Artists payments for Glastonbury

[Leyrulion]

It would be interesting to know how different stages do it. If there's consistency of they take a different approach due to the budget. 

Instinctively I think transport and a weekend pass would be fair payment for lesser acts but have no idea where I'd draw that line.

[sadimmock]

I'm going to avoid discussing the Summer Camp example for a number of reasons, however I really don't see the problem with acts lower down the bill being paid in tickets/expenses, especially when the festival donates so much to charity. 

It's probably not viable to pay some of these smaller acts what they would consider a going rate, so it's either this approach, a massive cost-hike, a reduction in the charitable donations or those stages get deleted. I think that this is the least-worst option. 

[gigpusher]

1 hour ago, sadimmock said:

I'm going to avoid discussing the Summer Camp example for a number of reasons, however I really don't see the problem with acts lower down the bill being paid in tickets/expenses, especially when the festival donates so much to charity. 

It's probably not viable to pay some of these smaller acts what they would consider a going rate, so it's either this approach, a massive cost-hike, a reduction in the charitable donations or those stages get deleted. I think that this is the least-worst option. 

Yes it's definitely as @Quark says a situation with nuance. I personally don't believe in working for free or for exposure as a rule however when it's for charity it is a little different and also when you get tickets for an event that people with your interests would kill for it also seems fair payment. It would be good to see more bigger acts reduce their fees to ensure smaller acts could get more of a piece of the pie (I know lots already do but I'd happily never see a band at Glastonbury who demands over the odds money like the Rolling Stones did)

I appreciate that some people won't play if it means having to give up actual paying gigs to be there but I still think playing a gig or 2 for a ticket beats shifts cleaning toilets or litter picking so if we accept that is ok I don't think we can really say that artists are being exploited any more than most people who work at the festival for the weekend of the festival. 

[philipsteak]

10 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Yes it's definitely as @Quark says a situation with nuance. I personally don't believe in working for free or for exposure as a rule however when it's for charity it is a little different and also when you get tickets for an event that people with your interests would kill for it also seems fair payment. It would be good to see more bigger acts reduce their fees to ensure smaller acts could get more of a piece of the pie (I know lots already do but I'd happily never see a band at Glastonbury who demands over the odds money like the Rolling Stones did)

I appreciate that some people won't play if it means having to give up actual paying gigs to be there but I still think playing a gig or 2 for a ticket beats shifts cleaning toilets or litter picking so if we accept that is ok I don't think we can really say that artists are being exploited any more than most people who work at the festival for the weekend of the festival. 

 

It is a bit different with the litter picker/toilet cleaner/wristband checker because the work done is being paid for (to the charity or organisation providing these services) its just the person doing the work isn't being paid other than for the ticket/perks.

[priest17]

The people who work the festival angle isn't the same as the artist angle, they're very clearly signing up for volunteer roles and, typically, aren't trying to make a living from litter picking or wristband checking. 

[Losing my hair]

In reality, for a small band/performer free tickets for the weekend is worth more than their normal fee for a gig. I suspect that many of these performer tickets are then sold on to the unofficial glamping companies, probably at a mark up. Companies such as Hello Front Row advertise their accommodation along with tickets which "are reserved for press, performers and the music industry and VIP guests" which they can only have obtained on a black market.

The issue is not that Glastonbury pays them nothing but that fees are so low that a band will make more from merch sales at the end of the night than from the fee. - an option that they don't have at Glastonbury. I have no idea, though, how to fix this. Bands are even more reliant on touring than before because their income from record sales/downloads is so low.

[gigpusher]

17 minutes ago, Losing my hair said:

In reality, for a small band/performer free tickets for the weekend is worth more than their normal fee for a gig. I suspect that many of these performer tickets are then sold on to the unofficial glamping companies, probably at a mark up. Companies such as Hello Front Row advertise their accommodation along with tickets which "are reserved for press, performers and the music industry and VIP guests" which they can only have obtained on a black market.

The issue is not that Glastonbury pays them nothing but that fees are so low that a band will make more from merch sales at the end of the night than from the fee. - an option that they don't have at Glastonbury. I have no idea, though, how to fix this. Bands are even more reliant on touring than before because their income from record sales/downloads is so low.

I've seen a few bands sell merch at Glastonbury. Not sure if it's allowed officially or whether they just turn a blind eye to it.

