Your (potentially) Contraversial Changes to Glasto

[DeanoL]

27 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Remember the physical size of the festival isn't the only measure - a few less giant acts and it would still be an incredible festival. Besides headliners used to perform for far less than that - the sheer amount of money moving around means they ask for more to start with.

You're kind-of reinforcing my thing about people being unable to even imagine it any other way. The festival did exist and survive in the past you know. Just look into it's history a bit - you'll see it never used to have headliners like it does now. It was still Glastonbury you'll have to agree.

Nor did it have The Park, the SE corner, half the camping space, stuff on on the Thursday, etc.

They've already cut back on the giant acts. For a couple of years now there hasn't been a Stones, Springsteen, Kanye, U2 etc.

Yeah we've had Radiohead and Coldplay, but they're known friends of the festival who do it for cheap. The problem is that just because you can book Radiohead for the price of Mumfords just because you're Glastonbury, it doesn't necessarily follow that you can get Mumfords for the price of Craig David.

And even if you can, it's not such a big saving. 

[frostypaw]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Nor did it have The Park, the SE corner, half the camping space, stuff on on the Thursday, etc.

And the festival was just dreadful without the Park and the SE corner or something?!?

Not that I remember, it was better if anything and less divided. Fewer people and you need less camping space and the stuff to do on Thursday is a bit of an oversubscribed joke.... these aren't the most compelling arguments tbh

[Hugh Jass]

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

They've already cut back on the giant acts. For a couple of years now there hasn't been a Stones, Springsteen, Kanye, U2 etc.

[Purple aki squat]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Nor did it have The Park, the SE corner, half the camping space, stuff on on the Thursday, etc.

They've already cut back on the giant acts. For a couple of years now there hasn't been a Stones, Springsteen, Kanye, U2 etc.

Yeah we've had Radiohead and Coldplay, but they're known friends of the festival who do it for cheap. The problem is that just because you can book Radiohead for the price of Mumfords just because you're Glastonbury, it doesn't necessarily follow that you can get Mumfords for the price of Craig David.

And even if you can, it's not such a big saving. 

They paid Craig David?

[priest17]

Less people standing at the front of the mainstages, had to get out of my chair numerous times for the few songs I liked, very frustrating. In fact the whole festival should be seated. We could even get around on chairs like in that Wall-E film.

As much as I enjoyed The Avalanches all music at 7 on the Saturday should have been stopped and all stages should have shown Doctor Who.

The Glastonbury free press should have been reporting what was happening on my Facebook feed as I didn't take my smartphone with me.

Come on Eavis, its not hard.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

23 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

You state a lot of "facts" that I don't think you are really sure about buddy.

If what you are proposing was true how could it EVER have grown to what it is? It couldn't - therefore you're wrong, unequivocally.

I'm not stating any facts, but can you tell me why millions of people try for tickets and it sells out within half an hour?

[Odessa]

Yeah they've really cut back on the huge acts. They didn't get a fella this year who played 2 or 3 consecutive nights at Wembley last year, and had something like 15 songs in the top 16 of the singles chart.

[frostypaw]

3 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I'm not stating any facts, but can you tell me why millions of people try for tickets and it sells out within half an hour?

I'm a little flabbergasted at this question.

Do you think the only decent draw the festival has is the big acts?  Do you think they'd stop showing the whole festival including full streams for several of the stages if they had a few less huge acts?
 

 

[Bonaneas]

What's the festival that's spread out over two weekends ? One in the states? Was chatting over the weekend and that could be a good change, though depends on the pesky mendip council obviously ! Main acts on first Sat & Sun then next Fri & Sat, then all the dance & cabaret stuff (Arcadia, SE corner, dance village) mon-thu. Green fields, Avalon etc are there for whole duration plus the smaller stages can have bands as per the current Thursday. After being there for 8 days, and finding enough to do from Sunday on, I think it's just about doable from a personal perspective. Would also mean Sunday is a travel home day so traffic much easier. 

[OFP]

1 hour ago, Chinaski_ said:

I would like to see some kind of mini supermarket on site where you can buy fruit, juice, cereal, cans etc. without having to buy them individually from vendors or bring them with you as they get crushed along the way. 

Didn't there used to be one in big ground or did I imagine that? 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

9 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

I'm a little flabbergasted at this question.

Do you think the only decent draw the festival has is the big acts?  Do you think they'd stop showing the whole festival including full streams for several of the stages if they had a few less huge acts?
 

