Neil Young takes on Monsanto

brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
In an interview recently, Neil mentioned that making music is his first job. He's also one of those rare endangered birds who, after all these years, is still not afraid to tackle big issues. In his upcoming LP, Uncle Neil takes on Monsanto. Definitely looking forward to this one!

http://pitchfork.com/news/59348-neil-young-announces-monsanto-themed-lp-recorded-with-willie-nelsons-sons/
"Hate your job, love your stuff
If you think that's living, you are
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
-Juliana Hatfield
***********
M.I.T.S.







«1

Comments

  • backseatLover12backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    edited April 2015
    He hooks up with Lukas Nelson! Can't wait to hear that.
    Post edited by backseatLover12 on
    My words are just words, nothing more, nothing less.
  • InHiding80InHiding80 Upland,CAPosts: 7,623
    As someone whose been for his cause and a fan of his music, this is awesome. They need to be taken down more than a peg.
    RIP America (1776-2016)
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098

    He hooks up with Lukas Nelson! Can't wait to hear that.

    Yes! Looking forward to hearing them work together.

    As someone whose been for his cause and a fan of his music, this is awesome. They need to be taken down more than a peg.

    Go Neil!

    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    About time someone does. Good for you mr young.
  • backseatLover12backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    edited April 2015
    http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-mark-lynas-conversion-climate-change-journalist-cheerleader

    Uncovering the Real Story Behind Mark Lynas' Conversion from Climate Change Journalist to Cheerleader for Genetically Modified Foods
    In 2011, leaked documents were obtained from the Brussels-based EuropaBio, the continent's “largest and most influential biotech industry group,” detailing an intricate plan to fracture the European green movement in hopes of undermining its near unanimous opposition to the biotech industry agenda.

    EuropaBio's members read like a who's who of multinational pesticide and biotech corporations notorious for endangering human health, polluting the environment and deceiving the public. Members include Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, BASF, Eli Lilly, and Dupont. According to the leaked documents, Mark Lynas was one of the biotech industry's most sought after “ambassadors” (i.e. undercover spokespeople).

    The lobby group's plan was to recruit high-profile, non-affiliated, “ambassadors” like Lynas to lobby European leaders to adopt more GE-friendly policies. Designated spokespeople would have bestowed upon them an undeserved aura of independence and objectivity.

    Lynas has denied being recruited by the lobby group. Yet his January public relations stunt may as well have come straight from the EuropaBio leaked playbook. Given the untruths woven throughout his “conversion” speech, can we believe him when he says he isn't shilling for Monsanto?
    Post edited by backseatLover12 on
    My words are just words, nothing more, nothing less.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    I may have posted this elsewhere so apologies in advance if so.

    Big kudos to Chipotle Grill!

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/04/27/402632212/chipotle-says-adios-to-gmos-as-food-industry-strips-away-ingredients

    Chipotle Says Adios To GMOs, As Food Industry Strips Away Ingredients

    Fast-casual food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill has announced it has removed all ingredients made with genetically modified organisms from its menu, making good on a two-year-old promise. It's the latest example of the food industry stripping away ingredients, some more questionable than others, as consumers demand a say in what's in their dinner.

    There is no scientific evidence that GMOs pose a risk to health, as Chipotle founder and co-CEO Steve Ells readily acknowledges. "I don't think this is about GMOs being harmful or not being harmful to your health," Ells tells The Salt. "It's a bigger picture. It's really part of our food with integrity journey."

    After Chipotle committed to ditching GMOs in 2013, its corn and flour tortillas were among the hardest items to revamp. But they're now GMO-free, thanks to Chipotle's collaborations with suppliers to plant non-GMO corn varieties. The soybean oil in the chips and taco shells, which was GMO, has also been replaced with non-GMO sunflower oil.

    But the journey isn't done: Chipotle still uses meat from animals that may feed on GMO corn or soybeans. Ells says he wants to change that, but it is likely to take several years.

    Michael Moss, author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, applauds Chipotle's move to remove GMOs from its menu. "I'm ambivalent about GMOs, personally," Moss tells The Salt, "but I think Chipotle, with this move, is once again showing how fast it's positioning the company to respond to its customers' concerns about food."

