Changing of the Guard? Are GFL paying too little?

[Skip997]

6 hours 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. 

Out of reactions, but yea. 
 

It’s interesting that we’re lacking “old duffers”

on the Pyramid and folks are moaning

 

[4AssedMonkey]

As many have alluded to here, streaming revenue share models are the proximate cause.  Spotify et al make ginormous profits and don't give a fair share to artists.  Artists therefore make limited revenue from those consuming their recorded media.  To make money, artists then need higher touring revenues, which means ticket prices go through the roof, as we've seen.  Only a matter of time before this has the knock on effect of artists demanding higher performance fees for festival appearances and Glastonbury will be no exception.

[Chip Batch]

2 hours ago, dingbat2 said:

I think they should pay as near to market rate as they can for the non-televised stages. But they should carry on paying below market rates for the televised stages as the exposure they get from being on telly must be more than the difference in fee they would get. I would be interested to know how much an act playing a non-televised stage such as the Glade would get at Glasto v what they could get elsewhere

 

 

From what Nadine Shah said about a 5th of what she’d get at other festivals and be losing money. 
 

She was 100% correct with what she said. Why should she play and be financially out of pocket for it without at least the TV exposure as a negotiating point? It is her job. 
 

Glastonbury should pay their artists properly. How they manage that - reducing charitable donations, upping ticket prices or cuts elsewhere is up to them. Smaller artists are screwed at every step these days from touring to selling recorded music. 

Edited June 20 by Chip Batch

[Respectfatfrog]

I think the cost of living is hurting everyone, playing for a ticket isnt viable anymore when they have to pay for travel food etc. 

 

I think everyone loves Glastonbury but that doesnt pay the bills.

 

I can only see ticket prices going up sadly but they will still sell out for an Instagram moment 

[clarkete]

2 hours ago, Chip Batch said:

How they manage that - reducing charitable donations, upping ticket prices or cuts elsewhere is up to them. 

All 3 of those options are hugely sensitive.  Not least:-

One of them has always been a key driving force in ME wanting to continue having the festival on his farm and given the issues during the pandemic they've clearly focussed to ensure that is maintained.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/glastonbury-donated-record-breaking-3-7m-to-good-causes-in-2023-3559447

One of them is always discussed here and on socials - firstly people who haven't gone for ages saying "it's too commercial these days", secondly plenty in here and elsewhere (with some validity) pointing out that the ticket price today lessens the range of people that can afford to attend compared to years gone by - this is balanced by the volunteering options to some degree, but clearly it's not the same.

Lastly they cuts they've made during the last few years have been widely debated, hard to know what else they could do that would open up a lot of money for performers...unless it were something radical like them getting some rights to recordings of their sets?  (ala old school live bootlegs, which way back used to be sold on site before the festival packed up).

[Chip Batch]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

All 3 of those options are hugely sensitive.  Not least:-

One of them has always been a key driving force in ME wanting to continue having the festival on his farm and given the issues during the pandemic they've clearly focussed to ensure that is maintained.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/glastonbury-donated-record-breaking-3-7m-to-good-causes-in-2023-3559447

One of them is always discussed here and on socials - firstly people who haven't gone for ages saying "it's too commercial these days", secondly plenty in here and elsewhere (with some validity) pointing out that the ticket price today lessens the range of people that can afford to attend compared to years gone by - this is balanced by the volunteering options to some degree, but clearly it's not the same.

Lastly they cuts they've made during the last few years have been widely debated, hard to know what else they could do that would open up a lot of money for performers...unless it were something radical like them getting some rights to recordings of their sets?  (ala old school live bootlegs, which way back used to be sold on site before the festival packed up).

I take your points but people should be paid fairly for their work regardless. I think the ticket prices as they are very expensive, but something has to give somewhere. Not many can afford to go and do a job that doesn’t even cover their costs.
 

 

[Cooter]

6 hours ago, bennyboi said:

 

last few years, I’ve had to make a playlist for my mates that moan about not knowing anyone one the line up (they are still holding out for 2pac to play I think) 

 

and every year they get into someone new pre-fest. 
 

they are all dead keen for Bob Vylan this year now. 

that's great and well done to you. I'll also be bouncing around to Bob Vylan, love their sound. Been wondering if they should have been given a bigger venue than Leftfield and the Truth stage, maybe should be in Woodsies.

 

Sorry, slightly off topic.

