Neil Young

[GhostOfMaurice]

13 hours 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.

 

He's the last of a dying breed.

[tigger123]

I totally get that the BBC broadcast agreement helps keep the artist fees low and the calibre of acts high and that this also then helps prevent them having to raise ticket prices even further, but it still feels a bit wrong that as someone who is actually paying for a ticket, the experience we could have had is taken away in order to allow those watching for free at home the opportunity to watch the gig. 

 

I wasn't even planning to see NY if truth be told but the principle still stands and it just doesn't quite sit right with me (assuming we take NY's statement at face value). To be clear I don't know what the alternative is whilst still avoiding loads of corporate partnerships/sponsorship, more just giving my gut feel to the situation.

 

I always think there is something quite magical when big gigs happen and they're not televised (think Led Zep reunion at the O2, Prince's intimate London gigs etc) and also in a similar vein but on a smaller scale, the banning of phones on dancefloors, which although not the same is pretty similar in my opinion. The magic happens for those there at that time and actually part of the magic is trying to hazily recall it rather than then being able to watch it back on TV and seeing it all packaged in a nice shiny box with a bow wrapped around it. I think these sort of special 'living in the moment' occasions become more and more important as we become ever more transfixed with always being connected on social media, glued to our phones etc so I doth my cap to NY on this occasion

[FKA SOSOTWS]

5 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

I totally get that the BBC broadcast agreement helps keep the artist fees low and the calibre of acts high and that this also then helps prevent them having to raise ticket prices even further, but it still feels a bit wrong that as someone who is actually paying for a ticket, the experience we could have had is taken away in order to allow those watching for free at home the opportunity to watch the gig. 

 

I wasn't even planning to see NY if truth be told but the principle still stands and it just doesn't quite sit right with me (assuming we take NY's statement at face value). To be clear I don't know what the alternative is whilst still avoiding loads of corporate partnerships/sponsorship, more just giving my gut feel to the situation.

 

I always think there is something quite magical when big gigs happen and they're not televised (think Led Zep reunion at the O2, Prince's intimate London gigs etc) and also in a similar vein but on a smaller scale, the banning of phones on dancefloors, which although not the same is pretty similar in my opinion. The magic happens for those there at that time and actually part of the magic is trying to hazily recall it rather than then being able to watch it back on TV and seeing it all packaged in a nice shiny box with a bow wrapped around it. I think these sort of special 'living in the moment' occasions become more and more important as we become ever more transfixed with always being connected on social media, glued to our phones etc so I doth my cap to NY on this occasion

 

Led Zeppelin reunion at the O2 was filmed and released commercially. I also don't think that the BBC broadcasts are in any way comparable to actually being present at the fest. 

[tigger123]

2 minutes ago, FKA SOSOTWS said:

 

Led Zeppelin reunion at the O2 was filmed and released commercially. I also don't think that the BBC broadcasts are in any way comparable to actually being present at the fest. 

Fair point around the Led Zep being filmed, I wasn't aware of that so a bad example for me to give.

 

However I never said that the broadcasts are comparable to being present at the festival

[Lemon T-wig]

3 hours 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. 

You don't show much evidence of having an understanding of what Glastonbury is about.

 

Yes, it could make lots more money through sponsorship, maybe streaming, all kinds of things. But it isn't about the money. It gives most of its profits away to charities. This is probably why Neil Young likes the festival in the first place. The fact that the TV rights are free for UK viewers will undoubtedly be why they let the BBC broadcast it.

 

Besides the fact that the logistics of broadcasting it are monumental. Who else could do it as effectively?

[Lemon T-wig]

3 hours 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. 

So, because he didn't say what you think he should have (even though the reality isn't that different( you accuse him of behaving immaturely?

[Lemon T-wig]

40 minutes ago, tigger123 said:

I totally get that the BBC broadcast agreement helps keep the artist fees low and the calibre of acts high and that this also then helps prevent them having to raise ticket prices even further, but it still feels a bit wrong that as someone who is actually paying for a ticket, the experience we could have had is taken away in order to allow those watching for free at home the opportunity to watch the gig. 

 

I wasn't even planning to see NY if truth be told but the principle still stands and it just doesn't quite sit right with me (assuming we take NY's statement at face value). To be clear I don't know what the alternative is whilst still avoiding loads of corporate partnerships/sponsorship, more just giving my gut feel to the situation.

 

I always think there is something quite magical when big gigs happen and they're not televised (think Led Zep reunion at the O2, Prince's intimate London gigs etc) and also in a similar vein but on a smaller scale, the banning of phones on dancefloors, which although not the same is pretty similar in my opinion. The magic happens for those there at that time and actually part of the magic is trying to hazily recall it rather than then being able to watch it back on TV and seeing it all packaged in a nice shiny box with a bow wrapped around it. I think these sort of special 'living in the moment' occasions become more and more important as we become ever more transfixed with always being connected on social media, glued to our phones etc so I doth my cap to NY on this occasion

I agree.

 

The alternative would have been to let Neil have a say in which parts of his set were televised. It's relatively recently that it's been assumed that most main acts would have their whole set broadcast live.

[Drew3232]

1 hour ago, tigger123 said:

Fair point around the Led Zep being filmed, I wasn't aware of that so a bad example for me to give.

 

However I never said that the broadcasts are comparable to being present at the festival

it wasn’t released until years afterwards.

[TheDayman]

Calling out the festival for being too corporate because of the BBC is a stretch.

 

Now if he had mentioned Melvin Benn's involvement......

Edited Friday at 01:59 AM by TheDayman

[CharlotteB]

11 hours ago, Skip997 said:

The festival doesn’t need to be televised 

 

Well no, you don't need to televise anything 😅

[judyblue110]

8 hours 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!

