Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

How Old is too old?!


Guest SammyN

Recommended Posts

I am trying to convince a friend of mine to get a Glasto ticket if and when they go on re sale following the cancellations and she hit back saying that she was too old to go to a festival (She is only 36)!

I am a Glasto virgin but have been to my fair share of other festivals over previous years, but need help to try and explain how Glasto differs from the norm!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's no maximum age, it's ability that is important.

Loads of people in their 50s and 60s go, and some older folks too. Seem to remember a thread by someone in their 70s who was going to support their grandson on the BBC Introducing Stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're never too old for Glasto!

36 isn't old anyway, my mum and dad have been going for at least 10 years now, and they're only 42, plus they intend to go for as long as they can afford it.

Glastonbury isn't full of 14 year olds and pissed up students (well, not JUST full of pissed up students), there's plenty of diversity and there's something for everyone, the site is enormous afterall. I think as long as you're physically up to the challenge of camping and walking a lot, then you can go at any age, I've seen people there who look like they're about 80 and they still seem to enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We went to our first Glasto this year and I'm 34, my tow mates are older (37 and 39 I think) and we were thinking we may be too old and stand out. Not a chance. There are all sizes, shapes, ages, in fact it's probably the most diverse group of people I've ever seen in one place, from 3 generations of 1 family, to groups of teenage students, to retired couples. Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't your physical age that counts at Glasto it's your attitude that matters !

There are lots of old ravers like me about and many others older and younger who make up Glasto's wide diversity.

If your friend keeps an open mind and gets involved with the Festival rather than being a spectator she will be fine. This place is a tonic to everyday crappy life !

Too old for Glasto ? No chance !! :lol:

Edited by DaveMac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started my festival going at the age of 18 with the Bath Blues Fest in 1968, followed by Shepton Mallet in 69, which mutated into Glastonbury in 1970. I still do at least three fests a year including Glasto. It's not hard to work out that I'll be 60 come next year's Glasto.

We have a regular group of five who go to Glasto - most of us late 50s and one who's 62. So if 36 is too old we've got no chance!

I don't know what your friend's reservation is about. If it's the camping bit that shouldn't be a problem. Over the years our festival-going approach has changed. We now take much more equipment to ensure we can still enjoy a few creature comforts and in 2010 we'll be taking a trailer tent.

If it's about the music then answers can be found in the multitude of threads along the lines of "it's not just about the music." At Glasto you'll find music to suit all tastes and ages. Remember one of the greatest performances in recent times came from Leonard Cohen, then aged 73. But Glasto really does offer so much more. You can spend a couple of wonderful days in the craft or healing fields and not even visit a main stage.

If it's about the people your friend will be definately out-aged by a large number of Glasto goers and she certainly won't be an oldie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 26 is the upper age limit. They check you, and if you've not got id proving you're under 26, you can't come in, which is pretty fair, I think. Otherwise it'd be full of old people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used this description many times before when trying to explain about Glasto. It's like going through the back of the wardrobe in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe Narnia books. You go through the gates and enter a magical world where all 'normal' rules are suspended for a week. You meet new people in a non-judgemental way - they can be from all backgrounds but share a common love of the festival.

Age, background, employment (or lack of) become irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of us have ever been to Glastonbury before and the ages range from 30 to 47 TBH I have no problem over my age at festivals (unlike the real world) even at Leeds I felt totally at home and that place has a rep for being a unruly playground full of silly little children

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38, Glasto virgin, camping virgin... closest I've been to a tent is supping champagne at a wedding.

Off out to the local rec now to (try and) stick up my new tent for the first time, and then next week will be spending a night on a campsite to road test it proper.

So, no, 36 surely can't be too old :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38, Glasto virgin, camping virgin... closest I've been to a tent is supping champagne at a wedding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...