[Alex DeLarge]

The line-up is full of mates rates bookings this year it seems - how many times have Coldplay, Squeeze, Seasick Steve, James, Disclosure, Two Door Cinema Club, London Grammar, Sampha, Arlo Parks etc. played? That's no disrespect to any of these artists, they're also there on merit. But it's not the freshest faced line-up in the history of the festival.

 

The truth is for whatever reason, no line-up is going to be completely to your taste. If you're 20, at Uni and go to Warehouse a lot, you're not going to be in the field for Squeeze. Just like if you're 45 and have a 6music addiction I don't expect you to be at the front row for Sammy Virji. The festival will book what's available - who's touring, who they can afford, who's built a relationship with them, who's popular - all these things will vary.

 

I do find the artists in the OP in this thread (and a few others) fans a little entitled sometimes with nothing changing. "Why hasn't this person been booked for the 17th year in a row?" Well, because it might be time for a change. 

 

Sure, it's nice to have some house acts that have built a fanbase at the festival, but eventually they're going to need to book some fresher faces. If the festival was entirely one thing it would be extremely boring. If I spent all weekend just watching middle aged guitar blokes or DJs from Bristol who are fresh out of uni all weekend I'd get bored, you really need the variety.

 

 

[gfa]

22 hours ago, tarw said:

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

sure but what do any of the medium sized acts get?

 

I'm sure a dj like john digweed isn't bothered about being picked up - nor is say anyone on Arcadia, Levels - any of the larger dance stages

[4AssedMonkey]

14 hours ago, Chip Batch said:

I take your points but people should be paid fairly for their work regardless. I think the ticket prices as they are very expensive, but something has to give somewhere. Not many can afford to go and do a job that doesn’t even cover their costs.
 

 

Completely agree.  The realities can't be ignored, regardless of how sensitive the issues are.  The pool of acts who can afford to and are prepared to make a loss to play G for a pittance and a ticket is shrinking and they need to be alive to that.  The charities will get no money if the festival either stops or can't sell out.  I think that the only real option they have is to keep upping the ticket price.  Let's be honest, cost of living crisis or not, G would sell out at £500+ a pop.  It will price some people out, which stinks, but it's true.  I think next year, you won't get much change out of £400 a ticket.

[Respectfatfrog]

5 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

Completely agree.  The realities can't be ignored, regardless of how sensitive the issues are.  The pool of acts who can afford to and are prepared to make a loss to play G for a pittance and a ticket is shrinking and they need to be alive to that.  The charities will get no money if the festival either stops or can't sell out.  I think that the only real option they have is to keep upping the ticket price.  Let's be honest, cost of living crisis or not, G would sell out at £500+ a pop.  It will price some people out, which stinks, but it's true.  I think next year, you won't get much change out of £400 a ticket.

completely agree a lot of the smaller acts can not afford good will at this stage. 

 

The rising of the price of ticket is the one way to protect the charity money that is the essence of the festival for Michael, it would stay sold out but I think the average punter would start to feel being taken for granted. 

 

there needs to be a balance 

[TiZuff]

8 minutes ago, Respectfatfrog said:

completely agree a lot of the smaller acts can not afford good will at this stage. 

 

The rising of the price of ticket is the one way to protect the charity money that is the essence of the festival for Michael, it would stay sold out but I think the average punter would start to feel being taken for granted. 

 

there needs to be a balance 

what if glastonbury sold the rights to say, netflix , and kept the ticket price the same / could pay acts more? 

how would we feel about that?

[Respectfatfrog]

2 minutes ago, TiZuff said:

what if glastonbury sold the rights to say, netflix , and kept the ticket price the same / could pay acts more? 

how would we feel about that?

I'm not against it to be honest, it would help those who cant attend see more, I think those who want to say I was there would still go. 

 

I remind myself Glastonbury is a luxury not must do not always remembered by me  

[incident]

3 minutes ago, TiZuff said:

what if glastonbury sold the rights to say, netflix , and kept the ticket price the same / could pay acts more? 

how would we feel about that?

 

I'm neither for or against it, because I don't believe an offer of that nature would ever come.

 

The TV rights for Glastonbury have minimal value. Unlike sports rights they're not going to drive subscriptions in any measurable way, especially with the live aspect being literally one weekend once a year (or less). From their perspective it'd "only" be part of the overall content package rather than anything worth shelling out big money for. They'd treat it like a stand up comedy special - good cheap content.

