Changing of the Guard? Are GFL paying too little?

[BigMarv]

Seems this years lineup is missing so many Glastonbury staples from the last 20 years of attending:

 

- Dub Pistols

- Stanton Warriors

- Dave Seaman

- DJ Yoda

- Nick Warren

- Sasha/Digweed

- any progressive/deeper DJs

- any heritage hiphop/r&b acts

 

Understand a lot of these are electronic artists. But also heard several comments about artists not prepared to play for the small fees Glastonbury pay. Black Keys have commented on this last year, Dub Pistols this.

 

My point is, is Glastonbury’s low remuneration costing the festival, especially for the established mid-level acts, more so nowadays where touring is the bread/butter for these artists. Or is it just a changing of the guard, with older/established artists being eschewed in preference for a newer sound/clientele & artists who see Glastonbury as a springboard?

[Cooter]

You missed out Mik Artistik! If anyone's part of the festival he is. Not sure if he gets paid if anything but he said the other day "I've not been invited".

 

Gutted.

[Hotfry]

The festival is rightly trying to have a more diverse lineup so someone has to face the chop. It’s probably best that some of the older white men are the ones to make way. 

[Crazyfool01]

Yeah not bothered either as long as the charity donations continue . 

[eatingglitter]

4 hours ago, BigMarv said:

Seems this years lineup is missing so many Glastonbury staples from the last 20 years of attending:

 

- Dub Pistols

- Stanton Warriors

- Dave Seaman

- DJ Yoda

- Nick Warren

- Sasha/Digweed

- any progressive/deeper DJs

- any heritage hiphop/r&b acts

 

Understand a lot of these are electronic artists. But also heard several comments about artists not prepared to play for the small fees Glastonbury pay. Black Keys have commented on this last year, Dub Pistols this.

 

My point is, is Glastonbury’s low remuneration costing the festival, especially for the established mid-level acts, more so nowadays where touring is the bread/butter for these artists. Or is it just a changing of the guard, with older/established artists being eschewed in preference for a newer sound/clientele & artists who see Glastonbury as a springboard?

I know that one of those acts has a family health issue that could be impacting their attendance.  

[bennyboi]

1 hour ago, Hotfry said:

The festival is rightly trying to have a more diverse lineup so someone has to face the chop. It’s probably best that some of the older white men are the ones to make way. 

I agree that old, legacy acts that are past it (G n R is a good example) are a waste of a slot & booking money. The colour of their skin is entirely irrelevant. 

[gigpusher]

Glastonbury are clearly not paying enough for many acts and usually that would be absolutely fine and people would play for a. the exposure and b the tickets and pick up the money elsewhere but sadly for most artists live is the only place they make their money now and it's getting much harder as people cut back more and more. Really what needs to happen is a more sustainable model for artists to make a living. Recorded music must be one of the few costs that has either stayed static or gone down for most people over the years. Paying £10 a month for all the music you consume is ridiculously cheap considering people were paying £8-12 for one cd in the 90's.

 

Even though it would hit me big time I think streaming services should charge tiered amounts for services so those of us who listen to more music would pay more. I know a lot of people wouldn't like it but it would eventually stop the crazy live costs as well. Otherwise a few people are going to keep paying more and more to prop up the industry and more and more festivals will fold as it become unaffordable to put them on.

[Hotfry]

25 minutes ago, bennyboi said:

I agree that old, legacy acts that are past it (G n R is a good example) are a waste of a slot & booking money. The colour of their skin is entirely irrelevant. 

Is it irrelevant if you’re openly trying to make the lineup more diverse?
 

The magic of Glastonbury comes from it being leftie and progressive (in appearance at least). It’s been way too slow in increasing diversity (certainly for female acts). They have realised that and pushed it this year.  If they’d have done it gradually over the years we probably wouldn’t have noticed the older regulars disappearing from the lineup. 
 

They’ll be back just hopefully not every year. 

[Chef]

I read a social media post by a female artists (apologies, can't recall who it was) where she explained how she would love to play the festival this year, and was asked to do so, but just couldn't because of cost. When she factored in the cost of getting there she would have actually lost money with the fees they pay.

 

She did acknowledge this might work for those in the TV slots and the exposure that brings for record sales but it doesn't for many. Glastonbury do a lot of good and there is sound logic to the charity model but it feels like when touring is the bread and butter of artists there must be a balance to be struck to support them and the industry. 

