Are Rage too heavy for Glasto

[Magma]

And?

They've still only been taking the big-paying bookings, so it's clearly the money that's driving them to play.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Magma

[ampersand]

bastards..

[ampersand]

If I posted in the Download forum "why don't they book Take That?", you'd see it for the ridiculous idea that it is.

It's no different with Glasto. They put on the bands they want to put on which they feel suit the festival, no different to what Download do.

[sifi]

Rage aren't too heavy for Glasto. Too shit, but not too heavy. If Slash can play Paradise City (which he did), and that was the song during which two people died at MOR in 1988 due to pushing, anyone can play really.

Never got Rage. Seemed like a weak Pantera to me.

[The Nal]

Rage aren't too heavy for Glasto. Too shit, but not too heavy. If Slash can play Paradise City (which he did), and that was the song during which two people died at MOR in 1988 due to pushing, anyone can play really.

Never got Rage. Seemed like a weak Pantera to me.

[ampersand]

Rage aren't too heavy for Glasto. Too shit, but not too heavy. If Slash can play Paradise City (which he did), and that was the song during which two people died at MOR in 1988 due to pushing, anyone can play really.

[The Nal]

you really think you're going to see the crowd at glastonbury starting a mosh or circle pit at a heavy band?

[ampersand]

Maybe , if they were any good. Slash on the other hand, wasnt any good.

[The Nal]

if eavis doesn't book the likes of pearl jam due to safety fears, then i think he's having a laugh.

[eFestivals]

Yes, they're professional musicians.... although their first show in the UK this summer was for free wasn't it? Finsbury Park? Couldn't get tickets, but some mates went and thought it was awesome.

Congratulations on working out what having a job means. RATM have had jobs in the music industry for about 15 years now.. it's what happens when you make music that people want to listen to.

There's a big difference between being a sell out and being successful.

Yet their actions scream sell-out all the same.

Yes, they did a free gig, but if the message was more important than the money they'd surely be happy to take profitable bookings such as Glasto.

They made far more off the big-money bookings minus the freebie costs than they'd have made from Glastonbury, even tho Glastonbury would have still earned them more for an hour than the likes of me earns in a year.

They're perfectly entitled to do what they want, but if they don't want to be laughed at for what they like to sing about they need to do much more to join up the dots.

[eFestivals]

but people are asking for glastonbury to be more diverse. glastonbury doesn't have one genre like download does, so the idea of a stage for rockier bands is understandable.

Glastonbury has its genres, it has its theme. You wouldn't expect Download to change theme, so why Glasto?

Glasto has become the success that it has by doing what it's been doing. If you don't like what it does no one is forcing you to go. I don't do download because it's not my thing, and pick the things that are. Perhaps try it for yourself?

when did the dance field get included?

1995.

So that's a life of 15 years, about a decade more than any rock fashion has managed to date.

[Zacko]

Yet their actions scream sell-out all the same.

Yes, they did a free gig, but if the message was more important than the money they'd surely be happy to take profitable bookings such as Glasto.

They made far more off the big-money bookings minus the freebie costs than they'd have made from Glastonbury, even tho Glastonbury would have still earned them more for an hour than the likes of me earns in a year.

They're perfectly entitled to do what they want, but if they don't want to be laughed at for what they like to sing about they need to do much more to join up the dots.

[MrZigster]

if eavis doesn't book the likes of pearl jam due to safety fears, then i think he's having a laugh.

[ampersand]

Glastonbury has its genres, it has its theme. You wouldn't expect Download to change theme, so why Glasto?

Glasto has become the success that it has by doing what it's been doing. If you don't like what it does no one is forcing you to go. I don't do download because it's not my thing, and pick the things that are. Perhaps try it for yourself?

1995.

So that's a life of 15 years, about a decade more than any rock fashion has managed to date.

[eFestivals]

Do you know if Glasto have tried to book them recently?

nope, no idea.

But given that they did an exclusive deal with another fest for big money, it seems clear that RATM's interest was mostly in the money.

[Spindles]

They've played before, if earlier in the day and before they were as huge as they became, I have to say that personally, I expect they WILL play again, however I don't think that would be on the pyramid, the guardian readers wouldn't put up with having to carry their chairs to another stage, they might have to brush up against poor people on the way.

I think the point is that it is hard to stand and be the one true voice of non-conformoty when you are making more restrictive business demands than Metallica To an extent now Rage ARE the machine.

I'm a huge fan, there hasn't been a week of my life since 92 I havent played at least 1 rage album, I still accept that it is all about the money now. The thing is, I don't care. If I get to see them again at a festival in the coming years I will be just as excited, enjoy it just as much, sing my lungs out and bounce through every track.

[eFestivals]

i'm not saying change, i'm saying expand.

That's Eavis's decision to make if he wants to. To date, it's clear that he hasn't wanted to, and from things I've heard he doesn't see Glasto as a heavy rock fest or even a fest that serves up major rock names - in much the same way that Download don't see themselves as a fest that would have Take That.

just out of interest, what is glastonburys theme if downloads is rock?