The problem with music is that it doesn't fill the normal perameters of how we pay workers. I've been following the Broken Record campaign on Twitter and every solution people come up with there are ways it could be manipulated. Part of this issue is because they are not paid properly for the recorded music there is an over reliance on live music money. If we could fix streaming music revenue chances are none of this would be a problem in the first place. Back in the 80's most bands made a loss on touring (unless they had great merch) but it didn't matter because they had huge recording contracts and record sales was where the money was made. It's why I have my known vinyl problem (and I don't get around to playing most of it honestly!) but especially in the last year I feel that physically buying their music is the only way we can help artists survive. 

[Losing my hair]

1 minute ago, gigpusher said:

I've seen a few bands sell merch at Glastonbury. Not sure if it's allowed officially or whether they just turn a blind eye to it.

The problem with music is that it doesn't fill the normal perameters of how we pay workers. I've been following the Broken Record campaign on Twitter and every solution people come up with there are ways it could be manipulated. Part of this issue is because they are not paid properly for the recorded music there is an over reliance on live music money. If we could fix streaming music revenue chances are none of this would be a problem in the first place. Back in the 80's most bands made a loss on touring (unless they had great merch) but it didn't matter because they had huge recording contracts and record sales was where the money was made. It's why I have my known vinyl problem (and I don't get around to playing most of it honestly!) but especially in the last year I feel that physically buying their music is the only way we can help artists survive. 

It's also why I have a collection of band t-shirts.

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, Losing my hair said:

It's also why I have a collection of band t-shirts.

Yes I probably would have more of them as well if I didn't hate buying things at actual gigs. I hate having to carry them around but I did recently buy a Self Esteem one when I heard how much she struggled to just make costs meet on her tour and I bought a Billy Nomates one as a set with the vinyl. 

[Quark]

I'm a sucker for a gig t-shirt. Although I do still draw the line on ones that are clearly terrible to look at 😄

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

It would be interesting to know how different stages do it. If there's consistency of they take a different approach due to the budget. 

i kmow that JohnPeel Stage paid Blackbud £500 as stage opener. a slot they got by winning the emerging talent competition and it was the biggest fee they'd ever had for a show at the time.

8 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

Instinctively I think transport and a weekend pass would be fair payment for lesser acts but have no idea where I'd draw that line.

 

[DeanoL]

On 4/13/2021 at 10:21 AM, gigpusher said:

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?

They are paid  - it's just the money is donated to Oxfam or whoever. That's why it's volunteering for charity and done via charities, rather than volunteering directly for the festival.

So yes, the litter pickers etc. are paid more than most of the bands lower down on the line up.

It's hard to discuss it on here because for most of us a free ticket for Glastonbury is one of the most valuable things in the world, but it's not going to be that way for everyone. Performers have lives, other gigs, families, children etc. And it's rare they even get given enough free tickets to take the whole family. And they're not booked until well after tickets have been sold so it's not like they can even turn it into a holiday by getting tickets for the family. And of course, at the low end like this where bands are expected to perform for free, they will, inevitably, have day jobs, as you have to live. So taking a few extra days leave for a festival that you're only going to as you have free tickets, without your partner, when actually you really need to be saving those leave days for when you're on tour because it'd be nice to actually have some left over to go away somewhere with your family at some point...

It's also not even about the practicalities so much as the message you send. If you don't pay someone, it's akin to saying what they're doing isn't worth anything. And that's really not true. It doesn't have to be loads, but you could pay 1350 performers/bands £100 for £135000, or £1 on everyone's ticket. £100 will hardly change their lives, but it sends a message that performers are valued and Glastonbury won't expect people to play for free. It's also a fraction of what they donate to charity every year.

[gigpusher]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

They are paid  - it's just the money is donated to Oxfam or whoever. That's why it's volunteering for charity and done via charities, rather than volunteering directly for the festival.

So yes, the litter pickers etc. are paid more than most of the bands lower down on the line up.

It's hard to discuss it on here because for most of us a free ticket for Glastonbury is one of the most valuable things in the world, but it's not going to be that way for everyone. Performers have lives, other gigs, families, children etc. And it's rare they even get given enough free tickets to take the whole family. And they're not booked until well after tickets have been sold so it's not like they can even turn it into a holiday by getting tickets for the family. And of course, at the low end like this where bands are expected to perform for free, they will, inevitably, have day jobs, as you have to live. So taking a few extra days leave for a festival that you're only going to as you have free tickets, without your partner, when actually you really need to be saving those leave days for when you're on tour because it'd be nice to actually have some left over to go away somewhere with your family at some point...

It's also not even about the practicalities so much as the message you send. If you don't pay someone, it's akin to saying what they're doing isn't worth anything. And that's really not true. It doesn't have to be loads, but you could pay 1350 performers/bands £100 for £135000, or £1 on everyone's ticket. £100 will hardly change their lives, but it sends a message that performers are valued and Glastonbury won't expect people to play for free. It's also a fraction of what they donate to charity every year.

