As part of the movement to boycott this year's festival over its partnership with Barclays, we join over 100 acts in withdrawing our involvement.
Words: Lloyd Bolton
Hard of Hearing will be withdrawing from covering The Great Escape festival this year. This decision comes in response to the boycott movement instigated by the campaign Bands Boycott Barclays. They have shone a light on the problems associated with festival's partnership with Barclays Bank, a strategic target identified by campaign groups calling for the protection of the Palestinian people. While the acts on the lineup struggle with the conflict between gaining hard-won exposure for their art against moral misgivings about the festival itself, we will be taking advantage of our position as commentators with a platform for opinion to register our opposition to the festival and its partnership with Barclays. We join over 100 acts who have also withdrawn from the festival, including The New Eves, Pem, Hang Linton, Delilah Holiday, Lambrini Girls, Alfie Templeman and Opus Kink, and seek to speak also for over half of the lineup, who have signed Bands Boycott Barclays' petition calling for The Great Escape to drop Barclays as a partner.
In the wake of widespread boycotts of Austin's South By South West in protest against its "super sponsorship" by the US Army, the UK's equivalent showcase festival has found itself similarly under fire over its partnership with Barclays. Both protests come as a direct response to the genocide being waged in Palestine by the Israeli government, supported by weaponry by the US military and with money from Barclays.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign reports that Barclays holds over £1 billion in shares, and provides over £3 billion in loans and underwriting, to companies whose weapons and technologies are being used by Israel in its attacks on Palestinians. They are directly complicit in the deaths of over 34,000 Palestinians and the massive destruction and human displacement imposed by Israeli attacks.
The Great Escape's partnership with Barclays promotes the company and legitimates its actions. Not only does it receive funding from the bank, it also provides, as with all the festivals they sponsor, perks to attendees who are clients of Barclays. This therefore makes The Great Escape a worthwhile secondary target of action. In addition to this, the widespread media attention building around the story is arguably just as important as this campaign gathers momentum.
There is a lot to be said for the opportunities for positive opportunities facilitated by The Great Escape, which makes it so disappointing that they have allowed this situation to arise without offering any concession or even comment. Not only does the festival offer all of its performers the chance to develop as artists, it also provides a number of platforms the opportunity to develop musical talent, and even aspire to create a better world. As a result of the boycott campaign, this year's festival has lost a talk addressing climate change from Jarvis Cocker for EarthPercent, the Brian Eno-founded climate charity.
The festival is also a key part of the BBC's musical calendar, providing crucial opportunities to develop grassroots talent via Introducing, 6 Music and Radio 1 showcases, all of which provide a lifeline for new acts that evolve the UK's rich musical tradition. In light of its celebration of artists who challenge, through their work and ethos, established modes of thought, it feels hypocritical that The Great Escape are bankrolled by such a company as Barclays, whose immoral geopolitical investments date back much farther than the latest Israel-Palestine conflict (many comparing the current boycott with that in the 1980s which pressurised Barclays to stop funding South African apartheid). It is this disjuncture in values that makes music events such potent opportunities to oppose injustices such as these.
People have weighed in on both sides of the debate of whether artists should boycott the festival, arguments often centring around the value of this moral stand against playing in the hope of creating a turning point in their own careers. Massive Attack have used their own platform to congratulate artists boycotting the festival, noting its potential importance when they say: "We've endless special respect for artists at earlier stages of their careers who choose to take a stand," adding that "it's extraordinary to think that in 2024, promoters and festivals still don't understand that as artists our music is for sale but our humanity and morality is not."
A prominent figure on the other side of the debate is Nick Cave, who Clash Magazine (a partner of The Great Escape) reported as decidedly in favour of artists playing the festival. His own statement, a response on his Red Hand Files site to an anonymous artist asking his advice on the matter, was simply, "Play." Cave has been a consistent vocal supporter of Israel and an opponent of BDS campaigns against it, having rejected calls to pull shows there in 2017, so his comments are far from surprising.
Another contention among those arguing against boycotting the festival is that any action would contradict complicity with other facets of the music industry and similarly objectionable companies. The response among many, is that while this may be the case, the campaign is still a valuable chance to register dissent against how the industry operates. The Great Escape and SXSW boycotts are relatively rare instances of overtly political activity being undertaken by bands whose brand is not necessarily overtly political, at least in recent years. This in itself should be cause for action, no matter how small. Ultimately, this campaign has invited everyone involved in this year's Great Escape to question their own response to the matter and invited many to collectively challenge one of the industry's most deeply entrenched institutions. As a statement from Opus Kink, who withdrew on Tuesday 14th May, noted: "We've decided the most effective way to help is to add to the growing noise around the boycott. The noise being the principal thing." A similar sentiment was expressed by The New Eves in an exclusive statement to Hard of Hearing, in which they explained, "We want to support other bands that have pulled out and encourage as many as possible to do the same. Solidarity is everything."
