The Neil Young Stealth Gig and The Damage NOT Done + Comments of the Moment
The fan reaction to the recent news of Neil Young performing for the private birthday party of a wealthy Toronto local is -- as always - revealing of the fans, the artist and these times we live in (see STEALTH GIG REPORT: Neil Young w/ Crazy Horse).
This isn't the first time we've been down this road with Neil on private gigs (see Private Gig Report: Neil Young + Promise of the Real - Paris, Jan 25 2016). Back in 2016 there was similar fan backlash at the news French billionaire Eduardo Carmignac arranged for a private concert and sang on backup vocals.
"Fuckin' Up"
Neil Young + Promise of the Real - Paris, Jan 25 2016
w/ Billionaire Eduardo Carmignac on backup vocals
Photo via Rocker Paris
To say there's a lot of unsubstantiated speculation here goes without saying.
As most of our regulars know, we here at Thrasher's Wheat are passionate defenders of free speech -- most recently evidenced by Thrasher's Wheat Signs On To The Westminster Declaration.
In response to this "indignity", some fans have lashed out using the dreaded "H" word: hypocrisy.
And in a somewhat predictable response, other "rustie grains" have come to Neil's defense and his "freedoms and rights as an artist". Here's a comment by Abner:
I guess I am out of the loop on this sort of thing?
A truly great artist with apparently serious convictions about his art plays a show for a billionaire? Why? Do we know Neil got paid? Do we know "he did it for the money" and even if he did what follows from this fact? I don't think it follows that he is a hypocrite. He said he wasn't playing for Bud and politicians but all musicians play for money.
What is the real difference between playing the Roxy and playing a single show for one person or family?
I think the people who immediately assume the worst or infer the worst need to check their logic and assumptions. And no, I don't see Thrasher and others in worship mode. It is more like at this point Neil Young has paid his dues times about 1 billion and we should have a deep respect and admiration for what he has done.We know he will continue to chart his own path and this is what is known as authenticity.
Good points Abner and thanks for sharing.
Here's a more expansive and nuanced comment by Jim:
What a fine weekend for Thrasher's Wheat and reporter Stu! Kudos to you both for this musical scoop to start the Neil's birthday weekend!
The TW report is credited as the source all over the internet...
Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-young-ragged-glory-private-concert-canada-goose-1234874732/
[links snipped]BTW,private gigs are always entertained by booking agents for artists and sometimes go to the top of the list as a recommendation. These private gigs now help pay the enormous cost of touring these days. Wondering if Neil Young has some sort of relationship with the company? If it is Canadian Goose they are a clothing company who often supplies film crews or is it Grey Goose Vodka?
It terms of the "sell out" aspect of this discussion...we seem to be in very novel times where new things are happening all the time that have no historical precedent. It is almost like history isn't repeating itself anymore. While we've been told war is human nature I am seeing that change now, too, if that ever was true. Nearly ever veteran I've seen return home came back changed. Boot camp made them save their friends but didn't turn them into killing machines in my experience with them.
If you are rigid and unbending you might just break these days. Glad that Neil Young has convictions that can change in front of the public and not just privately.
This Hopi prophecy is making more and more sense to me a decade later:
You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour. Now you must go back and tell the people that this is The Hour. And there are things to be considered….
Where are you living? What are you doing? What are your relationships? Are you in right relation? Where is your water? Know your garden. It is time to speak your truth. Create your community. Be good to each other. And do not look outside yourself for your leader.
Then he clasped his hands together, smiled, and said, ‘This could be a good time’!
There is a river running now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold onto the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart and will suffer greatly.
Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above water.
And I say, see who is in there with you and celebrate. At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally, least of all ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey come to a halt.
