Headliners 2016

[Yokel Again]

2 minutes ago, PiratePete said:

'Massive investment'? You make it sound like you're buying a house, not going to a music festival. 

It's a lot of money, as Neil has stated, it is also a lot more in real terms than it used to be. 

I'll try to reserve judgement on why you'd pick up on my comment like that.

[Crazyfool01]

surely with the rise in workers this is only going to increase further ? as these tickets are going to be worked for rather than paid for ?

[ericlered]

By comparing the current festival ticket price favourably against rip off gig ticket prices I'm guessing it's pretty much the same value as it has been since I started going in 1995, no better and no worse.

Ticket price that year was £65 plus fees, but I'm guessing the average ticket price to say Manchester Apollo is around £30 to £40 now, Stone Roses tickets were £12.50 that christmas.

Oasis at Knebworth in 1996 was about £22, guessing it would be about £75 if they were to reform anytime soon.

Basically prices for both festivals and regular gigs have been increasing at way above inflation for years. and each are far worse value than they were back then...

Edited February 10, 2016 by ericlered

[PiratePete]

4 minutes ago, Yokel Again said:

It's a lot of money, as Neil has stated, it is also a lot more in real terms than it used to be. 

I'll try to reserve judgement on why you'd pick up on my comment like that.

Hold yer horses, I just thought massive was a bit of an exaggeration, s'all. 

Just re-read my comment and it does seem like I'm sneering at poor folk from atop a tall horse whilst wearing red velvet hunting clobber, like some kind of cheese-faced pig fellatio aficionado Cameronite, but it wasn't meant to come off like that. Peace and love  

I totally agree that it's pricey, but for what you get at Glastonbury in terms of bands, the size of the place, the sort of mad fantasy world that gets created, etc, etc, it's well worth the price and then some. Car parking ticket prices are starting to take the piss a bit mind!

[Yokel Again]

Just now, PiratePete said:

Hold yer horses, I just thought massive was a bit of an exaggeration, s'all. 

Just re-read my comment and it does seem like I'm sneering at poor folk from atop a tall horse whilst wearing red velvet hunting clobber, like some kind of cheese-faced pig fellatio aficionado Cameronite, but it wasn't meant to come off like that. Peace and love  

I totally agree that it's pricey, but for what you get at Glastonbury in terms of bands, the size of the place, the sort of mad fantasy world that gets created, etc, etc, it's well worth the price and then some. Car parking ticket prices are starting to take the piss a bit mind!

Peace & love. :-)

It's well worth the price, to me at least, hence why we have been back most years over the last 16. I don't doubt they could charge twice as much and still sell out to be honest - but it is alot more expensive than it used to be. (Won't bother about trying to double-guess the reasons for this).

Total cost for say 2 of us is what? £500 ish for tickets. Save abit on taking your own food or drink etc. BUT, you could take the family on holiday for a week for that more or less! These are the sorts of decisions that mean it's not as easy as "Tarquin, are we going to DO GLASTO" (etc) this year. I wish it were. I doubt there are too many who attend this year who don't choose to spend £ on Glastonbury at the sacrifice of something else.

[Finding leto14]

I'm seeing Muse and Coldplay in seperate gigs to Glastonbury costing me 2/3 of a Glasto ticket. If you were to see all 3 headliners it more than covers the costs of seeing each band live.

 

unbelievable value for money if you ask me

[Spindles]

I haven't been to many non festival gigs since my early 20s, simply because it is much better value.

Tony makes a good point.

[Mezhyp1]

46 minutes ago, sisco said:

All about opinions hey!! 

To think some people were genuinely looking forward to Kanye Bloody West!!

I was buzzing for Kanye West, more than anything it was something entirely different to the mundane pyramid headliners and repetitive acts, it had potential to be something really special, and for 45 mins it certainly was that. 

[thewayiam]

1 minute ago, Mezhyp1 said:

I was buzzing for Kanye West, more than anything it was something entirely different to the mundane pyramid headliners and repetitive acts, it had potential to be something really special, and for 45 mins it certainly was that. 

I'm more inclined to side with Noel Gallagher with it be being closer to 30 mins if it has to be anything

[deadpheasant]

10 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

A headline set is usually not a full set. Anything less than a headline set is just a sample of an act.

If you think of it as support acts. You've got a main band playing plus around 6 support acts all of which are much larger sized band than a support act you'd see at a gig plus rare acts like Dolly Parton or Burt Bacharach who charge massive amounts at their own gigs as well as the option to see a different band depending on your mood. Then put into account you're also paying for the atmosphere and experience. It all adds up.

[strummer77]

26 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

A headline set is usually not a full set. Anything less than a headline set is just a sample of an act.

i dunno, I think most headline sets are about the same as a full set. I've seen a few headliners at their own gigs around the same time, and there isn't much in it if anything.

