Rolling Stones...

[whisty]

I couldn't give 2 dog poos if the stones play, I want my £5 back or given to the charities.

Edited March 14, 2013 by whisty

[abdoujaparov]

So say that the stones are getting £700,000 more, that's roughly £5 per person (excluding VAT and all that stuff). If people are really that worried the festival won't be giving enough to a chosen charity, why don't you give an extra fiver from this months pay cheque?

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

Really? Are you sure?

I wouldnt pay £200 for a festival ticket unless that festival was donating some of their income to charity, or doing something else similarly responsible

[mike46]

Bit presumptious this.

There are many reasons why people would choose a particular festival and there are certainly lots of reasons to choose Glastonbury, being as it is, the best. But I can tell you that amongst that mix of reasons, the charitable donations the festival makes and the publicity and support it gives to certain causes is really important to me. I suspect there may well be others who feel the same way.

I'm not saying that's not the case, it's one of the reasons why Glasto is great but no one solely purchased a ticket for the charity aspect of £15 of it was going to charity. If you cared that much why not donate the whole £205?

That charity aspect hasn't gone away, no one knows how much, if any, the stones are taking from the donation but there will still be a donation made.

People seem to be forgetting that above all it's a festival, and they'll try to get the biggest acts they can because that's what festivals do. The charity aspects are an added bonus.

Edited March 14, 2013 by mike46

[Justiceforcedave]

Bit presumptious this.

There are many reasons why people would choose a particular festival and there are certainly lots of reasons to choose Glastonbury, being as it is, the best. But I can tell you that amongst that mix of reasons, the charitable donations the festival makes and the publicity and support it gives to certain causes is really important to me. I suspect there may well be others who feel the same way.

No I understand that but ultimately you're buying a ticket to a festival that donates money to charity. Not giving money directly to a charity. Those are two different things.

[Justiceforcedave]

If I had it my way they'd get rid of all the dance stages and donate all the money they used to spend on that to charity... but I understand that some people want to go and listen to that kind of music at Glastonbury it's part of the festival and some of my ticket money goes towards that.

[abdoujaparov]

I'm not saying that's not the case, it's one of the reasons why Glasto is great but no one solely purchased a ticket for the charity aspect of £15 of it was going to charity.

You're wrong

[marktea]

No I understand that but ultimately you're buying a ticket to a festival that donates money to charity. Not giving money directly to a charity. Those are two different things.

Yes they are two different things, which is partly why the original point (which confused the two) was a bad one.

The balance the festival strikes between what it pays to performers and what it donates to charity is obviously a fine one. Anything that might significantly influence that balance (such as, lets assume, a much larger than usual fee to any one band) is obviously going to be of interest and concern to many of those attending.

To suggest, as the post did, that this can somehow be corrected by a completely unrelated independent charitable donation or, worse, that no-one bought a ticket because they were influenced by the charitable donation is, in my view, just plain wrong.

[zahidf]

The Stones have never been 'nice', and definitely not nowadays.

They want their cash, and that's that,no matter who gets in the way. I'll still watch them at glastonbury regardless, but there is no point trying to defend them really.

[mike46]

You're wrong

Perhaps I am, but I just think people are over exaggerating the charity element

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Perhaps I am, but I just think people are over exaggerating the charity element

I go to Glastonbury because its principles and actions set it apart from any other festival. The charity donations obviously play a massive part in M.E's thinking as well, as shown by locals thinking he was virtually about to die in '08.

[GuitarManDan15]

I'm sorry but people on this forum are a lot more 'invested' in glastonbury, I would say that the vast majority of people don't even know that £15 of the ticket price goes to charity.

Thats not to say nobody does, and that nobody goes to glastonbury because part of its ethos is to give money to charity, people on here have identified as this being a factor.

However most people are completely oblivious to the charitable donations. If you asked everyone on the way in 'Did you know a portion of your ticket price goes to charity' most people would go 'oh really, well thats nice'

Don't overstate or understate the important of charitable donations, not because people don't care its because they don't know

[mike46]

I go to Glastonbury because its principles and actions set it apart from any other festival. The charity donations obviously play a massive part in M.E's thinking as well, as shown by locals thinking he was virtually about to die in '08.

Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong that's one of the very reasons why I go to Glastonbury, but it's not the sole reason and I'm still not convinced it is for everyone - otherwise why not choose a smaller and cheaper festival and give the difference to your chosen charity?

[CaledonianGonzo]

I'm not even going to attempt to defend the Stones in terms of price or affordability. That's Eavis's lookout - and I'm ambivalent at best about the efforts of a lot of charities and NGOs in the third world, but that's a different argument for a different day.

However, they've got the best back catalogue of any band still extant and I'd rather see a sloppy, ageing Stones giving a 75%-satisfactory performance of songs I love than any other band on the planet giving the performance of their lives of a back catalogue that I'm wholly indifferent to. I'd take them over Bowie, a reformed Led Zep and if Pink Floyd were on the main I'd high tail it elsewhere.

In short, I'm stoked.

[PurpleFire]

So say that the stones are getting £700,000 more, that's roughly £5 per person (excluding VAT and all that stuff). If people are really that worried the festival won't be giving enough to a chosen charity, why don't you give an extra fiver from this months pay cheque?

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

Its my first Glastonbury, and I knew that £15 went to charity...And its one of the reasons why I am going.

I do donate to charitys, but I expect something back than them just taking my money! Ive ran the London Marathon a few times knowing that some of the money it costs me to enter goes to charity but I get to take part in one of the biggest running specticals in the world! Glastonbury is just the same.

I wouldnt donate my wage to any random chairty out of my wage packet if they were just going to take it! It has to be a two way thing with me, thats why the people bugging me on the high street would never get my money because what do I get back from it apart from me having a little less money in my pocket and a bit of charitable satifaction.

I wouldnt mind at all if Glastonbury had a price of £215 and then had a compulsory £15 on top because what you get in return is more what you have given them! When at the festival I plan to use all the charity driven stalls and outlets to help fund them becuase they make the experiance more pleasurable.

Edited March 14, 2013 by PurpleFire

[Englishdragon]

Bit presumptious this.

There are many reasons why people would choose a particular festival and there are certainly lots of reasons to choose Glastonbury, being as it is, the best. But I can tell you that amongst that mix of reasons, the charitable donations the festival makes and the publicity and support it gives to certain causes is really important to me. I suspect there may well be others who feel the same way.

I didnt even think twice about it when I was making my mind on what festivals to go to and personally I couldnt care (dont mistake with not caring about charities full stop).

I imagine most of the crowd there would not give a monkeys toss that Eavis overpaid to get the stones or that less money is going to charity because of it. All they will care about is that the stones are playing Glastonbury.

There may be quite a few people that think different on here but remember the people that post on here are the most "hardcore" followers of Glastonbury and are less than 1% of the people attending.

[russycarps]

You sure? You're saying it's a great thing here for something you've railed against in the past.

I'm lost, who is it that is going to be missing out on freebies?

[Vanderlyle]

I'm not even going to attempt to defend the Stones in terms of price or affordability. That's Eavis's lookout - and I'm ambivalent at best about the efforts of a lot of charities and NGOs in the third world, but that's a different argument for a different day.

However, they've got the best back catalogue of any band still extant and I'd rather see a sloppy, ageing Stones giving a 75%-satisfactory performance of songs I love than any other band on the planet giving the performance of their lives of a back catalogue that I'm wholly indifferent to. I'd take them over Bowie, a reformed Led Zep and if Pink Floyd were on the main I'd high tail it elsewhere.

In short, I'm stoked.

You had me most of the way... then I raised an eye brow at Bowie/LZ - but high tailing it away from Floyd? Now you've lost me.

[MEGABOWL]

Things we don't know: -

1) That the Stones are playing

2) How much they're getting paid

3) What the total bill for the line-up is (the extra fee could have been clawed back elsewhere on the bill)

4) What the total bill to run the festival is (the extra fee could have been clawed back elsewhere)

5) How this affects the charitable contributions

6) How much not booking big acts would affect the festivals ticket sales, and therefore the charitable contributions

Things we do know: -

1) The Stones are not nice people

2) I'll go and watch them anyway. They wrote 'Gimme Shelter' and 'Tumbling Dice' and 'Brown Sugar' and 'Stray Cat Blues' etc. etc.

[eFestivals]

I'm lost, who is it that is going to be missing out on freebies?

"workers" who don't actually work is what I've been led to believe.

On a previous occasion, that translated into a bit of a clear out of the more ... erm ... shall we say 'traditional' festival goers.

[abdoujaparov]

Don't overstate or understate the important of charitable donations, not because people don't care its because they don't know

although how it's possible to miss that fact when you're there is somewhat beyond me....

[zahidf]

"workers" who don't actually work is what I've been led to believe.

On a previous occasion, that translated into a bit of a clear out of the more ... erm ... shall we say 'traditional' festival goers.

Those crusty old men wearing rags playing god knows what in the more obscure parts of the green field? Or the dodgy geezers supplying 'chemicals' around the site?

I think the Stones and Stones entourage respectively will make up for their abscence...

It might be those hippies who think that all festivals should be free and who invaded the stage that time at the IOW festvial a few decades ago

[Ed209]

"workers" who don't actually work is what I've been led to believe.

That's probably about 2/3 of the BBC's onsite staff then

[zahidf]

6) How much not booking big acts would affect the festivals ticket sales, and therefore the charitable contributions

Technically sold out this year though...

[abdoujaparov]

Those crusty old men wearing rags playing god knows what in the more obscure parts of the green field?

If it was a straight choice, I'd rather have them than the Stones

[marktea]

Perhaps I am, but I just think people are over exaggerating the charity element

I havn't seen a single post that "over exaggerated the charity element". Most people seem to accept that it's all about balance even though they may be concerned about potential upset of that balance.

What I did see however was your statement:

"No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity."

Which certanly is a case of over-exaggeration.