Protesting Neil Young
Posted by Moonage on 19 Apr 2006 | Tagged as: Political Correctness
This is how Neil Young’s “Ohio” is interpreted today. I’m sure they’re sincere. Fact is, they’re wrong. The Vietnam conflict was not protested “uproarious and rampant” when the US began involvement. It built up over a DECADE and culminated with the riots and protests. Secondly, it was not the popular movement made out by the media. It was protested by the very radical left symbolized by Jane Fonda. Most of the US supported the war. That didn’t stop the media or the music industry. “Ohio” became Neil Young’s swan song. He didn’t explore the issue, he just saw it on Time Magazine, knew Nixon was unpopular, and cashed in. Stating the obvious merited him the king of the anti-war movement. If he had explored the issue, he would have known that the kids in Ohio got killed not because of protesting the war, but because of the rioting and looting that had gone on for days in the name of the protest. Everything about the song “Ohio” was wrong other than the body count. That was never a concern for Neil Young or his partners. I’ve been an on-and-off again fan of Neil Young, it always bothered me that he wrote Ohio and never explored the issue or elaborated more on it.
In 1970 Neil Young again attacked something perceived solely on what he had read from afar, racism in the South. Southern Man was based on stereotypes. If that wasn’t bad enough, in 1972 he did it again. Neil Young apologists say they were anti-racism songs. Fact is, they were anti-South songs. As much as other people hate to admit it, racism was never limited to the South only. Once again, Neil Young attacked without researching or even exploring his issue to any degree at all. The fact that he attacked just turned on those that felt the same way, and he cashed in again. It’s really a shame to me. Musically, Southern Man is a classic that is totally ruined by the lyrics. Lynyrd Skynyrd called his hand in 1974.
Now, Neil Young is getting ready to release ANOTHER protest song. Once again relying on the most radical extreme left argument going, Impeach President Bush for lying. Lynyrd Skynyrd got it part right in 1974, which is more than Neil Young’s ever bothered trying to do. It’s not so much a Southern man don’t need him around anyhow, it’s the US that doesn’t need him around anyhow. Neil Young, to this day, is Canadian. Our politics is none of his damn business. He’s just doing what Mick ( A Brit ) and the boys tried to do last year. Cash in on the latest hot topic from the largest market. If either of them were truly concerned, they’d dig a little deeper into their topics than the latest headlines from Berkeley.
It’s time someone new called Neil Young’s hand on his political meddling where it doesn’t belong. Ronnie Van Zant can’t do it for us any more.
10 Comments »
on 19 Apr 2006 at 2:43 pm 1.Zack said …
For a guy that doesn’t like Neil Young very much you sure are trying to hawk a lot of his records.
Truth is its hard to “explore an issue” in a song, songs are ideas, and for Neil they are ideas expressed to provoke thought, the mere fact you wrote this is a testament to Neil’s work to begin with.
on 19 Apr 2006 at 2:54 pm 2.Moonage
said …
As I said, I like his music. I use Amazon because they feature:
a: music samples
b: recording information such as dates
c: pertinent comments left by fans of the performer.
And, to boot, they give me about 20 cents each time someone orders a cd through my link. I’m not exactly getting rich off these Neil Young links ( sales so far, 0. Expected sales, 0 ). However, people will get to see comments that I feel are pertinent to the music and therefore the issue.
It’s a shame he has to ruin some of his best work by sticking amateur politics into it. The fact I wrote this is not a testament to him being correct or not, it just means I think he has ruined some of his best music with amateur politics.
If you’re a true Neil Young fan, which I have been at times, then you should be able to answer a very quick quiz. It’s only one question. As a Canadien, name the last album Neil Young complained about Canadian social issues on.
go ahead and google it. I didn’t have to.
Is it because the Canadian market’s not big enough for Neil? Is it because he’s so hypocritical that Canada can do no wrong? Whatever, if he wants to bitch about Canadian issues, bully for him. If he wants to keep cashing in on US issues, join the the country. Otherwise shut up.
on 19 Apr 2006 at 7:33 pm 3.Olaz Mockingbird said …
Is you or is you aint engaging in “amateur politics”?
on 19 Apr 2006 at 8:53 pm 4.Moonage
said …
As a US citizen, I deserve that right. As a Canadian citizen, Neil doesn’t. If he wants to be a part of the US political system, as I said, put his money where his mouth is and become a US citizen at the very least. That still wouldn’t mean he wasn’t ruining perfectly good songs with his amateur efforts at politics. The reason I state that is he obviously makes no effort at all to make sure what he’s saying is correct. At least I do.
on 20 Apr 2006 at 7:44 pm 5.lazerlou said …
Your blog is piss poor. If you think Neil is doing it for the publicity or money, well, you obviously don’t know much about the man or his music. I promise you he doesn’t need the money. And since whe are citizens of a country the only ones with standing to criticize their governments actions? Further, neil has been a resident of the US longe rthan I’ve been alive. And he certainly has paid more taxes than you or I. He started schools here for kids with disabilities. So even using your logic, the guy has as much rightto criticise the president than you or I do.
on 20 Apr 2006 at 9:45 pm 6.Moonage
said …
“the guy has as much rightto criticise the president than you or I do.”
No, he doesn’t. If US issues were truly important to him, he’d join the country. Just because he pays a fraction of what he earned here doesn’t make his whining any more relavent. If he dropped dead tomorrow, Canada taxes his estate that was built almost entirely from US sales by whining on US issues. That ain’t right.
on 22 Apr 2006 at 10:22 am 7.spaceman said …
While I agree with you that Neil (like a lot of other musicians) is cashing in on political hot buttons, I disagree with you about criticising a country of which you are not a citizen. If everyone was held to this standard then none of us could say a peep about Iraq, France, Mexico, etc, unless we held citizenship there. Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument.
And yes, I did love the Skynyrd answer to Neils Southern Man. I still like Neils music.
on 22 Apr 2006 at 2:09 pm 8.Moonage
said …
There is a big difference. Iraq, Mexico, Iran, etc.. have made it a point to meddle in our affairs. They have made it a point to give us a reason to criticize their actions being as they are intentionally confronting our domestic policy. Now, I have every right to criticize Iraq developing military nuclear weapons while declaring their desire to kill Israel and everyone supporting them. What I don’t have is the right to criticize how Canada responds to that threat. That is what Neil is doing and I think is ethically wrong. The things he’s protesting have NOTHING to do with the country of which he chooses to be a citizen of.
on 17 May 2006 at 3:22 pm 9.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
We got the fence!
The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday, and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally. Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year …
on 06 Nov 2007 at 12:31 pm 10.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
Long Road out of nowhere (Eden)…
The Eagles have released a new album. It’s their first one in a while. They entered the scene with a bang in 1972 and really hit it beyond big with Hotel California in 1976. Finally, in 1979 they recorded The Long Run. That marked the end…