DeanoL
-
Posts
5,577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by DeanoL
-
-
20 minutes ago, philipsteak said:
As someone who volunteers on the gates I don't think this is entirely true.
I'll concede they probably skew older but there's plenty of young people staying outside the fence.
What level of glamping option they're using I obviously don't know but they're definitely using them.
I just mean as a general thing. Cutting glamping is going to lead to more young instagrammers, not less. Obviously people from every category are in every type of camping.
-
5 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:
You're probably right to a degree, but I’d say the majority in the CV fields don’t fit that description, they’re older or with young families and have been going to the festival for some years. Yes they’re probably wealthier on average, not so sure about the ‘much more’, there’s very few who appear to be travellers for sure. I know I’m reacting a bit protectively seeing I’ve ended my 8 years of camping and onto 8 years in a CV now.
Everyone at the festival is much wealthier these days because the ticket prices are so much higher. The sole exception are those on the organisational side.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, stuie said:
At the end of the day, who are we to be gatekeeping what the vibe of Glastonbury should be anyway?
Of course 2024's crowd will have a different 'vibe' to the 1990's.
Yup - people who were in their 20s in the 1990s are in their 50s now and if still attending, are bringing a very different vibe. While people who are in their 20s now are very different to people who were in their 20s back in the 1990s.
There's zero way the vibe can remain the same, regardless of what the demographic is.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Superscally said:
I'm just saying I wish the need for it didn't exist - I.e. entitled Instagram tastic bucket listers who are anything but the vibe of what Glastonbury was and should be.
That's really not who is using glamping. The instagram-tastic bucket listers are young people, mostly on limited income, generally found in regular camping. The glampers are old-timers in their 40s and 50s who can't hack camping anymore but have large disposable incomes.
The idea that dropping the glamping would lead to less instagrammers and more "proper glasto goers" is entirely backwards. It would lead to a significantly higher number of young, physically fit people. Now ask yourself how many people that fit into that bracket give you the "vibe of what Glastonbury should be" these days.
-
2 hours ago, Superscally said:
There's loads of things I can't do now that I used to be able to do, but I'm not asking those things to change, I'm reluctantly accepting what I can't do.
Unless the reason you can't do it classes as a disability and then you're fine with it changing?
Your support for accessibility just stops at an arbitrary place.
And you're fine with campervans. And pretty much everyone opting for glamping would be fine in a campervan. It's the most glamp of all the glamping options. Problem is, they're too big, you can fit more people in with other, cheaper glamping options. If WV was made twice as big and stuffed full of pre-sited campervans I really don't think anyone would mind, but I suspect you would.
-
3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:
Maybe
But I was still in a tent in 2019.
I also think what's interesting about your story is that, had everything remained open, unofficial and anarchic like it used to, you probably wouldn't still be going either. The group you belong to would have moved on, either voluntarily, or being usurped by other groups either out-competing you or indeed through actual straight-up conflict.
I can certainly see how that can create a more interesting and dynamic festival for the punter, but there would have been a far, far greater turnover among those actually running things had the festival not stepped in, put a big fence up, and decided some groups were in, and others were not.
-
6 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
tbh im the opposite ... I quite like sanitised version and not quite sure id have coped with the fear of tents being robbed and the anarchy back then but do agree that the creativity and people being able to provide / be the entertainment has been lost
I think in the early days the festival did well by taking those that had provided the entertainment and making it official, giving them places like Shangri-La and the Greenfields and such.
The problem is that this then becomes stuck in place. There's no opportunity for competition, so things get stale and dull. No competition between groups to provide the best place to hang out late at night, so no need to innovate. No opportunity for someone to rock up and just do something, so no opportunity for the festival to see that and then adopt it and make it official. We are essentially stuck with the same group of people running that stuff as from 2005, which absolutely wouldn't be the case had it remained "open".
I mean, they do a good job, and I agree I prefer it this way, that level of anarchy is too much for me, but I do wish the festival had more space for new creative endeavours. They brought Shangri-La and Arcadia to the world, but they're never going to find the next Shangri-La or Arcadia.
(At least when SL had the micro-venues they took open submissions for ideas, but that's gone now too)
-
5 minutes ago, Superscally said:
I'd rather it didn't appeal to those that wouldn't go otherwise ta...definitely changing the vibe. People are kidding themselves if they think otherwise
Not talking about accessible campsites btw...