 

But noone who bought Glastonbury tickets did so with the expectation they would see Neil Young...

[judyblue110]

The statement has now been taken down from Neil's site... interesting!

 

However, NYA is known to be a bit glitchy - it could easily reappear in an hour.

[CaledonianGonzo]

I think it vanished and came back once before already. Wasn't there when I went to look for it a couple of days back when the news broke.

 

If it stays gone maybe it was a chess move after all, but at this point I dunno if I'd read too much into it.

[Ortiz34]

Obviously any artist has the right to not appear if the contractual terms do not suit them but do not understand the need to publicise decision especially when you have not been confirmed as playing and reason given is so nebulous.

 

storm in teacup with no one coming out of it smelling of roses. Shame and unnecessary.

[Franky]

Good! I’m glad he’s not playing. I’m getting kinda fed up with GF trying to book aging stars who are decades past their best. 
 

Book someone relevant ffs. 
 

 

 

 

 

Like the KLF (yes I know, I know). 

[-TLR-]

25 minutes ago, Ortiz34 said:

Obviously any artist has the right to not appear if the contractual terms do not suit them but do not understand the need to publicise decision especially when you have not been confirmed as playing and reason given is so nebulous.

 

storm in teacup with no one coming out of it smelling of roses. Shame and unnecessary.

 

don't agree.

 

if you're artistic integrity is being compromised by the demands of a broadcasting corporation then i think it is in the wider interest to publicise it.

 

as i said before, i couldn't care less about Neil Young, but i say good on him.

 

[FloopFiller]

Although there’s a chance that something has been sorted out behind the scenes which is why the statement had been taken down, I find it hard to believe that something could be sorted out now post-statement that couldn’t have been sorted before he threw a paddy and called out the festival. Think the more likely scenario is he’s either seen it get exposure and decided that was enough, or realised the hypocrisy in his statement given the other shows he’s lined up to play (BST for example) and took it down out of embarrassment.
 

It’s pretty obvious his whole issue is with the streaming rights and him not wanting to hand them all over to the BBC/have the full thing broadcast but obviously that would’ve looked a bit of a lame argument on his side so he had to blow it out of proportion a bit.

 

Here’s hoping something has been sorted, although does seem like a bridge had been burnt. 

[-TLR-]

12 hours 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. 

 

how on earth did the BBC "save" the festival in terms of popularity.

 

if anything, the BBC (and Channel 4) is what will have caused its downfall.

[h12101]

6 minutes ago, -TLR- said:

 

how on earth did the BBC "save" the festival in terms of popularity.

 

Like it or not, there's an argument that the BBC coverage is the virtually the sole reason for the popularity of Glastonbury at this point.

[-TLR-]

Just now, h12101 said:

 

Like it or not, there's an argument that the BBC coverage is the virtually the sole reason for the popularity of Glastonbury at this point.

 

impossible to know.

 

are you able to see the statistics from an alternate timeline where they did not let in the TV cameras?

 

 

[damo101]

18 minutes ago, FloopFiller said:

Although there’s a chance that something has been sorted out behind the scenes which is why the statement had been taken down, I find it hard to believe that something could be sorted out now post-statement that couldn’t have been sorted before he threw a paddy and called out the festival. Think the more likely scenario is he’s either seen it get exposure and decided that was enough, or realised the hypocrisy in his statement given the other shows he’s lined up to play (BST for example) and took it down out of embarrassment.
 

It’s pretty obvious his whole issue is with the streaming rights and him not wanting to hand them all over to the BBC/have the full thing broadcast but obviously that would’ve looked a bit of a lame argument on his side so he had to blow it out of proportion a bit.

 

Here’s hoping something has been sorted, although does seem like a bridge had been burnt. 

If it’s been resolved there might be an announcement soon. 
id be delighted if they did tbh

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 minutes ago, -TLR- said:

 

impossible to know.

 

are you able to see the statistics from an alternate timeline where they did not let in the TV cameras?

 

 

 

What is true is that it's now a symbiotic relationship, for a better or worse - and claims that the BBC has either ruined the festival or kept it alive are probably hyperbole on both sides.

[h12101]

2 minutes ago, -TLR- said:

 

impossible to know.

 

are you able to see the statistics from an alternate timeline where they did not let in the TV cameras?

 

 

 

It's always had completely disporpotional coverage to other festivals/events (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/06/bbc-staff-glastonbury-world-cup-brazil-2014), due to being a favourite of the higher ups in the BBC.

 

The visibility provided to the "general public" is unmatched. It has a huge impact on the number of Instagram influencer/non-traditional festival goer types applying for tickets.

[CaledonianGonzo]

4 minutes ago, h12101 said:

 

It's always had completely disporpotional coverage to other festivals/events (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/06/bbc-staff-glastonbury-world-cup-brazil-2014), due to being a favourite of the higher ups in the BBC.

 

The visibility provided to the "general public" is unmatched. It has a huge impact on the number of Instagram influencer/non-traditional festival goer types applying for tickets.

 

This doesn't really help the argument that the BBC broadcasting the festival is no bad thing.

[tomf3]

The BBC coverage has almost certainly allowed the festival to book bigger acts whilst paying very low fees. WIthout that I don't see how people like Stevie Wonder, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Jay Z etc. would give it a second thought. 
It has probably also led to influencers etc treating it as such an important event to attend which has arguably ruined it somewhat but kept it relevant. 
Without the BBC it probably would have kept going at a smaller scale, but the festival would not necessarily have been able to put money into things such as the SEC, Arcadia etc. so I think it's a double edged sword