Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Artists payments for Glastonbury


zahidf

Recommended Posts

I'm very shocked at that. I know the headliners don't get paid but I thought that the other artists were paid. Unless some artists opt for a full 5 day ticket in lieu of payment I'd get that as it would still count as a payment and one I'd happily accept if I was in a small band. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

I'm very shocked at that. I know the headliners don't get paid but I thought that the other artists were paid. Unless some artists opt for a full 5 day ticket in lieu of payment I'd get that as it would still count as a payment and one I'd happily accept if I was in a small band. 

I dunno...I think they should be paying the artist properly and not just with a ticker for the gig they are playing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends who you are, and what stage(s) you are playing I guess?

I'm not familiar with the artist/band in question, but if they played any of the stages outside the big 7/8 it's probably likely that they received x amount of tickets per band member x gigs played on site.

I know this is partly why Fontaines DC played about 5 gigs at the last festival, because they wanted the extra tickets for friends and family to come with them for the weekend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who this person is, so googled them.  It seems like she is in a band called Summer Camp and as far as I can tell, they played Williams Green for 40 minutes on Friday afternoon in 2014.  Am I missing something?  Why is this an issue they feel the need to call out now?  Presumably they got festival tickets and were happy with that at the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be a fan and I don’t think they ever climbed above playing quite small venues so you’d expect their pay for somewhere like Glastonbury who is known for paying lower than other festivals would be quite minimal, but I dunno... getting paid zero seems off. 

They (according to setlist.fm) haven’t played since 2014 so seems odd she’s bringing it up unless there’s something going on in the Twitter-verse that’s spurred it on, but like others have said here, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of the much smaller acts get offered free tickets in return for their services. I can’t imagine they would’ve played higher than maybe early doors Park.

edit: or Williams Green it seems!

Edited by FloorFiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skelts said:

I don't know who this person is, so googled them.  It seems like she is in a band called Summer Camp and as far as I can tell, they played Williams Green for 40 minutes on Friday afternoon in 2014.  Am I missing something?  Why is this an issue they feel the need to call out now?  Presumably they got festival tickets and were happy with that at the time?

Elizabeth is talking about how little bands get paid for touring generally. She was doing a budget for Summer Camp’s planned tour in November and said how they’ve lost money on every one they’ve been on.

Trying to show how tough it is for any musician to make money. The Glastonbury comment came from a wider conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Elizabeth is talking about how little bands get paid for touring generally. She was doing a budget for Summer Camp’s planned tour in November and said how they’ve lost money on every one they’ve been on.

Trying to show how tough it is for any musician to make money. The Glastonbury comment came from a wider conversation.

Ok, fair enough, I don't really do Twitter so not aware of any wider context.  Just seemed a bit odd to be raising something 7 years after the event

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

I thought it well known that smaller acts got very little for playing?

You play to get noticed, not to get rich.

Well, yes and no.

The whole thing of artists being asked to perform at zero fee for the concept of exposure has been rubbished quite a bit in general.  Are we just more willing to overlook it because it's Glastonbury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I dunno...I think they should be paying the artist properly and not just with a ticker for the gig they are playing!

Yes but if you had the option of a day pass for the day you are playing (as they only played for 40 minutes on one day) and 2 hours pay or a 5 day pass for the festival I think if I was in a small band I'd take the 5 day pass and that would be a far bigger payment than I would really be due. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Yes but if you had the option of a day pass for the day you are playing (as they only played for 40 minutes on one day) and 2 hours pay or a 5 day pass for the festival I think if I was in a small band I'd take the 5 day pass and that would be a far bigger payment than I would really be due. 

I don't know if it can be anything other than a 5 day pass if you are playing an early day. Short of impounding your vehicle, what are they going to do to get you off site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

I don't know if it can be anything other than a 5 day pass if you are playing an early day. Short of impounding your vehicle, what are they going to do to get you off site?

Plenty of people leave early even in normal car parks so there's always the ability for people to come and go for as many days as they wish. I didn't think there was any obligation on acts to stay for the duration of the festival. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Plenty of people leave early even in normal car parks so there's always the ability for people to come and go for as many days as they wish. I didn't think there was any obligation on acts to stay for the duration of the festival. 

I get that, I'm thinking the other way round. Is there a one day artists pass i.e. you're playing Friday, you need to be gone Saturday? I'd have thought the option was if you have an artists pass, you can automatically stay for the weekend if you want.

I've read loads of accounts of acts camping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quark said:

Well, yes and no.

The whole thing of artists being asked to perform at zero fee for the concept of exposure has been rubbished quite a bit in general.  Are we just more willing to overlook it because it's Glastonbury?

 

Basically yes. The face value of the ticket for a twopiece as they are (and possibly they got some more for pals idk) is surely by a magnitude greater than they’d make off a cut of shifting 30-50 tickets at 8 quid a pop at the dog and duck.
 

Bands like this are ten a penny and to be frank are never gonna hit the big time, not really gonna make a living from it so they are not professional musicians in my book. So to actually play Glastonbury and get free tickets is a career high IMO.

+ they agreed too! If they were that arsed about it at the time, Why not say no?