 

Of course I don't, it's not what attracts me and obviously not what attracts you, but I've first hand experience going back to work today of how it is the thing that attracts people who haven't been before. Stop booking the big acts and it stops attracting new people and eventually becomes unviable.

[Jne___]

I went to green man last year and something I really enjoyed was that the headliners came on around midnight . Was really good as it felt firstly as though there were two in the same night, meant that there wasn't so many clashes or rushes as it got to the evening, and that more things were on in the dark which really heightened the atmosphere! I understand cerfews are different at glasto but yeah 

[kellly]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Almost everything you have suggested is impossible.

Haha this response really made me laugh!

[DeanoL]

32 minutes ago, Odessa said:

Yeah they've really cut back on the huge acts. They didn't get a fella this year who played 2 or 3 consecutive nights at Wembley last year, and had something like 15 songs in the top 16 of the singles chart.

There's a difference between profile and price. Ed is a huge act, for sure. He's also a solo act, with no band, which already makes him significantly cheaper. Both he and Radiohead are "friends of the festival" and likely played at a significantly reduced price - I'm talking more so than the regular underpaying that goes on for headliners in exchange for the TV coverage. Adele, likewise as a solo act would have been cheaper. And of course they're all British and it's nearly always cheaper to book "home" than "international" acts even if they're already on tour in the country. 

I'd put money on Foo Fighters being paid more than Ed and Radiohead put together this year. And they're probably the "smallest" headliner.

40 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

And the festival was just dreadful without the Park and the SE corner or something?!?

Not that I remember, it was better if anything and less divided. Fewer people and you need less camping space and the stuff to do on Thursday is a bit of an oversubscribed joke.... these aren't the most compelling arguments tbh

To you and I? Yeah. To others - vast numbers of people attend the festival because of the dance village and the SE corner, there's a whole second festival happening after hours.

I'm sad about that, I'd rather have seen the festival grow in a different direction. So it's easy for me to say that if I were running things, I'd just cut all the dance music and cut tickets by 30k. 

But equally someone could say "let's cut The Park, John Peel and Theatre fields" and do it that way. As I say - what's your favourite bit of the festival? Do you still stand by your argument if that's what gets cut?

[frostypaw]

12 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I've first hand experience going back to work today of how it is the thing that attracts some people who haven't been before.

Fixed that for you.

We've all had that experience, and I at least have had as many people ask about acts further down the bill - it's not all about the headliners.

Beyond that are more numbers purely at the Pyramid/Other actually an advantage? Look at the results of the last increase - the new punters didn't spread themselves out all over site, they mostly just go Pyramid-Other-SE Corner.

Of course I might be wrong - but surely you can see that your "There's utterly no other way!" line *cannot* be right in the face of successful smaller festivals, including many with smaller acts, and the success of Glasto itself over the years. There are always other ways.

----

To avoid a crosspost in reply to DeanoL - I think we agree there, I'm sad that's the way the festival went too and I'd happily lose some of the same bits - but if you think my argument is as easily transferable to any other section of the festival I'd say you're wrong. I'm all for winding back a few years, not laying waste to the original spread and design. I don't think the second festival-full adds as much as it should for it's cost tbh, and it comes with a HEFTY pricetag in terms of sheer $$$ and it's effect on the audience/crowd

[Dave_c]

30 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

What's the festival that's spread out over two weekends ? One in the states? Was chatting over the weekend and that could be a good change, though depends on the pesky mendip council obviously ! Main acts on first Sat & Sun then next Fri & Sat, then all the dance & cabaret stuff (Arcadia, SE corner, dance village) mon-thu. Green fields, Avalon etc are there for whole duration plus the smaller stages can have bands as per the current Thursday. After being there for 8 days, and finding enough to do from Sunday on, I think it's just about doable from a personal perspective. Would also mean Sunday is a travel home day so traffic much easier. 

Coachella is over two weekends. More chance to get tickets too, but it would never happen at Glasto.

[DeanoL]

9 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

To avoid a crosspost in reply to DeanoL - I think we agree there, I'm sad that's the way the festival went too and I'd happily lose some of the same bits - but if you think my argument is as easily transferable to any other section of the festival I'd say you're wrong. I'm all for winding back a few years, not laying waste to the original spread and design. I don't think the second festival-full adds as much as it should for it's cost tbh, and it comes with a HEFTY pricetag in terms of sheer $$$ and it's effect on the audience/crowd

I'm planning to write something separate on that to be honest. Just been trying to collect my thoughts. But one thing I really do think is true is that the dance areas in Glastonbury are far closer to being on par with an actual dance music festival than the Theatre fields are with Latitude. The Theatre fields are lovely but no-one goes to Glastonbury for the Circus/Comedy. Not like they go to Glastonbury for the dance stuff. Or go to Latitude for the Comedy/Arts stuff.

