The Festival's Not What It Used to Be

[camperman]

Yes. You're fortunate to be wealthy. As am I. Guess what though, some people arent.

Crowing about your wealth in capital letters doesn't really do you any favours.

[ukslim]

I would ditch the U2s, the Bruce Springsteens in a heartbeat if it meant lower prices and more of the "old crowd".

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

In comparison to most festivals though, it's a bargain. For families, it can easily be made a holiday, and would be cheaper for a lot of families than going somewhere else in England.

I don't understand what people expect from the festival. As pointed out, the festival has had to progress otherwise it wouldn't be running now.

The festival is still very much like what it used to be. Perhaps not as much as it could be, but that's not the festival's fault, it's a sad indication of our times but not something the fest can be blamed for. Perhaps the Rokslide measures were slightly draconian, but they've helped a lot of people, as said on here.

[russycarps]

well the problem isn't the people that go then is it, the problem is all of the people that need to be paid to make the event happen as if everybody did it for free, from the cleaners to the artists, then there would need to be no charge, so you need to start petitioning those people, not the punters.

And he's not exactly crowing about his wealth is he, he is stating the cost of standard camping in the country compared to the cost of the festival in response to your statement that it is extortionate, which it clearly isn't, unless you're harping on about the days when it was all free and everything should be free for everybody.

Do you volunteer your own good services at the event?

[NunuD]

To base it not being the same on price alone is a bit silly - I cannot afford £200 straight up, and so I work as a litter picker! The years I could afford it, I did so by cutting out bits and pieces - like not going out for a month, not treating myself. Unless you are really skint, putting away £200 over a year isn't that bad, specially if you work it and get it back! And as pointed out, its decent value for money - hundreds of bands, loos, up to 5 nights of camping, water, etc. Its not bad!

[mrtourette]

If there are poeple who only go to Glastonbury then next year might be a good chance to go to another festival and see just how commercial and full of hipsters and rich kids festivals can be. Glastonbury has done a good job of staying true to it's values as much as it possibly can while also moving with the times and entertaining as many people as possible.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Spot on. And it's a vicious circle. The more the "rich kids" (sorry but I dont know how else to put it!) come, the more Crepe stalls, hunter welly selling shops etc there will be, the more "mega pop acts" will be demanded, the higher the price will go.

And the less and less inclined the "old crowd" will be to come.

The result will be some kind of "glastonbury theme park".

[russycarps]

I think a lot of the "old crowd" wouldn't pay a penny. And they're still flitting around the free festival scene. One issue Glastonbury had was a kind of semi-membership of the free festival scene. Whatever the official line was, it was widely perceived that fence-jumpers were welcome.

I've always paid, because I'm well brought up like that. But for a while the common wisdom was that it was OK to jump the fence if you couldn't afford it. And then later, it was almost as if it was uncool to pay -- so people who could well afford a ticket were getting in for free, and saying it was OK because the "rich" people paying made up for it.

I don't know the finances, of course, but I imagine the punters attracted by U2 and Springsteen subsidise a lot of the other stuff that goes on. And the festival couldn't make its huge donations to charity without those ticket sales and all the TV rights etc.

Also, I think the Eavises *like* putting on big mainstream acts like that.

[eFestivals]

I think you're missing campervan's point..he's not saying he is rich or poor, he's saying it is good value / not overpriced

value is a subjective judgement.

To someone who experienced it at the much-cheaper prices of the past, it can seem very expensive nowadays - because it is. "Festival inflation" has been running at 10+%, while inflation in general over the last 20 years has been nearly always less than 5%.

So in relative terms it's much more expensive than it used to be, and therefore it's less good value than it used to be too.

[ltfckimbo]

The country's culture has changed massively in the last 30 years or so, sadly I think it's heading towards a North American form of blandness (see Milton Keynes). People used to have a good time despite the supposedly unsafe conditions that existed at festivals, football or minging town centre pubs, it meant we all had to look out for eachother. The atmosphere that could be created by people who want to be at these places and enjoy themselves regardless of safety issues, became the envy of a growing middle class all over the country. With the demand there these social gems were never going to remain untapped for long, but to be truly marketable they all needed to be cleaned up and defined as products. As a result the distance between punters and performers is now massive, so people are expected to sit down, shut up and be entertained and there is now a whole generation of people who think this is how it should be.

Thatcherism was a solution to a fcuked country, now we can see what it cost us was a large part of our soul.

But on the flip-side we've all got massive tellys now!

[_danny_]

Why did he feel the need to put it in capitals?

"I CAN EASILY AFFORD £200 SO IT MUST BE CHEAP!!!!!"

Loads of people cant afford it. I'd rather they were there than Loadsamoney up there.