The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves! Banish the word "struggle" from your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. – Hopi Prophecy (2012)
ps - Here is the Canada Goose website in the U.S. I suspect might be the company that had the private gig with Neil Young & Crazy Horse 'n Micah Nelson at that tiny club:
https://www.canadagoose.com/us/en/film/film.html
Looks like Canada Goose had a change of mind about their clothing and fur plus a bit on the history of the birthday boy and his company:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-i-transformed-canada-goose-from-a-small-family-business-into-a-11-billion-luxury-brand/vi-AA1jJcux#details
So is this private gig going to be a promotional video for ‘Neil Young Official Release Series Discs 22, 23+, 24 & 25’? How did they get a film crew and all that equipment in that tiny club (check out the images in the post above).
Thanks Jim. Lots of wisdom there in the Hopi Prophecy. And then there is the whole can you "change your mind" evolution and maturity.
Again, for us, freedom is rebellion. Rebellion is freedom.
If Neil is freely making decisions of how he earns his living, so be it. If he's being manipulated, forced or shamed or worse into doing things, then, well, all our musical heroes are just mere flawed mortals.
Surprise.
Our esteemed colleague Scotsman has much more here on the subject of private corporate gigs @ The Flying Scotzman | Patreon:
"An artist, when he plays a private corporate gig, becomes a mercenary."
More on the STEALTH GIG REPORT: Neil Young w/ Crazy Horse.
Labels: concert, crazy horse, freedom, neil young
by thrasher@PermaLink: 11/14/2023 10:12:00 AM
30 comments
>> Pre-Order on Amazon.com << 
Human Highway
Concert Review of the Moment
This Land is My Land
FREEDOM In A New Year
*Thanks Neil!*
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.thrasherswheat.org/gifs/free-speech.gif)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being Neil Young
Pardon My Heart
"We're The Ones 
Thanks for Supporting Thrasher's Wheat!
This blog 
(... he didn't kill himself either...)
#AaronDidntKillHimself
Neil Young's Moon Songs
Civic Duty Is Not Terrorism
Orwell (and Grandpa) Was Right
What's So Funny About 
30 Comments:
@ Thrasher @ Flying Scotsman & all : Excellent writing, FS. I have a wider understanding of the issues at play after reading this blog post & links. It has left me with questions, answers, and the conclusion that Neil Young is actually a human being! Darn it! And here I was thinking he was a Rock God with all the proper bleeding heart credentials!
I will say this, however. The day Neil Young plays a private show for Donald Trump might be the day I decide to sell my entire Neil Young collection to the highest bidder! NYA 1 blu ray and all!
There are humans, and then there’s the DT’s. Hahaha. Is it possible he would play a gig for such a repulsive human? Not that I believe in ANY politician; they are all corrupt and an obstacle to progress.
I don’t think Neil should have played a gig for the CEO of a company known for and still using animal fur in its products. It’s a sin. For those unfamiliar with the meaning of the word, it means “missing the mark.”
Your Brother Alan in Seattle
@ Flying Scotsman & All : Tyson Foods giving money to Farm Aid was a smart tactical move for the Corporation. It is beyond ridiculous, looking back, that this ever happened. Seed money or not, let’s stand on principle for the cause! What are we after all? Human Rock music fans… now if you’ll excuse me, I am going to pull the last of the hair out of my head.
Your Bro, Alan in Seattle
human agency is perhaps best expressed by the ability to restrain the will in the interest of the common good. Liberty is often a matter of restraint.
at this point "the commons" is the whole world.
the rush to judgment is a lack of restraint and it does have consequences for the common good.
The people of Canada choose to allow a single individual to accumulate enough wealth to hire a famous rock-star and his band to play a concert for aforesaid individual and his friends. The people of Germany and the US and ... (no need to name every country) allow this obscenity to continue while other creatures on this planet get in trouble. This is not to say that I envy these rich people, at least some of their wealth is the result of hard work. The problem is that some of this wealth is way out of proportion even considering some hard work of their own behind it.
Compared to a third worlder I am extremly wealthy, compared to Neil Young I am not, while he isn't compared to the goose bump guy. So where is the limit? I think Neil Young went beyond the limit long ago (Luxury home in Hawaii, a nice Schooner, a ranch larger than he could probably manage, an extensive car collection). I find some consolation in the fact that having owned all this he maybe is not happier than me or you and he at least went through dark times as well. And I saw Neil Young cutting back on many of these assets. So there must be a humane limit to how much a human being can bear wealth-wise. If you are a scratchy 78 the sound of the future does not demand for more and more. It must be something else that drives a person to make records or deliver concerts even to the filthy rich.
