Ke$ha 'Die Young' Pulled After Shooting

She claims she never wanted to sing the song, but was "forced to," implying that the record label made her do it. The message was quickly deleted.

Ultimate Guitar

Ke$ha's new single "Die Young" has been pulled from radio stations in North America after last week's school massacre in Connecticut.

Ke$ha claims she never wanted to sing the song because of its title, but was forced to. That message has since been deleted.

TMZ was first to spot the dip in airplay for the song. It started off at number 3 on the radio playlist chart last Friday with 167 million listeners before the shooting. By Saturday it dropped by 3 million, and by monday dropped by another 19 million.

One expert said a drop of this magnitude is "extremely rare," and hasn't been seen since the Dixie Chicks were dropped from country radio after insulting President Bush.

Ke$ha responded to the radio blockade on twitter:

Billboard caught a screenshot of the message before it was quickly deleted.

It was replaced with a more diplomatic tweet: "I'm so so so sorry for anyone who has been effected by this tragedy.and I understand why my song is now inappropriate. words cannot express."

62 comments sorted by best / new / date

    She most likely wasn't "forced" to, all of her songs portray stupid shit like this and now she just got caught up in it. Remember, this is coming from the same person who had sex with a ghost.
    She's just saying that she was 'forced to' sing the song because she doesn't want to be associated with the shootings. Of course, since she wrote the words to the song, she can't really say that she was 'forced' to sing her own words. Her argument is fairly idiotic anyways, considering that the song was written and released before the shooting ever took place. It's like if Ac/Dc claimed that they were 'forced' to sing 'fire your guns' to distance themselves from the shooting, despite the fact that the song came out many years before the shootings took place. It's admittedly a little bit difficult to explain my thoughts in this simple post, and I realized that a lot of what i'm typing is worded fairly awkwardly. But I hope you guys get the gist of what i'm saying.
    Yeah I totally get what you're saying but another thing to consider is that the record label itself and management could have easily said "we want "die young" to be the latest single off of the new album" she would really have no choice but to agree with the label because the label could easily with hold the albums release if she didn't agree
    She wasn't forced to, she would have to sing it in order to either stay with the label or sell albums. Stupid. You're right, but its so stupid. I always turn this song off when it comes on the radio.
    More proof that she has absolutely no artistic integrity and independence, if she's being forced to it. Another tool of the modern music industry. But you already knew that.
    Glass Prisoner
    Again, why is Ke$ha news on here? This one doesn't even have minimal implied input from Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop or whoever else. SHE IS NAHT WELCUM HERE!
    It's unbelieveable how everyone has become such pussies in this country. Everyone is offended by everything now. You can't even be yourself anymore.
    There's a difference between being cultural sensitive and being offended by something, although I will admit that they are related. It's like how the song 'New orleans is sinking', which is a popular song in Canada, was temporarily banned from being played on radio after New Orleans really did sink. Playing a song called 'Die young' as the world is grieving over the victims of the latest school shooting in America is in very poor taste.
    You are what is wrong with America. It is not anyone's job to worry about taste, nor is it your place to decide what is decent or in bad taste. If you don't like it, switch it off. With your reasoning, you could apply this to any situation. A priest died somewhere today. Don't play 'Living on a Prayer', his relatives might be upset. Poor example, but you get my point.
    I'm from Canada, and I said that in my post. Also, yes, a radio station could choose to play a song if it's in bad taste. But they have to accept that they'll probably lose listeners because of it, as you said in your post. It's like how Americans claim that shooting other Americans is bad, then buy millions of guns to defend themselves with, by shooting other Americans.
    Yes but your reasoning is so generalized that you could literally apply bad taste to any situation. That was my point. If it's bad taste to play a song about shooting people after there is a shooting somewhere, then I guess it's bad taste to play a movie where a fake rape is depicted after some random woman in the country is raped. Where do you draw the line??? It's getting ridiculous around here with the oversensitivity. Enough already. Get over it.
    Let me ask you something, would you make a joke about someone being raped after you've found out your sister was raped? Would you listen to a song about someone being shot after your little brother was shot? That's cultural sensitivity, being sensitive to the feelings of people in a similar situation.
    Yes I would continue to make jokes about these things, and even if I didn't, I certainly wouldn't be naive enough to expect everyone else to stop making jokes, music or movies about these subjects. Is the song advocating raping my sister or shooting my brother? No. It's an artist's or writer's story or feelings at the time. This is real life, this shit happens. Best we can do is make art out of it or joke about it. Lighten up. I don't see anyone going up to the victim's families and blasting a radio in their face of a song about people dying. That's about the only action involving music I would classify as insensitive. But yes, I would make a joke about anything, regardless of my situation or family's situation. It's a joke. That's again what I've been getting at. The problem is everyone gets offended by everything and then no one can joke about anything. Should comedians never make jokes about rape because it is considered a sore subject? I guess I should consider who I am talking to, isn't your country the same one that banned Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" entirely from radio because it features the word "faggot"? It's an insensitive word, but it's a song I enjoy. So in Canada, I can't hear this song on the radio because someone is offended by a word in it. That's pathetic. Should all sexual situations and violence be taken off television as well then? Because again by your logic, almost every form of entertainment is insensitive.