[TiZuff]

1 minute ago, incident said:

 

I'm neither for or against it, because I don't believe an offer of that nature would ever come.

 

The TV rights for Glastonbury have minimal value. Unlike sports rights they're not going to drive subscriptions in any measurable way, especially with the live aspect being literally one weekend once a year (or less). From their perspective it'd "only" be part of the overall content package rather than anything worth shelling out big money for. They'd treat it like a stand up comedy special - good cheap content.

 

i mean i didnt mean netflix specifically was jut an example. could be sky, itv...whatever. 

[incident]

Just now, TiZuff said:

 

i mean i didnt mean netflix specifically was jut an example. could be sky, itv...whatever. 

 

Doesn't matter which broadcaster. The Glastonbury TV rights still aren't going to attract a large rights fee regardless of who it is.

[MrZigster]

19 hours ago, -TLR- said:

 

i gotta be honest, i like the fancy facades.

 

my favourite ever stage at Glastonbury was The Blues stage, that thing was f**king genius.

 

 

I'll never forget just turning a corner one year and being confronted by London Underground. OK on the inside it was still just your basic marquee with a DJ in it iirc, but that façade was literally stopping people in their tracks.

14 hours ago, Cooter said:

that's great and well done to you. I'll also be bouncing around to Bob Vylan, love their sound. Been wondering if they should have been given a bigger venue than Leftfield and the Truth stage, maybe should be in Woodsies.

 

Sorry, slightly off topic.

I've also been meaning to post similar about Bob Vylan. Think they've underestimated their pull there. Thought it was Leftfield and Peace Stage though (at ridiculous o'clock in the morning as well as too tiny).

 

Really hoping I don't get put on a late shift Sunday.

[sadimmock]

23 hours ago, tarw said:

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

The problem in that is that industry types aren't there in the numbers that they used to be. `from the 90s through to 2010's Glastonbury was basically the music industry's busman's holiday and all of the kids who were into music were there. It was possible to make a "scene" by playing a good show, get some people bouncing and get a few lines in the NME. 

 

The difficulty in getting tickets and the range of options means that there just isn't that concentration of "taste-makers" at Glastonbury any more.

[-TLR-]

8 minutes ago, MrZigster said:

 OK on the inside it was still just your basic marquee with a DJ in it

 

yeah that may be true - but don't forget they had the Matrix lazers in there... you know the ones that formed a grid and went up and down like it was going to slice you into chunks... that was truly awesome!

[sadimmock]

21 hours ago, dumski said:

Does the BBC actually pay to cover it?  I'd be Very intrigued to know

Yes, but it isn't a huge amount. They do do deals with individual acts too. The TV coverage isn't part of the Glastonbury standard contract. 

[Cooter]

35 minutes ago, MrZigster said:

 

Yea, the Leftfield/Glade area Sunday afternoon has the potential to become a tad busy!

Edited June 21 by Cooter

[4AssedMonkey]

27 minutes ago, Cooter said:

Yea, the Leftfield/Glade area Sunday afternoon has the potential to become a tad busy!

 

I was looking at camping there on the Sunday afternoon to cut down the mileage on my poor aching feet.  However I now think it will be rammed to start with, getting daft rammed by the time Bob Vylan come on, so thinking of swerving it.

[4AssedMonkey]

1 hour ago, TiZuff said:

what if glastonbury sold the rights to say, netflix , and kept the ticket price the same / could pay acts more? 

how would we feel about that?

 

As others have said, it might not bring in a tonne of money, but certainly more than the BBC pay for the rights.  Again, this is the Eavis' socialist side as I believe they were approached by Sky with a big cheque one year and flatly turned them down?

 

I've no idea what sort of viewing numbers the festival gets on live Beeb and iPlayer, but I doubt it's the sort of numbers any global streaming provider would care about.

[TiZuff]

what if they sell the back catalogue of performances with it? could prob get a decent amount?

[sadimmock]

14 minutes ago, TiZuff said:

what if they sell the back catalogue of performances with it? could prob get a decent amount?

They may not have the rights to them (or to sell them on). Would depend on what is the contract (both with the BBC and the festival). That has varied over the years and between acts. It's not as simple as saying we will licence the Glastonbury back-catalogue for x pounds for y years. It would be hellishly complicated.