play Dixie Chicks then I will refuse to buy your product. This is not censorship. This is American Free speech. You are free to say almost anything you want. But you are not free from the consequences that arise from what you say, and you must deal with them. That is the necessary corrollary to any freedom. To say that thos people in Texas should not have refused to play the Dixie Chicks is to say that they do not have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. What you are saying, if I am understanding it correctly, is that Young and the Dixie Chicks should allowed to say whatever they want without any consequences except good ones. This is by definition squashing the freedom of expression of everyone who disagrees with them. As you so quaintly put it "Freedom of Speech my ass".

Wino burning a CD may or may not have any effect, but it is his right of expression and speech, and by hindering him from doing that you are trampling upon the freedoms you are espousing for Young.

As for the age of the post, I thought I read it was started in 2003. Tired eyes I guess.

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).