As I have said the problem is that there is no easy solution if you did as you suggested I'd bet there'd be a lot more solo artists and not as many bands lower down the bill because it would become about cost control. Maybe the ideal solution would be to pay them but not give them tickets so that more paying people could go to the festival (hence giving the festival the funds to pay them). I think we'd probably find more artists would baulk at that as I know a lot of them perform to get tickets for themselves and their friends. I remember Kae Tempest saying as much in 2016. 

If the festival got into paying travel costs then I suspect bands from further afield just wouldn't get the gig (again an easy way to control costs) 

The whole system of payments for music is fundamentally broken and I suspect that the Glastonbury issue is the least of most of their problems as the person who posted this admitted herself. I know that I am in a minority in that I have a paid for streaming account, I buy vinyl, I go to gigs when I can and I buy merch but so many just stream on free accounts and maybe go to a festival or a gig or 2 in a year. People expect music to be pretty much free. 

 

 

[incident]

4 hours ago, priest17 said:

The people who work the festival angle isn't the same as the artist angle, they're very clearly signing up for volunteer roles and, typically, aren't trying to make a living from litter picking or wristband checking. 

While this is true in a lot of cases, volunteering at the festival does go far beyond the Litter Picking / Stewarding roles that are publicly recruited. A decent number of people working the festival for free will be doing so in something adjacent to their "normal" roles - often quite professional roles within the music industry - not necessarily because they want to be at the Festival but because they think that doing Glastonbury is more likely to put them in the orbit of someone that can give them a job in the future or because they want it on the CV or similar other reasons.

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

They are paid  - it's just the money is donated to Oxfam or whoever. That's why it's volunteering for charity and done via charities, rather than volunteering directly for the festival.

So yes, the litter pickers etc. are paid more than most of the bands lower down on the line up.

Not all of these are charities - Festaff, CTM, DCSS, etc recruit volunteers and take the profit. And while it's something of a technicality, the festival is paying a "services rendered" fee and supplying an agreed amount of wristbands to the organisation rather than directly correlating the nominal wages of the individual volunteer - it's up to the organisation how they provide those services, so for example some will have a mix of paid staff and volunteers as they may want experience in certain places.

[Leyrulion]

5 hours ago, priest17 said:

The people who work the festival angle isn't the same as the artist angle, they're very clearly signing up for volunteer roles and, typically, aren't trying to make a living from litter picking or wristband checking. 

Are all the artists booked to play trying to make a living from it? 

I'm not sure that's necessarily true and for some it's a nice side hustle for new experiences.

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

Are all the artists booked to play trying to make a living from it? 

I'm not sure that's necessarily true and for some it's a nice side hustle for new experiences.

As I said earlier in the thread, playing early doors in the JP/WG tents isn't going to make a huge amount of cash even it they were paid.

The benefits will be felt though as soon as the lineup drops. How many extra Spotify hits, tickets shifted, records bought, etc come just from people seeing their name on the lineup and checking them out?

[DeanoL]

4 hours ago, gigpusher said:

As I have said the problem is that there is no easy solution if you did as you suggested I'd bet there'd be a lot more solo artists and not as many bands lower down the bill because it would become about cost control. Maybe the ideal solution would be to pay them but not give them tickets so that more paying people could go to the festival (hence giving the festival the funds to pay them). I think we'd probably find more artists would baulk at that as I know a lot of them perform to get tickets for themselves and their friends. I remember Kae Tempest saying as much in 2016. 

If the festival got into paying travel costs then I suspect bands from further afield just wouldn't get the gig (again an easy way to control costs) 

The whole system of payments for music is fundamentally broken and I suspect that the Glastonbury issue is the least of most of their problems as the person who posted this admitted herself. I know that I am in a minority in that I have a paid for streaming account, I buy vinyl, I go to gigs when I can and I buy merch but so many just stream on free accounts and maybe go to a festival or a gig or 2 in a year. People expect music to be pretty much free. 

 

 

You even just have a set fee of £100 an act, not person. It's chump change to Glastonbury (they donate 20 times that to charity every year) but it sends a clear message that "we value what you do".

[March Hare]

I’m fine with it. People make a choice, balance the positives and negatives, make an informed decision.  

Would I do it? Yes. It doesn’t pay the bills but there is value in adding “performed at Glastonbury” to a CV. 

If only I had a talent. 

[maelzoid]

I've never been paid for performing music. But I am proud to say I have played Bath Moles and the Fleece in Bristol. I think we got paid as a band, but after expenses, nothing got as far as my pocket. But the venues were always upfront about our renumeration, and ultimately when you're unknown, you just need to play.

