Neil Young

[SouthbanKen]

3 hours ago, ghostdancer1 said:

Yes, makes sense.

Not sure it makes sense for BBC to dig their heels in though.
GFL would go back and say "look, if we can't get around this, then he's not going to play, so we (and by extension you) have no headliner booked and have to come up with a sub-optimal headliner".
Do the BBC really need to retain rights to croaky old Neil Young's 2nd Glastonbury performance for international distribution 5 years after the fact? I think they'd prefer to take the hit and give up those rights than just not have him play. They'll still have the live and 30-day footage available....

If something was actually signed with an exception from the norm, then Young would just tell GFL to take it up with BBC as that's GFL's problem, not his.

 

Perhaps instead of continuing with negotiations, Young has just said "f**k it, I'm out", rather than playing chicken and seeing if BBC will cave.

With my very limited knowledge of TV, as I understand it they are all desperate for content and particularly content that can be reused and recut and repackaged (which live music is perfect for). I would imagine the beeb were keen not to set a precedent with NY for any future headliner to point to. 

[SouthbanKen]

2 hours ago, Skip997 said:

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

Both can be true. The fence saved the festival in terms of the license, the BBC centered the festival at the heart of British culture and saved it in terms of popularity and ticket sales. 

[Skip997]

Just now, SouthbanKen said:

Both can be true. The fence saved the festival in terms of the license, the BBC centered the festival at the heart of British culture and saved it in terms of popularity and ticket sales. 

The festival didn’t need centering in the heart of British culture, it would have been fine.

 

In fact I’d strongly argue that was the worst thing that’s happened to it. 

[Lemon T-wig]

18 minutes ago, SouthbanKen said:

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.
 

 

Well, the suspected theory is that the BBC HAVE dictated that unless Neil Young gives up his right to not have his whole set filmed with bits repeated whenever they like, he can't play the festival. 

Whole sets haven't been televised live for decades. The last time Neil played they showed about 5 of his songs. That's his precedent. You'd think they'd have remembered that.

You've interpreted this as him behaving immaturely. He's saying he's simply making his choice.

[Lemon T-wig]

8 minutes ago, SouthbanKen said:

Both can be true. The fence saved the festival in terms of the license, the BBC centered the festival at the heart of British culture and saved it in terms of popularity and ticket sales. 

I think the festival would sell out whether it's on tele or not. Live events have become increasingly popular even when not televised

[SouthbanKen]

1 minute ago, Lemon T-wig said:

Well, the suspected theory is that the BBC HAVE dictated that unless Neil Young gives up his right to not have his whole set filmed with bits repeated whenever they like, he can't play the festival. 

Whole sets haven't been televised live for decades. The last time Neil played they showed about 5 of his songs. That's his precedent. You'd think they'd have remembered that.

You've interpreted this as him behaving immaturely. He's saying he's simply making his choice.

No, he’s not simply making his choice. If he was simply making his choice we wouldn’t know about any of this. His statement WAS him behaving immaturely. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t exist or it would have read something like this. 
 

I’d love to play Glastonbury, but I don’t want my full set to be on the bbc, I’d like to protect the specialness of a one off live event. But that is part of the deal that the festival wants. It’s a shame we can’t get to a place we all agree on, but I understand their view and they understand mine. I hope everyone has a great festival. 
 

oh, and it’s not the bbc dictating content. It’s the festival upholding their broadcast agreement that they signed and presumably believe is more beneficial to them than a one off performance by NY. 

[SPW]

9 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

 

If anything, their Jumbotron thing (and the wristbands) shows they very much care about prioritising the experience of the folk there in the field.

 

You could argue Dua Lipa's smaller stage worked better for the audience at home than for the bigger crowd - but it was very much in keeping with the nightclub aesthetics of the whole performance. 

I agree. There's a reasonable chance I'd not have gone to the Coldplay set if it wasn't for my wife wanting to go but I was glad I did despite not being a fan. I thought their set centred on the crowd and was one of the most engaging sets of the weekend. Now, obviously their hugely produced show works well as a speactacle for TV but was at a friend's when on NYE when the BBC replayed the set after the NY fireworks etc. Those friends who had watched on TV at the time commented that it had caught their attention because of the crowd interaction and reaction which I thought was a good measure.

 

As for NY, as someone currently ticketless for this yr not sure how I feel about him not performing but struck me as odd for him to 'pull out' when I'd assume any broadcast requirements would be clear upfront before appearing even becomes a possibility. So feels a bit odd to me that he felt the need to call it out. 

Edited Thursday at 08:31 PM by SPW

[CaledonianGonzo]

The festival has been televised for far longer and far more frequently than it ever existed as untelevised event.  If you think it ruined it then you're writing off 3/4s of its history.

[SouthbanKen]

15 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The festival didn’t need centering in the heart of British culture, it would have been fine.

 

In fact I’d strongly argue that was the worst thing that’s happened to it. 

Fair do’s. That’s a matter of opinion. 