Good ideas. I sometimes think of the house on the ocean for retirement and then I look at the prices. We would have to settle in northern Maine, the very edge of known reality. But then I remember the problems. Do we want to participate in this nonsense? Not really. Clearly, there is a limit to what we should bear "wealth-wise." A proper aesthetic sensibility will dictate strict limits on the criterion of simplicity. Just go to Greenwich CT and see the grotesque display of wealth. For what? How does it really matter? It doesn't and won't. As Plato reminds us, don't waste money on such things, as money is quite useful.
Many good points raised above. In this instance, though, there just isn't the enough information available to even create a coherent assessment of took place. What exactly is a "reverse surprise party", anyhow? And with all the things going on in the world right now, is this really one to get hung up on? If we did have all the facts, any moral judgment would still have to be weighed against good things we can say about NY as an artist and person.
Virtually all of us humans, I believe, have a list of good deeds to our names as well as a list of (for lack of a better word) sins or transgressions. Ultimately, you hope your generosities outweigh your transgressions or that you at least can contribute as much as you consume. Daily living is marked by the angst of struggling not to be a net drag on precious resources, while simultaneously recognizing the human inevitably of shortcoming and transgression. Or as NY puts it: "Why do I keep f*!%ing up?"
I can say with a high level of confidence that NY is just as human as the rest of us. At the same time, those who wield an exceptional degree of power, through both cultural influence and-- perhaps more crucially-- accumulated wealth, are implicitly expected to contribute (or "give back") more in accordance with their resources. I think NY has, in many ways, fulfilled and continues to honor this social contract, notwithstanding the (obvious) fact that he is just as capable of having lapses as the next person.
Many platitudes come to mind here: "with great power comes great responsibility", "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", etc. The point, and the goal, is to cultivate a generosity of spirit that allows us to respond to any failings with grace and compassion.
Thanks Alan!
(Article linked above is intended as a commentary—a balanced one, I hope—on corporate gigs on general, rather than any specific example. So don't worry; I didn't think we'll see Neil performing in Donald's living room any time soon!).
Scots.
Very thoughtful commentary here Dionys — as well as a neat turn of phrase.
It seems we come back to the idea that more of a good thing is good, up to a point... Then becomes a case of diminishing returns, or worse.
One reason that corporations themselves are so damaging is that they don't know when to stop.
For them, growth isn't a means to an end — it's the whole point.
Unfortunately this "growth for growth's sake" approach usually involves trampling on others.
It also doesn't does mesh well with mortality.
Scots.
Thanks Thrasher for hosting this fascinating discussion, with perceptive and thoughtful comments coming from all angles.
I don't think we need to get too worked up about one gig that we don't know the full story about. I've avoided commenting on this specific gig for the exact reason.
But as alluded to in my own article, I do think the guy who wrote both This Note's For You and Sun Green would actively expect us to approach with a questioning attitude, too.
Part of the enduring appeal of TW is that we get to hear from a whole range of perspective, expressed by caring people who know how to have an engaging discussion.
The reason for that is a) this blog attracts thoughtful people, and b) Thrasher isn't on any one party's payroll, and therefore retains his freedom (and ours, too).
Within fair reason, we can say what we like, here — and it's worth taking a second to appreciate the value of that, because there are of course many places where the opposite is true.
Scots.
Professional musicians play music live for money.
Non story in my mind.
Ron: with the possible partial exception that a million people spending a dollar on a ticket involves a different power dynamic to one person spending a million dollars on a ticket.
Similarly, a freelance hairdresser who has one high-paying client has a different relationship with his “boss” to one who has 200+ clients.
A writer with passionate views about the environment, too, might be cautious about putting his eggs in one basket — particularly if the high-paying client would much rather have the writer on the payroll than as an enemy. It’s often easier to control people with gifts than it is with aggression.