    If you're the type of person who would make a joke about someone being raped after your little sister was raped, then you're not the kind of person I want to continue communicating with. Also, America is the country where censorship originally took place. America is the first democratic nation that attempted to remove 'obscene' songs from radio, pulled records from stores, and created a warning label to be placed an almost every Cd. There's a definite difference between being so insensitive that you would play a song about a school shooting while the entire world is grieving over a particularly graphic school shooting then if somebody banned a 30-year old song from the radio (that most people have on their iPods) because of a word that couldn't be edited out of the recording. If you reply to this post I won't answer, because clearly you don't understand a word i'm typing.
    If you can't have normal discourse then it's really not my problem. I would make a joke about anything, because anything should be fair game. Call it healing through humor. Or just call it freedom of speech. I'm not sure what that has to do with this however. I'm not going to dispute the fact that America has been terrible with censorship, especially the fiasco following the Janet Jackson tit slip and the ensuing fines issues against Howard Stern. The U.S. has been atrocious with these types of situations. But I dispute your claim that a radio station playing a song about shootings following a school shooting is insensitive. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. And if a song or movie relates to your life or anyone's life or some tough situation someone is going through and that happens to trigger something and upset them, SORRY, BUT that really is no one's problem but the person being affected, and it is most certainly no one else's responsibility to be sensitive to that. And I see you aren't going to respond and that's fine, you've said your piece and have made literally no sense because in order for everyone to be as sensitive as you wish them to be, the entire entertainment industry would have to cease to exist. Or at least cease broadcasting..... Eh?
    The ones that buy guns to defend themselves generally aren't shooting innocents. That wouldn't be defense, now would it?
    No, but the average person wouldn't find themselves in a position where they would need a gun unless they willingly exposed themselves to said situation. American is, quite possibly, the most sheltered country in the world. Any situation they come across where they need to defend themselves could probably be handle by other means. Besides, hiding behind a gun is pretty cowardly. It's like admitting that you're too weak to defend yourself, so you need to hide behind something.
    Like that one time when my car broke down on a busy highway in broad daylight and a couple of thugz pulled over to "help" me. I could tell they were sincere by the way they smoked their tires as I reached into my disabled car while maintaining eye contact and telling them I was OK and didn't need their "assistance". They were gone before I even could acquire a grip, much less a sight picture. About an hour later a cop rolled up; glad the police were available when they could have been useful [sarcasm]. [Sarcasm alert]: What was I thinking driving an old car on a public highway during rush hour? Guess I was really asking to be in that position, and I should have resolved it by letting them attack me. Because criminals are so honorable and brave that they attack if they think it's going to be a fair fight. And if the bad guys win, then might makes right and it's OK as long as they didn't use a firearm. WTF? But we're the sheltered ones down here. OK... [more sarcasm] Realistically, no matter how strong you are physically, there will always be someone stronger. Also, groups of average people can usually overcome one person even if he is extremely strong. A proactive desire for self-preservation plus a healthy realization that you're not invincible does not equal cowardice. In fact, given the legal hot water you can find yourself in even if you do everything by the book, in America it takes moral courage to defend yourself with or without firearms.
    So, you're saying that the guys didn't actually attack you, and nothing bad happened during that situation, yet you assumed they would attack you. If they really wanted to attack you, they probably would have attacked instead of leaving when you asked them to. Why am I wasting my time arguing with you anyway, your the same kind of person who attempts to resolve all arguments by being louder than the person you're talking to instead of smarter. You're the reason why America is being laughed at by the majority of the world.
