If the festival had to move locations would you still go?

[Swine_Glasto2014]

I think, tho, that the ethos would change somewhat, as it would cease to be "a farmer having a festival on his land" and become more of a purely-financial venture.

It manages to not be that purely commercial thing at the moment, and that follows thru to those who work there. As soon as there's the impression that someone is getting paid full-whack everyone else will start to want the same.

Seconded...

[eFestivals]

Probably not is the answer.  If you were to try and uproot it and host it elsewhere I am certain it would just be a sort of theme park version of what it once was, rather than the real deal.

 

To be fair, it's been that for more than a decade already.

[Untz]

If it came to it, I rather they scaled it down rather than moved it. I think it's become a victim of its own success lately, with the massive headliners and the ever increasing ticket numbers. I think when it comes the time, they should shrink the site, halve the number of tickets, book smaller acts and concentrate more on the eclectic cabaret stuff

 

I agree with all of this, although I am biased in that I prefer that side of the festival and couldn't care less about the big names.

 

I'd give a new location a go. It wouldn't be the same, but it might be just as good in a different kind of way.

[Spindles]

Yeah, I knew as soon as I'd typed it that it was an accusation that could already be thrown around.

[Chewie]

As other people have said it would probably go for the music/randomness but it wouldn't be Glastonbury and id be hesitant to call it that

[eFestivals]

The first part will happen anyway as soon as Michael pops his clogs.

Nah, not really. While Emily isn't a farmer, if she's controlling the farm it still ends up as much the same.

There was a time when I felt it would definitely go that way when Emily took over as she wouldn't be able to boss the staff in the way that Michael has, but I think over the years she's gained the respect she'll need to be able to control things - so as long as it remains on Worthy Farm it will be able to continue in much the same way as now, I think.

Edited June 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[Anth32]

I think regardless of location and regardless of if Emily takes over eventually the charity aspect would remain the same and she and it would try to remain true to Michael's ideals.

[benc]

Would the threat of the festival not going ahead or moving be enough for the landowners to back down? The money they receive from two weeks in June must make up quite a bit of their yearly revenue, would they really want to miss out?

[Spindles]

She certainly seems to share the same values and as recently as a couple of years ago had said that her experience with The Park had been good for her and she was in favour of reducing things like corporate tie-ins and such.  I trust her.

[eFestivals]

I think regardless of location and regardless of if Emily takes over eventually the charity aspect would remain the same and she and it would try to remain true to Michael's ideals.

 

I agree that Emily will try and do it the same, but whether she's able to will depend on many different things.

 

The main one is who has ownership &/or control of the farm. It might already be a settled issue for Michael, but for us on the outside we can only speculate how that might pan out.

 

If, for example, the farm is divvied up amount all of Michael's children, some of those might want a full commercial return which then forces Emily to run things on a more-commercial basis.

[stuartbert two hats]

Nah, not really. While Emily isn't a farmer, if she's controlling the farm it still ends up as much the same.

There was a time when I felt it would definitely go that way when Emily took over as she wouldn't be able to boss the staff in the way that Michael has, but I think over the years she's gained the respect she'll need to be able to control things - so as long as it remains on Worthy Farm it will be able to continue in much the same way as now, I think.

Ah, so it's not the 'farmer' aspect that you think matters, so much as the 'on home turf' side of things?

Be interesting if the other siblings intervene. You would expect them to know what side their bread is buttered on and just sit back, as they'd presumably be able to collect profits from their share of Michael's estate. But we don't know how the will is structured, or what their opinions are on things.

[eFestivals]

Would the threat of the festival not going ahead or moving be enough for the landowners to back down? The money they receive from two weeks in June must make up quite a bit of their yearly revenue, would they really want to miss out?

 

my guess is those other landowners would want to keep the festival where it is, but I doubt that's going to stop them playing a game of money-chicken with Michael, where they attempt to extract an ever-higher fee from him, and where eventually the only answer is to tell them the festival is ending or moving.

Edited June 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[stuartbert two hats]

She certainly seems to share the same values and as recently as a couple of years ago had said that her experience with The Park had been good for her and she was in favour of reducing things like corporate tie-ins and such.  I trust her.

Yeah, far from being some money-grabbing kid who didn't understand things, we've seen far less visible branding (and more flags!) since she got involved.

Talking of flags, was it Emily that started the trend? First time I remember seeing them was in 2005 and I'm sure they were her idea. Now they seem to be a staple at every single festival. I'm talking about these ones, not I heart sausage.

[stuartbert two hats]

my guess is those other landowners would want to keep the festival where it is, but I doubt that's going to stop them playing a game of money-chicken with Michael, where they attempt to extract an ever-higher fee from him, and where eventually the only answer is to tell them the festival is ending or moving.

I suppose he could buy them out.  Wouldn't be the first time.

