X

How Neil Young Became the First Artist to Get Sued for Not Being Himself

What? How can you get sued for not being yourself?

Writing for Rolling Stone, music journalist Don McLeese explains:

Neil Young is the only artist in the history of modern recording to be sued for refusing to be himself. The suit, filed by Geffen Records, Young’s label for much of the Eighties, charged that he was violating his contract by recording ‘unrepresentative’ albums. In other words, Neil Young wasn’t making Neil Young music.

The problem with Geffen’s suit was that there has never been any such thing as a ‘representative’ Neil Young album. Young has made a decades-long career out of keeping his fans guessing what he’ll do next.

Even before he signed with Geffen, his ever-changing style included raw and edgy, melodic and romantic, dark and melancholic, acoustic and electric, and introspective and retrospective, with a bit of punk thrown in for good measure, all backed by whatever band he’d assembled at the time. It’s just how he worked (and still does).

This post explores how Young has managed to maintain an ongoing state of creative flow throughout his career. Even when he was creating to order for a record company, and even during the litigation that ensued.

As we’ll see, he did so by mastering the art of self-renewal, which is something we can all learn to do.

Creativity, Constrained

Young has recorded on the Reprise label throughout his 30+ year solo career, except for a period during the 1980s, known as the Geffen years. Record executive David Geffen had founded a new label and brought Young aboard.

The collaboration was contentious almost from the start. Geffen rejected Young’s country-esqe album Old Ways, insisting on something more rock ‘n’ roll. So, for the first and only time in his career, Young found himself trying to create to order. He came up with with the album Everybody’s Rockin.

Young really liked it. He thought it was exactly what Geffen wanted. But Geffen thought it was still too country. So he sued (for around $3 million), claiming that both albums were “musically uncharacteristic of Young’s previous recordings.” Young countersued for breach of contract, claiming he’d been promised artistic free rein.

With the litigation ongoing, Young hit the road, touring with a group of Nashville musicians he put together and called the International Harvesters. It required a whole new approach, he recalls, because the audiences and venues were very different from what Young was used to. Imagine this: state fairs all over the country, with Neil Young playing electric guitar alongside first-rate fiddlers and pickers with names like Rufus, Spooner, and Pig. That’s how it was. “We were having the time of our lives,” Young recalls.

After 85 concerts, the suit settled, with Geffen apologizing to Young, and Young recording two more albums on Geffen’s label. By the time the Geffen years were over, Young’s album sales were at an all time low, and he’d lost commercial relevance.

Freedom, Regained

In 1988, Young returned to Reprise. A major comeback came with the album called (what else?) Freedom, whose hit ‘Rockin’ In The Free World’ was his biggest in a decade. He recalls that the song’s main lyrics – “keep on rockin’ in the free world” – just came to him one day.

Young’s creative flow never stopped during the Geffen years, but a floodgate opened once they were over. He wrote a movie soundtrack, organized major fundraising concerts, released a slew of genre-spanning records, jammed with Phish, grunged with Sonic Youth, punked with Social Distortion, chilled with James Taylor, and did a reunion tour with CSNY featuring their reunion album, fittingly titled Looking Forward.

To this day, Young is still going strong. He recently sold out two solo performances at New York’s Avery Fisher Hall, and he’s planning a reunion tour with Buffalo Springfield, the band he co-founded in 1966 (before joining CSNY).

What this Has to Do with You

For someone whose famous lyrics include, “it’s better to burn out than to fade away,” Young has managed to do neither. How? His Rock and Roll Hall of Fame bio is dead on:

Young has consistently demonstrated the unbridled passion of an artist who understands that self-renewal is the only way to avoid burning out. For this reason, he has remained one of the most significant artists of the rock and roll era. (emphasis mine)

Self-renewal. That’s it! It’s the key to life. Literally.

By coincidence, the seminal work on this topic – Self-Renewal – was written in 1963, the same year Young made his first record? John W. Gardner writes that to be self-renewing individuals, we must maintain ourselves like a garden, with some things about ourselves being born, other things flourishing, and others dying – with the system as a whole living on.

