Glastonbury 25

[Burns-bass]

1 hour ago, SteveXFR said:

 

None of them are forced to work or perform there. I'm local to the festival know loads of people who work there every year. Most do it just for the ticket. My daughter is working for a friend and getting really decent pay but performing for free.

Just because some people are willing to work for free, it shouldn’t become the norm.  In fact, I’d have expected Glasto to be better than some of the more corporate rivals.

 

I’m sure tuning a festival is costly, but taking advantage of artists who make the festival what it is seems antithetical.

 

Guess inside every hippy really is a capitalist waiting to get out.

 

To all the artists performing I hope you have an amazing time.

 

 

[SteveXFR]

41 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Just because some people are willing to work for free, it shouldn’t become the norm.  In fact, I’d have expected Glasto to be better than some of the more corporate rivals.

 

I’m sure tuning a festival is costly, but taking advantage of artists who make the festival what it is seems antithetical.

 

Guess inside every hippy really is a capitalist waiting to get out.

 

To all the artists performing I hope you have an amazing time.

 

 

 

The artists playing the festival have always been paid little or nothing because it was all about raising money for charity. 

Most of the stages are independently run, the festival only books bands for the main stages

[Burns-bass]

20 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

 

The artists playing the festival have always been paid little or nothing because it was all about raising money for charity. 

Most of the stages are independently run, the festival only books bands for the main stages

I get all that. Doesn’t mean I agree with it.

 

 

[Gank Bass]

Not going myself but id recommend people check out my cousin's band GIRLBAND!

 

3 piece rock band from Nottingham. Their recorded stuff really doesn't do them justice because they are incredible live!

 

 

[Lozz196]

15 minutes ago, Gank Bass said:

Not going myself but id recommend people check out my cousin's band GIRLBAND!

 

3 piece rock band from Nottingham. Their recorded stuff really doesn't do them justice because they are incredible live!

 

 

Just checked them out on YouTube, think you’re right there’s an extra energy in the live stuff. Singer has a great voice, very distinctive.

[Doctor J]

They should explore a new name to avoid confusion. Gilla Band were formerly called that and released a couple of albums on Rough Trade under that name. Similar genre, too, and the first results in web searches send you to the Gilla lads. It'd be easier for them to do when the profile is lower.

[Leonard Smalls]

8 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Gilla Band

Love 'em!

I was confused by mentions of Girlband from Nottingham...

[SteveXFR]

I think they're past the point of easily being able to change their name. To do that, you either have to be completely unknown or have an enormous following (like Slaves when they changed to Soft Play).

[Gank Bass]

I suggested they change their name to Metallica instead

[Leonard Smalls]

9 hours ago, Doctor J said:

Similar genre, too

Having just checked out the "up and coming" Nottingham Girlband, there's not an enormous overlap between them and previously-named Girlband. Girlband are a straightforward Lady Parts-ish band, and Gilla Band are not up-and-coming due to being a bit too Leftfield. Luckily they didn't call themselves that!

like this:

 

 

[Doctor J]

I would have said guitar based rock is a broad enough church to house both but hey ho, no biggie. Anyway, keep an eye out for my next project, SPICEGIRLS!

[Leonard Smalls]

4 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

my next project, SPICEGIRLS

I think that, so long as you make it one capitalised word and sound like this, you'd get away with being a tribute act!

 

 

[mike257]

17 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

My oldest offspring is working in a back stage bar somewhere at Glastonbury. I haven't been for several years but the lineup looks unusually appealing this year.

I'll be at Gary Numan's warmup show of Friday night. Really looking forward to that. We've got a few big warmup shows in town this year.

 

Cheese & Grain? I'm there tonight!

[SteveXFR]

1 hour ago, mike257 said:

 

Cheese & Grain? I'm there tonight!

 

Yep, it's my local. Have a good one. 

[Supernaut]

16 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

 

The artists playing the festival have always been paid little or nothing because it was all about raising money for charity. 

Most of the stages are independently run, the festival only books bands for the main stages

It's amazing how many times venues have tried to book my (originals) band under the premise of a charity gig, i.e. we don't have to pay the bands. 
 

Charity is a good thing; not paying bands isn't. 

[SteveXFR]

14 minutes ago, Supernaut said:

It's amazing how many times venues have tried to book my (originals) band under the premise of a charity gig, i.e. we don't have to pay the bands. 
 

Charity is a good thing; not paying bands isn't. 

 

I guess if they pay the bands then there's no money left for the charity so it's no longer a charity gig. 

A mate of mine puts on a metal bands night once a month and gets all the ticket money to pay bands. If they get £100 each for the three bands then they're lucky. If they set the door price over £5 then people moan and don't turn up. Fortunately, most amateur metal bands seem to be happy just to play.

[Burns-bass]

4 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

 

I guess if they pay the bands then there's no money left for the charity so it's no longer a charity gig. 

A mate of mine puts on a metal bands night once a month and gets all the ticket money to pay bands. If they get £100 each for the three bands then they're lucky. If they set the door price over £5 then people moan and don't turn up. Fortunately, most amateur metal bands seem to be happy just to play.

 

This argument has been had here a million times. Artists like Ed Sheeran, Foo Fighters etc. can afford to do the odd charity gig. It's probably got tax benefits for them to do so.

 

Smaller artists, bands and other performers shouldn't be asked or expected to play for free, especially not when Glastonbury is charging £300 a ticket or whatever it is.

 

In many cases, it's these unique performances at smaller stages that make the festival what it is.

