“Have to shut the whole system down,” Neil Young sings in “Shut It Down,” a protest song from his 2019 record, Colorado. While Young, a multimillionaire, has obviously benefited from capitalism, he has also—far more than most mainstream commercial artists—consistently challenged the evils of “the system.”
As one of the founders of Farm Aid, along with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp, Young has advocated for family farmers struggling against the crushing blows of big agriculture. The musician, from 1971’s “Ohio” to “Shut It Down,” has used his unique gifts as a singer/songwriter, and ferocious guitarist, to amplify an anti-war, anti-racist, and environmentalist set of politics.
On January 24, Young posted a letter to his website demanding that the popular streaming music platform, Spotify, remove all of his songs unless they cut ties with conspiracy-mongering podcast host, Joe Rogan.
Rogan, the transphobic MMA announcer, signed an exclusive deal with Spotify for $100 million. A regular promoter of dangerous COVID-19 falsehoods, Rogan has earned the condemnation of doctors, epidemiologists, and virologists across the world, with 270 medical professionals co-signing a letter that called him a “menace to public health.”
There’s a larger point here than rightwing disinformation, and it’s that commentators seemed to universally agree that profit should trump ethical concerns in corporate decision-making.
In his own letter, Young emphasized these common objections to Rogan’s troubling podcast. He wrote that, as long as Spotify continues to promote Rogan, it is responsible for “spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation.”
Spotify refused to end its relationship with Rogan, and Neil Young kept his promise by removing his music from the streaming service. The general response has been predictable.
Rightwing pundits claimed Young was attempting to “censor” Rogan as part of the left’s “campaign against free speech.” This argument is both inaccurate—the First Amendment applies to the government, not individual citizens—and hypocritical, as Rogan’s defenders would deny Young his “personal freedom” to choose the companies with which he conducts business.
But there’s a larger point here than rightwing disinformation, and it’s that commentators seemed to universally agree that profit should trump ethical concerns in corporate decision-making. In reporting on the controversy, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and even the liberal publication Vox have implied that Spotify had no choice but to keep Rogan, no matter how destructive his effort against public health, because, in the words of the Vox story, “Spotify is betting billions of dollars that podcasting will be a meaningful business, and Rogan is the biggest podcaster in the world.”
Spotify now joins big tobacco, big oil, and Facebook as a multinational corporation indifferent to the human consequences of its business model.
Although Young remains relatively alone in pulling his music from Spotify, the company’s stock price had dropped by 12 percent by the end of last week due to the controversy, leading to a loss of up to $2 billion. On January 30, likely as a result of this heavy financial toll, Spotify announced that it would add a content advisory to any podcast episode that discusses the coronavirus. Rogan, for his part, responded by saying that he would “try harder” and that he was “not trying to promote misinformation.”
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there was a prominent argument against the corporate co-optation of major artists.
So far, legendary singer/songwriter Joni Mitchell and E Street Band and Crazy Horse guitarist Nils Lofgren are the only major recording artists who have followed Young in exiting Spotify. Several lesser known singer/songwriters, such as David Huckfelt and Bobbo Byrnes, have left however, spotlighting the cowardice of more powerful musicians who have remained silent. As Young wrote, “I sincerely hope that other artists will make a move, but I can’t really expect that to happen.”
In 1988, Neil Young released, “This Note’s For You,” a scathing song and video, targeting pop stars for “selling out” by making product endorsements and allowing their songs to play in television commercials. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there was a prominent argument against the corporate co-optation of major artists, and in some genres, especially rock and roll, participation in TV ads was often seen as an embarrassment. Naomi Klein’s No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, a polemic against consumer culture, was a bestseller; and the magazine, Adbusters, which mocks consumerism, had gone mainstream.
After decades of being subject to neoliberal policies, recording artists offering themselves to the highest bidders has become the norm. It’s no longer questioned when entertainers ranging from Taylor Swift to John Legend appear in corny TV ads. In the documentary Generation Like, cultural theorist Douglas Rushkoff shows teenagers vying to become “influencers” in the hope of getting offers to endorse products from Pepsi, Taco Bell, and department store clothing brands. When he asks his sources how they interpret the term, “sell out,” they confuse it as a compliment.
One of Neil Young’s most famous protest songs is “Rockin’ in the Free World,” an ironic and angry depiction of how the United States, in the name of wealth and efficiency, ignores poverty and ecological destruction. The current generally bewildered reaction to Young’s protest against Spotify appears to confirm the song’s amoral dystopia.