Report

Sorry @judyblue110, that's a bit snappish from me. Had a rotten night of sleep and feeling a bit grouchy this morning.

By taking it public. He's got no reason I can figure other than disappointment and frustration to wish to air those grievances - otherwise, why stick the laundry on the line?   We can interpret him as sticking to his status as an "outspoken" performer, but the whole phrasing of his intent just makes him seem like a bit of a sore individual. "Corporate", you say, Neil? Was Desert Trip a not-for-profit knees-up then?   I completely get not wanting any of his set broadcast, but unless he was given assurances before even getting to the stage of negotiations where you want to go public and say you "pulled out", then somebody has either sold him a duffer on the promotional side or he's not read the fine print himself.   Emily Eavis wasn't exactly going to come out in The Guardian next week without this and say "Oh, we tried to get Neil Young but the git backed out because we wanted to show his tunes on the telly", is she?   Good on Neil for sticking to those beliefs for control of his live product - which, having sold his music rights, may be all he has? - but it just didn't feel necessary.   A friend suggested he's going to announce his tour next week and that this may have been a ploy to get a few column inches and online chatter to going to juice sales. (I disagree with that idea personally, but not one to be discounted.)

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.

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. 

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.