Neil Young

[Mardy]

Couple of parallel points here, that sort of intersect, but I'd be wary of putting too much emphasis on either. Yeah, clearly the BBC have more input and more control over much of what happens, and are spreading across the site. That runs hand in hand with Glastonbury becoming more of a mainstream cultural event. What drives what? No idea, wouldn't like to say. At the same time, NY is clearly a grumpy old bastard/batshit crazy with some, er, interesting viewpoints. 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

It might be the clip package shows that were the final straw. Not wanting a 5 minute excerpt of the gig (probably a 'hit' like Heart of Gold) to be decontextualised and bundled together with the likes of Chappell Roan, I can probably see the old buzzard demurring from.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, incident said:

I've been going back on whether to post this publicly or not. But - unless they're somehow singling him out for special treatment - then whatever Neil doesn't like is somewhere within this:

 

For what it's worth, no mention there of setlists in advance, coordinating things, etc.

from when was this applicable ? has it changed since he last performed ? 

[incident]

1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:

from when was this applicable ? has it changed since he last performed ? 

 

It's the current document for the 2025 festival. The 2024 document was near identical. No idea about any festivals prior to that. Would imagine it's changed since 2009 though just because of the Online stuff increasing.

Edited Thursday at 11:20 AM by incident

[The Nal]

18 minutes ago, incident said:

I've been going back and forth on whether to post this publicly or not. But - unless they're somehow singling him out for special treatment - then whatever Neil doesn't like is somewhere within this:

 

 

For what it's worth, no mention there of setlists in advance, coordinating things, etc.

 

Thanks, very interesting. I can see why Neil wouldn't agree to any of that and can see why there were conversations right up to the last minute in 2009. 

Edited Thursday at 11:35 AM by The Nal

[incident]

7 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

It might be the clip package shows that were the final straw. Not wanting a 5 minute excerpt of the gig (probably a 'hit' like Heart of Gold) to be decontextualised and bundled together with the likes of Chappell Roan, I can probably see the old buzzard demurring from.

 

Have to think if it was just one specific part like that, an exception could be made.

 

My gut feeling here is that he feels a line has been firmly crossed here in terms of what he's prepared to agree to. The confusing part though is that his team would have been well aware of both his dislike of coverage, and the necessity of it at Glastonbury and yet let it get this far.

[The Nal]

1 minute ago, incident said:

The confusing part though is that his team would have been well aware of both his dislike of coverage, and the necessity of it at Glastonbury and yet let it get this far.

 

Not necessarily. I think we overstate the importance of the festival to a lot of artists and booking agents etc.

 

Possible that they just agreed to it, were sent that from the BBC and then said no.

[Pinhead]

It'll be the last two points, which effectively give the BBC the right to re-show their coverage, and therfore his songs, whenever they like after the festival, forever. It also suggests that the BBC want to be able to sell the coverage, i.e again his songs, for the next 5 years on a number of commercial outlets (although still referred to as a 'public service' broadcaster with its revenue raised through taxation (license fee), the BBC is obliquely commercial these days, supplementing that income with international media sales).

[incident]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

Not necessarily. I think we overstate the importance of the festival to a lot of artists and booking agents etc.

 

Possible that they just agreed to it, were sent that from the BBC and then said no.

 

Should clarify - that's excerpted from the standard GFL booking terms - so would have been one of the first documents the team saw.

[incident]

Just now, Pinhead said:

It also suggests that the BBC want to be able to sell the coverage, i.e again his songs, for the next 5 years on a number of commercial outlets (although still referred to as a 'public service' broadcaster with its revenue raised through taxation (license fee), the BBC is obliquely commercial these days, supplementing that income with international media sales).

 

On that part, it's GFL rather than the BBC who retain that right.

[The Nal]

1 minute ago, incident said:

 

Should clarify - that's excerpted from the standard GFL booking terms - so would have been one of the first documents the team saw.

 

Ah. Interesting either way and seems there was naivety from all parties here. 

[Pinhead]

1 minute ago, incident said:

 

On that part, it's GFL rather than the BBC who retain that right.

 

Ah yes, quite true - missed that. Though as GFEL arn't a broadcaster themselves, it appears its just a way of selling the coverage back to the BBC or another distributor for a price.

[NotAnInsider]

Could be his moans aren't related to the booking terms per se, but the BBC influence around the overall bill. Could be that the BBC have influence over other acts and their position on the line up that he objects to and it maybe that those other acts are very commercial which he doesn't like.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Agree that it feels like something that should have come to light on day one of the discussions.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Just now, NotAnInsider said:

Could be his moans aren't related to the booking terms per se, but the BBC influence around the overall bill. Could be that the BBC have influence over other acts and their position on the line up that he objects to and it maybe that those other acts are very commercial which he doesn't like.

 

I don't think they do influence the bill, and even if they did he'd be even more of an awkward bastard than currently seems apparent if that caused him to pull out.

