EO loves a good debate. Thankfully, EDM is a hotbed of contentious issues, interesting ideas, and good ol’ fashioned arguments. Each week, we’ll pick a different topic to examine and discuss. Who knows, maybe you’ll even feel enlightened by the time we’re done…
This week: Which is more important, the artist or the festival?
Throughout this week, EO has been pushing and talking about GlobalGathering festival at every opportunity. It's undoubtedly going to be a great weekend, and there's a raft of fantastic artists playing there.
No doubt many of you will be making the trip to one festival or another this summer. For music lovers, it's something of an annual pilgrimage, and to miss a year would be tantamount to blasphemy. But there seems to be growing discontent with music festivals, and the way they present themselves. Numerous artists have recently claimed that they intensely dislike festivals. Jake Bugg, for example, recently said that he "hates" them, and could "do without" the whole festival experience. Moreover though, there seems to be a bigger issue that is looming large, and has been hotly debated recently: which should be bigger, the artist, or the festival?
And by bigger, I of course mean 'more important'.
And by bigger, I of course mean 'more important'.
In Dance music, this is a particularly important issue. The explosion of dance and electronic music and the culture of EDM a few years ago has led to a gold rush of sorts, with everyone and their grandma wanting a piece of the action, and a very large paycheque. The best way to cash in on this success? Start up a festival. It seems like every year, more and more dance music festivals pop up. Just for example, in my hometown of Newcastle, new EDM festival Northern Lights was started this year, and it brought a host of stars such as Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike to the region. Certainly, 15 years ago in the UK, if you wanted a dance festival, your choices were Creamfields... and that was about it, for big ones at least. And now, we have Creamfields, GlobalGathering, EDC London, Northern Lights, SW4... the list just goes on and on, and they're all fighting for space, and your attention. Whilst there is an obvious benefit to this for dance music lovers in that there's far more choice, which is always a good thing, and it's never been easier to find a festival close to you, there are some less obvious drawbacks to this.
You see, because a lot of these festivals are quite similar, you'll often find that the only distinguishing feature between their lineups, is who's headlining. Apart from that, it's the same old faces at every single festival, every year. It's reached the stage now that for some of the absolutely monstrous festivals - and we're not just talking about the UK now - this can become a problem. Festivals like Creamfields and Tomorrowland have extremely similar lineups, every year. Add to that that they have extremely similar lineups to each other, and this is where the problem lies. How does a festival manage to attract attention when they've all booked the same artists? With the brand. Branding for festivals has become far more important than it ever was, and there in lies the crux of this debate: is the artist or the festival more important?
Deadmau5 (who else would it be?) spoke out about this fairly recently, insisting that he was totally done with festivals:
He definitely has a point. There was once upon a time where festivals had to make sure that the artists were front and centre, as that was the only thing that would bring a crowd. Now though, we're in an era of brand loyalty, where a lot of people will go to the same festival, year in, year out, because that's their festival, and they're there more for the experience, rather than the particular artists playing.
I'm personally not one of those people. I've always maintained that the music comes first, so I'm not prepared to blow a couple of hundred quid on a festival where there's nothing I want to see. If I just want a camping experience, I'll set up a tent in the backyard. I love Leeds Festival, but I haven't gone for the last few years, because I felt that the lineups were shit. But I have a few friends that now go there every year without fail, buying tickets in advance of the lineup even being announced. To me, that's madness, but if people have had a good experience at a festival, I can't blame them for wanting to go back there again and again and again.
So you'd think that the answer is obvious, then. The artists *should* absolutely be bigger than the festival. But then Pasquale Rotella, head of festival giant Insomniac (who run EDC amongst others), waded in and had this to say:
In rock and rap, the performer is usually the center of the show. Dance music is its own thing. It’s about having a good time, celebrating life, and listening to good music. From his comments, I’m assuming he’d rather people stand there and gawk at the artist for an hour-and-a-half, but that’s not where I come from, nor where I want things to go. DJs deserve to get love from their fans, but that’s not shown by standing there and watching with your arms crossed. It’s shown by dancing and getting lost in the moment.
I wish deadmau5 would continue making good music and spend less time knocking people that have been supporting the culture since the beginning. I respect his art form. It would be great if he would respect mine, which is striving to produce magical events."
He sort of swerved the point somewhat, but raised another interesting one in the process: is a festival an art from? And if that can be true, then doesn't it deserve to be just as big as the acts that are playing there? You can certainly see why it would be viewed that way. To use Tomorrowland as an example again - have you seen the main stage set up that they have this year?! It's absolutely immense, and stunning, and must've required months of planning, designing and creating. When a promoter spends months crafting the perfect party, and the perfect set up, and has to meticulously design every detail, then doesn't the festival deserve to be just as big as the artists?
The stage at this year's Tomorrowland. Is it an art form?
So what's the answer to all of this then? The truth is, there isn't one. Both sides present convincing arguments, but the simplest answer is that artists and festivals need each other in equal measure to ensure their continued existence. Festivals do artists a massive favour, in that although they're quite expensive, if you think about it, they do actually provide a very good value for money experience - it would cost far more to see all of the acts you want to see at a festival individually. And this benefits artists because many people are introduced to artists that they've never even heard of before, and may then go on to become massive fans and buy lots of their merchandise.
Truthfully, it seems like there just needs to be a better balance struck. Perhaps we do need to wind back the festival brand slightly to let artists come to the fore once again. But unfortunately, we live in a society where money makes the world go round, and festivals are big business.
Perhaps the responsibility lies with us, then. Don't go to a festival just "because" - go to one because it has an interesting and diverse lineup, where there's actually artists that you want to see and support, or where there's new music for you to discover. The promoters are just in it to make money. The responsibility to ensure that artists get the attention they deserve, then, lies with us.
Writer, musician, and all-round top guy. I set up Excited Octopus. Currently, I'm on a one man team. It gets lonely sometimes. But I don't mind, because I love you all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment