Primavera Sound 2019

[n=Nowheretohide]

and I really hope to see  some disabled dwarf crossdresser artist when I come next year to primavera !

[clasher]

10 minutes ago, Simsy said:

Can't believe some people have a problem with equality!

To roughly quote me from a couple of pages ago: equality of opportunity ≠ equality of outcome. First one good, second one bad. 

You all are arguing for the second one, but that's sexist, unfair and wrong. 

[puckno]

10 minutes ago, n=Nowheretohide said:

and I really hope to see  some disabled dwarf crossdresser artist when I come next year to primavera !

By coincidence I once was at a pub called The Hobbit House. They only employed people with short stature, serving beers as big as their upper body. On another holiday I payed 25 cents to see the worlds shortest lady, at Coney Island. I thought it only was a joke and could not believe they sold tickets for that, but there she was. Embarrased as I was I managed to say hello before I left. I forgot to ask if he crossdressed.

[Gucci Piggy]

49 minutes ago, clasher said:

Sexism by definition is prejudice or discrimination based on sex. So if you choose one act over the other based on sex, it is sexism.

Therefore what you're proposing is fighting sexism with sexism, which makes just about as much sense as for example arming teachers to prevent school shootings.

I can play this game too. "It's amazing and oh so equal that we have so many female artists, but that's only a start! Trans-gender artist are underrepresented! Non-binary artists are underrepresented! I demand 50% good and 50% shit acts on the bill, because the shit acts are unfairly represented too!"

You get my point, I hope.

I wouldn't mind a 100% female lineup, nor a 0% female lineup and the least of all has my gender anything to do with it. What gets on my nerves is the PC nonsense that's now sadly entered music too. 

@puckno made some fine points. I would just add that it's not only cheap marketing, it is also harmful.

So do you think avoiding doing that is more important than addressing the unfair domination males have over the music/festival industry?

And regarding the bit in bold, are you really going to equate that to wanting a balance of genders? Come on, man. For a start, whether something is good or shit is completely subjective. And secondly, having female acts over male acts doesn't worsen the product for attendees; having shit acts over good acts does.

As has been said, they're clearly not actively booking worse acts so that they can say they're booking more women. They're booking acts who are just as acclaimed.

[n=Nowheretohide]

domination of males, sound almost like never made Romero movie, some sequel to day of the dead

i

[n=Nowheretohide]

and with exception of few names all bold names on posters well call it subjective but its just bad and nahhh music and it really looks like it was arbitrary put there to make it 50/50 not to mention that this edition of primavera just isnt primavera...you can call it new normal but you could also call it completly new festival

[puckno]

For me the biggest concern is schedule clashes, as there are close to 50 names I really would like to see. Don´t understand the other concerns to be honest.

[Mau5]

6 hours ago, Orens said:

Which touring big acts you guys really think would've fit PS?

People would have been thrilled with The Cure, but they haven't released even a single song since their last headlining performance, so ruled out by Primavera criterias (just like Bon Iver and The National).

I think New Order, Chance the Rapper and Travis Scott would've fit, but seems like they are all touring Europe later this summer, with no dates in June so far. Kraftwerk would've been nice, but I expect Sonar to announce them at some point.

The only touring act I would've really liked for Primavera is Franz Ferdinand, which has an appeal for 00s indie boys, but I also love their latest album. Couldn't think of anything else.

The problem is that we don't know who is touring or who is willing to tour and who isn't. For example, Nas only has Australian shows booked in for next year in February but he's playing Primavera. By that logic, Ms Lauryn Hill could also have been booked since those Australian shows are also her only announced dates for 2019 as well.

Travis Scott and Chance The Rapper would have been a more fitting headliner than Future. Even if Kids See Ghosts could not have been booked, possibly Kid Cudi if he's received a bit of a recent boost although not as a headliner. If they're going for a more female tangent rap artist like Cupcakke and Cardi B, Missy Elliott could have worked as well.

Kraftwerk, New Order or The Chemical Brothers could've worked as a late night electronic headliner.