[The Nal]

Given his admirable life long distain for corporations meddling with music its no surprise really. 

 

This Note's For You

 

And this one still makes me laugh.

 

[NotAnInsider]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

 

I don't think they do influence the bill, and even if they did he'd be even more of an awkward bastard than currently seems apparent if that caused him to pull out.

Well we know he is an awkward bastard...

 

The BBC provide the festival with an awful lot of stuff that costs the Beeb a load of cash. They'll want to get certain things from that investment so I would be pretty certain they'll have some influence, especially at headliner level. If they're sticking him on after the Cheeky Girls or someone he (rightly or wrongly) views as quite poor/not credible I can easily see hm throwing his toys out of the pram.

 

The festival has always been quite good at milking the corporate teat to keep the show going without damaging the festival too much. Giving a bunch of hospitality tickets to the music industry in exchange for some free acts, letting Carlsberg sponsor but having all the bars cared for, Vodafone doing all their coms infrastructure - the BBC is part of that circus that keeps the good stuff going.

[incident]

For what it's worth, a couple other minor BBC related things from the same document. I don't think these should be controversial or have caused any issues but who knows? In terms of production schedule / deadlines:

 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Shakey d@bbing down cos he wanted to broadcast ads for Pono mid-set.

[Johnnyseven]

2 hours ago, Colorblindjames said:

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. 

 

I'm guessing that he assumed he'd get the same deal as he got last time, 5 songs on the beeb or whatever it was. I reckon what happened is that the GFL offered him x much cash and he was happy with the reduced fee based on x number of songs being shown on the telly but when the beeb started making demands for the whole set and rights to re-show it anytime they please he wasn't happy with that for the [reduced] fee GFL were going to pay him. From what little I know about NY I know he very much likes to control his catalogue, so giving up the rights to one of his live performances in perpetuity worldwide for no extra cash coming his way when it's shown was just not something he was prepared to do, which is fair enough in my view.

Edited Thursday at 12:25 PM by Johnnyseven

[Barneym]

I love Glastonbury and have no strong opinions about what NY has said as we don’t and probably never will know the real reason, although broadcasting the whole show seems most likely if he objected to this before.

 

but those of you saying the festival hasn’t got more commercial over the years are kidding yourselves, I’ve noticed a massive change and have only been going since 2013, yes it’s still way less commercial than a Reading or APE but it’s there and noticeable all the time now. The final straw for me would be if they ever change their alcohol policy and try to limit what you can bring in, despite the fact I’m now at the stage where I buy most of my beer I think that would be such a fundamental change, anyway one for another thread. I probably wasn’t going to see NY anyway but I think it’s a shame. Let’s go and get Oasis 😉

[incident]

5 minutes ago, Barneym said:

but those of you saying the festival hasn’t got more commercial over the years are kidding yourselves, I’ve noticed a massive change and have only been going since 2013, yes it’s still way less commercial than a Reading or APE but it’s there and noticeable all the time now.

 

Maybe missing the point slightly there.

 

Compared to 2013? Yes, it is more commercial. For sure.

 

Compared to late 90s and the 00s? Much less so, and we were poking fun at the "back in my day" people who choose to forget that.

 

Starting with the 2010 festival, the Festival made a noticeable effort to get rid of a lot of the unnecessary brands that had found their way on site. Those places we namechecked earlier - none of them were made up, and that list was nowhere near exhaustive. But yeah, since the pandemic it's swung back in the other direction a fair bit.

Edited Thursday at 12:10 PM by incident

[Barneym]

2 minutes ago, incident said:

 

Maybe missing the point slightly there.

 

Compared to 2013? Yes, it is more commercial. For sure.

 

Compared to late 90s and the 00s? Much less so, and we were poking fun at the "back in my day" people who choose to forget that.

 

Starting with the 2010 festival, the Festival made a noticeable effort to get rid of a lot of the unnecessary brands that had found their way on site. Those places we namechecked earlier - none of them were made up, and that list was nowhere near exhaustive. But yeah, since the pandemic it's swung back in the other direction a fair bit.

Maybe yeah I can comment pre 2013 just what I’ve noticed in the last 10 years and the last 2 I’d say especially. Also coincided with it getting too busy which at least partially seems to be down to extra corporate tickets if what I read on here is right.

[Colorblindjames]

NY seems to have linked the commercial aspect to the BBC in his statement. Since in the UK the bbc is a non-commercial service (or it’s supposed to be) my guess is it’s the worldwide, resale and streaming aspects that must have pissed him off. What companies does the bbc sell Glasto coverage to? 

[The Nal]

7 minutes ago, incident said:

Starting with the 2010 festival, the Festival made a noticeable effort to get rid of a lot of the unnecessary brands that had found their way on site. 

 

I remember this nonsense happening in 2010. As I was shaking my head.

 

Glastonbury: Are you in the world's most tagged photograph?

 

Edited Thursday at 12:17 PM by The Nal