Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Sticking up for the little guy, or why I think Garth Brooks was right

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment