Where does a song like Murrow Turning Over in His Grave fit on the entertainment/lecturing spectrum, or by 'lecturing' do you just mean speeches between songs?

That's still his choice if he agreed to some financial settlement that limits his ability to speak about the breakup. And he already made some negative comments about the band last month so we know he's not forbidden to speak about this.

He's actually said nothing negative about them. His only comments were not negative at all Actually to all of their credit no one has said anything negative. The band has been nothing but insulting to him and his mark on their success (the bs press statement), but none of them have actually said anything negative about each other. Actually no one has actually said anything of substance.

That's very true. There's been pointed comments and their actions have been seen as disrespectful/dismissive in the eyes of many but no one has really said anything negative about anyone involved.

He said the band lost perspective and damaged the legacy of the band. That's a pretty negative comment.

Not really, though. He was expressing his point of view on the situation, and specified that it was factions, not the whole band.

What a brave soul. Who would think that an old
musician from California could possibly support
Democratic candidates? I really am surprised by
this.

Those twelve people who show up to see him
in concert just became the hateful eight.

That's absolutely not negative, that's his opinion. And not damaging to anyone's perspective or credibility. And BTW, no more negative then the pr that the band released when they told us he was out and Mike and Neil were in.

wow we got Sugar/Mick with his/her negativity about our man wondering into LB forum now? WTWCT??

WTWCT indeed..LOL

Cool, good for him. I hope this is very successful.

This is basically the "shut up and sing" argument - which is really sad.

Artists are allowed to have and express their political views - especially those who are in a position to make their voices heard on issues they feel important. You have every right not to see them perform but they are certainly not only making art to simply "entertain" you.

Why is it sad? If I don't agree with the premise of an author I won't buy their book, same with any musicians hawking a political message. They can sing and write to their heart's content but I certainly won't be paying for it.

If I want to read a political tome or attend a political rally that's one thing but if I just want to read or enjoy a concert for entertainment purposes, it's another.

In a persons day job its not the done thing to talk politics. In their own time they have every right to do and say what they want to who they want. Entertainers are no different. In his day job Lindsey doesn't talk politics. See fundraisers as being 'his own time'. People are paying to hear him play and hear his message.

Its so weird people are so hung up on the fact other people have different views to them on issues.

Gotta chime in on this one...

With artists, they put out there their personal stuff. That's whats make's them the artists that we love. That we support with our 'fandom'. When an artist, notably, singer/songwriters, display their guts and heart over personal episodes in their lives thru their music/writings - isn't that what connects us to them? So when you ask that artist to remain one dimensional (tell me how you've suffered cuz I can relate), how can you groove on who they are?
When artists put themselves open for display - that's vulnerable. And that's what is so gravitational.
However, to pigeonhole an artist to perform as you what them to, is repugnant. If not insulting to who puts themselves out there 'just to entertain' you.
Artists are not 'on demand'.