Would Glastonbury still be a success without the big bands headlining?

[Kid_Eternity]

I still think that Glastonbury represents fantastic value compared to similar festivals.

£130 for a three day event is actually very good money.

 

[Dubversion]

look at some of the crappy London one-day festivals. all around the 40-50 quid mark.

look at some of the ticket prices for NYE.

and then consider you could arrive at Glastonbury on Wednesday, leave on Tuesday and there would be something amazing to do for every single minute of that time.

it depends if you're talking about cost or value for money - it's not cheap but it is incredible value for money.

 

[Maggot]

But if it was smaller and cheaper you'd far less likely to get a line up anywhere near as good as the one you've just described.

For starters, the huge security demands require that an absolute ton of cash now be allocated, and that must impact a fair bit on ticket pricing.

I still think that Glastonbury represents fantastic value compared to similar festivals.

I think that Glastonbury these days has too many bands and things to do. It is still fairly good value, but you're never gonna see all the bands you want to. I'm not going to go on about it being smaller and cheaper, cos it's never going to happen. I've just got fond memories of the old days.

Every year I went it got larger and more crowded and more contemporary big names were added.

 

[editor]

£130 for a three day event is actually very good money.

It's more like a 5-6 day event for many people. There were already 50,000 people on site by the Wednesday night and there was ample entertainment available!

 

[editor]

I think that Glastonbury these days has too many bands and things to do. It is still fairly good value, but you're never gonna see all the bands you want to.

But I like that bit! With so much stuff going on, it's nigh on impossible to see everything you wanted, so people invariably end up stumbling off elsewhere and catching bands they'd never heard of before.

 

[Hollis]

I think that Glastonbury these days has too many bands and things to do. It is still fairly good value, but you're never gonna see all the bands you want to. I'm not going to go on about it being smaller and cheaper, cos it's never going to happen. I've just got fond memories of the old days.

Every year I went it got larger and more crowded and more contemporary big names were added.

Its superb value. Go to aloud.com and look at the price of afew gigs, or take other festivals - Guilfest £75, Big Green Gathering £90-odd quid.

You won't find a better deal if you like bands. - Also, you get to try out stuff you probably wouldn't have risked a gig ticket price.. Ian Brown (for example).

 

[longjon]

I think that Glastonbury these days has too many bands and things to do. It is still fairly good value,

I agree. I went last year and before that in 89. Yes it's great value but you can't actually physically get to the stages to see the bands you want in time, which is annoying but yes it does mean you end up seeing loads of great unknown bands which you may never have known about otherwise, and that's kind of what Glasto and festivals in general are all about, I thought. But the feeling I get is that for the organisers it's been more about money than music for a while. Why apply to extend an already enormous and presumably profitable festival as they did last year?

I'd LOVE a Glasto half the size with none of the big name bands (maybe some medium-name ones??) and the same nutters doing their thing in Lost Vageuness, Circus field, Green field etc etc. I end up feeling ripped off anyway off coz I cannot possibly experience everything there is even if I did take 5 days off and go from wed to tues.

Womad and Big Chill are about the right size for festies IMHO, and they attract pretty big names to play. Glade was superb last year precisely because it was so small, it was like playing in your mate's garden by comparison to glasto, and had almost as good an atmosphere because of it.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

It's more like a 5-6 day event for many people. There were already 50,000 people on site by the Wednesday night and there was ample entertainment available!

Yeah but even if you're only going for the big acts its still value for money!

 

[Dubversion]

But the feeling I get is that for the organisers it's been more about money than music for a while.

i think that's nonsense, at least for Eavis et al. The Mean Fiddler obviously have a different agenda, but their influence - which was as unwelcome for Eavis as for anybody - is waning.

Why apply to extend an already enormous and presumably profitable festival as they did last year?

because Eavis knows full well - always has - that the site can comfortably take many more people than it was allowed pre-2000, and that a lot of the people blocked by the improved security etc post-2000 were actually those who made the 'old' glastonbury what it was. a lot of the licence extension enabled places like Lost Vagueness to get a lot more people in to do mad shit, thus improving the creativity and atmosphere of the place overall.

IWomad and Big Chill are about the right size for festies IMHO, and they attract pretty big names to play. Glade was superb last year precisely because it was so small, it was like playing in your mate's garden by comparison to glasto, and had almost as good an atmosphere because of it.

there's room for all sorts (although elitist wank like Shambala makes my flesh crawl) but part of the wonder of Glastonbury is its sheer scale and variety. think about the massive range of people at glastonbury and how no other festival is as inclusive. even WOMAD has limited appeal musically for many people. some people go to Glastonbury and never travel below the railway line, some never go above it. both have a great time. surely a great thing?