Garrett_Salas

Hey relative newbie here, Probably been discussed before (apologies!) but wondered if there was a specific reason glasto announced the line-up so late on? I've been going for a few years and one of the frustrations is that - outside of those that announce themselves - you get so little time to check out the bands on the lineup. Most festivals seem to announce around this current time and you get to spend ~6 months giving acts a proper listen before deciding to see them. For glasto it can seem like a big rush to try and listen to bands you don't really know, don't get me wrong - one of my favourite things is discovering a new act by just sticking round a stage but there are also times I've missed bands I turn out to really enjoy later on. I understand the possibility that there simply is no line-up yet, which begs the question why they seem to do it so much later than others?

what happens if his new album is a bit of a dud?

Trying to figure out what internet/browser/device/god to pray to from individual anecdotal accounts is basically the same as trying to figure out what eye colour or month you should be born in to get tickets. Other than a general faster internet = slightly improved chances, I doubt there's any pattern. And even if there was, you wouldn't get find it from such a small sample size and many moving parts 🙁

This is it, no? In previous year a group of 24 (4 groups) just needed to get through once. This year they had to get through 4 times. Typically larger groups tend to be those that have been multiple times as it was the best strategy. So it's no surprise that closing this loophole disproportionately affected regulars.

Sorry - I'll stop now (I just love a good argument). I think my above post concluded my thoughts. Agree to disagree!

Do you not think one of those is slightly out of place 😉 Depends how you view luxury goods - for me it's a societal thing. My point is that it's not a necessity - obviously I won't collapse at die if I don't go to glastonbury. But I do believe that people should be entitled to live a fulfilling life - not just simply surviving. By taking that argument and extending it to "well everyone should have Ferrari's then" or something is just a bit silly * Disclaimer: I don't think that right now glastonbury is the preserve of the rich or anything, my argument is against people who can't get their head around the idea that paying more if you earn more is some completely mental and undesirable thing. If we're talking about equality, why is one person paying 2% of their disposable income and another paying 5% of their disposable income for the same product equal?

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the rich people" Only kidding - maybe Rose-coloured boy is thinking differently to me. But to me, in an ideal word having people people pay based on their ability doesn't mean I want to line-up anyone earning over 40k and shoot them!

Whether something is luxury isn't really about each individual person's ability to pay. A Ferrari is still a luxury good, even to a millionaire, and is more often than not a statement of wealth. Thing is to follow the logic further, if Ferrari decided to bring in a scheme where millionaires pay 5 x the price and that subsidises some Ferrari's to go to people that couldn't afford it - I'd be behind that 100% 😂.

Not dying without does not make something a luxury good. Besides, it's not a binary thing. One is an extremely expensive supercar and the other is a 5-day holiday in Somerset. Where do you draw the line? Kid wants to go see his favourite team in premier football match, Make match-day tickets affordable?? Jeeeez why not give everyone a Bugatti Veyron if we're going to do that.

A ferrari and going to glastonbury are not equivalent

Fair play for that. My argument would be that I think the point is that Holidays *shouldn't* be a luxury - everyone should have the opportunity to get away from work, experience something new, exposed to cultural activities. That's not the same as saying everyone should be able to go to Hawaii (Though in an ideal world, why not?!). It's a pretty glib mindset to say that the only things that people should be entitled to are things that they'd die without.

I really hope the capitalism: good v bad debate finally gets settled here on efests.

I think he's maybe mistaken in thinking that you'd have X tickets set aside for Income group A, X tickets set aside for Income group B etc.

Cheers. To be fair I've seen things similar, but they've all been local community places where you'd imagine the trust-based-ness of it will work. I also imagine they aren't for events that are 10x oversubscribed. Personally, the idea of people paying depending on their income is a good thing in theory, but I think practically it's an absolute impossibility for something like Glasto.

Do you mind elaborating on this? Would be interested to hear. I can only envisage that it's voluntary. In my mind it's an absolute non-starter, let alone difficult. The administrative infrastructure required to audit up to a million people's income...