Official Offsite Pre Erected Tents etc - On sale now

[Kizzie]

In the 32 years I have been going I have camped all over that site as a punter 'in the thick of it', as crew in the healing fields, on the travellers fields, in home built shanty towns complete with three piece suites, blah blah blah.

While I'm very glad that I have done that I now camp in the campervan fields and if I didn't then I'd go for something like WV or not go at all. I'm old, I'm happy for people to camp where the bloody hell they like, party central isn't for me anymore I've moved on! Is that selfish?

It's easy to say that all these different camping options are ruining the festival ethos, but maybe it's the case that the festival just isn't for older folks anymore. I don't want to lug all my stuff on my back for miles, I'm not sure I could. Is it just a festival for the physically able or those young enough? Where's the diversity in that?

I could bang on about squalor and disrespect which I think is ruining festivals more so but as we say that's just society in general.

Time for us oldies to be pushed aside ?????

[jimmillen]

I wouldn't argue at all there's a debate to be had about offsite camping and whether it's a positive or negative thing for Glastonbury (Or any other festival.) Yes, it's bound to have some sort of effect - fair enough.

That's NOT the same thing as criticising individuals for their choice of on-site/off-site camping options. Expressing scorn & disdain for fellow festival goers just 'cos of where they're staying seems even less in the spirit of things than having offsite camping as an option, and some of the posts in this thread have just been downright grumpy & unpleasant.

If we sink to the level of criticising individuals for their choices (And, yes, their ability to pay for them) then what's next? Mocking those who have decent tents as opposed to Tesco specials? Insulting people with gore-tex waterproofs because staying warm & dry "isn't the real festival experience"?

Everyone's different, and they'll make different choices - I'd much rather rejoice in what we can all bring to the festival, rather than having a dig at anyone.

[James Bolivar]

Which gets to mean that people who are able to see offsite camping as that bad thing are perfectly entitled to give their opinion that it's a bad thing, no different to those who lap it up think it's a good thing.

It doesn't make us unduely critical, or judgemental, or having a non-Glastonbury Festival spirit. It makes us humans that are merely calling it as we see it - on both side of the opinions.

It's only the narrow minded imbeciles who think that only one of those opinions can be rightfully expressed.

[russycarps]

people trying to say WV is somehow there for the less physically able are being very deceptive. Have you seen the hill you have to climb up? Stop trying to justify it as being for those less physically able. It categorically is not there for these sorts of people.

This is the thin end of the wedge. How long before penards field is fenced off with nice showers and flushable toilets added? All for just an extra £100 per night.

[James Bolivar]

people trying to say WV is somehow there for the less physically able are being very deceptive. Have you seen the hill you have to climb up? Stop trying to justify it as being for those less physically able. It categorically is not there for these sorts of people.

This is the thin end of the wedge. How long before penards field is fenced off with nice showers and flushable toilets added? All for just an extra £100 per night.

[jimmillen]

This is the thin end of the wedge. How long before penards field is fenced off with nice showers and flushable toilets added? All for just an extra £100 per night.

[eFestivals]

Mocking those who have decent tents as opposed to Tesco specials?

that's a thing which has been going on since i first went in '86. It's no less engrained in Glastonbury Festival than eating is engrained to your existence.

I'd much rather rejoice in what we can all bring to the festival...

so would I, but what does just about anyone bring nowadays apart from themselves and their individual selfishness?

I'm not claiming myself as any better btw - and I can't say that I ever have been. But it's still the case that Glastonbury is almost 100% a spectator sport nowadays when it didn't used to be.

[The Nal]

too old to miss a night's sleep when I feel I need one, too old to not shower.

[russycarps]

That I'd agree with. I'd never, ever, pay for camping if it was at the cost of "squeezing" the free camping areas available. I can't see that happening while control of the festival remains with the Eavis family though...

Edited January 21, 2013 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

As you said, it would be best to address the negative aspects for the good of all, and I really do see the off-site camping a solution to the over-crowding that benefits all. It's not why I am doing it, I am being selfish, but there are "trickle-down" benefits.

I'd say that any "trickle down benefits" are so very very tiny that they might as well not exist. It's certainly the case that those same benefits could exist with nothing changing except the exclusivity that is got thru payment.