 

7 minutes ago, Lemon T-wig said:

I think the festival would sell out whether it's on tele or not. Live events have become increasingly popular even when not televised

I think it would sell out without being televised in the short term, but I would question whether it would have survived (certainly at its new massive scale).
 

Would it have survived this long, paying the cheap rates, providing the charitable donations, with the 1,000s of volunteers, as an independent venture, still attracting the biggest acts in the world without a corporate sponsor through the Covid closures. That’s a bigger question to me than, would it sell out today with the rise in popularity of live events and an annual 3 day advert on the most popular tv channel in the country. 
 

Essentially, I suppose my belief is that the BBC partnership is the best of the available options. Continuing as it was simply wasn’t an option. 

[SouthbanKen]

13 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The festival has been televised for far longer and far more frequently than it ever existed as untelevised event.  If you think it ruined it then you're writing off 3/4s of its history.

Out of upvotes. Good point tho. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

As soon as Nic Roeg set up his camera in 1971 it was the beginning of the end.

 

 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, SouthbanKen said:

Fair do’s. That’s a matter of opinion. 

 

I think it would sell out without being televised in the short term, but I would question whether it would have survived (certainly at its new massive scale).
 

Would it have survived this long, paying the cheap rates, providing the charitable donations, with the 1,000s of volunteers, as an independent venture, still attracting the biggest acts in the world without a corporate sponsor through the Covid closures. That’s a bigger question to me than, would it sell out today with the rise in popularity of live events and an annual 3 day advert on the most popular tv channel in the country. 
 

Essentially, I suppose my belief is that the BBC partnership is the best of the available options. Continuing as it was simply wasn’t an option. 

Without TV coverage it’s highly unlikely it would have become anywhere near as big as it has. 
 

It wouldn’t have required so many staff or as much infrastructure. The demographic would be very different and wouldn’t demand or think they “need” the world’s biggest stars. 
 

Continuing as it was certainly was an option, although the super fence was needed, which kinda illustrates why it would have been fine, we didn’t need to TV to tell us what to attend.

 

Personal experience tells me that just as much, if not more, fun can be had at smaller events, they’re certainly more comfortable.

 

Big acts aren’t necessarily better. Try some of the smaller events and be surprised as the headliner you’ve never heard of “blows your mind”

 

I’ve said before, but an “out of control monster” has been created and there’s no obvious way to put it back in its box: 

 

Re Glastonbury getting almost uncontrollably big, I often think “just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should”

[Madyaker]

Old man behaves like child. Considering his track record I shouldn’t be surprised. 

[Suprefan]

34 minutes ago, Lemon T-wig said:

I think the festival would sell out whether it's on tele or not. Live events have become increasingly popular even when not televised

 

Remember that its still gate kept from the rest of the world. The BBC keeps all this footage literally to themselves. The event would def be viewed much differently if in the current world of streaming it was literally open to anyone to watch. Broadcasting to one country is a big hindrance in the big picture. Theres a new revenue stream to be had but they dont want to even dip into it which is madness. When they had the livestream event in 2021 they made a pretty penny but somehow never thought to try it with the festival. Blown chance right there. If I needed to I wouldnt take issue paying £20 to watch all the channels live and direct over the course of the festival. Plenty of people would. I mean there def would be some illegal streaming happening anyone when one person buys and just shows it on twitch but thats happening anyway. And their viewership nimbers might be skewed a little anyone with people who use vpns to watch live anyway. But they dont seem to care.

 

Like Im sorry but Coachella being shown on youtube in its entirety both weekends for free and for anyone makes a much larger impression and gets people to want to go to the event. Excitement builds for the second weekend because everyone saw what happened and now cant wait to see it themselves. And a bump in ticket sales happens. The ad buys are big and the revenue is too. And every artist gets to have clips put back on youtube and monetized. Some get to have their entire set put on their channel with a license for a certain amount of time. That benefits everyone involved. Google aint stupid. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

10 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

Old man behaves like child. Considering his track record I shouldn’t be surprised. 

 

Or, at the risk of summoning Rainier Wolfcastle dot jpeg, this actual record

 

https://youtu.be/3B9JvtIQx80?si=nfA6ydRC27pFIFbk

 

[Madyaker]

16 minutes ago, Suprefan said:

 

Remember that its still gate kept from the rest of the world. The BBC keeps all this footage literally to themselves. The event would def be viewed much differently if in the current world of streaming it was literally open to anyone to watch. Broadcasting to one country is a big hindrance in the big picture. Theres a new revenue stream to be had but they dont want to even dip into it which is madness. When they had the livestream event in 2021 they made a pretty penny but somehow never thought to try it with the festival. Blown chance right there. If I needed to I wouldnt take issue paying £20 to watch all the channels live and direct over the course of the festival. Plenty of people would. I mean there def would be some illegal streaming happening anyone when one person buys and just shows it on twitch but thats happening anyway. And their viewership nimbers might be skewed a little anyone with people who use vpns to watch live anyway. But they dont seem to care.

 

Like Im sorry but Coachella being shown on youtube in its entirety both weekends for free and for anyone makes a much larger impression and gets people to want to go to the event. Excitement builds for the second weekend because everyone saw what happened and now cant wait to see it themselves. And a bump in ticket sales happens. The ad buys are big and the revenue is too. And every artist gets to have clips put back on youtube and monetized. Some get to have their entire set put on their channel with a license for a certain amount of time. That benefits everyone involved. Google aint stupid. 

I totally agree. They broadcast all this amazing music live. Then you can watch it for another 30 days on YouTube but only if you’re in the UK (vpn shenanigans aside) After that the BBC just sit on all this amazing footage and do absolutely nothing with it, and to what end? It’s never made any sense to me.  

[Colorblindjames]

1 hour ago, SouthbanKen said:

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. 

Really that says more about you than NY. To put the Eagles the Jam and Clapton ahead of NY is bizarre. 

[Colorblindjames]

Let’s step back a bit. One of the greatest artists of the last century wants to do your festival and the BBC put him off can’t be right. Surely thats bonkers. 

[Colorblindjames]

1 hour ago, SouthbanKen said:

No, he’s not simply making his choice. If he was simply making his choice we wouldn’t know about any of this. His statement WAS him behaving immaturely. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t exist or it would have read something like this. 
 

I’d love to play Glastonbury, but I don’t want my full set to be on the bbc, I’d like to protect the specialness of a one off live event. But that is part of the deal that the festival wants. It’s a shame we can’t get to a place we all agree on, but I understand their view and they understand mine. I hope everyone has a great festival. 
 

oh, and it’s not the bbc dictating content. It’s the festival upholding their broadcast agreement that they signed and presumably believe is more beneficial to them than a one off performance by NY. 

You are letting business get in the way of art. That has to be wrong. 

Edited Thursday at 09:38 PM by Colorblindjames

[judyblue110]

32 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

Old man behaves like child. Considering his track record I shouldn’t be surprised. 

 

Still yet to see the childish stuff, has more happened since a NY's initial post?

[judyblue110]

4 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

Let’s step back a bit. One of the greatest artists of the last century wants to do your festival and the BBC put him off can’t be right. Surely thats bonkers. 

 

Great point. Lot of strong reactions to this topic but if you take a step back, it is totally bizarre.

 

If an act doesn't want their set to be televised, then that should be accepted and everyone should move on. Those individuals will be in a tiny minority anyway.

[Superscally]

9 hours ago, incident said:

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:

 

 

Seems like a ballache. Don't blame him.

6 hours 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.

Correct.

5 hours ago, Skip997 said:

Good way to put it, at least re the Pyramid. 
 

If it does come to something along the lines of “ Glastonbury Carling” then I’m out and almost certainly regardless of choice. The “old school” will no longer be invited. 
 

A couple of years back my immediate boss suggested to ME that we might lose the Green Fields one day. His response was “not while I’m alive”. But once he’s gone….

This is my fear.

5 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. 

Amen.

1 hour ago, SouthbanKen said:

No, he’s not simply making his choice. If he was simply making his choice we wouldn’t know about any of this. His statement WAS him behaving immaturely. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t exist or it would have read something like this. 
 

I’d love to play Glastonbury, but I don’t want my full set to be on the bbc, I’d like to protect the specialness of a one off live event. But that is part of the deal that the festival wants. It’s a shame we can’t get to a place we all agree on, but I understand their view and they understand mine. I hope everyone has a great festival. 
 

oh, and it’s not the bbc dictating content. It’s the festival upholding their broadcast agreement that they signed and presumably believe is more beneficial to them than a one off performance by NY. 

He might not be being immature at all. This could be a chess move. 

[Suprefan]

22 minutes ago, Madyaker said:

I totally agree. They broadcast all this amazing music live. Then you can watch it for another 30 days on YouTube but only if you’re in the UK (vpn shenanigans aside) After that the BBC just sit on all this amazing footage and do absolutely nothing with it, and to what end? It’s never made any sense to me.  

I mean it happens to everyone, but the older stuff gets trickier due to years passing by and labels changing and who holds what copyright. Thats where its a grey area. But in the end, they literally show off thei snoberry by not making it oen to everyone despite others taking charge. I remember a bunch of streaming links for Elton and GnR when they played. Def would be a huge thing if Taylor did it also and Bbc didnt open up the performance.

[Lycra]

27 minutes ago, judyblue110 said:

 

Great point. Lot of strong reactions to this topic but if you take a step back, it is totally bizarre.

 

If an act doesn't want their set to be televised, then that should be accepted and everyone should move on. Those individuals will be in a tiny minority anyway.

Surely artists have a duty to all the fans who haven't been able to get tickets. Otherwise its just f**k you!

[Colorblindjames]

18 minutes ago, Lycra said:

Surely artists have a duty to all the fans who haven't been able to get tickets. Otherwise its just f**k you!

He’s also on tour.