I certainly wouldn’t, as you say, most musicians aren’t exactly swimming in cash.
But that doesn’t mean that I can’t applaud those who do.
It is, however, apparently a way to get a $100 million contract.
Hey, we had an intellectually incurious former reality TV star man-child for President.
Turns out when half the population is dumber than the average person, lots of money and support gets tossed at the most random bullshit imaginable. It’s an almost uniquely American trait to think it also confers some halo of worthiness or intelligence to anybody fortunate enough to profit.
TOGA !!!
[Pardon my spontaneous outburst. As you were]
Here you go, Mr. Sealion.
The deletion doesn’t appear to have done much good, though. Is this the part where you call me a liar because ttaking down the demand letter isn’t the same as ‘pulling his demand’?
Epic self-own on Young’s part, as I predicted earlier in the thread.
I don’t see what changing his website has to do with his demand. The letter was already out there – it didn’t exist only on his website. He made a demand of Spotify, and they complied. I don’t see how this was a “self-own” for Young – he didn’t want to be on the same platform as Rogan, and now he’s not. Good for him! I hope he inspires other musicians to use what clout they have to fight for good science and against anti-science imbeciles like Rogan (and those who enable him).
Actually you said Neil Young would pull his demand. That did not happen.
“So, where would you like the goal posts moved to today…?
Back to where Aaron Rodgers wins the Superbowl?”
Sam Stone posted BS and when proven wrong he acted like that’s not what he said?
Must be a day of the week ending in Y.
There is a self-own here. It’s just not where Sam thinks it is.
The letter on the website WAS the demand. Unless I missed it, that’s all he did - post the letter on his site. So taking down the letter from the web site can be reasonably assumed to mean he thought twice about it and pulled the demand. Why else would be remove the letter?
If pulling the letter means pulling the demand, then yes he did.
My other prediction, which is what I was referring to, was that if Spotify were forced to choose, they’d choose Rogan over him. That also appears to be what happened.
But it Doesn’t. And I’m not the only person telling you that.
That’s not how things work. You don’t make a demand by posting something on a personal site and hope someone hears about it. Are you 12?
Did you demand a refund from a store by leaving a note on your door? Have you applied for a job by telling a neighbor and hoping the business hears about it?
You can’t possibly be this stupid, Sam. You know he would have contacted them directly for anything to happen. What was on his site was just letting his fans know about it.
And those two predictions are at odds with one another. If Spotify was forced to choose, then the demand was clearly not withdrawn.
The two predictions are contradictory. You can claim one came true or the other, but not both. If he rescinded his demand, then he stays on the platform. If he didn’t, then he leaves (or they give in, but we knew that wouldn’t happen).
Why does this seem familiar?
“You can’t just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen.”
“I didn’t say it. I declared it.”
Hahaha! I knew it reminded me of something! 
I didn’t address this… Obviously if his lawyer or manager thought advertising it was a bad idea while he was in discussions with Spotify it would make sense to take it down. Again, this is extremely simple and I have trouble believing you’re actually this dim.
You don’t think that he maybe also sent the letter to Spotify? You don’t inform someone of demands by posting them on your website, you notify them by notifying them. Then, if you are so inclined, you may choose to make your letter open to the public, for whatever PR reasons you think it may help.
The letter on the website isn’t the demand, it is informing his fans and the public of the demand.
But removing the the letter from his website does not mean pulling the demand, so your conclusion is erroneous.
And no one disagreed with that prediction in the slightest. It’s pretty obvious that’s how it would play out. I don’t know how much Young’s streaming makes for Spotify, but I have no reason to believe that it would be anywhere near $100 million, I’d be shocked if it were a meaningful fraction of a percent of that. So, the numbers make Spotify’s decision obvious, no kudos for that prediction.
Like having to walk back your assertion that unicorns swim in the moonlight by trying to claim that all along you were just saying that water is wet.
ETA: OTOH, if Young’s actions spur other artists to do the same, or for subscribers to unsubscribe, then it may change the balance against Rogan.
Probably beating a dead horse, but the story in Variety clearly starts with the statement that he shared a message.
Maybe that’s what shared means in Canadian. I’m usually lousy with dialects.
Maybe even a Crazy Horse?
Hey! I have a new Neil Young channel on my Sirius XM! Woo-Hoo!
This is a brilliant piece of dishonest redirection here on your part. Let’s look at it in context of what you said:
Had you merely said “he removed the letter from the website”, you would be entirely correct. However, you very clearly framed your statement as Young backing down because he wasn’t going to win.
That didn’t happen. Young didn’t back down. He recognized that indeed it was a them-or-me situation, he stuck to his guns, accepting the consequences. And now you’re backtracking saying “oh I only meant he unpublished a letter from his website.” Sure, that’s what you meant.