[Physical_graffiti]

I don't think headliners are relevant to that though. GnR (and Elton, and Macca, and any other massive 'heritage' act) are one of the biggest most popular acts ever, and it's great that Glasto attracts the biggest and most popular bands ever to headline, regardless of whether you think they are a pile of pap or not. It draws the crowds/tv viewers/headlines. Becomes like any other festival if they start purposefully booking smaller acts to try to be more interesting (plenty of space on rest of lineup for that!).

If you're really interested in promoting more diverse lineups, invest in 'grassroots'. So we can put Dua Lipa and SZA as headliners and say "look, we have women headliners!" but it doesn't affect my female DJ friend, therefore you could say it's merely virtue signalling (by the true definition of the word, not the way the right wing use it to describe everything ever that's vaguely nice. Also btw I don't actually think this is an example of that - I imagine Dua Lipa and SZA got the slot as they are the biggest artists available for that slot this year).

Opening up more female slots lower down the bill or putting on female DJ only clubnights in communities would help give her a leg up though. That takes a mass coordinated effort by the music industry with results showing in about 10 years time and doesn't make headlines though!

[watsonjm]

18 minutes ago, Chef said:

I read a social media post by a female artists (apologies, can't recall who it was) where she explained how she would love to play the festival this year, and was asked to do so, but just couldn't because of cost. When she factored in the cost of getting there she would have actually lost money with the fees they pay.

 

She did acknowledge this might work for those in the TV slots and the exposure that brings for record sales but it doesn't for many. Glastonbury do a lot of good and there is sound logic to the charity model but it feels like when touring is the bread and butter of artists there must be a balance to be struck to support them and the industry. 

 

It as Nadine Shah.  To be honest I took it as a dig at the festival for not putting her on a TV slot.  In hindsight probably unfair given the few others that have come out and said similar (though don't think anyone else has mentioned TV?) 

[uscore]

I think it's a reasonable point to say that a tv slot,  for the exposure, does compensate for being paid less than it costs to get there.

[Respectfatfrog]

3 hours ago, Hotfry said:

The festival is rightly trying to have a more diverse lineup so someone has to face the chop. It’s probably best that some of the older white men are the ones to make way. 

 

isn't this attitude discriminatory towards other white males? seems we are allowed to be discriminatory towards white males in the open air. 

 

Maybe it should be this way to ensure more equality but I am not sure

[gigpusher]

34 minutes ago, watsonjm said:

 

It as Nadine Shah.  To be honest I took it as a dig at the festival for not putting her on a TV slot.  In hindsight probably unfair given the few others that have come out and said similar (though don't think anyone else has mentioned TV?) 

I don't think it was a dig just explaining the decision making process and probably because she told some fans she was in negotiation and obviously it came to nothing. She would have been willing to accept it as a loss if the tv coverage would hopefully translate to more people listening/going to her shows etc. She is brilliant live and would definitely have won over new fans. I remember watching her when she performed on the Park stage with the paraorchestra and that day someone came up to me to ask who she was because they thought she had an incredible voice.

 

I respect her position but also respect the festival's position. It is a tricky one. More and more smaller festivals are closing or taking a year or 2 off in the hope that the costs get back under control. The real solution is that the way we pay for music has to change. The number of people who enjoy an artist but get to see them live is so small in comparison to the number who are listening to them day in day out. Streaming fees needs to be fixed.

 

[bennyboi]

38 minutes ago, Hotfry said:

Is it irrelevant if you’re openly trying to make the lineup more diverse?
 

The magic of Glastonbury comes from it being leftie and progressive (in appearance at least). It’s been way too slow in increasing diversity (certainly for female acts). They have realised that and pushed it this year.  If they’d have done it gradually over the years we probably wouldn’t have noticed the older regulars disappearing from the lineup. 
 

They’ll be back just hopefully not every year. 

 

Yes, the whole forced diversity thing is wrong, normally just virtue signalling and often used as a cop out, like with the poor headliners this year its like "yeah we know we could do better but woman". 

"way to slow to increase diversity" that is a cringe statement.

Its a pop festival, it reflects what is popular at the given time. Hence why over the last 15years you've had Stormzy, Kendrick, Yee, J all headlined. James brown and Stevie played ages ago, well before this whole forced diversity lark, All there by merit. 

 

Shoe horning in diversity to appease, whoever, makes things worse.

 

Look at Boeing, people have died. 

