Neil Young

[kalifire]

IMO, there’s obviously more to it than ‘Neil decided to be against the thing that was obviously in play for weeks if not months earlier’. He’s being disingenuous at best. 
 

Just a theory but maybe he took exception to the notion that he might step aside if a headliner they’d prefer to play would agree. I mean, it’s a reach but so are his comments about why “he” decided not to play. 

Edited Thursday at 12:46 PM by kalifire

[mungo57]

1 hour ago, cheesey_toastie said:

Prince? 

That happened yeah, but I don't recall Prince publicly pulling out.

 

[shuttlep]

No big loss for me , or I suspect anyone under 30 who wants to go to the festival

[Skip997]

1 hour ago, 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.

Could well explain some of the ridiculous scheduling on the Pyramid in particular 

 

Interesting discussion anyway. Makes my decision to spend as little time as possible in “Babylon” all the more justified (from a personal POV)

Edited Thursday at 01:06 PM by Skip997

[Jamm]

Look. Guys. I can only apologise for the almighty jinxing.

 

1 hour 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.

 

My working theory is initial negotiations with Glastonbury were around the blurring of these lines, and an agreement was struck between Young and Glastonbury with them believing they could sway the BBC. But as time dragged on Glastonbury couldn’t get anyway negotiating with the BBC hence they had to go back to Neil and renege on the initial agreement and admitted they couldn’t meet the terms.

 

Fundamentally believe the TV / Streaming / Worldwide sales ability is the crux of his issue - but to be “booked” and then for him to publicly denounce whatever happened. It’s more than his team just didn’t read the document. Has to be the above for me, that there were attempts to bend the rules but BBC wouldn’t agree and forced the festivals hand.

 

Whole thing is just really sour. I sincerely hope he does more than one UK date, and it isn’t during Glastonbury week. I’ll be unfathomably pissed off if after he pulled out of Glastonbury and then I can’t even go to his own date.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Jamm said:

But as time dragged on Glastonbury couldn’t get anyway negotiating with the BBC 

Glastonbury shouldn’t be dictated to by the BBC, it should be the other way round 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

1 hour 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. 

 

I agree. One of the festival's perceived selling points in previous years was a lack of obvious corporate sponsorship, but those days are over. The number of competitions to win tickets has risen dramatically over the past few years. Sure, commercial material may not be plastered all over the walls of the festival when you're there but during the three or four months leading up to it, it feels like there's a new "official partner" every week. I'm not necessarily against it per se (apart from the more competition entries there are, the fewer tickets available in the sale) but let's not kid ourselves and think that the festival isn't beyond selling a certain part of its soul out and hasn't been for some time. Maybe it's just the way it is and in the current climate of artists seemingly preferring to place more importance on their own stadium shows ahead of a Glastonbury appearance, in order to book the calibre of heritage/megastar artists they've booked in the last 25 years, a little more commerciality is a necessary evil? If you don't like that direction, maybe it's time to look elsewhere to an event that matches your ethics?

 

I don't think we're far off a carefully selected significant sponsorship deal, no doubt they've been approached by a large number of interested parties over the years but have been in a strong position to decline. Is that something they might have to consider in order to safeguard the festival? And how would everyone feel about that? [enter company here] presents Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts?

 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Post Brexit and Covid we live in a very different economic environment to the one we did 8 years ago.  If a few unobtrusive deals like White Claw and Land Rover are necessary for the festival to survive and keep its head above water its not the end of the world.

[kalifire]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Post Brexit and Covid we live in a very different economic environment to the one we did 8 years ago.  If a few unobtrusive deals like White Claw and Land Rover are necessary for the festival to survive and keep its head above water it’s or not the end of the world.

For sure. There’s a chasm between relatively discreet mobile charging stations and stages sponsored by corporations. As a general rule of thumb, if the most prolific placement you’re giving any organisation are the NFP charities you’re supporting, yer Neil Young’s don’t really have an argument. 

[UncleJunior]

2 hours ago, 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.

They essentially are influencing the bill if the festival can’t book acts who won’t be televised

[steviewevie]

nationalise Glastonbury.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, UncleJunior said:

They essentially are influencing the bill if the festival can’t book acts who won’t be televised

 

Seems to be a first though - and I'd assume would only factor in for headliners.

