Artists payments for Glastonbury

[maelzoid]

30 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

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. 

Agreed. Home recording is now so accessible that bedroom acts can produce decent (if not amazing) recordings, but I wonder if professional studios will start to go out of business If nobody is paying for recorded music.

I will lament the loss of amazingly recorded music, but a majority of consumers don't value hi-fi any more either, listening to compressed MP3s through laptops and alexa hubs (not even stereo!). The future Kate Bash and Steely Dan are probably thinking "what's the point?".

[found home in 2009]

1 hour 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.

I think you're correct, but if artists are relying on money from live music as they can't make money recording, isn't that more of a reason to encourage festivals to pay artists lower down the bill.

[hfuhruhurr]

Methinks this situation has evolved into a stable quid pro quo. No one is forcing the bands to play. Glastonbury needs the charity angle as much as they need Glastonbury. It's a happy ecosystem.

For me, I kind of prefer clean charity payments rather than blurred ones mixed in with branding/business - it's like buying a lottery ticket and thinking it's for charity - it isn't, in my mind, it's for the hope of the prize. If I want to give, I'll give directly.

[gigpusher]

1 hour ago, found home in 2009 said:

I think you're correct, but if artists are relying on money from live music as they can't make money recording, isn't that more of a reason to encourage festivals to pay artists lower down the bill.

But the foundation of music should be the recorded music and you should get the foundations right first. It's also quite ableist to suggest that people in music just make their money from touring there could be a whole host of physical and mental health reasons why people can't tour and given the number of people listening to music there's no reason why someone shouldn't be able to make a living from music via recording. I really hope something is done because especially on the back of the pandemic it really has highlighted how unsustainable it is. I think we can all agree we don't want to get to a stage where the only people we have in music are the mega rich who can afford to be bankrolled by Mum and Dad. 

[Hugh Jass]

2 hours ago, maelzoid said:

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.

This does happen to a degree. I'm sure I've seen the merch stall up by the Park selling stuff specific to the acts on that stage.

[gigpusher]

30 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

This does happen to a degree. I'm sure I've seen the merch stall up by the Park selling stuff specific to the acts on that stage.

I've seen it at Avalon as well and to be fair the number of acts I have been introduced to at Glastonbury that I have been to see live, bought merch, bought albums etc is quite high. I also do a Glastonbury playlist every year in the buildup which I listen to constantly and I include every artist I can find in Deezer so some very small acts will get an increase in streaming as well. 

[Hugh Jass]

13 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

I've seen it at Avalon as well and to be fair the number of acts I have been introduced to at Glastonbury that I have been to see live, bought merch, bought albums etc is quite high. I also do a Glastonbury playlist every year in the buildup which I listen to constantly and I include every artist I can find in Deezer so some very small acts will get an increase in streaming as well. 

That backs up my point earlier about the benefits of being on lineup being felt well before they actually perform at the festival.

[DeanoL]

51 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

This does happen to a degree. I'm sure I've seen the merch stall up by the Park selling stuff specific to the acts on that stage.

I wonder if/what cut the festival take from those sales. It's pure speculation but you'd expect a lot more bands to use such facilities if they are there, and if they're not it's possibly because the festival cut is too high?

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

I wonder if/what cut the festival take from those sales. It's pure speculation but you'd expect a lot more bands to use such facilities if they are there, and if they're not it's possibly because the festival cut is too high?

I have no idea how it works to be honest. Might be that the festival itself buys the merch from the band then sells it themselves at a markup (say £10 per shirt which they sell for £20 for instance).

Otherwise they have to tally up how much merch per act they've sold and divvy up the money accordingly.

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I wonder if/what cut the festival take from those sales. It's pure speculation but you'd expect a lot more bands to use such facilities if they are there, and if they're not it's possibly because the festival cut is too high?

There is an official merch stand by the Pyramid stage but that tends to be merch from bigger acts but I've seen lots of bands just sell cd's etc particularly in Avalon and some of the Greenfields tents. It might come down to whether they want or can be bothered to do it more than anything else. I suspect not many people would buy things like CD's if they are going to be out and about all day. 

[gigpusher]

18 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

That backs up my point earlier about the benefits of being on lineup being felt well before they actually perform at the festival.

Yes and countless acts that I would never have listened to at all were it not for Glastonbury become firm favourites that we go to whenever they tour and have introduced many friends to as well. 

I have lots of friends who love The Lounge Kittens, Cut Capers, Showhawk Duo, Professor Elemental etc because I posted about them on social media or talked about them. 

[maelzoid]

2 hours ago, gigpusher said:

It's also quite ableist to suggest that people in music just make their money from touring...

This is not a 'suggestion', it's the way things are going because Spotify and Youtube have effectively reduced the value of recorded music to zero.