Why not?
The whole boom in glamping in the past 5-10 years hasn't been caused by the festival getting more appealing to the middle class, that all happened 2003-2015. In recent years it's folks getting older and not being able or willing to hack it in general camping so doing glamping or campervans so they can keep going.
There are plenty of people who are not disabled in any way defined by law, but are not capable of carrying a tent and supplies for five days a couple of miles, which is the requirement for general camping at Glastonbury these days. Back problems abound which mean people can't sleep on a blow-up mattress but are otherwise physically fit...
There's a massive gap between "legally disabled" and "not physically capable of doing Glastonbury" in which an increasing number of people live. I don't really get the idea of excluding one group and not the other.
-
3
-
-
Not really a ban, just not giving them free tickets any more.
Honestly stopping giving out free tickets to certain groups of people would be a good way to improve things once more, though it's a very different group that get those freebies these days!
-
21 minutes ago, wro_lap said:
I wonder if Taylor is currently too big to safely have on at a festival. Considering how overcrowded Elton was this year with QOTSA on the Other Stage, it's hard to think of someone who would detract significantly more numbers from Taylor's crowd
It's universal appeal rather that sheer popularity that causes crowding issues at a festival like Glastonbury where demand for tickets is high anyway. Elton had a level of cut-through which very few acts have (the success of the Dua Lipa collab bringing him to an entire new audience).
At a festival like Reading it would be an issue as you'd seen a massive proportion of tickets go to her fans, but at Glasto that wouldn't happen as there's such demand for tickets anyway.
-
On 11/3/2023 at 7:02 PM, incident said:
Yep. Amongst our 170+ group - we hand held people to make sure they stepped through the process *exactly*, with a shitload of work going into it. As a result, none of them got deleted.
Obviously it shouldn't have been that difficult. But still not a database error though I understand why people want to blame that.
When did you last check all 170? Many seem to have had their registrations show up until a few weeks ago and then vanish.
-
On 11/3/2023 at 10:01 AM, uscore said:
I think everyone would be a bit more accepting/understanding of the delay if See/Glastonbury just admitted there had been some kind of database failure, rather than suggesting it's because some people hadn't met the deadline to confirm their registration was valid.
It reads like a company really not wanting to admit liability to me. I'm not sure what they'd be liable for, but that's how it reads.
On 11/3/2023 at 10:47 AM, incident said:I've personally helped a few people who were struggling in the lead up to the sale, and all of their issues could be boiled down to one of the above. Meanwhile, after we'd worked through all these issues and double checked everything, *nobody* in our exceptionally large group suffered an unexpected deletion. The group being large enough that this would be statistically unlikely if there was any kind of failure.
While it's unlikely, it's far from impossible, it's also possible it's not random deletions and there's some pattern to it in which case your group might sit out of it (if all your registrations were from a similar time period, for example).
-
On 11/2/2023 at 3:11 PM, Monty Pythagoras said:
It’s not like you didn’t have enough time to check you were registered, confirm your registration, re-register and then re-check that is it? What a joke.
Most normal people wouldn't check their registration after confirming it. They would have assumed it worked. There's been no messaging from the festival about "double check we didn't delete you by accident".
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, Memory Man said:
I dont see it being affected by cozzie livs whatsoever as theres always something else in your budget you can cut and lets be honest its now very middle class
Yeah but that's using this site's general attitude that Glastonbury is the best thing of the year and the last to be cut. Yes, there are plenty of people for whom that is true, and yes, the middle classes may have to choose this year between Glastonbury and a weeks' holiday somewhere, when previously they would have done both. But there's a danger in assuming all or most will choose Glastonbury.
-
4 hours ago, Mardy said:
Someone like Elbow, I had in mind, ticket prices for e.g Glasgow are 50-75 quid. Who's going to that? Is the demographic of Elbow fans in 2023 big enough to fill these stadiums? Who's willing to drop that sort of money on a band that tours every year or so, regular as clockwork. Those are the kind of acts I imagine potentially being squeezed out.
I'm not knocking Elbow, just fascinated that there are (presumably) enough fans willing to drop 60+ quid a ticket for an arena show.