    ...more at link.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLEPosts: 1,871
    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    riotgrl said:

    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.

    Yes, well said riotgrl. It sounds like they're at least working toward non-GMO feed meat. And of course they offer good vegetarian choices.

    I'm not a fan of fast food but on the few occasions I'm out and want something quick I always look for a Chipotle.

    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • dignindignin Posts: 7,334
    Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLEPosts: 1,871
    Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
    https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

    This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,334
    riotgrl said:

    Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
    https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

    This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

    Thanks riotgrl, I will check these out.

  • WhatYouTaughtMeWhatYouTaughtMe I have no idea what's going on right now!Posts: 4,825
    edited April 2015
    brianlux said:

    riotgrl said:

    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.

    Yes, well said riotgrl. It sounds like they're at least working toward non-GMO feed meat. And of course they offer good vegetarian choices.

    I'm not a fan of fast food but on the few occasions I'm out and want something quick I always look for a Chipotle.

    Chipolte is good stuff. I too applaud them and hope they follow through with the meat as well. It might take awhile but it shows how this problem can be solved. If more companies and big players in the industry demand certain types of products, there will be people trying to supply them. It's a way to use the market to affect a change. It's kind of the opposite of places like walmart demanding cheap shit from their suppliers. Of course it would also be great if a larger percentage of consumers demanded better as well. We can all affect a change if we vote with our dollars more often.
    Post edited by WhatYouTaughtMe on
  • InHiding80InHiding80 Upland,CAPosts: 7,623
    riotgrl said:

    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.

    The difference between them and the anti vaxxers is that they're scientists and Jenny McStupid isn't.
    RIP America (1776-2016)
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 12,074
    edited April 2015
    riotgrl said:

    Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
    https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

    This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

    Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes!
    Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used on non-GMO crops as well as the Round-Up Ready crops.
    To say GMO is unhealthy because it is often grown in glyphosate is akin to saying broccoli is unhealthy because people put cheese sauce on it.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLEPosts: 1,871
    rgambs said:

    riotgrl said:

    Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
    https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

    This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

    Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes!
    Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used on non-GMO crops as well as the Round-Up Ready crops.
    To say GMO is unhealthy because it is often grown in glyphosate is akin to saying broccoli is unhealthy because people put cheese sauce on it.
    Ok, then look at emerging research that says that GMOs may be responsible for the rise in allergies There have been several studies that looked at soybeans in particular.

    nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199603143341103
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLEPosts: 1,871

    riotgrl said:

    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.

    The difference between them and the anti vaxxers is that they're scientists and Jenny McStupid isn't.
    What does Jenny McCarthy have to do with it? Or the anti-vax movement? There is plenty of research out there about GMOs but I strongly support your right to consume whatever you like. I certainly hope you extend me the same courtesy.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    riotgrl said:

    riotgrl said:

    I'm always astonished when people state that there is no scientific evidence that supports GMOs are harmful to human health. They must not be looking very hard.

    I applaud Chipotle for the removal of GMOs but I'd like for them to source their meat from farmers who use non-GMO grains.

    The difference between them and the anti vaxxers is that they're scientists and Jenny McStupid isn't.
    What does Jenny McCarthy have to do with it? Or the anti-vax movement? There is plenty of research out there about GMOs but I strongly support your right to consume whatever you like. I certainly hope you extend me the same courtesy.
    Exactly! No one here is trying to tell anyone what to eat and I don't think anyone here is planning on shutting down their local McRoadkill outlet.

    What some of us DO WANT is to have good, natural, healthy foods available to us and our families and to know what is in our food, i.e food labeling.

    And lets remember that Monsanto is not just about making sure people get their fair share of Frankenfoods- they are also largely responsible for spreading massive amounts of poisonous chemicals in the environment (and wildlife don't know and don't have the choices we do so they end up eating things laden with these poisons). There are a whole slew of environmental disasters connected to the work of Monsanto.