[The Nal]

The Revolution (Blues) will not be televised. 

[incident]

4 minutes ago, UncleJunior said:

They essentially are influencing the bill if the festival can’t book acts who won’t be televised

 

The vast majority of acts want to be televised though. It's often the reason why the Festival gets away with paying acts far being their normal rate. Neil Young is very much an outlier on this.

[UncleJunior]

3 minutes ago, incident said:

 

The vast majority of acts want to be televised though. It's often the reason why the Festival gets away with paying acts far being their normal rate. Neil Young is very much an outlier on this.

Sure, but it’s a shame if they’ve lost the booking because the bbc won’t budge.

[Gnomicide]

He should go on first, no BBC cameras are on then, problem solved.

[incident]

Just now, UncleJunior said:

Sure, but it’s a shame if they’ve lost the booking because the bbc won’t budge.

 

We'll likely never know exactly how it breaks down, but I would expect any "blame" there goes at least equally onto the festival. The broadcast terms will have at minimum been signed off by the festival, and very likely written with full cooperation by them.

[CharlotteB]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

Glastonbury shouldn’t be dictated to by the BBC, it should be the other way round 

 

Glasto should buy a few cameras and have their own streaming service. 

[judyblue110]

2 hours ago, kalifire said:

IMO, there’s obviously more to it than ‘Neil decided to be against the thing that was obviously in play for weeks if not months earlier’. He’s being disingenuous at best. 
 

Just a theory but maybe he took exception to the notion that he might step aside if a headliner they’d prefer to play would agree. I mean, it’s a reach but so are his comments about why “he” decided not to play. 

 

Swing and a miss.

[shuttlep]

I think he's being a bot of a self indulgent bell end. he cant get what he wanted ... he must always get what he wants, so I am going to pull out .. then complain on line and stamp my feet as I didn't get what i wanted,

 

fair enough, if you don't get what you want pull out , leave it at that. why attack the festival , he wasn't even announced. he is being like a child stamping his feet , good riddance

[lazyred]

It was always said the bands reached a separate deal with the BBC. In 2013 it was reported the Stones wanted to show 4 songs and then allowed an hour after negotiations.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jun/20/rolling-stones-hour-glastonbury

 

When did it change so the BBC rights were part of the festival contract?

 

[The Nal]

2 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

I think he's being a bot of a self indulgent bell end. he cant get what he wanted ... he must always get what he wants, so I am going to pull out .. then complain on line and stamp my feet as I didn't get what i wanted,

 

fair enough, if you don't get what you want pull out , leave it at that. why attack the festival , he wasn't even announced. he is being like a child stamping his feet , good riddance

 

Neil has refused to release his own albums at the last minute if he doesnt feel it.

 

He got a whiff of BS from the Glasto situation and decided it wasnt for him and took (another) dig at corporations interfering with music too on the way out the door. Fair play to him.  

 

We need more people like him.

[Keithy]

3 hours 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.

I can see why that final bullet point might be problematic for some artists, particularly in an era where touring is the only way to make money. You're effectively been asked to give away your live show for a small performance fee and the Beeb get the rights to broadcast your live show for free whenever they like. 

 

Fwiw, I've increasingly had the feeling over the last 5 years or so that we're becoming props for the TV broadcast, certainly on the main stages. The secret sets should (IMHO) be for the people there, not the millions on tv. Killers in JP was a right treat and felt special.... Until you got home and found it was all on TV and all a bit staged as a 'surprise'... It was no longer a little story to tell on your return about the killers doing a set etc but rather people saying to you "oh the killers looked good on TV, etc" 

[kalifire]

7 minutes ago, The Nal said:

 

Neil has refused to release his own albums at the last minute if he doesnt feel it.

 

He got a whiff of BS from the Glasto situation and decided it wasnt for him and took (another) dig at corporations interfering with music too on the way out the door. Fair play to him.  

 

We need more people like him.

Curious as to your reason to believe that other than it’s what you’d like to?

[-TLR-]

every year it just seems to feel more and more like Glastonbury is nothing more than a reality TV show by the BBC...