This is exactly how Young lives and works To see how we can as well, let’s look to what he does (and doesn’t do) to maintain an ongoing state of self-renewal and the creative flow it brings:

1. He Doesn’t Use the F Word

By the F word, I mean the other one: Failure. Delving pretty deeply into Young’s history, I saw nothing suggesting that he ever perceived anything he created as a failure.

It’s as if Young doesn’t know that word. His concerts are a microcosm of his career: there’s no set list. No one (not even the band or the lighting technicians ) knows what he’s going to do. Neither does he, apparently. One song flows into the next. Working that way seems to annihilate the prospect of failure. Because it removes expectations.

Looking back on decades of working this way, Young told the BBC:

I would have a big hit record, and then I would have what some people would say … was a miserable, terrible record, and I’m going, “what a great record that was” – I really liked that because it’s going against the grain, it’s got an individual thing, and it’s not trying to be anything other than what it’s doing.

Critics and fans often don’t ‘get’ Young’s records when they first come out. They take a while to grow on people. He’s an acquired taste and so is what he does. Gardner’s words fit well here:

You learn that no matter how hard you try to please, some people in this world are not going to love you, a lesson that is at first troubling and then really quite relaxing.

Young connects with his audience in his own way. But he’s not trying to please or win approval. So the F word doesn’t even come up.

Takeaway: Ditch your metaphorical set list. Remember that your work cannot be, as Young says, anything other than what it’s doing. If what it’s doing reaches people, great. If it doesn’t, also great. Maybe it will someday.

2. He Knows Why He’s Doing It

All along, Young has been ‘doing it for himself.’ That’s how his fan base emerged and grew over time. Asked by the BBC whether he’s actually made an effort to build an audience, he replied:

I’m always interested in reaching out to anyone who wants to listen, but really, I’m doing it for myself, so [my fan base has] been a coincidence.

Young reaches out to those who want to by performing unrehearsed concerts and releasing unpolished albums. Why obsess over details, when it’s the power of sound he’s going for? He finds it through immersion in the process, not by trying to figure out what people want and endeavoring to deliver.

We might think we have to reach some semblance of success before we can work without an eye toward approval. But we would be wrong. For many creative people (see here and here), it’s precisely what fuels success in the first place.

This approach can work beautifully for entrepreneurs as well. Want to know how? Read Derek Sivers‘ book Anything You Want. In the hour it will take you to finish it, you’ll see that doing something because you love the process can serve as a brilliant business model.

Takeaway: Know why you’re doing it. Make sure it’s because you love the feel of the process. Then all you need to do is follow the last words of Elizabeth Gilbert’s famous Ted talk: “Have the sheer human love and stubbornness to keep showing up.”

3. He Gets Himself

Young has a tremendous self-understanding. He’s knows what fits with who he is and what he’s doing. He pays attention to what works and what doesn’t – for him. And he proceeds accordingly. His own words make these things clear:

I live for playing live. That’s what I do. I hate studios … where you have to go down a hall and see other people playing and you feel like … you’re a soup – you’re cream of mushroom and they’re tomato.

As long as it’s good music and I’m playing with my friends, I don’t care what genre it is. All my music comes from all music — I’m not country, I’m not rock ‘n’ roll, I’m just me, and all these things are what I like.

[M]y records aren’t that polished. I’m not going for that. I’m going for the essence of the song. I’m not a record crafter, that’s not my job. It may be someday, but it isn’t right now.

I’ve learned one thing: you don’t want to close the door on anything. I closed the door on everything and every time I’d do something new, I’d say, “this is it, I’m not doing anything else anymore … just this matters.” And then I was wrong.

Takeaway: With Young’s words as a guide, ask yourself: What do you live for? What really is it that you do? What does (and doesn’t) feel right? What is it that you’re going for? Have you closed the door on anything? What have you been wrong about?

4. He Creates His Own Groove

Young is groove personified. Groove is a musical term defined as rhythmic drive that creates a song’s momentum. Rocker-turned-neuroscientist Dan Levitin tells us that when music has good groove, it creates a sonic world where external time seems to stand still – we want to stay there, and we don’t want the song to end.