Nine Inch Nails, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Foals or Vampire Weekend as well for an alternative first line headliner.

[clasher]

@Gucci Piggy Regarding the bit in the bold, I guess you didn't get my point. Of course it's not the same, however I used the extreme example to show you how far this kind of moronic PC thinking can get us. It's an infinite regression where people can and will find smaller and smaller "marginalized and oppressed" groups and then demand equality at all costs.

What you are claiming is that festivals in general actively book worse male acts over acclaimed female acts. I don't buy that, it makes no sense business-wise, neither does financially, since I presume female acts must be clearly paid less because patriarchy. You can start by actually proving that, because so far I've only seen the ratio on the bill as a factor and quasi proof, but that proves nothing apart from the ratio itself. If it however just so happens that there is more quality male acts around as there is female, than that's completely fine. If it was the other way around, it would still be completely fine.

And as puckno kindly pointed out, 2018 has been an exceptional year for female artists, with 11 out of top 20 albums (aggregate year end list) female acts. Now does that mean male artists are oppressed? Clearly not. Did the ones making the list cock it up, because it's not 50/50 and therefore not "equal"? Of course not, those bigots clearly had quality in mind, not gender.

As for Gabi&co., they may book anyone they like, but if they have a predominantly female lineup and advertise it as such, it just devalues the acts, not empowers them.

And for the third time, know the difference between the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome. The latter is fundamentally unfair and simply wrong and exactly what you are advocating.

[Gucci Piggy]

5 minutes ago, clasher said:

@Gucci Piggy Regarding the bit in the bold, I guess you didn't get my point. Of course it's not the same, however I used the extreme example to show you how far this kind of moronic PC thinking can get us. It's an infinite regression where people can and will find smaller and smaller "marginalized and oppressed" groups and then demand equality at all costs.

Well no, as it obviously never would get there, because that would be an absolutely stupid thing to advocate for, which equal representation of females isn't.

6 minutes ago, clasher said:

 

What you are claiming is that festivals in general actively book worse male acts over acclaimed female acts. I don't buy that, it makes no sense business-wise, neither does financially, since I presume female acts must be clearly paid less because patriarchy. You can start by actually proving that, because so far I've only seen the ratio on the bill as a factor and quasi proof, but that proves nothing apart from the ratio itself. If it however just so happens that there is more quality male acts around as there is female, than that's completely fine. If it was the other way around, it would still be completely fine.

No, I didn't claim that. I said they could swap out some male acts for some female acts without really affecting the quality of the lineup. I don't go to Primavera so I'll use the last Glastonbury as an example (as I was there and know the lineup better). If you swapped out one of the Other Stage headliners (Major Lazer/alt-J/Boy Better Know) for, say, Björk you'd lose no quality. If you swapped out one of the male West Holts Stage headliners (Dizzee Rascal, Justice) for, say, Janelle Monáe you'd lose no quality. I'm not saying these exact acts were available, but I'm pretty sure there will have been several slots on the lineup filled by a male act where they could have booked a just-as-good female act if they'd looked elsewhere. There are more acts available than those who get booked, and not all the ones who aren't booked are worse than those who are booked. So yeah, I'm not saying they actively book worse male acts, I'm saying there are lots of just-as-qualified acts for every slot, and because more of them are male than female it naturally happens that most get filled by males, but they could book other, female alternatives if they wanted to. If Primavera has the option of going for, say, Janelle Monáe or Chance the Rapper to take their final headline slot and can't decide between them based on quality/popularity/whatever else, then going for Janelle Monáe in a conscious effort to aid the female representation is a fair choice imo.

Regarding what you say at the end of this paragraph, the whole point of trying to fix it is because there is a deep-rooted imbalance in the industry. If nothing is actively done to fix this then every year it'll just be "Well there are way more male acts who are big enough to play high up at our festival so we'll fill it with male acts" and the issue will never ever be addressed. Is this fair on budding female musicians who aspire to headline festivals like Primavera? No it isn't, and that's not going to change unless people actively try to change it.