[Hugh Jass]

26 minutes ago, battleborn said:

Care to explain why, so I can't tell you why you're wrong?

Three words: License, Locals, Space.

There's no way the locals would accept an increase from five days to seven. Similarly they'd never accept the noise restrictions extension from midnight to 3am. For those reasons the festival would not receive a license.

Similarly the festival is licensed for a capacity of 220k (or thereabouts). Dropping an extra 30,000 people into the equation would create havoc from a space perspective - crowds were big enough this year - and that's before you think about the extra camping space required and costs associated with accommodating so many extra people. Again, would the locals be happy with another 30,000 people? Would a license be granted?

Oh and flares, smoke bombs and whatnot are now illegal so the festival couldn't unban them if they wanted to.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Hugh Jass

[Penrhos]

What about going back to its "contemporary arts" background - bin off most of the dance tents and have bands playing in the venues instead.

Would have the added advantage of discouraging some of the "pill-heads" - There's plenty of other EDM festivals they can go to instead.

Also reduce the number of bands playing on the main stages and give them longer sets, especially further up the bill - sometimes less is more!

 

[frostypaw]

34 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The Theatre fields are lovely but no-one goes to Glastonbury for the Circus/Comedy. Not like they go to Glastonbury for the dance stuff. Or go to Latitude for the Comedy/Arts stuff.

It's a fair point - I'm sad all the development has gone into the rave palace of the SE Corner. It's pretty awesome down there but it's also 90% munters off their faces and after many many years of trying it I mostly just avoid it now after Thursday and that's as someone who loves a good rave. Sometimes a late swing through in the morning but oh it's messy..... and kinda desperate.

The T&C are much closer to the original festival spirit and could cover all sorts of extra madness through the day and night while involving a lot less of the problems and costs that the SE corner incurs.

[Glasto peaches]

On 27/06/2017 at 9:57 AM, rpfranks said:

Locals get tickets given to them on Sunday only, it's always far busier around the main stages. 

They are not free they are around £85 which includes coach 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

48 minutes ago, frostypaw said:

Fixed that for you.

We've all had that experience, and I at least have had as many people ask about acts further down the bill - it's not all about the headliners.

Beyond that are more numbers purely at the Pyramid/Other actually an advantage? Look at the results of the last increase - the new punters didn't spread themselves out all over site, they mostly just go Pyramid-Other-SE Corner.

Of course I might be wrong - but surely you can see that your "There's utterly no other way!" line *cannot* be right in the face of successful smaller festivals, including many with smaller acts, and the success of Glasto itself over the years. There are always other ways.

----

To avoid a crosspost in reply to DeanoL - I think we agree there, I'm sad that's the way the festival went too and I'd happily lose some of the same bits - but if you think my argument is as easily transferable to any other section of the festival I'd say you're wrong. I'm all for winding back a few years, not laying waste to the original spread and design. I don't think the second festival-full adds as much as it should for it's cost tbh, and it comes with a HEFTY pricetag in terms of sheer $$$ and it's effect on the audience/crowd

But why are smaller festivals successful? Or indeed not ( Look at Beatival last year) the fundamental difference between Glastonbury and other festivals is that all other festivals need the acts first to sell tickets. Reading, Isle of Wight etc need to pay a shed load of cash to their headliners so they can shift tickets, the acts only also do it for the money only. Glastonbury don't need any acts to sell tickets because people trust the lineup will be amazing. So what happens when they scale back on the acts? Do people continue to book no questions asked? 

[Untz]

21 minutes ago, Penrhos said:

What about going back to its "contemporary arts" background - bin off most of the dance tents and have bands playing in the venues instead.

Which bit of contemporary or art is dance music not a part of?

[rpfranks]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

I'd put money on Foo Fighters being paid more than Ed and Radiohead put together this year. And they're probably the "smallest" headliner.

Michael Eavis has said on a few occasions now that the headliner fee is pretty much a flat fee across the three, hasn't he?

[DeanoL]

Just now, rpfranks said:

Michael Eavis has said on a few occasions now that the headliner fee is pretty much a flat fee across the three, hasn't he?

Michael Eavis says an awful lot of bollocks.