    So, you're saying that the guys didn't actually attack you, and nothing bad happened during that situation, yet you assumed they would attack you. No, Im saying they exhibited behavior consistent with criminals assessing a potential victim. They, correctly figured out that although stranded, out-numbered, and maybe outgunned, I wasnt going to be an easy target, so they decided not to attack and made a dramatic escape. Their behavior matched the patterns Police training and experience had taught me to recognize. Additionally, when I responded as trained for that situation, their reaction was consistent with bad intent. Not a lot of assumptions going on for my part. I think its reasonable to conclude the only reason nothing bad happened was that I was proactive and equipped to back it up. You seem disappointed nothing bad happened to anyone. That firearms helped without anyone getting hurt or a crime having to happen. If they really wanted to attack you, they probably would have attacked instead of leaving when you asked them to. If by really wanted to attack, you mean were willing to risk a fair fight, or had a death wish, then sure. But now youre the one making assumptions even though you werent there. The thing is if criminals had honor or wanted a fair fight, then they wouldnt be criminals. Clearly, these guys werent suicidal, so when they figured out they were probably messing with the wrong guy, they ran away before forcing me to confirm it. I never asked them to leave; just told them I was OK. They fled when they saw me reaching in my car. Innocents would not have felt threatened by that move. I never told them what I was reaching for and never showed it to them. While their demeanor was aggressive, mine as only assertive. Why am I wasting my time arguing with you anyway, your [sic] the same kind of person who attempts to resolve all arguments by being louder than the person you're talking to instead of smarter.[sic] You're the reason why America is being laughed at by the majority of the world. This is only a waste of time for you if you ignore reason. I used to agree with your position on this issue until I studied Statistics and Poli-Sci in my undergrad. Police work confirmed the academics.
    Darth Wader
    They also have pulled The Foster The People song "Pumped Up Kicks."
    Mark Foster is the anti-Ted Nugent if you ever read the band's twitter page or interviews with him. Very big activist for gun law reform.
    Don't know what's worse: stations pulling a song because of lyrics or an artist apologizing because of lyrics. Both disgraceful actions. If people are offended, they have a radio dial. You change the station. This is stupid, I don't care if an entire song is about shooting people, you don't pull it because of an incident. Someone's right not to be offended should never supersede my right to enjoy entertainment. Now this is all besides the fact that the song is absolute rubbish, I'm just speaking about the issue as a whole, regardless of who the artist is or what the song is about or implies.
    I agree. Thing is radio stations don't stay in business by making people use their dial to change to another station, or worse, switching back to MP3s on their iDevices.
    Hmmm I thought Ke$ha wrote all of her songs. That's what she claimed before now... As an aside, I don't think anyone would actually be thinking of the shootings when they listened to this song. It's just fuel on the fire of the YOLO generation.
    Wow this chick is f*cking hideous. So is Niki Minaj and Lady Gaga. I want my non-talented pop hoties like Brittany, Christina, and Mandy back. Atleast they were worth watching when you got dragged to a concert by your: kids, girlfriend, or wife
    It was replaced with a more diplomatic tweet: "I'm so so so sorry for anyone who has been effected by this tragedy.and I understand why my song is now inappropriate. words cannot express." "effected" and this was her correction tweet?
    Gotta be one of the worst songs ever recorded for bubblegum pop-radio ever. F*ck Keha.
    ehm - she does not write her songs, she uses auto-tune on the concerts on regular bases (to automatically correct her off key performances = sorry to say but real singers do not do that and if a real singer goes of key by chance - well, it is human and stuff happens so what) - that says something about her "talent", and to be perfectly honest she does not even look the part..with that said I have nothing against her as I have nothing against people who are living their dreams (er - although in this case she is "forced" to live her "dream" it appears). Pulling songs is crazy. I am sorry but the songs are innocent and they should be looking for answers to the killing problems elsewhere.
    Yep...and The Beatles were forced to sing Helter Skelter in spite of Charles Manson too.
    So she was "forced" to sing those lyrics? Really? So the recording engineer pointed a gun at her? Did the producer threaten to poison her? More likely her label said, "if you don't sing this rubbish song you'll only make 5 million this year instead of 10". Forced? Sure.
    obviously this is just bad luck on her part, but the song was awful morally and musically- still praying for newtown
    Jesus christ. This is so stupid. I don't understand why this song is such a bad thing I mean, just because something happens to that mean it should be banned or something?
    Wait... what? Didn't she spend a year claiming that every bit of that record was her own writing? EDIT: Not that any of us fell for that in the first place. Creative control in the pop world is defined as being given a buffet table of prerecorded songs and being able to choose one or two of them to go on the album.
    When she said that it was her own writing, what she probably meant was that the lyrics were written by her and the music was created to match the music by a handful of nameless producers.
    Anytime an artist is "forced" to sing their own song you got to question their credibility. I mean c'mon, if you really didnt want to sing the damn song, then dont ****ing do it. Plus, this bitch autotunes everything anyway, what "singing" is she talking about? Look at RATM, when they played Killing in the Name recently over the air in England back in '09 for the X-MAs/Xfactor campaign. Zack didnt censor the infamous "FUCK YOU I WONT DO WHAT YA TELL ME" even though he was "forced" to. Sometimes you really ought to live by those awesome lyrics.
    I definitely heard someone playing this song on the radio today, just saying. This article isn't even factual.