First, a quick explanation. Life is insane and I've had to move house (but I'm living with my young man, so yay!), and thus the blog has fallen to the bottom of the priority list. Now things are more settled, I intend to update properly. Now, onto the post!
So,
the big controversy in Ireland (or at least its music scene) these past week or so
has been the hoopla over Garth Brooks's concerts. Here's the quick low down on
what happened (if I'm inaccurate in any way let me know). Skip if you already know this.
As
far as I can tell, Garth Brooks and Aiken Promotions agreed that he would
perform on five consecutive nights in Croke Park, Dublin. However, when the
license to perform was applied for, only three nights were granted (there were
also protests from some local residents). The entire run has been cancelled as
no one seems able to come up with a solution to this affair which meets
everyone's criteria. Hopefully it can be sorted, as going by last year, the
Irish like Garth Brooks.
What
I want to talk about is perhaps the most inflammatory part of all this:
Brooks's statement he would play all or none of his shows. A lot of the
reaction (that I've heard) is people saying he should have agreed to only do
three shows. Personally, I back him entirely, not because of him, but because
of the precedent it sets.
Say
Brooks agreed to do three shows. The next time an artist is asked, for any
reason, to reduce their number of shows, his capitulation will be used against
them, and we can be sure the legal side of what's happening now will be ignored
in favour of the argument "But Garth Brooks did it, and you are not as
famous as he".
Brooks
is not only protecting his future earnings by sticking to his guns and making
it clear that shows, once booked, cannot be treated as a pick and mix. He is
actually protecting newer and younger artists, ones without any clout in the
music industry. It is the flip side of the expectation that a musician will do
the shows they promise to do, namely that they'll be allowed to do the shows
they agreed to. And while this is all probably costing Garth Brooks a fortune,
he won't be destitute after it. The same could not be said for a newer act who
might sign up for a performance, turn down other work, and find themselves with
fewer shows - and a smaller income - than they'd anticipated. This is about
more than a single set of shows, and more than Garth Brooks's bank balance: it
is about industry standards. And as long as people like Garth Brooks insist
upon industry standards, younger, newer, and poorer artists are protected. And
I am willing to bet Brooks learned this when he was a young singer starting
out, and making a pittance until he hit it big. Many singers never hit it big.
They need the protection people like Brooks can provide.
This
can crop up in writing, too. Take the time to pop over to Youtube and watch
THIS: This is Harlan Ellison
explaining to young writers why they have to demand pay, namely that it
undercuts older writers. As someone who was undercut by fifty percent while
freelancing - and I was only working at market rate - I can tell you, it stings
to have your work utterly devalued. It is a damned difficult thing to make
money off. But imagine if all the experienced writers, the ones with clout,
allowed their contracts and agreements to change at will. Imagine just how much
harder it becomes for younger writers. If Stephen King were willing to allow
his contracted number of books - his wages - to be cut, then no younger writer
could ever enforce their own contracts. Child of Chaos once said she liked a group of books so much, she'd translate them for free. My response to her may not have been as vitriolic as Ellison (who is?), but it was no less emphatic. Doing something which adversely affects the wages of others in your industry is not only morally dubious, but foolish, as you are only hurting yourself in the end.
I'm
not going to say it's not disappointing to see it all come to this. Many people
were excited about having him to come to Ireland. If a pair of tickets came my
way, I would not have said no (my attitude to country music being that I'll
listen to it for a night at least). But I'm afraid I, for one, can't argue with
the man's reasons.
