Jun 4, 2025
iHypeThis is quite literally what we are saying.
Pusha is a D-list artist who sells 40k first week, why would UMG be terrified of him being a threat to Drake and his commercial power but let an A-list artist who actually would be a perceived threat go completely after him with no holds barred?
They letting NLU get SuperBowl performances, but are so afraid of the impact a Pusha T feature on a Rick Ross album might have they are making sure they can get it blocked…
What are we even discussingIt's not about being afraid you're the one saying that lol
why does Pusha's music keep getting blocked and pushed back then? Maybe Drake just wants his get back for leaking his son lol maybe UMG , without Drake saying anything at all, doesn't want Pusha to diss him ever again so blocked some verses and songs. Maybe Pusha is lying for a rollout cause he knows Drake's name = clicks.I'm just saying I do not believe Drake is above telling UMG to block some Pusha T songs and attempting to do that with NLU and failing
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyiHype
You’re just playing semantics. If Drake tried to block Kendrick songs at ANY point — before or after release, it would’ve been noted in the lawsuit at some point from either side.
We got hundreds of pages in legal documents and at no point does it mention Drake tried to block any Kendrick releases prior to the lawsuit, so to answer your question: no it’s not worth believing he tried to do that when there is nothing that indicates that
The lawsuit literally wants UMG to censor/not release NLU what are you talking about
Jun 4, 2025seems like it’s just precautionary. dropping clipse though is a bit odd, as that would make it seem more than precautionary
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replymmonay
Money.
They are probably worried the song can create momentum for an ongoing lawsuit.
If clipse sells 40k would the monetary gain be worth it for UMG?
Clipse not selling a lot of records literally creates the opposite argument.
The Pusha releases he’s claiming were blocked don’t even name Drake or directly allude to him so HOW WOULD A LAWSUIT happen
They gonna get sued cause Pusha made a subliminal about clown niggas?? - Jun 4, 2025·1 replyJPEGMAFIA
The lawsuit literally wants UMG to censor/not release NLU what are you talking about
No, the lawsuit is over the aftermath / defamation. He didn’t try to stop the release he just wants a bag because it was released lol.
- Jun 4, 2025·2 repliesiHype
The Pusha releases he’s claiming were blocked don’t even name Drake or directly allude to him so HOW WOULD A LAWSUIT happen
They gonna get sued cause Pusha made a subliminal about clown niggas??They likely were already aware of the drake lawsuit if I had to guess.
- Gosh 😹Jun 4, 2025mmonay
They likely were already aware of the drake lawsuit if I had to guess.
I bet Drake was BEGGING UMG to do anything they could to suppress NLU or he would sue they definitely knew
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replymmonay
They likely were already aware of the drake lawsuit if I had to guess.
He claiming they stopped his Rick Ross feature in 2019 & Pop Smoke feature in 2020 because they were perceived Drake diss lines even though there was no names or direct alludes.
If they already been stopping his collabs perceived as Drake threats for years before the lawsuit, then the lawsuit really doesn’t have that much to do with it. They would’ve likely did the same with the Kendrick collab even with no lawsuits.
However the thing is UMG has been milking the Kendrick disses for an entire year even post lawsuit, so again, what is the logic that suddenly with Pusha T he is some huge threat to finances and operations and he has to be stopped from even doing a slight subliminal?
- Jun 4, 2025iHype
No, the lawsuit is over the aftermath / defamation. He didn’t try to stop the release he just wants a bag because it was released lol.
You can not sue a label for defamation from one of its artists and it have nothing to do with censorship lol
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyiHype
He claiming they stopped his Rick Ross feature in 2019 & Pop Smoke feature in 2020 because they were perceived Drake diss lines even though there was no names or direct alludes.
If they already been stopping his collabs perceived as Drake threats for years before the lawsuit, then the lawsuit really doesn’t have that much to do with it. They would’ve likely did the same with the Kendrick collab even with no lawsuits.
However the thing is UMG has been milking the Kendrick disses for an entire year even post lawsuit, so again, what is the logic that suddenly with Pusha T he is some huge threat to finances and operations and he has to be stopped from even doing a slight subliminal?
You're struggling to understand that Kendrick is a much larger artist than Pusha T and much more profitable lol
- Jun 4, 2025·2 repliesJPEGMAFIA
You're struggling to understand that Kendrick is a much larger artist than Pusha T and much more profitable lol
…right which would also make anything he releases a bigger risk.
A lawsuit over a huge Kendrick hit with billions of streams is a bigger payout than some Pusha T feature that’s track 19 on a flop album…
It would be stricter standards and more precautions for bigger artists since there’s more to lose.
You think a NFL team cares would not be more cautious about their star quarterback getting in drama vs a backup benchwarmer?
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyiHype
…right which would also make anything he releases a bigger risk.
A lawsuit over a huge Kendrick hit with billions of streams is a bigger payout than some Pusha T feature that’s track 19 on a flop album…
It would be stricter standards and more precautions for bigger artists since there’s more to lose.
You think a NFL team cares would not be more cautious about their star quarterback getting in drama vs a backup benchwarmer?
You're adding UMG being afraid of Pusha doing damage. We know he can't do damage. Adidon came out and Drake dropped one of his biggest albums right after.
If Drake and/or UMG are blocking Pusha T verses/songs it's probably more of a "fuck you" than being afraid of him doing damage with h a couple subliminals lmao
- Jun 4, 2025·2 replies
iHype’s argue semantics gimmick is so stale
Just blowing out hot air for no reason
NeonNigga23 ♻️Jun 4, 2025deleteduser579iHype’s argue semantics gimmick is so stale
Just blowing out hot air for no reason
who's alt?
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyJPEGMAFIA
You're adding UMG being afraid of Pusha doing damage. We know he can't do damage. Adidon came out and Drake dropped one of his biggest albums right after.
If Drake and/or UMG are blocking Pusha T verses/songs it's probably more of a "fuck you" than being afraid of him doing damage with h a couple subliminals lmao
So if UMG was sending multiple f*** you’s to Pusha T from 2018-2022, why did he then choose to have Clipse sign to them in 2023?
Are you finally realizing that none of this logically adds up overtime?
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replydeleteduser579
iHype’s argue semantics gimmick is so stale
Just blowing out hot air for no reason
Your big ass manages to vent how mad you are each time you see my posts so they must be working
Jun 4, 2025iHypeYour big ass manages to vent how mad you are each time you see my posts so they must be working
his whole thing is cheerleading
crazy- Jun 4, 2025iHype
…right which would also make anything he releases a bigger risk.
A lawsuit over a huge Kendrick hit with billions of streams is a bigger payout than some Pusha T feature that’s track 19 on a flop album…
It would be stricter standards and more precautions for bigger artists since there’s more to lose.
You think a NFL team cares would not be more cautious about their star quarterback getting in drama vs a backup benchwarmer?
As you said the lawsuit is over UMG for allowing what drake feels is the release of “defamatory” material upon other things.
Any type of material that is released in the future gets put under a microscope and can be used as momentum for the existing lawsuit.
Does not matter if it is a song with 100 listens or 100000000, if they feel it can offer validity to the lawsuit.
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyiHype
So if UMG was sending multiple f*** you’s to Pusha T from 2018-2022, why did he then choose to have Clipse sign to them in 2023?
Are you finally realizing that none of this logically adds up overtime?
youd have a stronger argument if It's Almost Dry didn't come out and Clipse didn't have 2 or 3 verses the last few years. They're obviously okay with Pusha / Clipse releasing music they're just blocking anything that can be perceived as aimed at Drake lol
- Jun 4, 2025·1 replyJPEGMAFIA
youd have a stronger argument if It's Almost Dry didn't come out and Clipse didn't have 2 or 3 verses the last few years. They're obviously okay with Pusha / Clipse releasing music they're just blocking anything that can be perceived as aimed at Drake lol
I never said they couldn’t release their own music. My point is if UMG has already stood in the way of you releasing multiple times before and said f*** you, when you are looking for labels under Clipse why going to the same exact people?
You just said them features was blocked as nothing more than a f*** you to Pusha personally. Why you going to work again with them same ppl who sending personal f*** you’s if so lol?
It’s convenient story trope for him to go on about Drake stopping him behind the scenes but I’m sure there’s more to the story
- Jun 4, 2025·1 reply
NixThis is what I meant by hivemind. Y'all post the same troll s*** and then act superior.
You're in a cult.
- Jun 4, 2025Scarves
You're in a cult.
If you say so 😂
- Jun 4, 2025iHype
I never said they couldn’t release their own music. My point is if UMG has already stood in the way of you releasing multiple times before and said f*** you, when you are looking for labels under Clipse why going to the same exact people?
You just said them features was blocked as nothing more than a f*** you to Pusha personally. Why you going to work again with them same ppl who sending personal f*** you’s if so lol?
It’s convenient story trope for him to go on about Drake stopping him behind the scenes but I’m sure there’s more to the story
That's a good question. Maybe in Pusha's contract he couldn't sign anywhere else as a group so it was the only option, maybe he figured they'd be good cause he doesn't wanna diss Drake anymore. Push had to buy himself out and Clipse, even in the interview they mention one can't go without the other
I agree with you there's more to this story. I don't even think it's impossible that Pusha is lying about all this for promo. I don't know guy. But having a history of blocked songs, plus the lawsuit, plus this verse I think it adds up
Jun 4, 2025Free YoungBoyThere are many subsidiaries of UMG. It’s not one monolithic label. There are hundreds of sub labels under the UMG umbrella.
Drake even claimed in his lawsuit that that there were people that were pro Drake people that got removed.
There’s labels and executives that probable never interact with each other but they are still both a part of UMG
Kendrick is signed to interscope. He doesn’t deal with the def jam people, so whatever rules def jam have for pusha have nothing to do with Kendrick.
def jam umg papi in 5
pusherteemz called out both def jam and umg and yall been running with lucian/umg narrative cut it out and get yalls story straight
- Jun 4, 2025
you can't say def jam got different rules when it's the same umbrella. If their concern is a lawsuit at their parent company then obviously p****umg is concerned too