17 minutes ago, clasher said:

And for the third time, know the difference between the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome. The latter is fundamentally unfair and simply wrong and exactly what you are advocating.

Mate the entire point is that there isn't equality of opportunity and this is the only way to fix that. Do you honestly think that'll change unless something is actively done about it?

And as I've already said, they're not giving these slots to people undeservedly, they're all being given to people who are just as qualified to play them as their male counterparts.

I've had this exact same debate countless times on this forum because almost every festival has an unfair imbalance of gender representation. Do you think that just happened naturally or do you think it happened because of males getting much better opportunities in the industry for decades? The entire reason we've got to this point is because males have had better opportunities and now as soon as someone tries to counteract that we get a load of blokes crying that the women are being given preferential treatment. Boo fucking hoo, man.

Honestly, what do you think should be done other than this to try and rectify this issue? Or, alternatively, do you not think it's an issue at all?

[dentalplan]

29 minutes ago, clasher said:

@Gucci Piggy Regarding the bit in the bold, I guess you didn't get my point. Of course it's not the same, however I used the extreme example to show you how far this kind of moronic PC thinking can get us. It's an infinite regression where people can and will find smaller and smaller "marginalized and oppressed" groups and then demand equality at all costs.

What you are claiming is that festivals in general actively book worse male acts over acclaimed female acts. I don't buy that, it makes no sense business-wise, neither does financially, since I presume female acts must be clearly paid less because patriarchy. You can start by actually proving that, because so far I've only seen the ratio on the bill as a factor and quasi proof, but that proves nothing apart from the ratio itself. If it however just so happens that there is more quality male acts around as there is female, than that's completely fine. If it was the other way around, it would still be completely fine.

And as puckno kindly pointed out, 2018 has been an exceptional year for female artists, with 11 out of top 20 albums (aggregate year end list) female acts. Now does that mean male artists are oppressed? Clearly not. Did the ones making the list cock it up, because it's not 50/50 and therefore not "equal"? Of course not, those bigots clearly had quality in mind, not gender.

As for Gabi&co., they may book anyone they like, but if they have a predominantly female lineup and advertise it as such, it just devalues the acts, not empowers them.

And for the third time, know the difference between the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcome. The latter is fundamentally unfair and simply wrong and exactly what you are advocating.

How are you acknowledging that women are taking the most of the top 20 most critically acclaimed albums this year yet still suggesting that it is unfair that there are more women on the lineup?

[livenstu]

Here is an idea people - the next twat on this forum who clearly has no interest in this year's line up but is trolling cause Primavera is no longer booking the same old shit...  we just IGNORE.

I'll start.  Carcass,  bound to be great fun on Adidas Originals stage early hours.

[clasher]

@dentaIpIan I've never ever argued that is unfair. Not only that, I have stated more than once that it would be completely fine by me if the lineup was either 100% or 0% male. What I'm arguing is that choosing acts based on gender and not quality is wrong, sexist and defeats the uniting purpose that music, at least in my opinion, has.

@Gucci Piggy I do not think having an imbalanced lineup is a problem, no. I also don't think there is such a vast imbalance as some claim, I just might be wrong however, since you seem to know way more about the deep-rooted imbalance in the industry so I will happily stand corrected if you care to educate me. There is less female acts than male, evidently, but the reasons for that I would say are multiple and can't be pinned to sexism (although that's certainly the easiest way).
I would also argue that any deep-rooted imbalance, in whichever size, shape or form, can't be solved with a superficial publicity stunt as "the new normal" certainly is, no matter how many snowflakes get off of all the chances for accusing white privileged blokes of crying. They can have the best lineup ever, 100% female, and that's wonderful and I'm buying a ticket right away, but the moment they pitch it as feminist propaganda they strip the artists of their musical value and basically send the message that they are here just because they lack balls.

If anything is achieved that way, it is the devaluation of female artists and music in general and not equality.

