Neil Young

[incident]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

When did they start televising because up until about 1990 there were open drug sales including stalls with price lists. Up until the super fence there was a lot of proper crime inc mugging, tent robbery, inter gang violence inc a shooting. 

 

MTV in 1993. C4 in 1994. BBC in 1997.

[kerplunk]

1 hour ago, Colorblindjames said:

The BBC are a public service broadcaster not a commercial channel. They should be there to observe Glastonbury not dictate content. They should definitely be showing flexibility here not blocking the performance of a major artist. 

 

Everyody's guessing. It could be GFL taking a view on it - agree to be broadcast like everyone else or don't come

[Keithy]

1 minute ago, incident said:

 

I've never got that impression - there's a crazy number of stages at Glastonbury and the BBC only cover what, 6 of them? Very easy to avoid and I usually do without trying.

 

Even the "field" pieces from the more interesting parts of the site seem to have become less and less frequent over the years as they've ramped up the on-stage coverage so you're less likely to bump into them in Green Futures than you would have been 15 years back..

Fair point. Perhaps it's because I spend a lot of time in Park where the main BBC base is. 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, incident said:

 

MTV in 1993. C4 in 1994. BBC in 1997.

Thanks 

 

There was plenty of seriously “dodgy” stuff, in the minds of the local dissenters, going on in 93 and 94

[stuie]

4 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

When did they start televising because up until about 1990 there were open drug sales including stalls with price lists. Up until the super fence there was a lot of proper crime inc mugging, tent robbery, inter gang violence inc a shooting. 

BBC first live broadcast in 1997, so a couple of festivals before the super fence. 

 

The two things together cleaned the place up apparently.  Only some old school types remained, apparently 😉 

[incident]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Thanks 

 

There was plenty of seriously “dodgy” stuff, in the minds of the local dissenters, going on in 93 and 94

 

To be fair, the MTV coverage from 1993 wouldn't capture anything dodgy. Aside from the on-stage footage, watching the interviews and features you get the impression that they never bothered to leave Interstage.

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Only some old school types remained, apparently 😉

 

 

We’re hanging on in there for now 🤪

[Keithy]

Neil's 'corporate rage' would be easier to understand if hadnt sold 50% of his back catalogue to an investment firm. The flip side, as he argued at the time, was that it meant he didn't have to do anything he didn't want to do. 

 

 

[Lemon T-wig]

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

BBC first live broadcast in 1997, so a couple of festivals before the super fence. 

 

The two things together cleaned the place up apparently.  Only some old school types remained, apparently 😉 

Channel 4 tried it before the BBC, and it was so bad, thankfully they stopped doing it

[Lemon T-wig]

5 minutes ago, Keithy said:

Neil's 'corporate rage' would be easier to understand if hadnt sold 50% of his back catalogue to an investment firm. The flip side, as he argued at the time, was that it meant he didn't have to do anything he didn't want to do. 

 

 

His life. His choice

[Lemon T-wig]

14 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Thanks 

 

There was plenty of seriously “dodgy” stuff, in the minds of the local dissenters, going on in 93 and 94

So many people got in for free, the overcrowding was getting seriously dangerous. And there was tons of thieving going on.
I'm not sure the BBC saved the festival. I think the fence did.

[incident]

Just now, Lemon T-wig said:

Channel 4 tried it before the BBC, and it was so bad, thankfully they stopped doing it

 

Strongly disagree with it being bad.

 

It felt more amateurish, but arguably that was more in tune with the festival itself whereas the subsequent BBC coverage felt a lot more staid (especially on the main channels). A lot of the C4 footage from 94 & 95 is online and still worth going back to occasionally. A particular highlight is Keith Allen doing a feature on a "cyber cafe" that someone set up, and doing every "The Internet? That'll never catch on!" cliche in the book.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Not a fan of the extant C4 footage. It's ramshackle charm may be for some, but I'd rather be watching footage of the acts than sitting through Mark Lamarr playing around with a model of the festival site.

 

You only have to watch the Coachella livestream to see what the Beeb bring to the table.

