CONCERT REPORT: Glastonbury (June 29)

[the end]

Mark radcliff and Jo whiley were just discussing LC's performances, they said it was amazing. Acording to MR the performace wasn't filmed as Cohen finds the cameras off putting, if thats true then I don't see why they couldn't just have had one camera located off the stage

[secretchord]

Acording to MR the performace wasn't filmed as Cohen finds the cameras off putting, if thats true then I don't see why they couldn't just have had one camera located off the stage

I suppose that puts a different perspective on it, Leonard is pretty shy as we know but what the heck, if you can perform on stage in front of thousands of people you wouldn't have thought a few cameras would make much difference

but if that was the genuine reason then that's up to Leonard and he's the man

[confetti]

well I can understand if there were a couple of cameras on stage with him doing close ups etc, it would be irritating, however, the filming at the Dublin concert was not intrusive and surely the BBC could have made a compromise and filmed from the same positions.

[brokenhill]

I suspect this is more to do with rights etc. Didn't wassname flog all his rights to Sony. Whatever, thank heavens for this board, I've been channel hopping for 2 hours now, but can go to bed now! Phew!

[beckysharpe]

Having a huge stack of cd's, cassettes and LP's, I am more than annoyed. Annoyed that I have held him in such high regard for more years than I'm prepared to tell anyone, and then he dumps on all his fans by refusing to be filmed. Don't blame his lawyers - it was his decision, you can be sure. I'm not going to bin everything right now, but I can't really imagine enjoying listening to him again now we see the man behind the music. Certainly I'd have bought whatever DVD there might have been - but not now.

And as for Mean Fiddler, Michael Eavis and the BBC - wtf were they playing at not ensuring that every act signed a contract agreeing to be filmed? As a publicly-funded corporation why is the BBC covering an event and letting their coverage be limited by individual performers t&c? The huge publicity they generate is worth a fortune and with Leonard Cohen a headliner what are we all doing funding coverage that is conditional upon the performers not throwing a wobbly? No wonder Michael Eavis looked so shaky this evening.

I have seldom been so angry and disappointed. It's pretty well beyond belief in the crassness of the judgement.

[the end]

Acording to MR the performace wasn't filmed as Cohen finds the cameras off putting, if thats true then I don't see why they couldn't just have had one camera located off the stage

I suppose that puts a different perspective on it, Leonard is pretty shy as we know but what the heck, if you can perform on stage in front of thousands of people you wouldn't have thought a few cameras would make much difference

but if that was the genuine reason then that's up to Leonard and he's the man

MR might just have been saying that to be diplomatic, wouldn't sound very good to say 'Its not being filmed so the record company can flog you an overpriced dvd in a few months time'

[hydriot]

Let's calm down, folks!

The broadcast of one concert, even one at Glastonbury, isn't going to bring many more new fans to Leonard's work: once their interest is aroused, most will come to him via the many YouTube clips available.

Secondly, I don't believe 'shyness' has anything to do with it. What Leonard will want is to have editorial control of any footage.

Thirdly, I reckon, so far, Leonard's management hasn't put a foot wrong. This is an amazing world tour that has been put together, one that most of us doubted we would ever see, given Leonard's age. It's marvellous to see Sharon Robinson on stage with Leonard again, and the Webb Sisters are a real find, as is Javier Mas. Many of us thought £75 was too much for seats, yet virtually every concert has been sold-out. Again and again, our doubts have proved unfounded, and managements' decisions have been shown to be sound.

So let's credit his management with having some good reason for not allowing the show to be recorded and broadcast. Given that the Glastonbury set-list was two-thirds of the concert set-list, this sort of prohibition would make sense if a DVD is to be issued, for any commercial filmmaker will demand exclusive access. That's to say, while there is no information that I am aware of about the possiility of a DVD, I think the likelihood that a DVD is being planned has now shot up to at least 90%, for that is the most logical explanation for the prohibition.

When I first read that Leonard's Glastonbury set was not going to be broadcast, I was angry with the BBC, imagining that they didn't appreciate the stature of the man. Now that it is clear that it was Leonard's decision, I am content to trust his wisdom.

[confetti]

Having a huge stack of cd's, cassettes and LP's, I am more than annoyed. Annoyed that I have held him in such high regard for more years than I'm prepared to tell anyone, and then he dumps on all his fans by refusing to be filmed. Don't blame his lawyers - it was his decision, you can be sure. I'm not going to bin everything right now, but I can't really imagine enjoying listening to him again now we see the man behind the music. Certainly I'd have bought whatever DVD there might have been - but not now.

And as for Mean Fiddler, Michael Eavis and the BBC - wtf were they playing at not ensuring that every act signed a contract agreeing to be filmed? As a publicly-funded corporation why is the BBC covering an event and letting their coverage be limited by individual performers t&c? The huge publicity they generate is worth a fortune and with Leonard Cohen a headliner what are we all doing funding coverage that is conditional upon the performers not throwing a wobbly? No wonder Michael Eavis looked so shaky this evening.