[Gucci Piggy]

5 minutes ago, clasher said:

@dentaIpIan I've never ever argued that is unfair. Not only that, I have stated more than once that it would be completely fine by me if the lineup was either 100% or 0% male. What I'm arguing is that choosing acts based on gender and not quality is wrong, sexist and defeats the uniting purpose that music, at least in my opinion, has.

@Gucci Piggy I do not think having an imbalanced lineup is a problem, no. I also don't think there is such a vast imbalance as some claim, I just might be wrong however, since you seem to know way more about the deep-rooted imbalance in the industry so I will happily stand corrected if you care to educate me. There is less female acts than male, evidently, but the reasons for that I would say are multiple and can't be pinned to sexism (although that's certainly the easiest way).
I would also argue that any deep-rooted imbalance, in whichever size, shape or form, can't be solved with a superficial publicity stunt as "the new normal" certainly is, no matter how many snowflakes get off of all the chances for accusing white privileged blokes of crying. They can have the best lineup ever, 100% female, and that's wonderful and I'm buying a ticket right away, but the moment they pitch it as feminist propaganda they strip the artists of their musical value and basically send the message that they are here just because they lack balls.

If anything is achieved that way, it is the devaluation of female artists and music in general and not equality.

There have been countless stories about this exact thing recently, and established artists have been pointing it out, too (Lily Allen, for example). I don't really care enough about educating you on the matter to go off and find these examples, so I won't.

It's quite clear that opportunities and support for male acts are much bigger than they are for female acts. How many female acts make it to the higher reaches of festival lineups? Not many. How many female-fronted bands are touted as the next big thing in the same way the likes of The 1975, Royal Blood, Greta Van Fleet, etc. are? Basically none. How many new female rappers are touted as the next big thing? Barely any. Are the female acts worse than the male ones? No, they aren't. Is it the case that your stereotypical huge rock band or huge rapper is a male? Yeah, which is why these male acts get backed as the next big thing over their female counterparts. How does that change? We change the perception that your giant rock bands/rappers don't have to be male, and that females can occupy those spaces just as well.

Right now, a young boy wanting to start playing the drums or electric guitar will be given more encouragement to do that than a girl of the same age, when they see that pretty much all the people who make it to the big time in those roles are males. Is there something inherently male about playing the drums or electric guitar? No, there isn't, but the culture around rock music paints them as male hobbies.

I understand what you're saying about it being unfair to book an act based on their gender. But I think it's more unfair that the industry is like this and hence females are afforded less opportunities to make it. And unfortunately, we're in a position where measures like this have to be taken to address the imbalance.

Anyway, I'm pretty bored of going over this argument for the thousandth time on here now so I'm gonna leave it there.

[clasher]

Have it your way mate ❤️

[n=Nowheretohide]

1 minute ago, Gucci Piggy said:

There have been countless stories about this exact thing recently, and established artists have been pointing it out, too (Lily Allen, for example). I don't really care enough about educating you on the matter to go off and find these examples, so I won't.

It's quite clear that opportunities and support for male acts are much bigger than they are for female acts. How many female acts make it to the higher reaches of festival lineups? Not many. How many female-fronted bands are touted as the next big thing in the same way the likes of The 1975, Royal Blood, Greta Van Fleet, etc. are? Basically none. How many new female rappers are touted as the next big thing? Barely any. Are the female acts worse than the male ones? No, they aren't. Is it the case that your stereotypical huge rock band or huge rapper is a male? Yeah, which is why these male acts get backed as the next big thing over their female counterparts. How does that change? We change the perception that your giant rock bands/rappers don't have to be male, and that females can occupy those spaces just as well.

Right now, a young boy wanting to start playing the drums or electric guitar will be given more encouragement to do that than a girl of the same age, when they see that pretty much all the people who make it to the big time in those roles are males. Is there something inherently male about playing the drums or electric guitar? No, there isn't, but the culture around rock music paints them as male hobbies.

I understand what you're saying about it being unfair to book an act based on their gender. But I think it's more unfair that the industry is like this and hence females are afforded less opportunities to make it. And unfortunately, we're in a position where measures like this have to be taken to address the imbalance.