 

 

[incident]

To be somewhat blunt about it - most of the acts listed are usually far enough down the bill that they won't be getting paid anything of substance, either this year or previous years.

 

Would imagine that the difference this year is personal circumstances or personal preferences - basically that "playing for a ticket" isn't what they want this year. Don't think we can read much into it beyond that.

[tarw]

6 minutes ago, bennyboi said:

 

Yes, the whole forced diversity thing is wrong, normally just virtue signalling and often used as a cop out, like with the poor headliners this year its like "yeah we know we could do better but woman". 

"way to slow to increase diversity" that is a cringe statement.

Its a pop festival, it reflects what is popular at the given time. Hence why over the last 15years you've had Stormzy, Kendrick, Yee, J all headlined. James brown and Stevie played ages ago, well before this whole forced diversity lark, All there by merit. 

 

Shoe horning in diversity to appease, whoever, makes things worse.

 

Look at Boeing, people have died. 

 

 

I thought that Boeing’s problems were due to the merger with McDonnal Douglas and introducing the QA and cost cutting they used. Didn’t have anything to do with diversity 

[Hotfry]

9 minutes ago, bennyboi said:

 

Yes, the whole forced diversity thing is wrong, normally just virtue signalling and often used as a cop out, like with the poor headliners this year its like "yeah we know we could do better but woman". 

"way to slow to increase diversity" that is a cringe statement.

Its a pop festival, it reflects what is popular at the given time. Hence why over the last 15years you've had Stormzy, Kendrick, Yee, J all headlined. James brown and Stevie played ages ago, well before this whole forced diversity lark, All there by merit. 

 

Shoe horning in diversity to appease, whoever, makes things worse.

 

Look at Boeing, people have died. 

 

 

 

Dua 100% deserves the spot. Nothing to do with being a woman. And personally think the lineup on the whole is great. I appreciate it’s not for everyone. 
 

I think it’s possibly a bit 6 Music heavy which could be the problem rather than diversity pandering anyway. 

Going back to the original point I  really don’t think the festival loses its appeal by dropping some of the older acts. 

Happy to disagree on the diversity thing. But I’m fuming you think Kanye deserved to be there. 😂

 

[bennyboi]

10 minutes ago, Hotfry said:

 

Dua 100% deserves the spot. Nothing to do with being a woman. And personally think the lineup on the whole is great. I appreciate it’s not for everyone. 
 

I think it’s possibly a bit 6 Music heavy which could be the problem rather than diversity pandering anyway. 

Going back to the original point I  really don’t think the festival loses its appeal by dropping some of the older acts. 

Happy to disagree on the diversity thing. But I’m fuming you think Kanye deserved to be there. 😂

 

 

Yes she probably does, SZA has a bigger question mark though but I've never fully agreed with all the headliners. 

 

Absolutely, some are past it and you get sick of the sight of them (coldplay...) just so long as the people coming in are there by merit, not box ticking. 

 

Bearing in mind this was pre-smol hat people comments, Kanye is a genius, music is subjective. 

 

The other thing to consider is if Glastonbury fest LTD is eligible for ESG money, if yes, then that shows just how hollow it all is. 

Edited June 20 by bennyboi

[gfa]

1 hour ago, uscore said:

I think it's a reasonable point to say that a tv slot,  for the exposure, does compensate for being paid less than it costs to get there.

its a balance though and it seems that maybe the balance is swinging away from it being worth it

 

the acts listed by the op are all smaller, non main stage acts who aren't getting that tv exposure either way.

 

98%+ of acts aren't televised probably, they just do it for the fun of playing it really

[CaledonianGonzo]

MEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRITTTTT!

[tarw]

22 minutes ago, gfa said:

its a balance though and it seems that maybe the balance is swinging away from it being worth it

 

the acts listed by the op are all smaller, non main stage acts who aren't getting that tv exposure either way.

 

98%+ of acts aren't televised probably, they just do it for the fun of playing it really

Or for the smaller bands to be spotted by the industry types who are there and being picked up by them. 

[Neil]

3 hours ago, bennyboi said:

I agree that old, legacy acts that are past it (G n R is a good example) are a waste of a slot & booking money. The colour of their skin is entirely irrelevant. 

could have done with some of that honesty last year.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

could have done with some of that honesty last year.

 

Did you not like Guns n' Roses then last year, Neil?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

 

Did you not like Guns n' Roses then last year, Neil?

Please no 😞