[grandadcollective]

It's not what it was blah blah? Nothing ever is. For the many to whom Glastonbury is a pilgrimage them moving it will be a no. It's a hugely culturally significant event globally let alone locally. Economically it's also hugely significant.

The festival and it's location are probably inseparable for those who see it as an affirmation of the human spirit. You could move the music and trade but people will still gather in that area at that time for a long time to come.

So there is your bargaining chip. " well these people are nothing to do with us...we moved the festival remember?' ' your problemon now!'

[Hugh Jass]

Probably not is the answer.  If you were to try and uproot it and host it elsewhere I am certain it would just be a sort of theme park version of what it once was, rather than the real deal.

 

This, those who have been regularly have seen the festival grow into what it is organically over the years. Most of us know the site intimately with all the little nooks and crannies that make it what it is. You couldn't just transplant it all on to another site.

 

The only way it could happen would be to ditch the Glastonbury brand (hate that word) and start it as a brand new festival.

[Glastoboy]

I'd rather they shrunk the festival in size and numbers and told the other landowners to get stuffed. Glastonbury mark II on a different site just seems too bizarre to imagine.

On the 'name one thing you love about Glastonbury' thread quite a few people said "the feeling that I am home".

Edited June 19, 2015 by Glastoboy

[ghandi]

Having read just a few replies i'll skip to me two pennies worth. The answer for me is no. I love the place and the fact of where it is, the ethos and all those things said means I'd hate it if it was moved. It would not be Glastonbury anymore and probably turn into just another corperate festival, it would have lost it's heart. Quite when and if this would happens is another thing however, I doubt it would be in the next few years anyway and as an oldie amongst this forum I might have had may days on the farm anyway. I have always said that i'd re address this after the fallow year in 2017 anyway. No doubt I'd still be trying for tickets come October but only if it was at the farm.

Edited June 19, 2015 by ghandi

[jeffie]

Let's put it another way, if GFL announced that there was a new festival being put on in a new location during the next fallow year, would that be more tempting than all the other festies that year?

 

There's an idea....

[eFestivals]

Ah, so it's not the 'farmer' aspect that you think matters, so much as the 'on home turf' side of things?

I'd put it slightly differently and say "the relationship with the land".

Emily could pull that off due the transfer from one generation to another, but I don't think the same would apply for another non-farming landowner who might decide to start a festival.

 

Be interesting if the other siblings intervene. You would expect them to know what side their bread is buttered on and just sit back, as they'd presumably be able to collect profits from their share of Michael's estate.

"share of profits" sounds like fully-commercial.

That, to me, seems to be the sort of idea which is ultimately the biggest danger to the festival continuing in the same way. 

 

 

But we don't know how the will is structured, or what their opinions are on things.

I've no idea on how any will is structured or what the views of the other offspring is.

However, I was told something a decade or more ago - which may or may not be true (tho it's likely it was at least an idea under discussion) - that was something about a charitable trust or a family trust perhaps owning the farm &/or festival, to guarantee its future.

 

[Ponyegg]

Can we please stop talking about Michael dying, it's making me sad :-( Can we refer to it simply as 'The Event'?

[eFestivals]

Talking of flags, was it Emily that started the trend? First time I remember seeing them was in 2005 and I'm sure they were her idea. Now they seem to be a staple at every single festival. I'm talking about these ones, not I heart sausage.

nah ... there's been flags like that for decades.

There have been more in recent times, tho.

Edited June 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[FrankieX]

Would a different site be a possibility during the next planned fallow year in 2017? It would give them an opportunity to try it out on a trial basis, and if it was successful it might give them added leverage when negotiating with their neighbours.

[stuartbert two hats]

If I was a betting man (which I am, I lost £20 on Blur + Tayor Swift to replace FF), then I'd say they'd hold another festival elsewhere, probably on the fallow year as a shot across the bow to the surrounding farmers.  Then swoop in and buy the land outright when it looks like they don't have the Eavii over a barrell.

[Spindles]

It's not what it was blah blah? Nothing ever is. For the many to whom Glastonbury is a pilgrimage them moving it will be a no. It's a hugely culturally significant event globally let alone locally. Economically it's also hugely significant.

The festival and it's location are probably inseparable for those who see it as an affirmation of the human spirit. You could move the music and trade but people will still gather in that area at that time for a long time to come.

So there is your bargaining chip. " well these people are nothing to do with us...we moved the festival remember?' ' your problemon now!'

Why do I run out of likes so early every day?  

 

I loved this post, I reckon if ME was a younger man that would be just the line he'd take as well.  This festival for him was about all these people coming together and lots of creative people among them getting involved and it becoming what it was.  When gatecrashers or peace convoys came into it he was very much in favour of letting people come, he was happy that they wanted to.  I reckon he still has a wry smile for the inventive gatecrasher of today and would love to think that at some point he has read the Twix story.