147 replies to this topic

[Spindles]

They've played before, if earlier in the day and before they were as huge as they became, I have to say that personally, I expect they WILL play again, however I don't think that would be on the pyramid, the guardian readers wouldn't put up with having to carry their chairs to another stage, they might have to brush up against poor people on the way.

I think the point is that it is hard to stand and be the one true voice of non-conformoty when you are making more restrictive business demands than Metallica   To an extent now Rage ARE the machine.

I'm a huge fan, there hasn't been a week of my life since 92 I havent played at least 1 rage album, I still accept that it is all about the money now.  The thing is, I don't care.  If I get to see them again at a festival in the coming years I will be just as excited, enjoy it just as much, sing my lungs out and bounce through every track.

[eFestivals]

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 04:10 PM, said:

i'm not saying change, i'm saying expand.

That's Eavis's decision to make if he wants to. To date, it's clear that he hasn't wanted to, and from things I've heard he doesn't see Glasto as a heavy rock fest or even a fest that serves up major rock names - in much the same way that Download don't see themselves as a fest that would have Take That.

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 04:10 PM, said:

just out of interest, what is glastonburys theme if downloads is rock?

What it does.

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 04:10 PM, said:

i like what glasto offers which is why i still go. but i don't see anything wrong with offering a little bit more. you say the dance tent started in 1995. i'm sure there were people saying why should they start a dance field in 1990, it's fine the way it is. go to creamfields or whatever dance fests were around then...

Yup, I guess there were. But Eavis had long-standing contacts he felt he could completely trust for making the step in the dance direction (such as Steve Hillage, who programmed the dance tent in its first year), and bearing in mind that the whole fest is run around the personal trust he has in the people that run the fest for him (rather than it being about commercial operators, which is how other fests are run), I'd guess that had a big bearing on things.

With Emily and Nick now having a much bigger role in things (they've programmed the Pyramid for the last two fests, and i've noticed the change, even if others haven't), perhaps things might go more in the direction you're wanting in the future - it's not a direction that I can see Michael taking, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

[The Nal]

eFestivals, on 14 July 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

it's not a direction that I can see Michael taking, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

I wouldnt like to see an all out rock fest or anything. Just one or two heavy bands to get the blood pumping.

[Spindles]

Reading was always historically the rockier festival and glastonbury the poppier through the 80s/90s.  The rise of modern festivals (TITP,Download,V) has led to there being more theming of festivals (v=pop,download=rock,titp=reading in the cold)and I can see why people would think that an out and out rock band wouldn't have a place at glastonbury.  I think they are wrong, I have to say, in the same way as people thought there was no place for hiphop (at a festival I saw cypress hill at 10 years ago, no less:p).

I think the reality is, RATM haven't played glasto since reforming because glasto couldn't offer them what other festivals were willing to.  It's a long held belief that Mr Eavis pays peanutes next to other festivals and a large part of the fee could be seen as being allowed to play:)  I know from an interview with michael stipe in 99 that they were paid about 1/20th what they would normally receive for a gig at that point in their career (2 albums past their best) and that he felt they were 'playing for the love of it'.

British acts are more likely, I think, to be emotionally tied to glasto and therefore take the lower fee and enjoy the prestige.  I'm pretty sure I read that springsteen had to be shown a DVD to understand why it was worth playing.

[ampersand]

The Nal, on 14 July 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

I wouldnt like to see an all out rock fest or anything. Just one or two heavy bands to get the blood pumping.

same here but then again, if they're just going to gently nod their heads then maybe glastonbury isn't the place for them. if the nature of booking bands was to change slightly, then i think the crowd would have to as well.
can't see either happening unfortunately.

[eFestivals]

The Nal, on 14 July 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

I wouldnt like to see an all out rock fest or anything. Just one or two heavy bands to get the blood pumping.

They pretty much always have that anyway - along with similar heavy bands that pass most people by cos they're off their radar. It's not as heavy music free as people often assume.

[eFestivals]

Spindles, on 14 July 2010 - 04:40 PM, said:

Reading was always historically the rockier festival and glastonbury the poppier through the 80s/90s.  The rise of modern festivals (TITP,Download,V) has led to there being more theming of festivals (v=pop,download=rock,titp=reading in the cold)and I can see why people would think that an out and out rock band wouldn't have a place at glastonbury.  I think they are wrong, I have to say, in the same way as people thought there was no place for hiphop (at a festival I saw cypress hill at 10 years ago, no less:p).