Anyway, I'm pretty bored of going over this argument for the thousandth time on here now so I'm gonna leave it there.

man..everytime when someone read this post somewhere  out there one little girl abandon  her hopes and start working in kitchen...jesus fucking christ you should be making some melodrama series somewhere....but in essence that was pure bullshit

[Chilly Toad]

Number One: I am interested in the music. I want the best available bands/artists to be booked for me to enjoy.

Number two: if that means that 50% of the artists are female, that is perfectly okay for me.

Number three: if they want to make this a policy for the future, maybe that´s not such a good idea because what do you do in a year in which quality female acts just aren´t available in such numbers? Because that can obviously happen. So maybe the marketing might have been a little different. Booking female artists with less quality than available male artists just for the sake of equality would not be such a good move.

Number four: if you champion gender equality so much, how do you not book Florence and the Machine only because you don´t like her personally? You have to be female AND Gabi has to like you personally?

Number five: I still think gender eqality doesn´t stop on the poster but has to include the money. Do the female artists get 50% of the money that is paid to the artists?

And finally number 6: If they are such champions of women´s rights, why the f... do women have to bare their breasts for the line-up movie? I think that advertising is sexist when women undress in it without any connection to the product. And that's what really bothers me about this campaign, because this aspect of it smells massively like hypocrisy.

 

[Martin_89]

4 hours ago, Chilly Toad said:

And finally number 6: If they are such champions of women´s rights, why the f... do women have to bare their breasts for the line-up movie? I think that advertising is sexist when women undress in it without any connection to the product. And that's what really bothers me about this campaign, because this aspect of it smells massively like hypocrisy.

 

wtf, mate? See the video one more time, and maybe you'll get it...

[Orens]

Don't think it has been mentioned before, but Guided by Voices only performed one concert outside the US since 2003 (Norway, 2011), according to setlist.fm.
They will play both Barcelona and Porto.

[cortomaltese]

It will be very interesting to know if this gender equality is also applied for the people who work for primavera festival. From beer sellers to managers and booking team.

In my opinion, this is a much more important  field than the gender equality of the lineup, which is not under total control of the organizers (depends also on artists' tours) and can lead to compromises and a weaker lineup.

[puckno]

1 hour ago, Orens said:

Don't think it has been mentioned before, but Guided by Voices only performed one concert outside the US since 2003 (Norway, 2011), according to setlist.fm. They will play both Barcelona and Porto.

Øyafestivalen 2011, I was there! They've also played some shows in Canada though. Up until 2003 they toured Europe a lot.

[ConorC]

Didn't realise gammon was so popular on the continent.

"Gender doesn't bother me, the lineup could be 100% female for all I care as long as there's not a drop in quality."

Primavera: *Books a lineup with a 50/50 gender split, filled top-to-bottom with critically acclaimed acts*

"Is this the new normal?! Snowflake generation get their way again."

[neacaisa]

i think you care too much about critical acclaim on this thread. i would argue that critical acclaim does not equal quality and vice versa. some legendary albums were not critically acclaimed when they were released.

Edited December 12, 2018 by neacaisa

[Swanmob]

1 minute ago, neacaisa said:

i think you care too much about critical acclaim on this thread. i would argue that critical acclaim does not equal quality and vice versa. some legendary albums were not critically acclaimed when they were released.

I agree with this and have been thinking the same thing for the last few days. Far too much stock seems to be being placed in those end of year lists. To me they are not indicative of quality at all. Any old rag magazine or website with an agenda can have their say! 

[The Martini Police]

11 minutes ago, Swanmob said:

I agree with this and have been thinking the same thing for the last few days. Far too much stock seems to be being placed in those end of year lists. To me they are not indicative of quality at all. Any old rag magazine or website with an agenda can have their say! 

Even if we accept for a minute that they're a great indicator of the quality of an album, they're not indicative of either live performance ability or other successful or recognisable albums/songs - both of which I think are pretty crucial to most people's enjoyment of artists at a festival.