    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,603
    dignin said:

    Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

    Ha, doesn't look like you got any takers. There was a good article published by Slate yesterday that everyone should read, to understand the issues, the politics, the junk science, and the business, behind the anti-GMO movement. I've often considered anti-Vaxxers and anti-GMO activists two peas in a pod (probably a non-GMO pod). This article didn't disabuse me of that notion, but at least helped explain to me how everyone gets so confused about the issues. Greenpeace in particular has done us a massive disservice in this regard. The fight against Monsanto I get. The fight against GMOs is just silly.

    Unhealthy Fixation - The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    You can read articles that argue both sides and find some that will suite your tastes. You can be persuaded one way or another. You have that choice. You also have the choice to make up your own mind about what makes sense to eat and not to eat. Enjoy your Frankenfood, Jeff.
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,552
    edited July 2015
    rgambs said:

    riotgrl said:

    Glyphosate crosses the placenta.
    https://uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

    This study links glyphosate with increased estrogen which is the main cause for most breast cancer cell growth.
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

    Whoa whoa whoa...pump the brakes!
    Glyphosate is an herbicide that is used on non-GMO crops as well as the Round-Up Ready crops.
    To say GMO is unhealthy because it is often grown in glyphosate is akin to saying broccoli is unhealthy because people put cheese sauce on it.
    Thank you!
    I am 100% convinced that most people who are against GMOs have no idea why they are against them. They seem to assume that them being GMO makes them dangerous to your health, but there is ZERO evidence of that, and I don't think there ever will be any evidence of that. The harm that pesticides might do is a completely different issue. I cannot believe the way certain media spins GMO stories to make them seem dangerous for health when they aren't. The REAL issue with GMOs is how they harm local economies and independent farmers, especially in poorer countries, and they are gradually putting the agricultural industry closer to the same sinister lines that the pharmaceutical companies occupy. THAT is why I am not in favour of GMOs. These other articles about how they harm people or kill bees, etc etc are pure bullshit as far as I can tell.
    If you're going to hate GMOs and GMO companies, at least hate them for the right reasons.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,603
    brianlux said:

    You can read articles that argue both sides and find some that will suite your tastes. You can be persuaded one way or another. You have that choice. You also have the choice to make up your own mind about what makes sense to eat and not to eat. Enjoy your Frankenfood, Jeff.

    Definitely, Brian! I'm with you on reading both sides. I see a ton of benefit and no real downside with GE food. Whether they are modified simply for taste or convenience, or for real environmental issues like drought tolerance, disease or pest resistance, or to increase nutritional value for dying kids in 3rd world countries, we're making good progress with science. I understand the distrust of Monsanto. I don't understand the fear of science the anti-GMO folks seem to embrace. Much like climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers, If you want to avoid GMO foods, I think that is completely fine. As you said, it is your choice, and you are free to decide. But when Greenpeace actively blocks the availability of nutritional crops to 3rd world countries, and ignores science while kids are dying, they are denying those people the choice you and I believe we should all have.

    I would love to see an answer to dignin's original question posed some months ago:
    dignin said:

    Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    jeffbr said:

    brianlux said:

    You can read articles that argue both sides and find some that will suite your tastes. You can be persuaded one way or another. You have that choice. You also have the choice to make up your own mind about what makes sense to eat and not to eat. Enjoy your Frankenfood, Jeff.

    Definitely, Brian! I'm with you on reading both sides. I see a ton of benefit and no real downside with GE food. Whether they are modified simply for taste or convenience, or for real environmental issues like drought tolerance, disease or pest resistance, or to increase nutritional value for dying kids in 3rd world countries, we're making good progress with science. I understand the distrust of Monsanto. I don't understand the fear of science the anti-GMO folks seem to embrace. Much like climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers, If you want to avoid GMO foods, I think that is completely fine. As you said, it is your choice, and you are free to decide. But when Greenpeace actively blocks the availability of nutritional crops to 3rd world countries, and ignores science while kids are dying, they are denying those people the choice you and I believe we should all have.

    I would love to see an answer to dignin's original question posed some months ago:
    dignin said:

    Can anyone post some peer reviewed research showing the correlation between GMO's and negative health affects on humans?