At Glastonbury ten years ago they had Cypress Hill!!!

Much as with hip hop, Glastonbury has always done 'heavy', it just passes most people by.

Spindles, on 14 July 2010 - 04:40 PM, said:

I think the reality is, RATM haven't played glasto since reforming because glasto couldn't offer them what other festivals were willing to.  It's a long held belief that Mr Eavis pays peanutes next to other festivals and a large part of the fee could be seen as being allowed to play:)  I know from an interview with michael stipe in 99 that they were paid about 1/20th what they would normally receive for a gig at that point in their career (2 albums past their best) and that he felt they were 'playing for the love of it'.

British acts are more likely, I think, to be emotionally tied to glasto and therefore take the lower fee and enjoy the prestige.  I'm pretty sure I read that springsteen had to be shown a DVD to understand why it was worth playing.

Glastonbury does pay 'peanuts' compared to other festivals. This is because the money that would otherwise go to bands is going to the likes of Oxfam, Greenpeace, WaterAid, and other good causes.

RATM were happy to play on that basis in the past. If they're not now, then it's certainly about them wanting the money.

[ampersand]

eFestivals, on 14 July 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

They pretty much always have that anyway - along with similar heavy bands that pass most people by cos they're off their radar. It's not as heavy music free as people often assume.

think the threads on here asking what heavy bands there are in the weeks before the fest would disagree with this.

[eFestivals]

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 05:05 PM, said:

think the threads on here asking what heavy bands there are in the weeks before the fest would disagree with this.

That's because those people want 'names', and 'names' is all they know.

Yet the proportion of 'names' for any genre at Glastonbury isn't so huge against the number of bands of any genre, so while 'heavy' is one of the smaller featured genres, the amount of it is far bigger than what those people assume.

But as I keep saying, 'heavy' is well-covered by other fests - and particularly the 'names'. If you want to see those, go to where they'll be.

[ampersand]

eFestivals, on 14 July 2010 - 05:16 PM, said:

That's because those people want 'names', and 'names' is all they know.

Yet the proportion of 'names' for any genre at Glastonbury isn't so huge against the number of bands of any genre, so while 'heavy' is one of the smaller featured genres, the amount of it is far bigger than what those people assume.

But as I keep saying, 'heavy' is well-covered by other fests - and particularly the 'names'. If you want to see those, go to where they'll be.

well i'm happy for you to go through the line up and investigate the lesser known bands to prove me wrong. but i think we both know that the bands will only be a small handful.

would you not agree that glastonbury would be that little bit better if it was that little bit more diverse?

[j-j-j-j-joe!]

Spindles, on 14 July 2010 - 04:27 PM, said:

They've played before, if earlier in the day and before they were as huge as they became, I have to say that personally, I expect they WILL play again, however I don't think that would be on the pyramid, the guardian readers wouldn't put up with having to carry their chairs to another stage, they might have to brush up against poor people on the way.

I think you mean The Telegraph.

Edited by j-j-j-j-joe!, 14 July 2010 - 06:11 PM.

[eFestivals]

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

well i'm happy for you to go through the line up and investigate the lesser known bands to prove me wrong. but i think we both know that the bands will only be a small handful.

As I say, the number aren't as small as you're imagining - and the same applies with all genres.

I always feel there's not enough reggae, but then end up kicking myself when I discover there was more than I'd thought, and the issue was more my knowledge of who are reggae bands than there being so few reggae bands.

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

would you not agree that glastonbury would be that little bit better if it was that little bit more diverse?

How diverse are you wanting it?

It's already the most musically diverse festival there is by a VERY long way.

And as i've said, would you dream of saying to Download it should be more diverse, to feature any and all genres not currently represented (which in Download's case, is just about all genres)? So I don't get why you think Glastonbury should change in the same way.

Glastonbury is what it is, and it's the best in the world. If you don't like what it is, there's plenty of other options elsewhere.

[Joshuwarr]

But I think the fact that it IS the most diverse festival is what throws many people when Glastonbury doesn't book "heavier" acts. I'm not, by any means, suggesting a huge shift but at least maybe a few heavier acts featuring high on the bill. I think Rage's ethos (no matter what you think of them) ties in well with the festival and I think their generous act at the Rage Factor wherein they played a free gig (funded by the big expensive gigs they did which is to show it wasnt out of greed) and also the fact that they donated ALL proceeds from the number one christmas single to charity.