On the opposite to that it helps solidify an "I can have privileges over others" attitude, which permeates thru just about everything of the festival, as opposed to the "we're all in it together" thing which existed before.

Some of the words being written in this thread make me think that a huge proportion of the population really do believe Dave Moron when he says "we're all in it together" while dishing out a 5% tax cut to millionaires.

[mrtourette]

I never thought I'd see the removal of the outdoor cinema screen to make way for more VIP camping. There are too many things to mention that I never thought would happen. Nothing would suprise me now though.

The festival is changing. But I can think of very few of these changes that are for the better.

Exclusive camping areas are bad. I recall a post from someone who was staying in a tipi, and they mentioned how people shouted abuse at them through the fence. I dont condone this behaviour at all, but I can understand peoples frustration. I hate that at glastonbury people can gain an "advantage" over other just because they are wealthy. Glastonbury used to be a place to escape all that

I still dont see a need for it. Yes, penards is rowdy, big ground is rowdy, but there are LOADS of quiet camping areas

[James Bolivar]

efestivals, Dude - this is a music festival. We're not freeing the slaves, we're not extending the franchise, we're not saving the whale, or even the Welsh. Fuck, even the CND logo has vanished from the Pyramid.

I've not seen you unduly critical of those who say they'll be carting 150 cans of Stella on to the site, or who've salted away a few hundred quid for the beer tent. Judging from this forum, most people are going to have a bit of a piss-up in a field while listening to some live music and that's all. Some will chat to people they meet along the way, more likely they'll just chat to the people they arrive with. They aren't looking to save the world.

Clearly, for some, the privations of camping are very much part of the experience - somehow morally balancing the enjoyment. Perhaps it's like climbing a mountain and appreciating the view. I get this, I sort of resent the train passengers on Snowdon as they'd not earned the experience and I get where your coming from with the "all in it together" attitude. But it's a fantasy. I buy a ticket, I go to watch some music; that's it. If I could drive, I'd be in the CV fields (as I was last time), if I was rich I'd be at Camp Kerala. I'm a paying punter and, as such, I help shape the festival.

What you want is Glastonbury 1971, but it's gone - might I recommend Bearded Theory or Shambala.

Edited January 21, 2013 by James Bolivar

[mrtourette]

efestivals, Dude - this is a music festival. We're not freeing the slaves, we're not extending the franchise, we're not saving the whale, or even the Welsh. Fuck, even the CND logo has vanished from the Pyramid.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I do completely Tourette, and I think when this is lost from Glastonbury, the essential essence of the festival is lost, and it becomes a normal festival, just like any other.

People can say its all already gone, but I completely disagree. What other fest would help African artists in the way the festival has pledged? Give profits to charity? Etc. Etc. It may be lessening, but it still sets the festival apart.

Edited January 21, 2013 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[eFestivals]

efestivals, Dude - this is a music festival. We're not freeing the slaves, we're not extending the franchise, we're not saving the whale, or even the Welsh. Fuck, even the CND logo has vanished from the Pyramid.

yep, and it's also now a festival which puts out public statements about how it wants to avoid politics. It almost made me cry.

I've not seen you unduly critical of those who say they'll be carting 150 cans of Stella on to the site, or who've salted away a few hundred quid for the beer tent.

and neither have you see me be unduly critical of those who which to pay for offsite camping on the basis that they can afford it and therefore must be rich.

The only reason I'll criticise that spend is because they're paying again for something they've already paid for, and that (IMO, at least) it doesn't give the benefits that most are claiming for it.

Judging from this forum, most people are going to have a bit of a piss-up in a field while listening to some live music and that's all. Some will chat to people they meet along the way, more likely they'll just chat to the people they arrive with. They aren't looking to save the world.

yup, I know. It's not wrong for anyone to point out that it's changed into that, tho.

If I could drive, I'd be in the CV fields (as I was last time), if I was rich I'd be at Camp Kerala.

not everyone is like you and thinks that they should sweep up for themselves everything that they can.

I guess that's a surprise to you.

I'm a paying punter and, as such, I help shape the festival.

No, you're a paying punter and you pay your money and make your choices.

That's how it is for everyone today. It didn't use to be like that.