    Fair enough, Jeff. And although I do respect you concern for feeding the hungry I would suggest that the solution to that problem is to lower populations to sustainable numbers in any region and to help 3rd world countries become self-sustaining rather than dependent. Also, unless energy sources that are as cheap and plentiful (and hopefully cleaner) than fossil fuels become available, the "green revolution" will end when the fuel runs low.

    Here's what I came up with so far in answer to dignin's question:

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific-studies-proving-gmos-can-be-harmful-to-human-health/

    Frankly Jeff, an exhaustive search for articles about GMO's would probably result in a greater number of them saying GMO's are safe rather than not safe. Even the esteemed scientist E. O. Wilson has argued that GMO's are probably safe and I'm a big E. O. Wilson fan.

    But I still stand firm in my distrust of GMO's for two basic reasons:

    1). We don't know the long term effects of GMO's on human and other animals health or how their use will alter ecosystems over a long period of time. The possibility that they will permanently alter ecosystems is good to great. Is the potential that these changes could have negative, permanent long-term effects worth the short term gain?

    2). I want the option to live in a world where ecosystems and ecological balances are determined by natural systems and cycles. I don't want to live in a world artificially altered by humans tinkering with nature.

    It is already too late for that. I was born into a world that was still predominantly natural in it's make up, a world in which weather patterns were not quite yet altered by burning fossil fuels, a world where one city in America (Flagstaff, AZ) could still legitimately claim to have clean air. Today, most of the world's ecosystems have been long-term or permanently damaged, the climate has been anthropogenically altered and there are no longer any cities that have clean air. I will argue against further artificial altering of our world until the day I die because I remember living in a real world. I bet on earth and sky.

    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,552
    edited July 2015
    Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 28,098
    edited July 2015
    PJ_Soul said:

    Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.

    Well, good point, actually. In fact, it could be argued that the advent of agriculture thousands of years ago ended the natural world.

    But crops grown organically have little or no long-term affect on an ecosystem. A farm field left fallow will so revert to pioneer plants and through ecological succession will become either a natural dessert, a grassland meadow, or shrubs will replace pioneer plants which in turn will become a woodland- first a young forest and eventually an old growth forest. So yes, I would argue that all land sea and air are part of ecosystems. Plus it's fairly well know that pollen from GMO crops drift on wind and affect non-GMO crops.

    Edit: I must be becoming a sentimental old fool. When I think about things like natural succession and how we have disrupted those processes and see the sky become more polluted each year watch the earth continue to degrade I become very weary and depressed.

    Post edited by brianlux on
    "Hate your job, love your stuff
    If you think that's living, you are
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong"
    -Juliana Hatfield
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.







  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,552
    brianlux said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    Brian, do you think that farmed food crops are really a part of ecosystems and ecological balances now? I would argue that they aren't, really. There is nothing natural about it in the first place, GMO or no GMO.

    Well, good point, actually. In fact, it could be argued that the advent of agriculture thousands of years ago ended the natural world.

    But crops grown organically have little or no long-term affect on an ecosystem. A farm field left fallow will so revert to pioneer plants and through ecological succession will become either a natural dessert, a grassland meadow, or shrubs will replace pioneer plants which in turn will become a woodland- first a young forest and eventually an old growth forest. So yes, I would argue that all land sea and air are part of ecosystems. Plus it's fairly well know that pollen from GMO crops drift on wind and affect non-GMO crops.

    Edit: I must be becoming a sentimental old fool. When I think about things like natural succession and how we have disrupted those processes and see the sky become more polluted each year watch the earth continue to degrade I become very weary and depressed.