 

Ultimately festivals are built to be good value for customers. If you paid a normal gig ticket price for every band you watched while there, the festival ticket would have to be about 500 quid.

Edited by mattiloy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it would have been known that there was no fee at the time of booking though?
If she didn’t like that or didn’t think it was fair, then couldn’t she have just declined the offer of playing? Whether that is fair or not is a different matter, but not sure you can take the offer and then complain about it, knowing full well what the offer was beforehand. 

Edited by st dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back a way, but my friend's band definitely didn't get paid when they use to play back in the early noughties. They seemed to suggest it was standard for bands of their size (pretty small). 

43 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I'm very shocked at that. I know the headliners don't get paid but I thought that the other artists were paid. Unless some artists opt for a full 5 day ticket in lieu of payment I'd get that as it would still count as a payment and one I'd happily accept if I was in a small band. 

The headliners do get paid don't they? Thought it was just a bit less than other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zoo Music Girl said:

Going back a way, but my friend's band definitely didn't get paid when they use to play back in the early noughties. They seemed to suggest it was standard for bands of their size (pretty small). 

The headliners do get paid don't they? Thought it was just a bit less than other places.

Sorry I meant that a lot of them refuse payment and if you are big enough and able to do that it is great as the proceeds of the  festival go to charity. I know a few bigger artists in recent years have not take payment and Fatboy Slim is obviously famous for never cashing a Glastonbury cheque. 

I do also think playing for a ticket is perfectly reasonable recompense for many artists let's face it, it's considerably easier that 3 or 4 8 hours shifts cleaning toilets, checking wristbands etc and I would give anything to be able to do a short gig of any description for a full festival ticket. The other option is they do get paid but that they only get to stay for the time they are playing and so allow Glastonbury to have a larger capacity to sell tickets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Quark said:

Well, yes and no.

The whole thing of artists being asked to perform at zero fee for the concept of exposure has been rubbished quite a bit in general.  Are we just more willing to overlook it because it's Glastonbury?

A fair point, but at the same time they're booked to play early doors WG to probably three people, a dog and a guy who is still passed out in the tent from the night before. How much would they realistically expect to earn from the gig? Some will play for free for the sheer thrill of playing at the world's biggest festival, some will do it for the exposure, some will do it for the tickets...

I fully appreciate that even artists have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc and to some it is just a job, but those would have been the terms offered when they were booked to play. They could have told them to stuff their offer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

A fair point, but at the same time they're booked to play early doors WG to probably three people, a dog and a guy who is still passed out in the tent from the night before. How much would they realistically expect to earn from the gig? Some will play for free for the sheer thrill of playing at the world's biggest festival, some will do it for the exposure, some will do it for the tickets...

I fully appreciate that even artists have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc and to some it is just a job, but those would have been the terms offered when they were booked to play. They could have told them to stuff their offer. 

Its the bolded elements which feels exploitative to me. I appreciate its a wider music industry issue, but i would have hoped Glasto would be above all that!

 

And yes, they can always refuse the festivals terms, but that means no music career in all likelihood, ( again, not limited to glasto but refusing to pay all festivals). And if you cant afford to play tours/festivals, then it just becomes a rich persons hobby rather than a career 

As the industry leader, i think glasto should be setting a good example for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

Basically yes. The face value of the ticket for a twopiece as they are (and possibly they got some more for pals idk) is surely by a magnitude greater than they’d make off a cut of shifting 30-50 tickets at 8 quid a pop at the dog and duck.
 

Bands like this are ten a penny and to be frank are never gonna hit the big time, not really gonna make a living from it so they are not professional musicians in my book. So to actually play Glastonbury and get free tickets is a career high IMO.

+ they agreed too! If they were that arsed about it at the time, Why not say no?

 

Ultimately festivals are built to be good value for customers. If you paid a normal gig ticket price for every band you watched while there, the festival ticket would have to be about 500 quid.

 

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

A fair point, but at the same time they're booked to play early doors WG to probably three people, a dog and a guy who is still passed out in the tent from the night before. How much would they realistically expect to earn from the gig? Some will play for free for the sheer thrill of playing at the world's biggest festival, some will do it for the exposure, some will do it for the tickets...

I fully appreciate that even artists have bills to pay, kids to feed, etc and to some it is just a job, but those would have been the terms offered when they were booked to play. They could have told them to stuff their offer. 

Don't disagree with any of that.  What I was (badly) getting at was the wider concept of artists getting asked to perform for free at places (whether it be festivals or functions or whatever) at zero fee because it will give them exposure.

When I say about overlooking it because it's Glastonbury, that's probably the wrong wording.  If bands are getting access to the festival and essentially a free ticket for an hour's work, yep you can argue that's not bad.

However, the argument that festivals represent value for money to the punter isn't necessarily the right way to look at it.  If you replace festivals with clothing, and bands with factory workers, that's an area where there's a strong argument against it being necessary so as to ensure value for money to the customer.

I know that's a big leap, and a band playing an hour at Glastonbury isn't remotely the same as someone stuck in a sweatshop getting paid pennies to make jeans, but the question about a fair price for what you do still remains, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...