261 replies to this topic

[ukslim]

I just wanted to move this subject out of the weather thread.

I'll be back to have my say on the matter soon, but first, back to the Weather thread to make a link to here.

[Wickedfaerie]

Nor is the colour of my hair. (Will be blue for the first time this festival, not its usual pink!)

[Jackmypie]

What?

[strudders]

No it's not, it have evolved. If it  was the way it was 20 years ago then it would not have a licence and would have stopped years ago. It is what it is. Glastonbury festival of contemporary performing arts 2011

[ukslim]

Right. Back.

I know it's not a welcome subject, on a day when we should be thinking of nothing but our excitement about the festival ahead. But it raised itself.

I got talking to some strangers in the Brecon Beacons earlier this year, and they were reminiscing about early Glastonbury's, criticising the commercialism and the superwall. I'm sure many of us have had that conversation.

I first went in 1995, when the festival was already changing - the licensing authorities were already showing an interest. Rave culture had taken the crusty world by storm, and that too was changing the festival.

Nowadays, there's no fence jumpers. No dogs on strings. Everything feels more controlled and safe, and in a way that's a shame. But it had to be that way. The festival could not have been allowed to carry on as it was. The size of the crowds, the complete lack of organisation or safety measures, meant something awful was bound to happen unless something was done.

Glastonbury is quite different, but not better or worse. Better in some regards, worse in other regards, overall, just different.

I liked the chaos and anarchy. I didn't like that getting on the coach home was a free for all. Or that stage times were rarely accurate.

Nowadays, I miss the chaos, but I'm delighted that there are very few dangerous crushes, there's room to swing a cat, crime is down, and things are generally extremely well organised.

Edited by ukslim, 20 June 2011 - 02:19 PM.

[Big Vern]

yeh but mate, nothing is the same and if it was it would be boring.  Everything needs to evolve to stay current and adapt to current circumstances.  It's either for you or it isn't, it's as simple as that I'm afraid

[ukslim]

Big Vern, on 20 June 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

yeh but mate, nothing is the same and if it was it would be boring.  Everything needs to evolve to stay current and adapt to current circumstances.  It's either for you or it isn't, it's as simple as that I'm afraid

I think you're agreeing with me.

[russycarps]

I saw the glastonbury film the other night, seeing all the different characters on there, listening to people viewpoints etc. It was like a different worlk. The current festival is an obsenity compared to how it used to be.

I'd genuinely like to see it renamed. The Pilton Pop festival or something. It was steadily changing, but in the last couple of years I'd say the "old" glastonbury is pretty much completely gone.

The blame lies with the fence and the super high entrance fee. The demographic is utterly changed. It is the domain of the spoilt middle class rich kid nowadays.

Will I go in 2013? Probably not.

[_danny_]

and we change too.

my first time was in 1992, and i was 16. the 16 year old me would have hated what i saw when i returned in 2008. similarly, the 33 year old me couldn't have done the 1992 festival.

not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, jus' saying.

[eFestivals]

Big Vern, on 20 June 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

yeh but mate, nothing is the same and if it was it would be boring.  Everything needs to evolve to stay current and adapt to current circumstances.  It's either for you or it isn't, it's as simple as that I'm afraid

while I completely agree that things have to adapt to keep their relevance, it is the case that not all of the adaptations that Glastonbury has made had to be made. That's not me being a grumpy old git btw, that's merely me stating a fact.

[fatyeti24]

i didn't go between 2000 and '08, and the difference was staggering.  but somebody got shot the first year i ever went, and that doesn't happen any more.

i still love it.

[mike.c]

just have a good time guys.

the festival brings lots of backgrounds there. why shouldn't i be at the festival because im a rich kid and can afford it?

i just like listening to live music and having a good time with my mates.

[eFestivals]

russycarps, on 20 June 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

I'd genuinely like to see it renamed. The Pilton Pop festival or something.

That's its original name, and something that fully explains the beast that it's become.

It was always a festival that was aimed at the mainstream. It booked chart-friendly acts, and had chart-friendly headliners - but it did (as we all should ) swerve the 'pure pop'.

It's continued with that, and got to benefit from the time when 'chart-friendly' and 'pure-pop' mostly merged into one for a while, and indie-bands became the pop stars of their day. That change in the music scene - perhaps along with things being perceived as safer due to ever-increasing regulation - opened the likes of Glastonbury up to a huge new audience and the more people went the more they told their friends, etc - and the popularity grew.

I guess Michael could have chosen to keep it smaller but it's hardly a bad thing to want as many people to experience it as possible.

[ukslim]

Well, they needn't have made The Park, and The Park is f**king ace.

The Green Futures areas are a shallow reflection of their former glory, and I think that's just because the people coming to the festival are not much interested in that stuff -- which is a shame.

I wish they'd somehow separate out the serious green stuff, from the crystals'n'auras crap. But I don't know whether that would draw in more interest either.

[russycarps]

mike.c, on 20 June 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

just have a good time guys.

the festival brings lots of backgrounds there. why shouldn't i be at the festival because im a rich kid and can afford it?

i just like listening to live music and having a good time with my mates.

problem is, and dont take this personally, but you, your mates and the rest of "your sort" (for want of a better phrase) bring absolutely nothing to the festival. You are boring clones.

I'd much rather see the hippies of the past than you lot parading around in your hunters wellies and top man tshirts. I'm sorry to say you and your ilk have priced out the former glastonbury goer.

Of course you have every right to be there, but why do you think all the "characters" have gone? Because of the likes of you and what the festival has had to become in order to accomodate you.

I mean no offence by this.

[Homer]

The festival's not as good as it used to be - BUT on the other hand you're less likely to get attacked etc and it need to change in order to keep a licence. Is there anything else to say?

[eFestivals]

[wilko8]

russycarps, on 20 June 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

I'd say the "old" glastonbury is pretty much completely gone.

The blame lies with the fence and the super high entrance fee. The demographic is utterly changed. It is the domain of the spoilt middle class rich kid nowadays.

Will I go in 2013? Probably not.

So it's rubbish now because you have to pay to get in??

[russycarps]

wilko8, on 20 June 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

So it's rubbish now because you have to pay to get in??

It's rubbish now because the people who used to make it "good" no longer go and have been replaced by people who are dull.

There are many reasons why those people no longer go, and the sky high entrance fee is defo one of them.

[windy_miller]

If you think Glastonbury is a pop festival then you need to try moving away from the Pyramid Stage.

I think the "Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts" is bang on.