Artists payments for Glastonbury

[st dan]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

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. 

I fully get where you’re coming from, and maybe I’m playing devils advocate here, but is it any different to a Sunday league footballer playing for their local side for free until they hopefully get spotted and move to a non-league club where they then start to get paid small fees, with the intention of one day making it to the Premier League?
There is a argument to be had that if the bands and artists were talented enough, then they would earn their slots on the bigger stages, and the associated fees that come with it. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by st dan

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

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. 

I agree that playing for the thrill shouldn't be expected but playing for a festival ticket is perfectly good compensation to me for some bands lower down the bill. Do we think the litter pickers, wristband checkers, toilet cleaners are being exploited? If so how come so many on here apply for this hoping it will happen. Doing a set or 2 over 5 days for a £245 ticket actually seems a decent form of compensation to me. 

The alternative would be to be paid but leave the festival allowing for more paying punters to come in and if that were the case I'd guess the pay per band member would be less than £245. 

[Hugh Jass]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

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. 

It doesn't feel that exploitative to me, isn't doing low paid gigs for exposure just part of being an act starting at the bottom? If they're getting a ticket then you can argue they are effectively being paid to the value of £250 for 30-40 minutes work. And if that 30-40 minutes goes well then there will be further opportunities off the back of it. The live music industry is a meritocracy in that the good acts rise up through the ranks, but they all need to start somewhere.

The alternative is to give them £200 each but they must arrive on site an hour before their set and leave immediately afterwards.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

I fully get where you’re coming from, and maybe I’m playing devils advocate here, but is it any different to a Sunday league footballer playing for their local side for free until they hopefully get spotted and move to a non-league club where they then start to get paid small fees. With the intention of one day making it to the Premier League.
There is a argument to be had that if the bands and artists were talented enough, then they would earn their slots on the bigger stages, and the associated fees that come with it. 

It always seem to be football clubs/festival bosses/music industry bosses who benefits from that argument though. Id argue we lose more talented people who leave those industries because they cant afford to carry on!

 

A lot of places offer 'exposure' to get labour for free. Im disappointed glasto seems to be in that camp here

[Hugh Jass]

Just now, zahidf said:

It always seem to be football clubs/festival bosses/music industry bosses who benefits from that argument though. Id argue we lose more talented people who leave those industries because they cant afford to carry on!

 

A lot of places offer 'exposure' to get labour for free. Im disappointed glasto seems to be in that camp here

It's not FREE though, they get a ticket. As pointed out above, it's no different to the litter pickers, wristband checkers, etc.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

It doesn't feel that exploitative to me, isn't doing low paid gigs for exposure just part of being an act starting at the bottom? If they're getting a ticket then you can argue they are effectively being paid to the value of £250 for 30-40 minutes work. And if that 30-40 minutes goes well then there will be further opportunities off the back of it. The live music industry is a meritocracy in that the good acts rise up through the ranks, but they all need to start somewhere.

The alternative is to give them £200 each but they must arrive on site an hour before their set and leave immediately afterwards.

If thats the alternative, id be happier with that tbh. THe act can chose if they want to stay for the weekend or if they want to play their set and then go to another paying gig

 

I think its more the example its setting though. If glasto was paying all their acts, the acts would be able to use that as an example for other festivals who try to exploit them. Like with female representation on bills, Glasto needs to set an example. 

[Quark]

6 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Do we think the litter pickers, wristband checkers, toilet cleaners are being exploited? If so how come so many on here apply for this hoping it will happen. Doing a set or 2 over 5 days for a £245 ticket actually seems a decent form of compensation to me. 

If they're professional (or aspiring professionals) in that field, providing the service for free when it's something they'd normally be getting paid for, providing and transporting their own equipment, and in an industry that's a bit notorious for operating at a loss, then maybe!

EDIT: I'm not massively on one side or the other right now, but I do think this is a really interesting topic!

Edited April 13, 2021 by Quark

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It's not FREE though, they get a ticket. As pointed out above, it's no different to the litter pickers, wristband checkers, etc.

id argue volunteering for Oxfam is different to being an artist at the festival. The litter pickers arent doing it as their career!

Edited April 13, 2021 by zahidf

[st dan]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

If thats the alternative, id be happier with that tbh. THe act can chose if they want to stay for the weekend or if they want to play their set and then go to another paying gig

 

I think its more the example its setting though. If glasto was paying all their acts, the acts would be able to use that as an example for other festivals who try to exploit them. Like with female representation on bills, Glasto needs to set an example. 

Theoretically speaking, that might add another £50 to the cost of each ticket though. Would you be happy to pay that for a lot of smaller acts you’re never going to see?*

*(A Glastonbury forum probably isn’t the best place to ask this as the answer will be yes, but the point stands)

[Quark]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

id argue volunteering for Oxfam is different to being an artist at the festival. The litter pickers arent doing it as their career!

For balance though, if some artists are doing it specifically to get a ticket then that puts them in exactly the same bracket as the volunteers.

[gigpusher]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

If they're professional (or aspiring professionals) in that field, providing the service for free when it's something they'd normally be getting paid for, providing and transporting their own equipment, and in an industry that's a bit notorious for operating at a loss, then maybe!

But you are not providing it for free you are providing it for a ticket. The ticket is the payment and whilst we know that it's monetary value is circa £245 we all know it's real value is higher because of the scarcity. Every year some of us are desperately disappointed not to get a ticket. Amongst the litter pickers, toilet cleaners etc there will be people who get a much higher hourly rate in their every day jobs but they are happy to do it because they know the true value of the tickets is considerably higher than the monetary value. 

[gigpusher]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

id argue volunteering for Oxfam is different to being an artist at the festival. 