[Skip997]

3 minutes ago, Lemon T-wig said:

So many people got in for free, the overcrowding was getting seriously dangerous. And there was tons of thieving going on.
I'm not sure the BBC saved the festival. I think the fence did.

As you say it is more likely that the fence saved it

[Lemon T-wig]

5 minutes ago, incident said:

 

Strongly disagree with it being bad.

 

It felt more amateurish, but arguably that was more in tune with the festival itself whereas the subsequent BBC coverage felt a lot more staid (especially on the main channels). A lot of the C4 footage from 94 & 95 is online and still worth going back to occasionally. A particular highlight is Keith Allen doing a feature on a "cyber cafe" that someone set up, and doing every "The Internet? That'll never catch on!" cliche in the book.

It was crap. The sound was a mess half the time. I remember watching one act and hearing a different one. The mix was bad. They didn't seem to know what they were doing. They're the same with any outside broadcast... music, sport, anything

Edited Thursday at 05:57 PM by Lemon T-wig
spelling

[CaledonianGonzo]

The one that's not Alexis Petridis has some thoughts

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/whos-going-to-in-119161451?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

 

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Statement appears to have been taken down.. 

[ghostdancer1]

4 minutes ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Statement appears to have been taken down.. 

Yep
https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/2/article?id=Music - GLASTONBURY


Although maybe that's just a bug because the website appears to have been designed in the early 90s....

[dotdash79]

4 hours 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 its not the end of the world.

The Land Rover deal is the worst one blatant greenwashing and it ruins the festival reputation. 

[henry bear]

Scandalous that a festival held on a dairy farm should allow Land Rovers on site

[Jamm]

20 minutes ago, ghostdancer1 said:

Yep
https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/2/article?id=Music - GLASTONBURY


Although maybe that's just a bug because the website appears to have been designed in the early 90s....

Weird, it came off and went back up yesterday so not thinking too much into it.

 

Surely the statement was enough of a burnt bridge, and didn’t make BBC acquiesce? Although wouldn’t be the first time a festival has bent to his whim.

[Suprefan]

2 hours ago, Avalon_Fields said:

The way I was told last year (by the professional photographers working the festival) is the headliners now have the power to fully control the images produced, so much so that increasingly the acts stipulate who has access to the pit and exclusively okay only their own approved photographers, whereas in previous times the festival held the upper hand, so it seems the festival has lost control of both image rights to the big acts and film rights to the BBC, which seems inconsistent!

 

Domestically speaking from experience Ive had to deal with that for years at fest big AND small. Its not just the big acts and events who control the access us photogs get. Theres also the waivers we have to sign. Seen plenty of people not photograph an artist because the document you sign gives them full control of what youre about to produce. And Ive had lots of times when at a small fest an artist playing mid afternoon said no photos. Its just the first youre seeing at Glasto where thats happening so it seems strange when prior it was just open and a non issue

[SouthbanKen]

4 hours ago, Colorblindjames said:

You reckon all U30s think music started in the 00s? 

no, but NY isn’t anywhere near as culturally relevant in the UK as a lot of other heritage acts, say the stones, Beatles, Bowie, Eagles, Clapton, the Jam, the kinks, Joplin, Hendrix, are all people I listened to growing up (42). My only NY reference point is a cover of Hey Hey My My on an oasis Bside. 

[SouthbanKen]

3 hours ago, Colorblindjames said:

The BBC are a public service broadcaster not a commercial channel. They should be there to observe Glastonbury not dictate content. They should definitely be showing flexibility here not blocking the performance of a major artist. 

The BBC aren’t dictating anything. The festival have signed an agreement with them which massively benefits the festival and helps it sell out every year and helps them book a load of other artists on the cheap and helps them fund millions in charity donations. 

 

The bbc haven’t blocked anything. One artist has got sniffy and thrown his toys out the pram because the event is televised, which it has been for literally decades.
 

If you don’t like it, stick your ticket back in the pot.
 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Wait - Janis Joplin?