I really don't like it, for all the reasons you mention, and indeed quite a few more. But even among my friends, I'm considered an old-fashioned holdout, because I refuse to embrace Spotify. It's just a fact that this is how music is consumed these days, and the net result is artists will not get paid enough to sustain a career (excepting those at the very top).

I'm all ears to suggestions as to what can be done about it, but haven't come up with anything myself.

[gigpusher]

3 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

This is not a 'suggestion', it's the way things are going because Spotify and Youtube have effectively reduced the value of recorded music to zero.

I really don't like it, for all the reasons you mention, and indeed quite a few more. But even among my friends, I'm considered an old-fashioned holdout, because I refuse to embrace Spotify. It's just a fact that this is how music is consumed these days, and the net result is artists will not get paid enough to sustain a career (excepting those at the very top).

I'm all ears to suggestions as to what can be done about it, but haven't come up with anything myself.

Yes I understand that it's the way it's going I guess I just believe it's our job as music lovers to fight it. I've had countless arguments with friends who only want to go to free gigs . I've had people asking for suggestions for classic vinyl they could buy as they were saving money and my answer is always buy from the new artists David Bowie no longer needs your money but for some new artists it might be the difference between being able to pay their rent or having to move back in with parents. 

I'm not against streaming at all. I have a Deezer account and listening to new albums has led to me buying them on vinyl or going to see them live but I guess I'd just like it to be a fairer medium so I tend to buy vinyl of things I love whilst still listening to them most of the time on Deezer because that is more convenient for me while I am working etc. 

[maelzoid]

I also find it alarming that Spotify has yet to turn a profit. The rate of premium subscription uptake is dropping year on year. 

Some commentators have suggested the only way Spotify can become profitable is if they double the subscription charge, but I would suspect that they'd shed a load of users if they tried this.

It's not unreasonable to picture a scenario where Spotify goes bust, though I've no idea what happens to music then. Perhaps the other services could pick up the slack? Apple and Amazon's streaming services would survive, but their parent companies may not see them as worth the hassle. Youtube makes most of its revenue from other types of content anyway. 

[gigpusher]

4 hours ago, maelzoid said:

I also find it alarming that Spotify has yet to turn a profit. The rate of premium subscription uptake is dropping year on year. 

Some commentators have suggested the only way Spotify can become profitable is if they double the subscription charge, but I would suspect that they'd shed a load of users if they tried this.

It's not unreasonable to picture a scenario where Spotify goes bust, though I've no idea what happens to music then. Perhaps the other services could pick up the slack? Apple and Amazon's streaming services would survive, but their parent companies may not see them as worth the hassle. Youtube makes most of its revenue from other types of content anyway. 

Although there are a lot of ways for a company to appear not to make a profit while creaming a lot of money off the top for the CEO. 

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek (net worth $4.5 billion USD) - Doesn't look like he's struggling!! 

A bit like at my work where our CEO from his Monaco home tells us all how tough it is while going out and telling the media that it's a wonderful time to change the way we work. 

 

 

 

[Zoo Music Girl]

I'm another one that doesn't use Spotify - I listen to the radio a lot and if I like something I buy the album in MP3 form or, less often now, on CD. I occasionally buy vinyl but not often (we have a space issue when it comes to buying physical formats!). I definitely feel like I'm in the minority though. Most of my friends just use Spotify, as does my partner.

[Hugh Jass]

I subscribe to Amazon music anf mainly use it when I’m playing music through my phone (commuting, running, etc) or when I’m working - I have a small Alexa speaker in my office/daughter’s bedroom.

I use that as my starting point when it comes to new music, but if I like what I’m hearing then I’ll go and buy a record.

[WestCountryGirl]

Very interesting reading through this whole thread. It reminded me of the time that a friend of mine was offered work at Glastonbury in the build phase - if I recall correctly he would have been providing some large scale textiles. He asked how much he would be paid and was told his payment would be a ticket to the festival.

He flat turned it down on the spot. He's self-employed as someone who makes things and needs money to get by. I was at first incensed by his refusal, but that's because I am someone who values Glastonbury highly. He had and has never been, and does not. Even if he had been to Glasto before though, I'm not sure that would have made a difference in his assessment of the value of the deal.

[Hugh Jass]

26 minutes ago, WestCountryGirl said:

Very interesting reading through this whole thread. It reminded me of the time that a friend of mine was offered work at Glastonbury in the build phase - if I recall correctly he would have been providing some large scale textiles. He asked how much he would be paid and was told his payment would be a ticket to the festival.

He flat turned it down on the spot. He's self-employed as someone who makes things and needs money to get by. I was at first incensed by his refusal, but that's because I am someone who values Glastonbury highly. He had and has never been, and does not. Even if he had been to Glasto before though, I'm not sure that would have made a difference in his assessment of the value of the deal.

To be fair to your friend the value of his work was probably far greater than that of a ticket.