Arenas are smaller than you'd think, given catchment area. You're looking at 14,000 at the Hydro, just 7 dates across the country, all similar size so that's 100,000 people. So about 0.15% of the population. It's not that many people to reach on an annual basis. Any band that were once super-big generally maintain enough fans to make that sort of thing possible.
James still sell out arena tours on an annual basis and do tons of festival work over the summer. Adam Kay did an arena tour reading from his book last year.
-
1 hour ago, StoneCircle said:
It flags up if it's used to enter (pass in) the festival but and hasn't been used to leave (pass out).
That doesn't fix people being smuggled in in vans though right?
I know there have been various exploitations of pass-out system in previous years but that doesn't seem to be how the majority are getting in? Or I've missed something/ confused two things?
-
14 hours ago, StoneCircle said:
The groups rounded up are considerably larger than 20! And there are many gates! The faster we all get EPO tickets the better.
How does that fix these issues though?
-
1 hour ago, incident said:
Capacity was lower by 8,000, which shouldn't be enough to make that big a difference.
I'm still convinced the site feeling busier is more down to a much higher number blagging in than before, rather than tickets sold. The Festival have lost control of their gates and desperately need to get it back.
Could be. Or increased number of staff/non general sale tickets. Either way, it'll still be a problem if it rains,
-
Just now, Crazyfool01 said:
Will find out in 2 weeks and a few hours
We won't though. We won't know if the site at current capacity can cope with a wet year or not until we're in the middle of it. That's the problem.
-
It's weird as I used to think I was all smart and clever and different and unique and so if I'm not going to something anymore, doesn't mean others won't.
And I've constantly had that smacked out of me, as it's turned out that actually I'm a fairly decent barometer for average, and I've ended up just doing what many, many other people did too. Still feels egotistical to be "well I'm not trying for tickets this year so demand is sure to be down loads!" though!
-
3 hours ago, Drinky said:
The last decently wet festival was 2016, and yet 2017 sold out in under an hour
Capacity was lower then though so it was fine.
I've just visions of people in huge crowds shuffling along pathways taking hours to cross the site in the rain...
-
On 10/13/2023 at 4:19 PM, Skip997 said:
If I was going to a festival for food, I'd go to a food festival (which I've heard exist).
You can apply that to pretty much every aspect of Glastonbury though. It's like me saying "I don't go to the south-east corner, if I wanted dance music, I'd go to a dance music festival".
There's better folk festivals than Avalon, better comedy festivals than T&C, better world music festivals than West Holts, etc.
21 hours ago, stuie said:I've been wondering lately if we're heading back to the time when it didn't immediately sell out. This data purge will no doubt have given GFL a very accurate picture of how many people are looking for tickets this year.
I think it'll be something like a 4-6 hour sell out. Won't go immediately but when it filters down that you can actually get tickets this year, it'll sell out.
-
1 hour ago, CaledonianGonzo said:
The site gets quieter in the rain and traffic flows decrease as people stay inside their tents or stay put in one place.
That has been the case in the past, but again, it's not been tested in ten years and the demographic has changed a lot.
-
3 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:
I thought the General feeling was that it was far better this year after being a sh*t show the year before , that said maybe some didn't attend the year before so weren't able to compare the two and thought it still busy
It was better but still bad. It's the weather that scares me. Site numbers have increased slowly, and that's a sensible approach, as each festival only has a small jump in numbers, so they can see how the site copes.
But it was what? 2016 last time we even had any rain (or was it all on the Tuesday?) And 2014 the last one that had any challenging wet weather.
The pathways this year felt as busy as they used to feel in the wet years, when everyone was on them to stay off the grass. Except it was nice, so people were walking on the grass too. The festival's current configuration and size has not been tested in wet conditions and it's continued to grow. I think the next wet one will be a proper disaster.
58 minutes ago, incident said:I've pointed this out before, but Melvin returning to GFL isn't a big philosophical change. The person he directly replaced at GFL was Paul Latham - who until his retirement, was also one of Melvins bosses at Live Nation UK.
LN:UK never really went away, or for that matter came back - the main difference is that Melvin has a higher public profile so gets noticed more.
Weirdly, Melvin might be the one to sort out T&C if they let him (given Latitude was him having a go at doing a "festival of performing arts" thing himself).
Glamping...how many
in Chat
Posted
Oh yeah. People could attend and just be in constant pain all the time. They just choose not to.