I think them headlining The Other Stage would be a highly commendable thing. Also, Melvin Benn has close links to the band which would make them viable for Glastonbury.

[eFestivals]

Joshuwarr, on 14 July 2010 - 06:45 PM, said:

But I think the fact that it IS the most diverse festival is what throws many people when Glastonbury doesn't book "heavier" acts. I'm not, by any means, suggesting a huge shift but at least maybe a few heavier acts featuring high on the bill. I think Rage's ethos (no matter what you think of them) ties in well with the festival and I think their generous act at the Rage Factor wherein they played a free gig (funded by the big expensive gigs they did which is to show it wasnt out of greed) and also the fact that they donated ALL proceeds from the number one christmas single to charity.

I think them headlining The Other Stage would be a highly commendable thing. Also, Melvin Benn has close links to the band which would make them viable for Glastonbury.

RATM's ethos did fit well with the fest. I'm far from sure it fits any better than (say) N-Dubz does nowadays.

But anyway, people are making the presumption that their absence is down to Glastonbury not wanting them to play, which is very far from certain. It's certainly the case that the band happily signed contracts last year which meant they contractually couldn't play Glasto, and that they got big money for agreeing not to play elsewhere.

Melvin's presumed relationship with the band is of no relevance whatsoever to Glasto. He has no role in who they book, and he's extremely unlikely to encourage any booking by Glasto which would be to the detriment to his 'real' job of running festivals for Festival Republic.

But what's Melvin's actual relationship with the band? My take is that it's only one of paying them huge sums for a tiny amount of work - he certainly doesn't book them himself.

[rexclark]

Can't say I'm too fussed about the lack of heavy rock at Glastonbury but I can see why some people would want it.

[ampersand]

eFestivals, on 14 July 2010 - 06:33 PM, said:

As I say, the number aren't as small as you're imagining - and the same applies with all genres.

I always feel there's not enough reggae, but then end up kicking myself when I discover there was more than I'd thought, and the issue was more my knowledge of who are reggae bands than there being so few reggae bands.



How diverse are you wanting it?

It's already the most musically diverse festival there is by a VERY long way.

And as i've said, would you dream of saying to Download it should be more diverse, to feature any and all genres not currently represented (which in Download's case, is just about all genres)? So I don't get why you think Glastonbury should change in the same way.

Glastonbury is what it is, and it's the best in the world. If you don't like what it is, there's plenty of other options elsewhere.

i'd imagine there's far more reggae than heavy rock. far far more.

yes it is the most diverse fest by a long way. so why stop there? i don't expect download to be more diverse because it is a specialist festival. glastonbury is not and i think if it can make itself more diverse and open to more groups of people, then it should do

and where have i said that i don't like what glastonbury is?

[budvar]

I always get the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) that the crush incident at Roskilde a few years ago has led ME to the conclusion that he doesn't want the rockier bands at Glasto.

That said what's the difference in rockiness between Muse and Foo Fighters?

Also plenty of names, including the Foos and Rage have played in the past and I would never rule out them returning.

[eFestivals]

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

i'd imagine there's far more reggae than heavy rock. far far more.

then you definitely imagine wrongly!

ampersand, on 14 July 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

yes it is the most diverse fest by a long way. so why stop there? i don't expect download to be more diverse because it is a specialist festival. glastonbury is not and i think if it can make itself more diverse and open to more groups of people, then it should do

Glastonbury is no less 'specialised' - it specialises in what it does, no less than download does with what it does.

But anyway, Glastonbury is often trying being more diverse. As an example, many years ago it had a classical tent - but for whatever reasons they felt it didn't work out, and it was dropped. So on that basis, if they felt more rock would work for the fest they'd no doubt do it - and it's a fair presumption that they don't do it because they don't feel it would work for the fest.

[abu hamster]

Rage would cross over I doubt very much that the appeal is there for a Megadeath, Pantera or lawnmowerdeth appearance

[abu hamster]

RATM's ethos did fit well with the fest. I'm far from sure it fits any better than (say) N-Dubz does nowadays.


Neil is obviously in the mood for an argument so here goes.

Neil what you say there is BOLLOCKS of the highest order.

Edited by abu hamster, 15 July 2010 - 09:56 AM.