OK, so I admit my only interest in Neil Young is the mistaken belief that he performed "Horse With No Name" (the best song he never did ?), and the recent documentary I saw on TV...but even I can tell the man is a rock poet worthy (if not quite so highly ranked) as Jim Morrison. Any man who can jam with Devo with impunity and with no contradiction to his values is a good bloke by me.
That's the core of this post...I respect the man, his music and his values. God knows, his music all sounds the same (on the whole) for the last 40 years, but his lyrics are where the beauty lies. People who don't like Neil Young's lyrics are superficial, or don't agree with what he's saying (and that's their prerogative).
I can't understand the view that Neil Young abandonded his music in the 80's...that's just a reactionary point of view to me. If it's taken the public a while to adjust to the fact that Neil changes his musical style, surely that's their problem? They don't have to buy or review his offerings? The man's just doing what he wants to; he doesn't owe anything to the fans or the media - or does he?
Should he be obliged to churn out what the fans want? ...urm...no. That's passive-aggressiveness. If you're a fan that feels the object of your strange obsessiveness should reciprocate your expectations, you need therapy. They do what they do. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's not their fault. Get a life.
To be honest, I'm a fan of Neil Young. Don't care that much for his music (it's good, but not amazing...his lyrics are better), but the fact he's apparently stuck true to his "muse" for 40 years is good enough for me. I'd vote for him.