[FloorFiller]

1 minute ago, strummer77 said:

i dunno, I think most headline sets are about the same as a full set. I've seen a few headliners at their own gigs around the same time, and there isn't much in it if anything.

you get the odd act who does a 3 hour mega set, and obviously setlists are often tailored towards festival crowds and so acts own gigs may be better for die hard fans, but overall they're more often than not the same

[Yokel Again]

Sunday is sometimes a bit shorter isn't it? Otherwise I'd say the are pretty much a whole set. 

[somecoolusername]

Even the Sunday I think is more or less a full set. Like, take Blur for example (I'm using them because I've seen them a million times so know how long their gigs tend to be...) they played 24 songs when they headlined the Pyramid. 25 when they played their own Hyde Park gigs in 2009. 26-27 on their 2012 UK tour. 26 at their UK shows last summer (barring Blackpool, where they played 24 due to the barrier collapsing and them having to stop while it was fixed). So that's a good 2hrs 15-2hrs 30 per gig. Basically the same as when they headlined Glastonbury 

[teaconsumer]

Not sure if any use since he headlined in 2010, but given correlation of acts with Glasto seemed worth noting: BST Hyde Park have booked Stevie Wonder.

[cdm22]

1 hour ago, Finding leto14 said:

I'm seeing Muse and Coldplay in seperate gigs to Glastonbury costing me 2/3 of a Glasto ticket. If you were to see all 3 headliners it more than covers the costs of seeing each band live.

 

unbelievable value for money if you ask me

It is indeed....assuming you want to see any of the headline acts normally, otherwise not so much. This is why i'm always hoping for a decent headline act to be announced, and most years being a bit disappointed.

[The Nal]

1 hour ago, strummer77 said:

i dunno, I think most headline sets are about the same as a full set. I've seen a few headliners at their own gigs around the same time, and there isn't much in it if anything.

Off the top of my head, Metallica and U2 headline gigs were well short of their usual length. U2 only played an hour and 35 minutes. 19 songs. Mary J Blige played 19 songs last year at 5pm.

Edited February 10, 2016 by The Nal

[strummer77]

49 minutes ago, teaconsumer said:

Not sure if any use since he headlined in 2010, but given correlation of acts with Glasto seemed worth noting: BST Hyde Park have booked Stevie Wonder.

Where's this news come from?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, strummer77 said:

Where's this news come from?

looks like they have their own source, but an accurate one going by the previous posts.

[tevaburger]

for the value, i generally look at a lineup and ask myself how much I would pay to see that band by itself  - for example the Stones at Glasto for me would have been over 100 quid, probably more, well over... - even if you lowball the figures (for someone like Jackson Browne, who's normal price tickets for his own gigs would be quite pricey..at Glasto, i'd low ball at 20 quid price and that's a bargain, and 2010 added up easily) you come up with 10 or so acts and the value easily takes you over the price of the ticket. That's how i justify leaving the wife for a week, when I explain it to her! 2009 headliners alone did that. ...the price of experiencing the Stones in the front pit of one of their most noteworthy late gigs, and all else that comes with Glasto, it's just so worth it...

for time sets of headliners....back in the day i believe (if judging by my cassette recordings) that most headliner sets were up to 90 minutes. i think Macca was the first one to be listed with a full 2-hr set (although Roger Waters had 2 hours as special guest in '02)....subsequent years went back to 90 minutes, but 2009 when Bruce played I believe was first year that all 3 headliners were given 2 hours (or more, in Bruce's case), and since then there have been far more occasions of headliners getting a full 2 hours (if they have the material). so if anything in recent years we're getting more value in terms of a headlining set matching the 'usual' gig an act plays on the corresponding tour. 

(i could be wrong here, not an "authoritative" statement of fact, just something from memory)

[tevaburger]

10 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Off the top of my head, Metallica and U2 headline gigs were well short of their usual length. U2 only played an hour and 35 minutes. 19 songs. Mary J Blige played 19 songs last year at 5pm.

Metallica was short, far shorter than the programme advertised, but U2 were 2 hours weren't they? check YouTube full gig 

Willie Nelson did 60 songs in 2010, all in about 50 mins, didn't he? 

[The Nal]

3 minutes ago, tevaburger said:

Metallica was short, far shorter than the programme advertised, but U2 were 2 hours weren't they? check YouTube full gig 

1 hr 35 according to the vid I'm looking at. I do remember it being short.

 

Willie Nelson did 60 songs in 2010, all in about 50 mins, didn't he? 

Edited February 10, 2016 by The Nal

[russycarps]

bruce springsteen played the same song for 7 hours didnt he? That's what it felt like anyway.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by russycarps

[More rain]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep.

I'm not sure how it might have gone for acts further down the bill, but Glasto are seemingly paying their headliners far more nowadays than can be accounted for by standard inflation.

Interesting, do you have a source?

I can tell you first hand this is 100% not the case over the last 5 years.

[tevaburger]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

bruce springsteen played the same song for 7 hours didnt he? That's what it felt like anyway.

 

 

nah, that was just Outlaw Pete for 7 minutes, about 3 songs in...bad choice and I'm sure that song felt like 7 hrs to some