This doesn’t mean all private gigs are a minefield; but it is cause to be cautious. Unless, of course, the artist cares only about money.
More on this, here:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/mother-earth-was-92740297
Dionys- one serious problem. The people of Canada or the people of Germany/United States only decide on anything if they actually can decide. Frankly, I no longer see enough procedural justice to conclude that US citizens can make much of any decision which might limit the accumulation of capital.
Scotsman mentions environmental groups, etc.., the pollution of our environment is a great place to examine the severe problems with procedural justice. There is literally no process for people to follow to end certain toxic practices.
I am in agreement with you on the central idea. Farm Aid is probably the right way to go as it is grassroots and communal and not legal. The procedural attempts consistently fail.
Thanks, Scotzman! I will have to check the Patreon at some point. Yes, contributions hereabouts continue to meet an excellent standard. I especially appreciate Abner’s point about the relation between liberty and self-restraint. It’s something of a paradox, illustrating that “liberty”, itself at least partly a cultural construct, is limited and contingent. That shouldn’t be taken to mean it is unimportant. Many of our most valuable and enduring tools come in the form of cultural constructs.
MR- I have just been working on a paper/presentation, I am trying to argue that the concept of liberty needs to adjust (we need to adjust it) in relation to our current circumstance- the growth of the concept. Liberty must be synthesized with restrain in relation to private property (I am working on environmental issues). I agree with you on the main point, limited and contingent, as we are limited and finite. Just because x is a social construct, it does not follow that it is not real (a common error).
@Abner
You should reconsider Northern Maine, we both seem to know its beautiful up there. I believe, that beauty is the only serious objection that we have against mortality.
There are more examples of attempts to put wealth derived from resource-exploitation to work for the common good. The Norwegian state fund comes to mind which is administering the revenues from North Sea oil and gas for the Norwegians. Needless to say that Statoil, the Norwegian state corporation extracting the fossil fuels is no saint when it comes to the environment. I know that this concept sounds like "socialism" to American ears, but as many of the participants here know, it isn't. The Alaska Native Claims Settlements Act and the ensuing creation of native corporations originally had some of this idea of communal wealth as well. Contrary to what today is held to be a firm conviction, it is not un-American to think in this direction. Infact America wouldn't be even there if her founding generations had been brain-washed worshippers of free enterprise.
Maybe environmental crises will force us to go back to this shared wealth concepts. What's the use of having a private pool in Southern California if there is no water to fill it? (OK, I know it rained quite a bit there, lately)
Abner, Funnily enough I was just reading an article on direct democracy—i.e. ballot measures, which we see more of in the US as legislative bodies get more deeply polarized, gridlocked, and just simply dysfunctional. If state and federal legislators are going to adhere rigidly to party lines, pressure from big corporate donors, and personal fanaticism instead of doing what people want, the people will start to do it themselves, which gives one hope that the average person is not as short-sighted and self-centered as things can seem to the cynic.
Reactionary bellyaching about how the system is “supposed” to work is useless. Politics that deals purely in ideals and traditions with no account of realities on the ground is broken and hazardous. This doesn’t mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It just means nuanced decision making that takes account of changing circumstances. Any form of government or civics has pros and cons. The worst thing is to be stuck functioning (or failing to function) one way simply because “thats’s how we’ve always done it.”
Humans are intrinsically innovators, creators, dreamers. This is, in my opinion, our essential adaption for survival. I disagree with those who think humans are all instinctively lazy. Ideally, we want the best result with the least energy depleted. That’s efficiency, not sloth. However, it’s also true that too many people—often the most privileged, but sometimes those mired in pain of their own—are callous about anything that’s not directly effecting them NOW.
Yet innovation comes with risks, untempered growth being one of the biggest. We all know that when cells in the body grow beyond what they should, it causes cancer. A similar approach may be warranted to the body politic and in macroeconomic terms. Experimentation of course needs to be balanced with other concerns, which for me distill to a kind of compassionate pragmatism. In other words, what do people need to thrive right now? Still, it’s always shame for generative human potential to be wasted simply because of an edict someone established centuries (or millennia) ago.
