Neil Young

[incident]

1 hour ago, SouthbanKen said:

We don’t know what the BBC asked for that was so unreasonable, but I can’t imagine it was much beyond the ability to air it live and host it on the iPlayer, along with requesting a set list ahead of time. All of which seem completely reasonable to me, given their contract with the festival. The fact that some artists might have an issue with that seems to me to be an artist issue, not a festival or bbc issue. 

 

I do (approximately) know what the BBC asked for, as I have a copy of the standard artist terms and conditions for acts on the big stages. Albeit I don't know whether NY was offered an amended version or not. But basically you've got about right. It's more detailed than this but can be reasonably summed up as:

- The right to show (an agreed part of) the performance live or as live on BBC services, with it also being available for 30 days afterwards on iPlayer & BBC Sounds (12 months where part of a multi-artist highlights package).

- One track (artists choice) made available for promotional purposes on the likes of YouTube and Social media.

- The right to re-broadcast the set at later dates.

- The right to use 30 second snippets in trailers and the like.

 

So nothing wildly controversial, I'd imagine if the sticking point was just one minor aspect of that then it'd be negotiable. Suspect it's the whole package that's the problem.

 

Anyone trying to pretend that a commercial broadcaster wouldn't have exactly the same issues is deluding themselves.

[kalifire]

3 hours ago, wrongturn said:

The fact that Glasto headliners are now beholden on who the BBC dictate will improve their viewing figures is a issue.

 

How have you arrived at this conclusion? From what I can make out the BBC isn't dictating anything, but part of a headliner contract will involve negotiating with them, as festival partners, for a mutually acceptable broadcast agreement. That's far from the BBC having some kind of veto based on getting audience ratings.

 

From this article, it sounds as if his team were negotiating with the BBC for quite a while before they decided it was all too corporate, although the article reads to me like it was written with the intention to make Neil seem a bit flakey (the stuff about cancelling a tour because he cut his finger while making a sandwich, etc.). A passive dig from another Glastonbury partner?

 

Anyway, to suggest Glastonbury is under "corporate control" is a wholly inaccurate statement, as he probably knows. I wonder what really happened to piss him off to the extent he published those comments?

Edited Thursday at 02:24 AM by kalifire

[jamafa]

I do find it odd that he decided to say something, given that he hadn't been announced. It's not like he's doing so to take a stand against something morally objectionable, like when he protested about Barclaycard being a sponsor for BST due to their involvement with fossil fuels. Wishful thinking, but perhaps he's hoping that by putting the statement out there, he'll be offered revised terms and play after all. I can but dream...

[Suprefan]

1 hour ago, jamafa said:

I do find it odd that he decided to say something, given that he hadn't been announced. It's not like he's doing so to take a stand against something morally objectionable, like when he protested about Barclaycard being a sponsor for BST due to their involvement with fossil fuels. Wishful thinking, but perhaps he's hoping that by putting the statement out there, he'll be offered revised terms and play after all. I can but dream...

 

Im thinking he was gonna announce his tour and it would have that convenient gap in it so there would be  assumptions would be made. So he pretty much got ahead of that by saying ''sorry, im out''.

 

Still funny he thinks the BBC owns the fest. Although theyre a really important part of it now or these artists wouldnt be playing for sh*t without tv exposure.

[Paul ™]

10 hours ago, Drew3232 said:

Was chatting to someone last year at the fest. He was saying that now Emily is in charge it has become a lot more profit-driven. 

 

10 hours ago, MilkyJoe said:

I’d be very surprised if the reason it has become more profit driven was Emily…

Yeah more like MB 

[Titters]

12 hours ago, Drew3232 said:

Was chatting to someone last year at the fest. He was saying that now Emily is in charge it has become a lot more profit-driven. 

 

Folks say lots of things outside the cider bus on the Thursday afternoon. 

 

 

It's a shame NY has taken this stance, clearly he likes control, has strong opinions and is willing to dig those heels in. I'm surprised he put his stuff back on Spotify. 

 

[-TLR-]

i have absolutely zero interest in Neil Young and couldn't care less if he plays or not.

 

but i completely agree with him - in fact i have been saying the same thing on here for a few years now.

 

 

[judyblue110]

1 minute ago, Titters said:

 

Folks say lots of things outside the cider bus on the Thursday afternoon. 

 

 

It's a shame NY has taken this stance, clearly he likes control, has strong opinions and is willing to dig those heels in. I'm surprised he put his stuff back on Spotify. 

 

 

It's not that surprising - he returned to Spotify as Joe Rogan's exclusivity deal ended, meaning pretty much every streaming platform has his content.

 

Had Neil doubled down, his music would only have been available on his own site and, unfortunately due to how the music world works now, he would have faded away to obscurity. It would have been a bad outcome for both Neil and his fans.

[mungo57]

not that I give a flying f**k but this makes NY the first headliner to pull out (at least publicly announce they're pulling out) without being announced doesn't it?

 

I can't think of anyone else....

[GhostOfMaurice]

27 minutes ago, -TLR- said:

i have absolutely zero interest in Neil Young and couldn't care less if he plays or not.

 

but i completely agree with him - in fact i have been saying the same thing on here for a few years now.