 

Venue owners love charity gigs because they get to put up posters, sell beer and feel they're doing the right thing while nobody else gets paid. I'm sure it all comes from a good place, but I don't like it.

[SteveXFR]

There's always bands happy to just play whether paid or not. Those who aren't just turn it down, no one is forcing them. Personally I play for fun and don't care whether I get paid as long as it doesn't cost me too much.

[chrisba]

My daughter is working at her third consecutive Glasto, having failed to get tickets each time. My understanding is that the event is 8-10 times oversubscribed, and if just a small percentage of those unsuccessful applicants are prepared to work in exchange for a ticket, then the event is cheaper for everybody. She works for a charity ( firstly Wateraid and now Oxfam ) , who presumably get paid for providing staff ( toilet cleaner first time, now marshal/steward ).

In return for a number of hours work ( 4 x 6 hour shifts, I think ) she gets full festival ticket, exclusive camping area with showers, access to staff bars and food for each work shift. If they fail to complete the work aassigned to them, then they have to pay the full price for everything provided, and will never get invited again. Almost never happens. Apparently, there are many people who do this every year, and the charities tend to look favourably on applications from previous workers. Usually, they are expected to do another festival too, to get into Glastonbury.

This year, she's been invited to go early ( she went down on the previous Saturday ) and do all her shifts before it all kicks off on Friday. She was well chuffed about that, but it means spending 9 nights in a tent !

[Burns-bass]

26 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

There's always bands happy to just play whether paid or not. Those who aren't just turn it down, no one is forcing them. Personally I play for fun and don't care whether I get paid as long as it doesn't cost me too much.

 

Just because some artists are willing to work for free, it doesn't mean that they should.

 

What this does is establishes an expectation that artists will work for free while everyone else gets paid. 

 

This is a bad thing. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Burns-bass

[Burns-bass]

6 minutes ago, chrisba said:

My daughter is working at her third consecutive Glasto, having failed to get tickets each time. My understanding is that the event is 8-10 times oversubscribed, and if just a small percentage of those unsuccessful applicants are prepared to work in exchange for a ticket, then the event is cheaper for everybody. She works for a charity ( firstly Wateraid and now Oxfam ) , who presumably get paid for providing staff ( toilet cleaner first time, now marshal/steward ).

In return for a number of hours work ( 4 x 6 hour shifts, I think ) she gets full festival ticket, exclusive camping area with showers, access to staff bars and food for each work shift. If they fail to complete the work aassigned to them, then they have to pay the full price for everything provided, and will never get invited again. Almost never happens. Apparently, there are many people who do this every year, and the charities tend to look favourably on applications from previous workers. Usually, they are expected to do another festival too, to get into Glastonbury.

This year, she's been invited to go early ( she went down on the previous Saturday ) and do all her shifts before it all kicks off on Friday. She was well chuffed about that, but it means spending 9 nights in a tent !

 

 She's working 24 hours for about £15 an hour which is fair enough. She's exchanging her labour for a ticket, which is part of the ethos of the event, all good.

 

But I still think artists there should be paid. Won't clog up the thread anymore.

[Dad3353]

4 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

... This is a bad thing. 

 

What 'everyone else' gets, or not, is, to me, irrelevant, and smacks of jealousy or envy. Look after one's own needs and desires, and give 'everyone else' the freedom to choose for themselves what they get, or not. How would that work, the other way round..? Everyone does what they do for free, but the artists get paid. Is that any different..? I think not. Our band play for free (we always have...), whatever the event and its organisation. We're not looking over our shoulder to see what others are getting, or not. 

[chrisba]

1 minute ago, Burns-bass said:

 

 She's working 24 hours for about £15 an hour which is fair enough. She's exchanging her labour for a ticket, which is part of the ethos of the event, all good.

 

But I still think artists there should be paid. Won't clog up the thread anymore.

Do performers get a ticket too ??? I assume they do.

[Burns-bass]

5 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

What 'everyone else' gets, or not, is, to me, irrelevant, and smacks of jealousy or envy. Look after one's own needs and desires, and give 'everyone else' the freedom to choose for themselves what they get, or not. How would that work, the other way round..? Everyone does what they do for free, but the artists get paid. Is that any different..? I think not. Our band play for free (we always have...), whatever the event and its organisation. We're not looking over our shoulder to see what others are getting, or not. 

 

I fundamentally disagree. 

 

This is a commercial festival that's charging £355 for a ticket. I believe all artists who play on a commercial basis should be paid for their time. The artists are as integral to the festival, in fact they make the whole thing what it is.

 

Do you imagine those people who provide the essential infrastructure – toilets, fences, temporary roads, power supplies and so on – work for nothing?

 

We either operate on an entirely socialist basis, where everyone works for free – or a capitalist one, where everyone is paid for their labour. 

[BigRedX]

13 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Just because some artists are willing to work for free, it doesn't mean that they should.

 

What this does is establishes an expectation that artists will work for free while everyone else gets paid. 

 

This is a bad thing. 

 

This assumes that all bands and the music they play is equal and interchangeable. Maybe that's the case if you're playing generic covers, but for everyone else it's not.

 

It doesn't bother affect me in the slightest what other bands charge (or don't) because they are not my band, and they are in no way a substitute for what we do, and therefore not seen as competition. While we do have a figure in mind when venues and promotors are asking us to play, what we ask for gig is on an individual basis, and playing in front of a new audience who may well all want to buy CDs and T-shirts afterwards can influence what we ask for.