Does that remind you of anything? Groove is is analogous to creative flow, the state of intense absorption and pleasure that for many of us is the main motivation for doing creative work.

Young’s career has amounted to one massive state of good groove. He didn’t let anyone snap him out of it. Not critics, not fans, not Geffen. When Young got sued, he was on his own, without a record company. So what did he do? He assembled International Harvesters and did what he loved. Groove intact, he toured and played in what amounted to a whole new world for him. It’s hard to think of a better example of self-renewal.

Takeaway: Tend your metaphorical garden. Find your groove. Take charge of it. It’s yours, so don’t let others snap you out of it. Think of it as refuge, a teacher, and a place where you build skill.

Photo by 6tee-zeven.

Over to You:

Have you ever had your creativity constrained, by a client, an employer, or someone else (or perhaps yourself)? If so, how did affect your work? How did you deal with it?

What’s your take on the F word when it comes to creativity?

Are you able to work without an eye toward approval? If so, what advice do you have for others?

About the author: Susan Alexander is the creator of app4Mind, a “mind app” that empowers you to change how you work, play, and live. Follow her on Twitter @app4Mind

Susan Alexander:

View Comments (52)

  • Susan - In response to your question about the 'F' word and creativity, one of the things I love about Neil Young is that - like Bob Dylan - he's not gifted with a conventionally classic singing voice, but he really makes the most of it with his passionate delivery. He's not everyone's favourite vocalist, but he's unmistakeable.

    • Mark:

      There is indeed so much more the equation than what someone starts out with. Neil Young and Bob Dylan are great examples of people who took whatever they had and turned it into something great (albeit unconventional) - via lyrics, sound, delivery, emotion, timing, experimentation, and a whole spectrum of things.

      I'm reminded of a funny thought that popped into my mind once, at a Cy Twombley exhibit. I wondered what his art looked like as a kid, and I imagined a parent teacher conference with the teacher saying something like, "Now, Mrs. Twombley, Cy's a good boy and all, but he's just not following along very well with what we're doing here."

      Ha. :-)

  • I'm REALLY bothered (in a good way) by this conversation! As an artist I go NUTS when someone tries to commission a piece of art, or as a dancer when I can't get into the head of the choreographer, or these days when I start to write a story "for" my audience. I get completely shut down. Here's an example:
    I sat as teacher's helper in my daughter's kindergarten class 12 years ago. The teacher handed out a paper with an outline of a cow to each student. One little boy at the table grabbed a purple crayon and went to town with that cow! The teacher said to him," Stop that scribbling! What would your mother think of that? Cows aren't purple! Now start over!" My little friend crumpled. I don't know if he ever experimented or felt the passion of creating for the rest of the year! I wasn't even allowed to talk to him. He just sat and cried.
    My point is this: as artists, which we ALL are in our own fields of interest, we have to stay as free as we can to stay open to the creative genius inside of us. There's really no discussion about it. The risk is poverty and anonymity. But the payoff is immeasurable bliss!
    In other words, you don't have to teach a child how to be a child. Why do we adults find it so hard to get back to or stay in that place?

      • That was great! Thanks...got me laughing. Sorry I get so passionate and ornery! Sometimes there are no words to express passion and creativity. Just gotta be there! Have a great day.

    • Betsy:

      As for the scribbling boy, I'm always saddened to hear of incidents like that. They're commonplace, and they happen in creative settings as well as those considered more academic, like math, science, history, foreign language, etc. - all areas where how a student is treated can determine whether he ever takes interested and pursues it.

      Being open to our own genius is crucial, as you point out. As many of us know, openness to that doesn't just come. It takes groundedness and a perspective that enables our efforts. Creating to please can indeed be stifling. It's a complex topic, treated brilliantly by Mark on this blog - fortunately, for all of us.

      Thanks for writing, Betsy.
      Susan

    • In relation to the purple cow, I know how hard it would be to be an aid in such a classroom. A tragic aspect of this is that it may not have been about real colors of a cow at all. Some teachers believe their effectiveness depends upon control, and control depends on keeping students insecure and fearful.

