Burns-bass

Plenty of things to get angry about in the world but all this seems pretty harmless to me. We’re an inclusive community etc.

Depends on your view of art to reinforce the status who or challenge it. &nbsp Someone earlier on described Glasto as a sunny and extended Jools Holland session. I reckon that’s not too far off the mark. Anyway, off into the beautiful sunshine myself!

It’s all performative stuff, it’s very punk and all that. And of course one man’s terrorist is another man’s revolutionary. If you’re upsetting Keir Starmer and Kemi you’re doing alright by me. (My tongue is very firmly in my cheek. Please do not consider this an endorsement for the IRA!)

Weren’t we all in our 20s? Joe Strummer et al all said stupid things in their time. Personally, I’m all for politics in music as a child of the 80s. It’s better than the apparent apathy that’s prevalent among so many of them now.

I think it was a lighthearted joke, don’t take it too seriously.

Agreed. Some of the world music acts (ie not indie or pop) are just incredible. Also saw a few folk acts whose voices were just amazing.

Looks like a great gig. No better feeling and everyone loves the bass player!

Fantastic! Looks like a great gig.

I try not to use Temu but worth a check (if you can’t get down to Essex!)

We found Google Calendar was the best thing for us as it worked across all platforms and was simple to set up

So, to be clear, we're not talking about playing for free at a street party. I do this all the time. We're talking about commercial music festivals that generate a profit (which Glastonbury undoubtedly does.) The system that exists effectively tells artists who play for free that they're worthless (by choosing not to pay them), while charging people for tickets to see them and making a profit. You may be happy to support this system or shrug it off as somehow being a natural order, but I don't think we should. As well as devaluing the contribution small artists make to festivals like Glastonbury, it also constructs barriers for those who lack the means to play for free. We'll end with music being the same as the rest of the arts, populated almost entirely by middle and upper class people who are subsidised to play. In my view, either nobody gets paid, or everyone does. Even if that means Coldplay, Rod Stewart or whoever else earns less money, then so be it. In my industry (writing and journalism), people are routinely asked (and some will offer) to work for free to gain experience and exposure. I've always refused to work for free and paid other people if they have done work that generates a profit for me (or the company I operate).

When it comes to the arts, we have such a stupid system that you need to beg for cash with the only money allocated based on the estimated economic impact of your work (which is, in most cases, entirely made up anyway). The entire classical music world – apart form a few exceptions – is funded through grants because to expose it to the market would see its demise. Societally, we need to find other ways to value the skills and to fund them. If we could break free from the moral objections to a UBI, we'd be much better off. Be a lot simpler than pretending that there are enough jobs to go around (when there clearly aren't and probably won't ever be again in the future...)

Your choice to work for free sets an expectation that others will. So your action has an impact, something we can disagree on (politely and collegiately). You’ve drawn a false equivalence in any case. Your choice to play for nothing at a local community event isn’t the same as someone being asked to play for free at a multi-million pound commercial festival. I have done, and continue to do the former but wouldn’t do the latter - and I think musicians who do so devalue their art, talent and value.

I know it’s morally wrong, but I bought a fake Peli case on Temu for an amp and it was brilliant. This would fit I believe (measure yourself obvs)

That’s cool and totally understandable. When you play Glasto, I hope you get paid!

The refinish shouldn’t impact the sound one bit. Personally, I’d get it done as that finish isn’t one I’d go for. Guess you need to choose if you want a box-fresh new white finish which may not suit the vintage look or a retro finish. Personally I’d go for the retro finish (but I don’t know who would do it!)

Double post!

This is an interesting This isn't about envy, it's about egalitarianism and fairness. Festivals promise artists with exposure and opportunities as an excuse for not paying them. When people refuse to work this way, the whole system collapses and a better one is created. Worked for the Dallas Cheerleaders who worked together to negotiate a 400% pay rise: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2025/06/24/dallas-cowboys-cheerleaders-pay-raise/84330932007/ For a more academic exploration of these issues, this is a good book: https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526171269/.

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.

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.

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 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.