 

 

 

Neil Young is no fool. He wouldn't just say something for the sake of it.

[Mish1268]

Maybe playing a 2 hour set on prime time TV put him off and he found an excuse?  Really can't see  BBC demands being a thing as he would have known surely from the start the BBC were broadcasting it and the director would need the set list ahead of time. Very basic ask. Anyway, I was looking forward to it but always something else to do. 

[NorthernSoul52]

11 hours ago, BlackZeppelin said:

It might just be that they wanted to know the setlist and timing ahead of time so they could plan their shots.

Given how closely guarded the secret of a setlist can be, it's still a bit of an odd one.

 

Maybe it's because there's still a bunch of credible contenders who could take top spot on Saturday night, but the more I think about it, the more the only party with egg on their face appears to be Young.

[airwaves]

Well, I for one are delighted at the news

I Didn't get a Glasto ticket this year and if he does elsewhere eg BST, then at least I can buy a ticket

 

Appropos BST didn't he nearly pull from that last time until the site sponsorship - Barclaycard?? - was withdrawn? So where does that leave NY vs BST this year? 

 

Is anyone likely to put on a NY gig rather than him being included within an established "festival"? Or do we think it will be a festival. 

[The Nal]

Defo because of the TV. When was the last headliner who's set wasnt shown? Or most of it?

 

Good news hes touring over these shores anyway. 

[incident]

3 minutes ago, airwaves said:

Is anyone likely to put on a NY gig rather than him being included within an established "festival"? Or do we think it will be a festival. 

 

Difficult to say, but there were reports (that I think originated from NY himself) that he was only going to be playing outdoor shows on this run for health reasons. Which does limit it somewhat to festivals, parks, concert series etc. And I guess stadiums but he doesn't really seem the type?

[incident]

2 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Defo because of the TV. When was the last headliner who's set wasnt shown? Or most of it?

 

Neil Young.

 

Only showed ~30 minutes, only agreed at the last minute.

[Gnomicide]

8 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Defo because of the TV. When was the last headliner who's set wasnt shown? Or most of it?

 

Good news hes touring over these shores anyway. 

 

Same year, but 2 days later, only part of Blur's set was broadcast.

 

The Stones set was only shown from Miss You onwards.

Edited Thursday at 09:14 AM by Gnomicide

[The Nal]

4 minutes ago, incident said:

 

Neil Young.

 

Only showed ~30 minutes, only agreed at the last minute.

 

3 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

 

Only part of The Stones set was shown, from Miss You onwards.

 

So, very rare. Asking/telling Neil to do anything is guaranteed to get a PFO.

 

Great stuff from Neiler.

[CaledonianGonzo]

57 minutes ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Neil Young is no fool. He wouldn't just say something for the sake of it.

 

His autobiography indicates he's almost completely hair-brained.

[Pinhead]

Anyone who was at the Coldplay set last year can surely be under no illusion how much influence the coverage broadcaster now has over the coreography and execution of the performance. I'm sure I recall it being discussed here on a thread after last years festival. Its not the 90's any more - this is what we have these days. I'm kind of somewhat glad however that Neil sticks to his guns and gets the deal he wants, rather than the deal that Melvyn or the BBC insist on for promotional reasons.

[balti-pie]

1 hour ago, GhostOfMaurice said:

 

Neil Young is no fool. He wouldn't just say something for the sake of it.

I love his music, and I admire his willingness to do what he wants with a clear artistic vision with no thought for anything outside that, but he is a bit of a contrarian knobhead, and has been for bloody decades. 

[Colorblindjames]

3 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Anyone who was at the Coldplay set last year can surely be under no illusion how much influence the coverage broadcaster now has over the coreography and execution of the performance. I'm sure I recall it being discussed here on a thread after last years festival. Its not the 90's any more - this is what we have these days. I'm kind of somewhat glad however that Neil sticks to his guns and gets the deal he wants, rather than the deal that Melvyn or the BBC insist on for promotional reasons.

Indeed. It’s not realistic that NY pulled out because he disagreed with the coverage and streaming requirements for headliners that have been in place for years. Negotiations would not have gone past first base. Clearly the BBC are now dictating performance and content. 

[jamafa]

43 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

 

Same year, but 2 days later, only part of Blur's set was broadcast.

 

Sandwiched between those 2, around an hour of Springsteen’s set wasn’t shown either.

[Skip997]

1 hour ago, -TLR- said:

i have absolutely zero interest in Neil Young and couldn't care less if he plays or not.

 

but i completely agree with him - in fact i have been saying the same thing on here for a few years now.

 

 

Without doubt that  BBC involvement has changed the festival, at least re the Pyramid and maybe The Other/WH.

 

It’s definitely had an impact on who attends.

[CaledonianGonzo]

16 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Anyone who was at the Coldplay set last year can surely be under no illusion how much influence the coverage broadcaster now has over the coreography and execution of the performance. I'm sure I recall it being discussed here on a thread after last years festival. Its not the 90's any more - this is what we have these days. I'm kind of somewhat glad however that Neil sticks to his guns and gets the deal he wants, rather than the deal that Melvyn or the BBC insist on for promotional reasons.

 

I was at Coldplay and have no idea what you mean by the BBC influencing their performance and choreography.