Let's be honest not all artists lower down the bill are of great quality I'd argue some of the Oxfam volunteers and litter pickers are providing a much more vital service 😄 

[Hugh Jass]

3 minutes ago, Quark said:

For balance though, if some artists are doing it specifically to get a ticket then that puts them in exactly the same bracket as the volunteers.

And that's my point, is it exploitation if artists are willingly doing it?

I'm sure there are artists who are hard done by and screwed by festivals bookers, even at Glastonbury, but saying they are all exploited is a little naive IMO.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, st dan said:

Theoretically speaking, that might add another £50 to the cost of each ticket though. Would you be happy to pay that for a lot of smaller acts you’re never going to see?*

*(A Glastonbury forum probably isn’t the best place to ask this as the answer will be yes, but the point stands)

that seems very high to pay an artist their normal rate for a gig...

But if thats the price to stop exploitation, then thats the price!

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

And that's my point, is it exploitation if artists are willingly doing it?

I'm sure there are artists who are hard done by and screwed by festivals bookers, even at Glastonbury, but saying they are all exploited is a little naive IMO.

If its a take or leave it situation that they can only get paid with a ticket, then yes, its exploitation.

If its the artists choice what they prefer, then it isnt exploitation. 

Even Smaller artists have other gigs that weekend they are paying. I doubt the majority of them will be hanging around for the whole 5 days!

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

that seems very high to pay an artist their normal rate for a gig...

But if thats the price to stop exploitation, then thats the price!

I suspect it would probably cost even more as I imagine most of the walkaround acts for theatre and circus fields etc probably do it for a ticket and if someone in a band has to get paid a fee then so should they. To be honest though you would basically end up with every tin pot artist from Bristol and the surrounding areas if you did insist on this though because there is no way a festival could afford travel expenses for bands that end up performing to 5 people who don't even care if they are on stage or not. 

[mattiloy]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

If thats the alternative, id be happier with that tbh. THe act can chose if they want to stay for the weekend or if they want to play their set and then go to another paying gig

 

I think its more the example its setting though. If glasto was paying all their acts, the acts would be able to use that as an example for other festivals who try to exploit them. Like with female representation on bills, Glasto needs to set an example. 

Disagree. The artist here also writes about that they always end up making a loss from a tour.

I have a mate who has a pub and he puts bands on and pays them but they aren’t making a big difference to his bottom line. He probably just about breaks even after paying them if they bring all their mates and they spend a bit at the bar.

I imagine most small independent bars/music venues are not exactly creaming it off the likes of summer camp playing there either.

There just isn’t enough money in it to be a small, amateur band and no way to square the circle because if they charged 30 quid a ticket, nobody would go.

You could argue that the intangible, cultural value of indie bands is greater than the amount that people want to actually pay for it and that the state should pay through arts councils and the like as it does with ballet and opera and all that.

[st dan]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

that seems very high to pay an artist their normal rate for a gig...

But if thats the price to stop exploitation, then thats the price!

Exploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

Does Glastonbury really benefit from booking these small bands in early slots, on small stages? They could quite simply not bother booking them at all as an alternative, but then who really wins in that scenario? It would just mean there are less acts booked each year, which makes it even harder for these smaller acts to get a leg in on the festival circuit, and their careers would then likely nosedive for that reason instead. 

[found home in 2009]

25 minutes ago, st dan said:

I fully get where you’re coming from, and maybe I’m playing devils advocate here, but is it any different to a Sunday league footballer playing for their local side for free until they hopefully get spotted and move to a non-league club where they then start to get paid small fees, with the intention of one day making it to the Premier League?
There is a argument to be had that if the bands and artists were talented enough, then they would earn their slots on the bigger stages, and the associated fees that come with it. 

Big difference is the local side wont be charging people money to watch the game.

[Quark]

3 minutes ago, st dan said:

Does Glastonbury really benefit from booking these small bands in early slots, on small stages?

As one of the big selling points to a lot of people is the fact that there's always something somewhere to watch, I think they do. Sure they could probably sell tickets based on the big stages and lose that stuff, but that's the festival they want to be.

[nikkic]

It’s normal for new band and artists to have to do a load of free gigs when they start out. 

If you’re good enough you’ll get noticed and climb the bill and get paid more.

There’s no secret in this. 

It’s life. 

Ed Sheeran busked for years before he got his big break.

Glasto offering a pittance or a ticket isn’t out of the ordinary. The major upside is that you get to play the best festival in the world. 

And if you don’t like the offer you can turn it down. 

[st dan]

Also - if Elizabeth and her band absolutely nailed her slot on WG, had some good songs, attracted a decent crowd and were booked as the opening act on John Peel the following year and then paid an appropriate fee, I’m not so sure she would be complaining about getting paid £0 for this one. It’s looking back in hindsight which make this seems more of an issue I think, as it looks like her career in the industry sadly fizzled out. 

[st dan]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

As one of the big selling points to a lot of people is the fact that there's always something somewhere to watch, I think they do. Sure they could probably sell tickets based on the big stages and lose that stuff, but that's the festival they want to be.

Yeah that’s a fair point, I’d just think given the situation here (and taking the fees aside) there are certainly more benefits for her in playing Glastonbury, than there are for Glastonbury booking her to play. 

[Quark]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Yeah that’s a fair point, I’d just think given the situation here (and taking the fees aside) there are certainly more benefits for her in playing Glastonbury, than there are for Glastonbury booking her to play. 

I think you're probably right tbf, just find this a really interesting topic. I think because it isn't a black and white situation, lost of nuance and grey areas.

I like nuance. Think they played WG just before her 😄

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

I think you're probably right tbf, just find this a really interesting topic. I think because it isn't a black and white situation, lost of nuance and grey areas.

I like nuance. Think they played WG just before her 😄

They were paid more too...