Is Glastonbury the best value for money music festival?

[Ed209]

I tell you what ... Some of those free festivals around are bloody good value for money.

[fowls]

How does that make G. less value for money?

Edited January 8, 2010 by fowls

[Dave F.]

Saying "Remind me, how many stages has IoW got? Two? Three?" implies you think a festival must have lots of stages to be value for money.

[fowls]

Must? No. Less value for money - Yes!

Fewer clashes? More like less you want to see.

Edited January 8, 2010 by fowls

[LondonTom]

Value for money in respect to bands means seeing all the bands you want to see. If a festival has a single stage with all your favourite bands then that has the same value for money as a festival that has your favourite bands spread across numerous stages. Having more stages means more choice, but it also increases the risk of clashes, and that's what I meant by it being a double edged sword.

[Glasto Mad]

But its not really, because surely more stages means more acts meaning a likely hood that even if there is no one in particular you want to see, your more likely to find something you like across more stages. Yes there will be clashes but theres also a lot more acts to choose from so it's more likely you will find something.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Glasto Mad

[sifi]

Roskilde is also non-profit and you get 8 days

[fowls]

But its not really, because surely more stages means more acts meaning a likely hood that even if there is no one in particular you want to see, your more likely to find something you like across more stages. Yes there will be clashes but theres also a lot more acts to choose from so it's more likely you will find something.

Edited January 8, 2010 by fowls

[toffeeal68]

YES BY A MILE

[BlackHole2006]

Well it depends if you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup (like Glasto), or know most the lineup before buying a ticket (like most European festivals). If you buy a ticket without knowing the lineup, then choice is probably better since you don't know what you're getting (law of averages an' all). If you can look at the lineup before you buy a ticket and KNOW you love the entire lineup of a festival with fewer stages, how is that less value for money? You're still enjoying the same number of bands in a day.

Like I said before, I think it's the other things outside of the lineup that makes glasto value for money. Afterall, people here are so often saying it's not just the music and criticise other festivals for having nothing to do other than music.

I don't see why it's such a controversial idea. Anyway, don't want to hijack the board with this, so I'll just leave it at that