By taking it public. He's got no reason I can figure other than disappointment and frustration to wish to air those grievances - otherwise, why stick the laundry on the line?
We can interpret him as sticking to his status as an "outspoken" performer, but the whole phrasing of his intent just makes him seem like a bit of a sore individual. "Corporate", you say, Neil? Was Desert Trip a not-for-profit knees-up then?
I completely get not wanting any of his set broadcast, but unless he was given assurances before even getting to the stage of negotiations where you want to go public and say you "pulled out", then somebody has either sold him a duffer on the promotional side or he's not read the fine print himself.
Emily Eavis wasn't exactly going to come out in The Guardian next week without this and say "Oh, we tried to get Neil Young but the git backed out because we wanted to show his tunes on the telly", is she?
Good on Neil for sticking to those beliefs for control of his live product - which, having sold his music rights, may be all he has? - but it just didn't feel necessary.
A friend suggested he's going to announce his tour next week and that this may have been a ploy to get a few column inches and online chatter to going to juice sales. (I disagree with that idea personally, but not one to be discounted.)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.