What it does.

i like what glasto offers which is why i still go. but i don't see anything wrong with offering a little bit more. you say the dance tent started in 1995. i'm sure there were people saying why should they start a dance field in 1990, it's fine the way it is. go to creamfields or whatever dance fests were around then...

Yup, I guess there were. But Eavis had long-standing contacts he felt he could completely trust for making the step in the dance direction (such as Steve Hillage, who programmed the dance tent in its first year), and bearing in mind that the whole fest is run around the personal trust he has in the people that run the fest for him (rather than it being about commercial operators, which is how other fests are run), I'd guess that had a big bearing on things.

With Emily and Nick now having a much bigger role in things (they've programmed the Pyramid for the last two fests, and i've noticed the change, even if others haven't), perhaps things might go more in the direction you're wanting in the future - it's not a direction that I can see Michael taking, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

[The Nal]

it's not a direction that I can see Michael taking, but perhaps I'm wrong about that.

[Spindles]

Reading was always historically the rockier festival and glastonbury the poppier through the 80s/90s. The rise of modern festivals (TITP,Download,V) has led to there being more theming of festivals (v=pop,download=rock,titp=reading in the cold)and I can see why people would think that an out and out rock band wouldn't have a place at glastonbury. I think they are wrong, I have to say, in the same way as people thought there was no place for hiphop (at a festival I saw cypress hill at 10 years ago, no less:p).

I think the reality is, RATM haven't played glasto since reforming because glasto couldn't offer them what other festivals were willing to. It's a long held belief that Mr Eavis pays peanutes next to other festivals and a large part of the fee could be seen as being allowed to play:) I know from an interview with michael stipe in 99 that they were paid about 1/20th what they would normally receive for a gig at that point in their career (2 albums past their best) and that he felt they were 'playing for the love of it'.

British acts are more likely, I think, to be emotionally tied to glasto and therefore take the lower fee and enjoy the prestige. I'm pretty sure I read that springsteen had to be shown a DVD to understand why it was worth playing.

[ampersand]

I wouldnt like to see an all out rock fest or anything. Just one or two heavy bands to get the blood pumping.

[eFestivals]

I wouldnt like to see an all out rock fest or anything. Just one or two heavy bands to get the blood pumping.

They pretty much always have that anyway - along with similar heavy bands that pass most people by cos they're off their radar. It's not as heavy music free as people often assume.

[eFestivals]

Reading was always historically the rockier festival and glastonbury the poppier through the 80s/90s. The rise of modern festivals (TITP,Download,V) has led to there being more theming of festivals (v=pop,download=rock,titp=reading in the cold)and I can see why people would think that an out and out rock band wouldn't have a place at glastonbury. I think they are wrong, I have to say, in the same way as people thought there was no place for hiphop (at a festival I saw cypress hill at 10 years ago, no less:p).

At Glastonbury ten years ago they had Cypress Hill!!!

Much as with hip hop, Glastonbury has always done 'heavy', it just passes most people by.

I think the reality is, RATM haven't played glasto since reforming because glasto couldn't offer them what other festivals were willing to. It's a long held belief that Mr Eavis pays peanutes next to other festivals and a large part of the fee could be seen as being allowed to play:) I know from an interview with michael stipe in 99 that they were paid about 1/20th what they would normally receive for a gig at that point in their career (2 albums past their best) and that he felt they were 'playing for the love of it'.

British acts are more likely, I think, to be emotionally tied to glasto and therefore take the lower fee and enjoy the prestige. I'm pretty sure I read that springsteen had to be shown a DVD to understand why it was worth playing.

Glastonbury does pay 'peanuts' compared to other festivals. This is because the money that would otherwise go to bands is going to the likes of Oxfam, Greenpeace, WaterAid, and other good causes.

RATM were happy to play on that basis in the past. If they're not now, then it's certainly about them wanting the money.

[ampersand]

They pretty much always have that anyway - along with similar heavy bands that pass most people by cos they're off their radar. It's not as heavy music free as people often assume.

[eFestivals]

think the threads on here asking what heavy bands there are in the weeks before the fest would disagree with this.

That's because those people want 'names', and 'names' is all they know.

Yet the proportion of 'names' for any genre at Glastonbury isn't so huge against the number of bands of any genre, so while 'heavy' is one of the smaller featured genres, the amount of it is far bigger than what those people assume.

But as I keep saying, 'heavy' is well-covered by other fests - and particularly the 'names'. If you want to see those, go to where they'll be.

[ampersand]

That's because those people want 'names', and 'names' is all they know.

Yet the proportion of 'names' for any genre at Glastonbury isn't so huge against the number of bands of any genre, so while 'heavy' is one of the smaller featured genres, the amount of it is far bigger than what those people assume.

But as I keep saying, 'heavy' is well-covered by other fests - and particularly the 'names'. If you want to see those, go to where they'll be.