What you want is Glastonbury 1971, but it's gone - might I recommend Bearded Theory or Shambala.

Nope, I don't want Glasto 1971, and I very definitely don't want a theme park.

What I'd like is for people in the world to have a bit of integrity, but I know I'm asking for the impossible.

[mrtourette]

I do completely Tourette, and I think when this is lost from Glastonbury, the essential essence of the festival is lost, and it becomes a normal festival, just like any other.

[eFestivals]

There are those who would disagree with this, and think that it is still Glasto's responsibility to address the ills of society and set an example to others. That is often the crux of arguments like this.

Nope, I don't think it's Glastonbury's responsibility.

I'm from an age when individuals took responsibility for themselves, rather than hiding behind bullshit statements such as "well, it's not illegal so therefore I'm doing nothing wrong".

What i'd like is for people to think for themselves, but not think only of themselves.

I might as well wish for the moon tho. I know it's gone.

Edited January 21, 2013 by eFestivals

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

And that's absolutely your right to. It's a lovely idea, whether it's practical and attainable is another matter and, like I said, what tends to lead to arguments like this.

[James Bolivar]

not everyone is like you and thinks that they should sweep up for themselves everything that they can.

I guess that's a surprise to you.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

Finally some interesting debate on here. Makes a change from headliner predictions ad nauseam.

Please continue guys, being a relative newcomer to the festival (5 years) I find the discussion about the changing face of Glastonbury fascinating, especially from those who've been attending for a long time. In fact, I may even start a new thread

[eFestivals]

I would argue it isn't me at all

I'd say that it's hard to argue against your own words of saying you'd do Camp Kerala if you could.

As to the festival - it is 6 times bigger than when I first went. I'm sure you will find the echo of what you want among the 180,000 who now go, but is it reasonable to assume such expansion was not wrought through compromise and change?

a small echo, a much smaller echo. Remember, this is the festival which now says it wishes to stay out of politics - the antithesis of everything it once was.

And yes, the festival had to compromise and change - and for the most part I'm glad that it took that choice. It means that the festival still exists, when it otherwise wouldn't. In the times when many were saying "it's not what it was, so I'm no longer going", I was the one most in the public eye who was saying "it's change or end; I'd rather it changed". Nothing of this convo is new to me, and neither am I one who harks back too much to the past.

But nothing of that requires me to also think that the changes that Glastonbury has chosen to make for itself (rather than been forced on it) have to be a good thing, and nor do I have to think that the festival can endlessly change and it always remains worth continuing.

I'm yet to finally make up mind, but I'm getting behind the idea that it hit that brick wall last week when it said it wants to stay out of politics. By puuting it's continued existence above everything else it now seems like there's little to distinguish it from any other festival apart from a few extra bands.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Finally some interesting debate on here. Makes a change from headliner predictions ad nauseam.

Please continue guys, being a relative newcomer to the festival (5 years) I find the discussion about the changing face of Glastonbury fascinating, especially from those who've been attending for a long time. In fact, I may even start a new thread

[mrtourette]

Yeah this argument is nothing new.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

It's been discussed lots, through several threads, I'm not sure a new thread is such a good idea, no offence to yourself by that.

It commonly comes up, mainly in threads on a completely different topic and usually doesn't end well.

[zahidf]

I'd say that it's hard to argue against your own words of saying you'd do Camp Kerala if you could.

a small echo, a much smaller echo. Remember, this is the festival which now says it wishes to stay out of politics - the antithesis of everything it once was.

And yes, the festival had to compromise and change - and for the most part I'm glad that it took that choice. It means that the festival still exists, when it otherwise wouldn't. In the times when many were saying "it's not what it was, so I'm no longer going", I was the one most in the public eye who was saying "it's change or end; I'd rather it changed". Nothing of this convo is new to me, and neither am I one who harks back too much to the past.

But nothing of that requires me to also think that the changes that Glastonbury has chosen to make for itself (rather than been forced on it) have to be a good thing, and nor do I have to think that the festival can endlessly change and it always remains worth continuing.

I'm yet to finally make up mind, but I'm getting behind the idea that it hit that brick wall last week when it said it wants to stay out of politics. By puuting it's continued existence above everything else it now seems like there's little to distinguish it from any other festival apart from a few extra bands.