A key reason for our own withdrawal of coverage is that we recognise that artists who oppose the festival's sponsorship but are still appearing are in a weak position to withdraw, a situation that shows up the fraught workings of the industry. The Great Escape provides its vital showcase opportunities to breaking bands fighting to gain prominence for their music, which is almost always produced and promoted at their own expense. For many newcomers, it can be their biggest break yet, a chance to lay the foundations for a sustainable career. It is telling that while the petition started by Bands Boycott Barclays calling on The Great Escape to drop Barclays as a sponsor has been signed by more than half of the artists booked to play the festival, only around a quarter have dropped out.
Despite ever-growing calls for the festival to at least comment on its position, there has been silence at their end, leaving it down to the struggling artists, whom the festival is there to help, to make their own response, often at great financial cost. Delilah Holiday argued in a statement that "It shouldn't have to come down to artists having to withdraw their labour in hard economic times to make organisations listen. I am not in the best position to pull out of a headline showcase this year, however in the grand scheme of things this is nothing compared to the torture and generational pain Gaza, Sudan and Congo are experiencing right now."
Artists also often find themselves with an obligation to those who have booked them. As a showcase festival, the majority of acts playing have been booked through third parties, so their performances come in part out of obligation to their promoters, who themselves are doing artists a favour by selecting them rather than any number of competing artists. There is further the fear of being stigmatised as an artist who takes political stands, which can put off labels, festival bookers, etc. when they can easily work with groups who avoid such issues. This makes it all the more admirable that some artists, labels and organisations have fully withdrawn from the festival.
The struggle between moral standpoint and creative aspiration has soured the debate around the boycotts, with hardline opponents calling for all acts to boycott without giving up ground to those who feel they are unable to do so. Big Richard Records posted a story saying "Don't get in my fucking DMs telling me not to guilt people into dropping out. Kids dying out there. Bombs being dropped on innocent civilians. Do you really want a part in that?" Bands Boycott Barclays offered a similar position, condemning the anonymous band that messaged Nick Cave's site about the matter for being "too ashamed to name themselves." This climate has contributed to other artists being scared into silence over sticking their neck out and providing valuable insight int their position, with a number of those we approached declining to comment in spite of having signed the petition against Barclays' involvement.
Other artists, including many pulling out, are more conciliatory. Speaking with The New Eves, they noted their concerns about "misdirecting hate at struggling bands navigating an extremely exploitative industry." They also acknowledged that it can be a "privileged" position to be able to drop out in the first place, given the financial implications as well as the risk to reputation within the industry. Similarly, Opus Kink's statement commented, "It's rancid that so much bile seems to be reserved for those for whom the threat of saying 'no' is an existential one." They rightly point out that the far greater power and complicity is held by the bigger acts and companies involved in the festival.
Over the rest of the week, you can expect coverage from us of the 'alt alt escape' events where you can find some such acts, all for free (alt alt because The Great Escape bought out the original Alt Escape a few years ago). An early favourite is The New Alt Escape being hosted by Skydaddy at The Walrus on the Friday, where he features alongside Tyler Cryde, The New Eves, Flip Top Head, Borough Council, Holy Load and Ike from Tapir!. Also promising is The Adjacent Escape being held by Balance Artists and featuring Ellie Bleach, Fräulein, Big Wheels and Radio Free Alice among others. We'll also be avidly aiming to be at the classic 'No Friends in the Industry,' which defined our festival experience last year. This year, they are back at the Hope and Ruin Thursday to Saturday, with a host of enticing sets including For Breakfast and Hutch (16th), Ugly and Home Counties (17th) and Van Zon and Cruush (18th).
It is a great shame to see this division line run through one of the UK's most diverse and immersive festivals and the fact that this conflict is there shows up the disjuncture in the industry between business and creativity. Caught in the middle of this are artists whose voices are becoming increasingly marginalised by the algorithm, the cost-of-living crisis, the existential threat to struggling independent venues, the pitiful royalties paid by streaming platforms and a lack of government support for the arts. We can only hope that The Great Escape disentangles itself from its objectionable political ties in the coming years. For now, this is an opportunity to register our opposition to one instance of injustice in the industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment