The BBC - supporting live music and other issues

[Neil]

20 minutes ago, stuie said:

Michael has said that the BBC coverage is one of the reasons why the festival is still going.  Allowing the cameras in showed the world (and Somerset) what's going on inside the fence isn't scary and lawless.  I think that's in the 50 book. 

Aside from that, the TV coverage is one of the main advertising drivers behing such quick sell outs year after year.

 

tv probably helped the festival get past the licence issues. pretty sure it was selling out before the beeb were covering it.

[clarkete]

28 minutes ago, Neil said:

tv probably helped the festival get past the licence issues. pretty sure it was selling out before the beeb were covering it.

It's clearly a factor in firstly helping give coverage to up and coming artists and secondly persuading more established artists to play for less than their customary fee - anyone who puts on a great set has massive streaming increases and sells more. 

[sadimmock]

Massive fan of the BBC in general and in particular what they do for emerging and live music. However I do feel a bit uneasy about permanently basing the 6Music festival in Manchester.

Firstly, I wonder what impact it has on smaller venues and promotors in the city (why bother competing with a promoter that can advertise itself ad infinitum o your potential audience for free)?

Secondly it is not as if Manchester is short of gigs to go to… It’s a real pity that the BBC doesn’t use its marketing heft and budget to bring gigs to places that otherwise wouldn’t get acts at this level. The increasing cost of transport/hotels mean that these type of gigs are now out of reach for huge swathes of the population. 

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, clarkete said:

persuading more established artists to play for less than their customary fee

glastonbury was doing that before there was tv coverage.

[clarkete]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

glastonbury was doing that before there was tv coverage.

The artists weren't having a massive increase in sales, the bit you for some reason ignored 😉

[Chip Batch]

12 minutes ago, sadimmock said:

Massive fan of the BBC in general and in particular what they do for emerging and live music. However I do feel a bit uneasy about permanently basing the 6Music festival in Manchester.

Firstly, I wonder what impact it has on smaller venues and promotors in the city (why bother competing with a promoter that can advertise itself ad infinitum o your potential audience for free)?

Secondly it is not as if Manchester is short of gigs to go to… It’s a real pity that the BBC doesn’t use its marketing heft and budget to bring gigs to places that otherwise wouldn’t get acts at this level. The increasing cost of transport/hotels mean that these type of gigs are now out of reach for huge swathes of the population. 

Totally agree. It was much better going around the country but I'm guessing budget reductions has been the reason for the decision. 

[clarkete]

51 minutes ago, sadimmock said:

It’s a real pity that the BBC doesn’t use its marketing heft and budget to bring gigs to places that otherwise wouldn’t get acts at this level. The increasing cost of transport/hotels mean that these type of gigs are now out of reach for huge swathes of the population. 

What budget? The last deal with the government left them with a a £2B shortfall, they're grappling with hyperinflation in the content market, as well as competitors putting up prices by as much as 30%.  Hence the cuts to local news teams, newsnight, radio teams etc. 

The people who govern it are effectively doing the government's bidding, their news content (which I've hitherto been a huge fan of) has been neutered during the last two parliaments and even those who claim to value some of the content are often choosing to not pay for it. 

Of course if it went, or went commercial, it would be exactly what some of their competitors would want. 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

The artists weren't having a massive increase in sales, the bit you for some reason ignored 😉

That was lifting glasto getting the act to play on the cheap. Glastonbury was getting acts to play on the cheap without the TV broadcasts. Even now most acts don't get on TV 

[stuie]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

glastonbury was doing that before there was tv coverage.

Ok maybe it was. But we’re talking about now and it’s definitely one of the reasonswhy your Elton’s and Beyoncé’s do it for a fraction of the fee.

You’ll probably disagree for the sake of it but it’s obviously true.  

[Neil]

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

Ok maybe it was. But we’re talking about now and it’s definitely one of the reasonswhy your Elton’s and Beyoncé’s do it for a fraction of the fee.

You’ll probably disagree for the sake of it but it’s obviously true.  

but not the stones!

[clarkete]

39 minutes ago, Neil said:

That was lifting glasto getting the act to play on the cheap. Glastonbury was getting acts to play on the cheap without the TV broadcasts. Even now most acts don't get on TV 

But a phenomenal quantity do...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-music-glastonbury-2023/

[Neil]

1 minute ago, clarkete said:

But a phenomenal quantity do...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-music-glastonbury-2023/

yes, but most acts don't - the coverage of stages by the beeb is getting better.

[tarw]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

yes, but most acts don't - the coverage of stages by the beeb is getting better.

And how much coverage did the previous broadcasters ( Channel 4) give?  Seem to remember that it was just a roundup with very few full sets. 

[Mich1268]

I would pay double for the BBC. I am an avid supporter, although not so much the news these days. BBC proms is something I am determined to attend this year (not last night lol) that music festival is something the BBC should be so proud to be involved in. Their coverage of Glastonbury is enjoyed by all ages and even my 89 and 90 year old parents watch parts and comment on what they saw each year. Truly inclusive coverage for all viewers in my opinion. 

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, tarw said:

And how much coverage did the previous broadcasters ( Channel 4) give?  Seem to remember that it was just a roundup with very few full sets. 

It was channel 4 and MTV and festival broadcasts was a new and risky (big chance of technical failure) thing back then. Not sure how much they did -  less airtime available to them (cos of less channels) than the beeb.

[incident]

21 minutes ago, tarw said:

And how much coverage did the previous broadcasters ( Channel 4) give?  Seem to remember that it was just a roundup with very few full sets. 

MTV (1993) was the first, and basically just a roundup (think it's still on YouTube).

Channel 4 in 1994 and 1995 was much more extensive - not all that different from the early years of BBC coverage. The coverage levels we're now used to only really came along with all the extra channels.

[clarkete]

30 minutes ago, incident said:

MTV (1993) was the first, and basically just a roundup (think it's still on YouTube).

Channel 4 in 1994 and 1995 was much more extensive - not all that different from the early years of BBC coverage. The coverage levels we're now used to only really came along with all the extra channels.

Far more than just the channels even now, from that link:-

"BBC iPlayer will also be broadcasting continuous live streams from the five main festival stages: Pyramid, Other, West Holts, Park and Woodsies...

...

Sets from the Pyramid Stage will once again be shown live in Ultra High Definition on BBC iPlayer on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday. There will be continuous presenter-led coverage of every performance live, as well as highlights from the best of the Pyramid Stage performances so far in the highest picture quality.

Over 90 sets and key tracks from the five filmed stages, as well as themed performance compilations, will be available to watch on demand on BBC iPlayer throughout the weekend and for 30 days after broadcast - including selected Pyramid Stage performances in Ultra High Definition.

For those not wanting the festival to end, The Glastonbury BBC iPlayer Channel will continue through the week after (Monday 26 - Friday 30 June), showing some of the stand-out performances. This 24-hour live stream will allow viewers to reminisce and catch up on the performances they might have missed from the weekend."

To be honest it's too much coverage, I don't pay my licence fee so all those lazy gits at home can watch it without having to stand next to someone talking too much 😉

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, clarkete said:

To be honest it's too much coverage, I don't pay my licence fee so all those lazy gits at home can watch it without having to stand next to someone talking too much 😉

i bet a lot of it goes unwatched - apart from the performer's mothers!

even if someone was determined to watch a lot of it, they'd still miss a lots, cos so much goes out simultaneously(its a bit like trying to catch every act at a festival)

[fred quimby]

5 hours ago, stuie said:

Michael has said that the BBC coverage is one of the reasons why the festival is still going.  Allowing the cameras in showed the world (and Somerset) what's going on inside the fence isn't scary and lawless.  I think that's in the 50 book. 

Aside from that, the TV coverage is one of the main advertising drivers behing such quick sell outs year after year.

 

Certainly one of the reason. He also said the late night stuff saved the festival. As you say it is made up of a lot of things. Certainly the late night scene is one of them. All the glamping and easy camping helps. Think the BBC bring in different set of people as well, know many people who have seen the coverage and though I'll have some of that  and it is only the main stages they see.