      I have observed the same a few times in parent-child interactions, unfortunately.

      • Fritzie: The frightening thing is that children grow into adulthood feeling insecurity, fear, and related emotions. These things impose formidable barriers to creativity and doing good work. Clearing these barriers can take some doing, that's for sure, but how? For my part in figuring out the answer, I endeavored (through this post) to detail specifically how one artist (Neil Young) has kept his creative flow going for 40+ years - despite setbacks. I think what what he does (and doesn't do) are pretty instructive and followable. What do you think? Susan

        • NY's approach of following his own heart and of self-renewal, of understanding that he doesn't have to be the one thing people might once have expected of him, is healthy.

          When you ask whether it is followable, it is clearly followable for those who have the confidence to follow that course. For those lacking in confidence, it is more difficult. I believe that people are very much influenced by what they hear incessantly. A child who grows up with continuous signals that make him feel insecure and fearful, will bear those scars and does not come to new and sensible advice with a clean slate.

          Still there is some research to indicate that a single mentor or person who takes a continuous and constructive interest during a child's early years can be like a lighthouse in the fog.

          • Fritzie:

            I suppose two (of many) questions are: 1) Generally, how do we go about gaining confidence? and 2) Specifically, how can someone go about building confidence when it's been eroded in the kinds of ways we're talking about here.

            There's quite a lot of research and writing on point. I think the best place to start is the work of psychologist Carol Dweck. Are you familiar with it? It's a is simple, elegant theory that's applicable in all facets of life. I blog about it a lot. (The great news is that it's being taught in schools now - to teachers and students.)

            Dweck's book is called Mindset. It's a quick, game-changing read. I think it might interest you. You can follow Dweck on Twitter @brainology.

            Let me know what you think.

            Susan

          • I am familiar with that perspective, and I agree it is a basic part of the education and toolkit of people who got their teacher training at least in the last decade:)

          • Fritzie:

            It seems like pretty basic stuff, but it eludes so many, even the seemingly enlightened.

            Note that Mindset (Carol Dweck's book) came out in 2006. It's the common theme running through many subsequent books on related topics, e.g. The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle, Drive, by Dan Pink, Bounce by Matthew Syed, and Switch by Chip and Dan Heath.

            It's great to see the ideas spreading, you know?

            I've enjoyed exchanging ideas this week with you, Fritzie.

            Susan

          • Oh, Susan, I didn't mean people have read that particular book for these many years. I meant only that these ideas and cautions to teachers about how to respond most productively to children's progress have been shared for some time, what different teacher or parent responses seem to convey about the relative importance of effort and talent and so forth...

          • Yes, Fritzie, I realize that people theorized along these lines before. But Dweck's work changed the landscape, for at least 4 reasons:

            1) It validates the theories, i.e.it demonstrates unequivocally that what we accomplish is determined by our beliefs about innate talent vs. effort; 2) It identifies the two opposing beliefs and gives a much-needed working vocabulary to discuss them (i.e. the fixed and growth mindsets); 3) It's explained in an easily accessible book; and 4) It's really caught on and spread (as we can see from the books I mentioned in my last reply).

            Dweck's students insisted that she write the book, because they knew her findings were too important to stay hidden in scholarly papers.

            Phew! The world is a better place because of these things, methinks.

            What do you think?
            Susan

  • Hey Susan,

    Excellent post. I'm loving the 'F' word approach, always hear this is how great innovators become great. Fail hard and fail fast.

    I almost need to learn to exexute better and faster without thinking of failure.

    Awesome stuff as usual :)
    -E

    • Eric:

      Great mantra: "Execute better and faster without thinking about failure."

      That's much of the theme of the great book Rework by Jason Fried, et al. In the first chapter, the authors talk about how failure is overrated. There's too much talk about it , they say- too many cliches like "fail early, fail fast." They propose this alternative: that we work in a way that's reflective of evolution and natural selection, i.e. pay attention to what works and let that thrive (while the unworkable falls away, without a big declaration that it "failed").

      Would love to hear how this new take on things affects your work.

      Thanks for commenting, Eric!
      Susan

1 2 3