34 replies to this topic

[OneLittleFish]

Also to consider compared to other festivals - artists lower down the bill appear to get a bit longer to play at Glasto rather than many other fests. For me that's a big selling point, been a few times in the past that a band I've really wanted to see haven't been given enough time to do their thing - Sigur Ros getting one hour only, Levellers getting forty minutes, stuff like that.

[Dave F.]

Another thing you have to take into consideration is the length of time you're entertained per day.
If you time it right you could probably go 24hrs for 3 days!

Last year I caught Keith Allen err... "singing" a rollocking version of Anarchy In The UK at 5o'clock in the morning up at Strummerville. Quality.
You won't get that at Chelmsford.  

At places like Reading etc. you're herded back to your tents as soon as the last band finishes. Whereas at G. you got the likes of the firestage/Arcadia/Shangri-la burning late into the night.

The variety of choice is also a BIG plus. If you don't like one particular band you can walk off to find another.
I did that with Jay-Z. I got a bit bored, so wandered around to watch Massive Attack as my second choice. Yes! - M.A. my *second* choice.

Remind me, how many stages has IoW got? Two? Three?
One of their organizers said they have so few because their crowd doesn't like choice?!?

Cheers
Dave F.

Edited by Dave F., 07 January 2010 - 10:30 PM.

[llcoolphil]

NeilVJ, on Jan 4 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

Out of the major festivals you will prob spend less at Glastonbury as you can take your own food / drink. Plus you have 5 / 6 full days there
However a lot of the smaller music festivals are much better value. Take Bingley music Live for example. They had doves, editors, ocean colour scene, revereand and the makers, undertones, toploader, zutons, sunshine underground, calvin harris, futureheads and loads more all for £25.

Whilst I agree entirely with your smaller festival sentiment, Bingley is more like 2 day gigs than a festival

[fowls]

Dave F., on Jan 7 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

The variety of choice is also a BIG plus. If you don't like one particular band you can walk off to find another.
I did that with Jay-Z. I got a bit bored, so wandered around to watch Massive Attack as my second choice. Yes! - M.A. my *second* choice.

Remind me, how many stages has IoW got? Two? Three?
One of their organizers said they have so few because their crowd doesn't like choice?!?

Choice is a double edged sword.  Sure, it's great that there's something for everyone.  But it also means people will keep splitting up with a lot of hassle trying to meet up again.  

Rock Werchter is great because there is little choice.  Only 2 stages means everyone can stick together more because there's only one stage or another.  Usually at festivals I spend the day alone because I have a different taste to my friends and I'm too stubborn to miss bands I love.  At Werchter, it's no problem at all because everyone stays together pretty much all day apart from the odd occassion when the group splits in 2.  It's much more of a social event.  And the money they save on stages they spend on having double headliners.  REM followed by Chemical Brothers and Sigur Ros followed by Radiohead in a single weekend was a great lineup that not a lot of festivals could afford to do.

So to say every festival MUST have lots of stages or it sucks is complete rubbish in my book.  I like that some festivals have lots of stages and some don't.  Not every festival should aim for the same ideal.

Edited by fowls, 07 January 2010 - 11:17 PM.

[Dave F.]

fowls, on Jan 7 2010, 11:15 PM, said:

Choice is a double edged sword.  Sure, it's great that there's something for everyone.  But it also means people will keep splitting up with a lot of hassle trying to meet up again.  

Rock Werchter is great because there is little choice.  Only 2 stages means everyone can stick together more because there's only one stage or another.  Usually at festivals I spend the day alone because I have a different taste to my friends and I'm too stubborn to miss bands I love.  At Werchter, it's no problem at all because everyone stays together pretty much all day apart from the odd occassion when the group splits in 2.  It's much more of a social event.  And the money they save on stages they spend on having double headliners.  REM followed by Chemical Brothers and Sigur Ros followed by Radiohead in a single weekend was a great lineup that not a lot of festivals could afford to do.

How does that make G. less value for money?

Quote

So to say every festival MUST have lots of stages or it sucks is complete rubbish in my book.

Where did I say that?

I'd rather my money spent on a variety of acts, rather than chucking £1,000,000 at the Rolling Stones, like they did at the IoW.

I have colleagues that aren't clingy & we each go our separate ways until we meet up late a night. It's easy at G. as long as you don't choose "behind the mixing desk."

[Ed209]

I tell you what ... Some of those free festivals around are bloody good value for money.

[fowls]

Dave F., on Jan 7 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

How does that make G. less value for money?

Saying "Remind me, how many stages has IoW got? Two? Three?" implies you think a festival must have lots of stages to be value for money.

I'm not trying to start an argument.  Just saying IMO, festivals with lots of stages have a different experience to those with fewer stages.  Neither can be said to be better value for money; sometimes having fewer stages is better value for money (fewer clashes and more fun with mates), sometimes having more stages is better value for money (more choice, and more to keep occupied).







I'd say it's the different things going on at Glasto that aren't music that keeps it value for money.  A lot of festivals put effort into their lineups, and it always comes down to which lineup someone personally prefers.  Like a lot of bands? Then it's good value.  Don't like a lot of bands? Then it's bad value. And in that respect, no festival is consistantly value for money since it depends so much on the lineup and personal tastes.  Glasto is always going to have those other things to do, so its value for money pretty much regardless of the music (although it is a big plus).

Edited by fowls, 08 January 2010 - 12:28 AM.

[Dave F.]

fowls, on Jan 8 2010, 12:13 AM, said:

Saying "Remind me, how many stages has IoW got? Two? Three?" implies you think a festival must have lots of stages to be value for money.