Pagan saying (paraphrase): “If you’re harming no one, do as you will.”
Pete Seeger: “when maniacs holler ‘grow, grow, grow’ we can choose to stay small… If you eat a little food and drink a little drink, you only have to shit a little shit!”
direct democracy- anecdote for procedural injustice
Well after reading most of the post's, I understand why Neil tried to play it on the down low.
Guy can't even play a gig for a friend without people bitching...lol.
Marmooskapaul
I'm with you man
@ FS & all : Thanks for all the thoughtful commentary. It seems like all of us Neil Young fans have active minds, thinking outside the box, engaging in free speech.
Indeed, let she/ he who is without sin cast the first stone. That would solve War right there. I am not religious at all, although I do take comfort in imagining I have a Higher Power of my own understanding trying to help me, my family, the world & you.
My reference to Sin was meant as “missing the mark” like an archer who shot an arrow & missed the target… Not the common understanding of sin we often think of with that word.
I hope that the cash from the stealth gig goes towards a summer NYCH tour. There’s not too much blood on the money.
Your brother Alan in Seattle
Now that I gained access to the Flying Scotzmans item about mercenary musicians I still need to ask whether art, music, literature up to the 18th century can not be considered to be as valuable as they are because all of these creative genia where dependent on sponsors of the ruling and wealthy class (think Michelangelo, Mozart & Molière.). It is a sad but false romanticism that somehow an artist has to be independent at all cost to remain an artist. In the end it's the art, music, text that counts, everything else is negligible.
Dionys: no opinion from me on whether "an artist has to be independent at all costs to remain an artist".
(I think this maybe would depend on how we define "artist". Also, artists sometimes do work that isn't particularly artistic but pays the bills, and I think that's perfectly normal.)
Instead, we might consider who the art (or creative project) is *for*.
If somebody pays a painter a million dollars to paint a portrait, for example, the only opinion the painter cares about is that of the guy writing the cheque. (Even his own views become irrelevant — particularly if they clash with those of his new employer!)
Likewise, an album like the Monsanto Years would have been very different if Monsanto had paid Neil to make it. It could still have been a *powerful* piece of music — but one under Monsanto's control. Powerful for Monsanto, not against it.
This is the point of my article. Not to question the value of projects commissioned for wealthy clients, but merely to point out the shift in power that occurs when an artist effectively becomes an employee.
Scots.
Scots, I see that your reasoning did not include the independent artist idea. It's just that people readily are labelling somebody to be a sell-out if the respective person is associating with a wealthy sponsor for a considerably limited engagement.
"It seemed like such an easy thing, to follow ones own dream
But possessions and concessions are not often what they seem
They drag you down, they load you down, in disguise of security
But we never used to make those deals
In the days that used to be"
Isn't it ironic that this song was played on the occasion?
I suspect most artists, especially ones trying to make a living through their art, are compelled to find ways of being creative and producing new works within the constraints of whatever social and economic systems under which they (and we) are living. These systems will vary according to time and place. The bottom line is that the artist, like everyone else, needs to find ways to survive (and hopefully thrive) under specific circumstances.
Wealthy patrons still exist. It just tends to be in the form of private patronage, particularly in cultures having eliminated or minimized aristocracy and/or monarchy. In other words, democracy tends to concentrate the wealth privately, which doesn’t mean that privilege or stratification go away. They just take a different form. And of course, each patron comes with their own agenda and prejudices.
Still, even in the US we have public media, National Endowment for the Arts, etc. Also the universities and colleges, which can be somewhat (not entirely) protected from market pressures are supposed to be sites of creativity and experimentation. Capitalist free enterprise is supposed to incentivize innovation by giving people a way to directly profit from their ventures. The result is that art has to be sold as a product or commodity. To gain a (possibly) lucrative contract, the artist must demonstrate that her work can be profitable to a record company, publisher, etc, not just appealing to a broad audience.
The problem is that profit and quality don’t always go hand-in-hand. And even then, these contracts are often exploitative rather than lucrative to the artist. But the need for funds is nearly universal in life and art, and it’s hard (maybe impossible) to find sources of funding that aren’t subject to some amalgamation of market pressures and/or political maneuvering. There are always strings attached, especially in a society where politics and profit are intensely intertwined, where private enterprise itself is virtually a form of government. “Small” government with very limited economic regulation tends to open a power vacuum, into which wealthy private entities step to take over much of the distribution of wealth and resources, which would otherwise be a governmental responsibility.
None of this inherently devalues (in an aesthetic, intellectual, spiritual sense) art produced under different systems. It mainly indicates there are benefits and drawbacks in most approaches—and we’re all affected in macro by factors larger than any one of us.
That the artist must be entirely independent (whatever that means exactly) in order to remain an artist seems a bit much for a necessary condition. Artist x gets a sponsor and so now is no longer an artist is most certainly false. An equally bogus claim is that "if somebody pays a painter a million dollars to paint a portrait (for example) then the only opinion the painter cares about is the person writing the check." The truth of the antecedent is not sufficient for the truth of the consequent. For example, I might be an artist who gets paid the million dollars and I get to work on the portrait. My main concern might be for the opinion of the community of portrait painters. The best way to go for the power shift is with a strong probability given the circumstance: "I will pay you a million dollars if and only if you paint a portrait the way I want it painted." Plenty of artists have had sponsors who do not care about what is produced. The patrons are as interested in the art itself as the artist.
Abner, you’re quite correct. It’s cynical of me to assume that all sponsorship comes with strings attached. Notwithstanding use of artists for things like statecraft and corporate advertising, there are generous, open-minded altruists in the world, even rich ones. Simultaneously my position is a bit romantic, insofar as I tend to see art“spiritually”, that is as something that exists, in some form, separately from and above necessary economic systems. (I’m taking economics to broadly mean the generation and distribution of resources necessary to survival—food, medicine, etc). Guess I’m not so Marxian after all. Hehe.
I wasn’t intending to be engage the concept of “independence” as an abstract ideal. I might deconstruct my reliance on binaries like state/private, spiritual/material, etc. My main point was simply that artists are beholden to external, economic pressures like anyone else. If anything, my statement that all people are reliant on factors bigger than themselves suggests that independence, in an absolute sense, is not possible.
To be clearer, artists look for ways to produce art in a society that is not necessarily optimized to support the arts. I guess it’s clear I’m assuming art is a social good, a beneficial outlet for communities and individuals. What makes optimal conditions to support art is a separate, thorny conversation I’m not pursuing at the moment.
Ab: sure there are exceptions. But I think in most cases, in the real world, the client who is spending a lot of money is going to have certain expectations — and the artist, if he needs the money, would be.unusually brave (or unusually foolish, some would argue) to ignore them.
(This is different to when I spend 10 quid on a new album, because I haven't invested enough for the artist to feel beholden to me.)
It's very hard to criticise someone who's just given you a gift, and it's very hard (and possibly self-destructive) to ignore their wishes when they've just paid you lot of money.
You guys already know that I try to keep things simple (partly because I write for people like me who aren't particularly academically gifted). This probably leads to me generalising from time or time, when in reality, disclaimers and exceptions should abound!
Scots.
Dionys: I gotcha!
And yes the "sell-out" thing rarely makes much sense, because most artists big enough to "sell out" are already attached to big record companies. The purist would argue that itself is a form of selling out, because no big artist on a big record company is allowed to do exactly what he wants.
(Would even Ed Sheeran or Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift still get paid if they decided not to tour or make records for 20 years?).
Aware that success involves some sort of compromise, the shrewd artist still keeps his eyes open (aware that "all that glitters is not gold"), and the ethical artist sometimes turns down the cash — as Neil himself has done, many times.
Scots.
Scotsman, I agree. This is certainly the tendency in United States Culture, while it may not have been the tendency in some other cultures. Monetary relations skew appropriate human relations.
Post a Comment
<< Home