    Well on that note, all I can say is that it seems like GMOs are the least of our problems right now.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,603
    Thanks for the discussion, PJSoul and Brian. I like the exchange of ideas here. I separate the GMO discussion from the commercial agriculture discussion in my mind. I think they are two different things. I agree with Brian about the harm these large commercial agricultural practices have done to the ecosystem, and that has been the case for years, GMO plants or not. I have seen zero evidence that GMOs have any ill effects on humans. In fact, most of the byproducts of GMOs are already naturally occurring, just maybe not in the same food source (see for example golden rice). So I don't think there is any inconsistency with having no issues with GMOs and being opposed to Monsanto's predatory practices. The only reason I piped up is when somehow Monsanto = GMO = Evil. That is an equation that I don't see. And Brian, thanks for the link above, I'll check that out.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,552
    edited July 2015
    jeffbr said:

    Thanks for the discussion, PJSoul and Brian. I like the exchange of ideas here. I separate the GMO discussion from the commercial agriculture discussion in my mind. I think they are two different things. I agree with Brian about the harm these large commercial agricultural practices have done to the ecosystem, and that has been the case for years, GMO plants or not. I have seen zero evidence that GMOs have any ill effects on humans. In fact, most of the byproducts of GMOs are already naturally occurring, just maybe not in the same food source (see for example golden rice). So I don't think there is any inconsistency with having no issues with GMOs and being opposed to Monsanto's predatory practices. The only reason I piped up is when somehow Monsanto = GMO = Evil. That is an equation that I don't see. And Brian, thanks for the link above, I'll check that out.

    I don't see the GMO = Evil part. But I do see the Monsanto = Evil part. It's all a matter of how to compete with GMO farms. Some of these GMOs don't even reproduce, so the only way farmers can grow it is to buy the damn seeds every season. As long as companies like Monsanto are running the show, that is not a sustainable way to farm, and the ones who will suffer most will be the ones who can least afford to. The poor independent farmers of the world will not be able to survive in a GMO world.... and MOST of the world's farmers are poor independent ones who feed poor local populations. I think the growth of GMO products could directly lead to a global economic crisis eventually, and that will involve food shortages in the poorest nations. That is, IF the GMO industry keeps going the way it is now, with greedy motherfuckers taking ownership of it. If governments took it over and regulated it properly and fairly, it could probably prevent food shortages and help stabilize economies. GMOs could be a wonderful thing for the world... But I certainly am not holding my breath. I fully expect the fucking giant corporations to win this one, like they always do. They are well on their way already.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    Not really related to the thread topic but I know there are many uncle Neil fans here. Neil has decided to stop streaming his music. Not that he really has a choice. He claims it has to do with sound quality and not money.
    Streaming has ended for me," the Canadian folk bard wrote yesterday on his Facebook (FB, Tech30) page. "I hope this is ok for my fans. It's not because of the money, although my share (like all other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad calls made without my consent."

    "It's about sound quality," Young continued, explaining his decision to pull all his music from streaming services. "I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."

    Uhh, uncle neil, nobody sitting in their car kn the way home from work tunes yiu in for the sound quality. They just want to hear rockin in the free world. Personally, I think it's a silly move. This is how music is broadcast now. Radio is pretty much dead all while pandora, spotify, satellite radio, and satellite radio are flourishing. Sorry uncle neil, I think you're going to anger many fans.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 47,552

    Not really related to the thread topic but I know there are many uncle Neil fans here. Neil has decided to stop streaming his music. Not that he really has a choice. He claims it has to do with sound quality and not money.
    Streaming has ended for me," the Canadian folk bard wrote yesterday on his Facebook (FB, Tech30) page. "I hope this is ok for my fans. It's not because of the money, although my share (like all other artists) was dramatically reduced by bad calls made without my consent."

    "It's about sound quality," Young continued, explaining his decision to pull all his music from streaming services. "I don't need my music to be devalued by the worst quality in the history of broadcasting or any other form of distribution. I don't feel right allowing this to be sold to my fans. It's bad for my music."

    Uhh, uncle neil, nobody sitting in their car kn the way home from work tunes yiu in for the sound quality. They just want to hear rockin in the free world. Personally, I think it's a silly move. This is how music is broadcast now. Radio is pretty much dead all while pandora, spotify, satellite radio, and satellite radio are flourishing. Sorry uncle neil, I think you're going to anger many fans.

    Can't they just plug in their mp3 players or CDs on the ride home? Seems easy enough to me.
    I respect Neil's views on this. He finds sound quality really really important. He has a connection with his music, and doesn't want it to be heard like that. I think that's totally fair. There are PLENTY of other options besides steaming available to his fans.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.