I think this whole thing is a problem if a venue (or promoter) offers a fee and reneges on it, but I would hope Glastonbury are upfront about not paying these artists. The bottom line is, anyone is free to turn down such offers. I think, accepting an offer to play for free (or tickets to entry) and then moaning about if 5 years later is weak sauce.

[gigpusher]

15 hours ago, DeanoL said:

You even just have a set fee of £100 an act, not person. It's chump change to Glastonbury (they donate 20 times that to charity every year) but it sends a clear message that "we value what you do".

Then there'd be headlines saying Glastonbury doesn't even pay minimum wage. There isn't a way they can win here without making it unaffordable or stopping giving any money to charity. Even the person who posted it said it wasn't really about Glastonbury, it's about it being a broken industry that makes it hard for musicians to survive, the key to that is fixing streaming and fixing peoples attitudes about arts being something that need and deserve to be paid for. 

[maelzoid]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

... the key to that is fixing streaming and fixing peoples attitudes about arts being something that need and deserve to be paid for. 

I think sadly, that horse has bolted. Spotify and Youtube have conditioned a generation of listeners to expect music for free. As these youngsters grow up, most of them won't switch to paying for it.

Moving forward, most artists will simply look at a recording career as a means of promoting themselves. Earnings will be made from live music, merch and if they're lucky, licensing.

[gigpusher]

33 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

I think sadly, that horse has bolted. Spotify and Youtube have conditioned a generation of listeners to expect music for free. As these youngsters grow up, most of them won't switch to paying for it.

Moving forward, most artists will simply look at a recording career as a means of promoting themselves. Earnings will be made from live music, merch and if they're lucky, licensing.

That is truly sad a world without future Kate Bush's and the many other artists who have produced stunning work but are scared of performing or don't enjoy public performances. The harder part of the work is in the writing and recording for many people. Also seen it mentioned that it will change the entire way music is recorded no chance of epic Beatles Abbey Road albums. People who know the price of everything and the value of nothing I think is applicable here. 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, gigpusher said:

Then there'd be headlines saying Glastonbury doesn't even pay minimum wage. 

Unless it's a ten-piece playing more than an hour (so, New York Brass Band) then they would be paying minimum wage though. 

I certainly don't think Glasto are to blame in any way and the problem is much bigger, but it'd be nice to see them be part of the solution rather than be part of the problem. Paying *something* is a first step. It's hard to state how much of a psychological different it can make to performers. It doesn't matter that the fee doesn't even cover your costs - it's having what you do being recognised as something of value.

A better step would actually be to offer more formal facilities for acts to sell merch and albums after festival shows. Or even something to help convert seeing a band at a random tent at the festival to fandom later on - I'm sure we've all seen bands at Glastonbury while not exactly in a straight state of mind and forgotten who they ever were.

I know tech and Glastonbury aren't a popular combo here, but a QR code at the back of each tent you can scan and then when you get home, you get an email with details of all the bands that were playing at the times/places you scanned, with links to Bandcamp etc. 

[fightoffyour]

It's easy to say that an artist gets paid in terms of their ticket price, and yes a lot of/many/most people (myself included, if I had any musical talent whatsoever) would very happily accept that "fee", but if the artist is trying to make a living out of their musical career rather than have a free week(end) at Glastonbury with their mates then they are likely to be on tour, hiring transport equipment and possibly session musicians, so leaving all of that parked up in a field for five days just isn't going to be financially viable.

I'm not saying that what Glastonbury/WG does is wrong, and I don't know what the answer is, if they're even needs to be an answer, just my two cents. Also, for what it's worth, I was at that Summer Camp gig, and I'm a relatively big fan I suppose for our how popular the band is/was. They put on a great show to, I would have to guess after all this time, a few hundred people. Not sure if their career did fizzle out, or if they pursued other avenues - I think Elizabeth made a film. Would like to see them live again.

Edited April 15, 2021 by fightoffyour

[maelzoid]

18 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

A better step would actually be to offer more formal facilities for acts to sell merch and albums after festival shows. Or even something to help convert seeing a band at a random tent at the festival to fandom later on - I'm sure we've all seen bands at Glastonbury while not exactly in a straight state of mind and forgotten who they ever were.

Agree with this. I'm sure West Holts has had a signing / meet & greet tent in the past, so an opportunity for the acts to sell some merch / records. I'd like to see a dedicated merch tent for each stage that allows the artists that play on each day an outlet. Also, ensure the security drop-offs have enough capacity for this merch, and agree with QR and / or flyers, any way to engender a relationship between fan and artist.