Must? No. Less value for money - Yes!

Quote

I'm not trying to start an argument.  Just saying IMO, festivals with lots of stages have a different experience to those with fewer stages.  Neither can be said to be better value for money; sometimes having fewer stages is better value for money (fewer clashes and more fun with mates), sometimes having more stages is better value for money (more choice, and more to keep occupied).

Fewer clashes? More like less you want to see.

Quote

I'd say it's the different things going on at Glasto that aren't music that keeps it value for money.

Yes - variety.
Also, didn't I mention the main non music acts?

Quote

A lot of festivals put effort into their lineups, and it always comes down to which lineup someone personally prefers.  Like a lot of bands? Then it's good value.  Don't like a lot of bands? Then it's bad value. And in that respect, no festival is consistantly value for money since it depends so much on the lineup and personal tastes.  Glasto is always going to have those other things to do, so its value for money pretty much regardless of the music (although it is a big plus).

[fowls]

Dave F., on Jan 8 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

Must? No. Less value for money - Yes!
Fewer clashes? More like less you want to see.

Value for money in respect to bands means seeing all the bands you want to see.  If a festival has a single stage with all your favourite bands then that has the same value for money as a festival that has your favourite bands spread across numerous stages.  Having more stages means more choice, but it also increases the risk of clashes, and that's what I meant by it being a double edged sword.  

Dave F., on Jan 8 2010, 01:58 AM, said:

Also, didn't I mention the main non music acts?

The second bit wasn't referring directly to you or anything, it was just my 2 cents to the original post (hence the massive gap between first and second bit).  Sorry, should've probably put it above the quote to separate the two parts.


(I'm going to bed now, night!)

Edited by fowls, 08 January 2010 - 02:45 AM.

[LondonTom]

fowls, on Jan 8 2010, 02:23 AM, said:

Value for money in respect to bands means seeing all the bands you want to see.  If a festival has a single stage with all your favourite bands then that has the same value for money as a festival that has your favourite bands spread across numerous stages.  Having more stages means more choice, but it also increases the risk of clashes, and that's what I meant by it being a double edged sword.

But its not really, because surely more stages means more acts meaning a likely hood that even if there is no one in particular you want to see, your more likely to find something you like across more stages. Yes there will be clashes but theres also a lot more acts to choose from so it's more likely you will find something.

[Glasto Mad]

LondonTom, on Jan 8 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

But its not really, because surely more stages means more acts meaning a likely hood that even if there is no one in particular you want to see, your more likely to find something you like across more stages. Yes there will be clashes but theres also a lot more acts to choose from so it's more likely you will find something.

Agreed!

Choice = Value

Of course theres a greater chance of clashes, but this shouldn't be a negative against Glasto. Since there are so many bands playing, there is a greater chance of at least a few of your favourite bands being there. Each year it will has a couple of smaller bands that I like that aren't available in the other big festivals. But the main value for me comes in the food and alcohol. You can take in as much as want, also as the festival isn't as comercialised as the others - you have a greater choice of food.

There are other things that glasto offers that some don't , like bonfires, flags, camping near your favourite stage etc...

Im bias so its hard for me to be fair.

When I go to other festivals I watch more music acts. When I go to Glasto, I never see that many acts - but like to explore. So I suppose Glasto just suits me better.

Edited by Glasto Mad, 08 January 2010 - 03:07 PM.

[sifi]

Redwinevino, on Jan 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Roskilde is also non-profit and you get 8 days

And the air-fare, and the Co2 to get over there?  

[fowls]

LondonTom, on Jan 8 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

But its not really, because surely more stages means more acts meaning a likely hood that even if there is no one in particular you want to see, your more likely to find something you like across more stages. Yes there will be clashes but theres also a lot more acts to choose from so it's more likely you will find something.

Well it depends if you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup (like Glasto), or know most the lineup before buying a ticket (like most European festivals).  If you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup, then choice is probably better since you don't know what you're getting (law of averages an' all).  If you can look at the lineup before you buy a ticket and KNOW you love the entire lineup of a festival with fewer stages, how is that less value for money? You're still enjoying the same number of bands in a day.

Like I said before, I think it's the other things outside of the lineup that makes glasto value for money.  Afterall, people here are so often saying it's not just the music and criticise other festivals for having nothing to do other than music.

I don't see why it's such a controversial idea.  Anyway, don't want to hijack the board with this, so I'll just leave it at that

Edited by fowls, 08 January 2010 - 03:25 PM.

[toffeeal68]

YES BY A MILE  

[BlackHole2006]

fowls, on Jan 8 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Well it depends if you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup (like Glasto), or know most the lineup before buying a ticket (like most European festivals).  If you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup, then choice is probably better since you don't know what you're getting (law of averages an' all).  If you can look at the lineup before you buy a ticket and KNOW you love the entire lineup of a festival with fewer stages, how is that less value for money? You're still enjoying the same number of bands in a day.

Like I said before, I think it's the other things outside of the lineup that makes glasto value for money.  Afterall, people here are so often saying it's not just the music and criticise other festivals for having nothing to do other than music.

I don't see why it's such a controversial idea.  Anyway, don't want to hijack the board with this, so I'll just leave it at that

Yes I agree.

With Glastonbury (and I know this is a very mundane reply) you know you are going to have a good time whatever the line up is but with other festivals the line up is everything, I'm going to Reading this year too but I will only go if the line up is brilliant cos I know that if I buy a ticket now I may be dissapointed.