I have seldom been so angry and disappointed. It's pretty well beyond belief in the crassness of the judgement.

you will get over it tomorrow, you can't just dump someone over one decision. I am disappointed, I just wish the BBC had mentioned sooner that he wasn't going to be on, as I left a "gathering" early to watch it.

[Caillte]

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing Leonard or his management could do to stop me loving his music. However I think this was a very bad decision, and I believe a huge opportunity missed to spread his beautiful words to a new generation. And no I don't trust the wisdom of his management who after all are more concerned with their slice of the pie.

[honeyrose]

Have any of the other headliners this year "chosen not to be filmed" at Glastonbury?

I think it is a mistake, assuming it is his decision and not his management's, it makes him look petulant.
I prefer to think there must be some (misguided) legal reason behind it.


Honeyrose

[secretchord]

this is a hard one to call without having direct access to the people who made the decision but I can't believe that showing footage of Leonard would make any difference to sales of a tour DVD unless to increase them due to more people watning to buy as result so that means that the reason given on air was the correct one, but then apparently the Dublin concerts were filmed?

I don't get it but I'm no less disappointed for that, given the profile of both Glastonbury itself and also the BBC coverage of it surely it's a commercial/artistic own-goal to deny filming

[beckysharpe]

Having a huge stack of cd's, cassettes and LP's, I am more than annoyed. Annoyed that I have held him in such high regard for more years than I'm prepared to tell anyone, and then he dumps on all his fans by refusing to be filmed. Don't blame his lawyers - it was his decision, you can be sure. I'm not going to bin everything right now, but I can't really imagine enjoying listening to him again now we see the man behind the music. Certainly I'd have bought whatever DVD there might have been - but not now.

And as for Mean Fiddler, Michael Eavis and the BBC - wtf were they playing at not ensuring that every act signed a contract agreeing to be filmed? As a publicly-funded corporation why is the BBC covering an event and letting their coverage be limited by individual performers t&c? The huge publicity they generate is worth a fortune and with Leonard Cohen a headliner what are we all doing funding coverage that is conditional upon the performers not throwing a wobbly? No wonder Michael Eavis looked so shaky this evening.

I have seldom been so angry and disappointed. It's pretty well beyond belief in the crassness of the judgement.

you will get over it tomorrow, you can't just dump someone over one decision. I am disappointed, I just wish the BBC had mentioned sooner that he wasn't going to be on, as I left a "gathering" early to watch it.

I won't get over it tomorrow; it's a contradiction of his public persona, and blocking the cameras has never, ever happened before. If a judgement is made that cash comes ahead of the people who have been buying his music for decades then I've made my judgement too.

[beckysharpe]

Have any of the other headliners this year "chosen not to be filmed" at Glastonbury?

I think it is a mistake, assuming it is his decision and not his management's, it makes him look petulant.
I prefer to think there must be some (misguided) legal reason behind it.


Honeyrose

Most of the Glasto's for the last fifteen years have been covered by our family and this is a first, certainly as far as the headliners go. But I have never heard of it before.

[honeyrose]

Leonard "chosing not to be filmed" also raises an interesting angle from the BBC's point of view. They presumably paid for the rights to film all the Glasto performers, not just those who chose to be filmed, as a lot might refuse if given the option. I agree with whoever said you would expect it to be in their contracts.

I wonder how Leonard managed to get some exemption from this? Seems very odd and makes me even more certain there has been a row and that there is some legal issue behind it. Maybe his managers have reserved exclusive rights to being filmed/recorded on this tour for someone else, or for their own use. Maybe it was not included in his contract as he was a fairly late addition to the programme and when this was realised, his management said it would cost extra, and the BBC refused to pay. I hope that is not the reason, as it would show Leonard in a grasping and mercenary light.

One thing I don't buy is the view it was because he is shy of being filmed. The most favourable interpretation is that he has gotten cranky, although he doesn't sound it in interviews. Maybe we will get some insight into this which clears it up, like for example it is due to the legal ramifications of the dodgy deal his ex manager did with Sony. I certainly hope there is a good explanation.

[tiggs]

hydriot.... I think like the management and record company executives and all suits who have no idea about the real world, the management have got this one wrong. ( does leonard know ) Its a matter of principle and one that they have misjudged soo wrong.
My sister who was a student teacher at the time gave up a lot of drinking money in the early 70's to buy me my first Cohen album and introduce me to the man. Since then he has been an intimate part of my life and a role model that very few could emulate.
People can go on forever about how wonderful it is to have him back on the road and the sharon robinson thing etc etc., but after the boll**ks that was glastonbury, I'm beginning to wish he had not come back on tour and that wonderful dream that I have had for more than 30 years had not been shattered......
I will never stop loving the mans music and beautiful poetry, but I fear a small part of what he meant to me has been lost and that is very frightening.
One by one the guests arrive, but unfortunately because of legal and monetary restraints we cannot see them.... as for the DVD if it ever comes out , for the first time ever I think I will be downloading it