£200 is a fortune if you've just lost your job. Heaven forbid you have a family too. Putting it in capitals that is is an insignificant sum is crass. No doubt about that.

[camperman]

well the problem isn't the people that go then is it, the problem is all of the people that need to be paid to make the event happen as if everybody did it for free, from the cleaners to the artists, then there would need to be no charge, so you need to start petitioning those people, not the punters.

And he's not exactly crowing about his wealth is he, he is stating the cost of standard camping in the country compared to the cost of the festival in response to your statement that it is extortionate, which it clearly isn't, unless you're harping on about the days when it was all free and everything should be free for everybody.

Do you volunteer your own good services at the event?

I bet he does,t , and as Neil has pointed out it was never free some one paid manly arabella with out her it would never have become what it is now which is quite simply the best in the world . period

[russycarps]

You're missing the point though, that it always was what it is now. A pop festival.

[russycarps]

oh come on, now you're just being silly

[jamseyboy]

The authorities rule by fear. It saddens me to see you falling for it.

Health and Safety is just another means to control the masses. I find it deeply troubling that people just lap it up.

[eFestivals]

The country's culture has changed massively in the last 30 years or so, sadly I think it's heading towards a North American form of blandness (see Milton Keynes). People used to have a good time despite the supposedly unsafe conditions that existed at festivals, football or minging town centre pubs, it meant we all had to look out for eachother. The atmosphere that could be created by people who want to be at these places and enjoy themselves regardless of safety issues, became the envy of a growing middle class all over the country. With the demand there these social gems were never going to remain untapped for long, but to be truly marketable they all needed to be cleaned up and defined as products. As a result the distance between punters and performers is now massive, so people are expected to sit down, shut up and be entertained and there is now a whole generation of people who think this is how it should be.

Thatcherism was a solution to a fcuked country, now we can see what it cost us was a large part of our soul.

But on the flip-side we've all got massive tellys now!

wish I could rant that succinctly.

Spot on!!

[arcade fireman]

The country's culture has changed massively in the last 30 years or so, sadly I think it's heading towards a North American form of blandness (see Milton Keynes). People used to have a good time despite the supposedly unsafe conditions that existed at festivals, football or minging town centre pubs, it meant we all had to look out for eachother. The atmosphere that could be created by people who want to be at these places and enjoy themselves regardless of safety issues, became the envy of a growing middle class all over the country. With the demand there these social gems were never going to remain untapped for long, but to be truly marketable they all needed to be cleaned up and defined as products. As a result the distance between punters and performers is now massive, so people are expected to sit down, shut up and be entertained and there is now a whole generation of people who think this is how it should be.

Thatcherism was a solution to a fcuked country, now we can see what it cost us was a large part of our soul.

But on the flip-side we've all got massive tellys now!

[camperman]

Thatcherism was a solution to a fcuked country, now we can see what it cost us was a large part of our soul

yep and we are back in 79, sold all our gold spent the procedes and now were broke and we gota start paying. and it will get worse yet

[ukslim]

As someone who goes camping for hollidays and goes to gigs i'm baffled by the term used extorsionately priced.

One man one tent any campsite in june £17 per night cheepest field no toilet no water.

£38 most family sites.

[sisterofmercy]

I know I've only been going for the past 4 years or so, but I like seeing each festival as individual. Comparing it with past ones almost devalues your experience a bit, when really if you had a great time then that should be the important thing. It may be more commercial to some, but it doesn't matter to me. I still enjoy every festival and if Eavis and co. have to do certain things to ensure the festival's longevity then more power to them.

It's only as good as you make it, you can only blame the 'middle class youngsters' for so much.

[russycarps]

Yeah. I'm sure the relatives of the families who died at Hillsbrough, Heysel or Roskilde would agree with you. As would the black football players in this country who wish they were still getting booed like they were in the eighties, or the many more ethnic minorities who can happily attend football matches and go into most pubs these days without getting abuse.

[arcade fireman]

value is a subjective judgement.

To someone who experienced it at the much-cheaper prices of the past, it can seem very expensive nowadays - because it is. "Festival inflation" has been running at 10+%, while inflation in general over the last 20 years has been nearly always less than 5%.

So in relative terms it's much more expensive than it used to be, and therefore it's less good value than it used to be too.

[Alcatraz]

The fact is, the Glastonbury produce the best festival to the extent the law will allow them. And no one in this country is even close to touching them

[skaggman]

Yes. You're fortunate to be wealthy. As am I. Guess what though, some people arent.

Crowing about your wealth in capital letters doesn't really do you any favours.

[camperman]

yep, but putting in capitals how £200 is not a lot of money irked me.