Where else can I go

[russycarps]

I would say the best alternatives to glastonbury I've been to are end of the road, womad and bearded theory in this country. I also enjoyed solfest but I have no idea what it's like these days, or even if it's still going. Sziget is the place to go abroad. The world stage was really good.

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by russycarps

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I agree with much of what you've said, but you've missed out the fleeting interest part that comes with everything being so accessible and the ability to fulfil an immediate demand, particular with so many self-serving bubbles. I don't think that's any less part of things than the 'less tribal, more variety and diversity'.

True enough.  The downside of having all the music ever made, more or less, streamable at the touch of a button is that you sometimes lose a bit of investment in it.  I'm as guilty as anyone of having downloaded music that I've never listened to, even if it's a trade off that I can live with, not having to spend £12 on a CD just to acquire a single song. 

Whether that's also true of people growing up now in the age of streaming is a different matter - but I suspect that the same applies.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And yep, the demographics at Glastonbury are changed from ten years ago, just as they're changed from the ten years before that. It's now quite common to see people say they're taking their parents, or even grannies, when that was a new and more minor thing a decade ago, and never happened ten before that.

Again, I think this is a shift in the culture.  People in their 70s now are the baby boomers, whereas even 15 years ago it was a pre-war generation that wouldn't know what to do if you offered them a free ticket.  For better or worse, today's 70 year olds have more interest in keeping in touch with popular culture and wanting to still look with it than their parents did.  My own parents certainly do.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Again, I think this is a shift in the culture.  People in their 70s now are the baby boomers, whereas even 15 years ago it was a pre-war generation that wouldn't know what to do if you offered them a free ticket.  For better or worse, today's 70 year olds have more interest in keeping in touch with popular culture and wanting to still look with it than their parents did.  My own parents certainly do.

Hmmmm. Is it that? Or is that the culture has grown up with them and they're accessing the culture and music of their teens 30+ years later? Being of that age myself, there's certainly an element of that in what I do. I access very little of "popular culture" at Glastonbury (tho I never really did), and even less of today's youth culture (which is my main change).

I'm not really sure if it's chicken and egg or egg and chicken, tho. Back when I first started going, all of what Glastobury did was much closer to that time's youth culture than is the case today when there's music culture spanning a period of 50 years, instead of the 15 or 20 years back then.

It's dead obvious why there's been that expansion of the years the music covers, and i'd say it's similarly obvious that will have changed the demographics.

Edited November 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[BlackHole2006]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It works for me.

But I can also see where it's gone and what it means.

 

Same here.

A few of my old classmates from school, who wouldn't have even dreamt of going back when I first started coming to Glastonbury have now started attending and it looks like they spend their entire weekend in front of the Pyramid.

Horses for courses obviously but it does seem to attract a lot of people who just want to pose in front of the Pyramid stage and Arcadia then shove their photos on Facebook when they get home. 

 

[ConorC]

I have a few mates who got to Boomtown. This thread and the comparisons being made with glasto have made 23 year old me really want to go next year.

The music is such a big part of it for me so I don't think it could rival glasto in an overall sense but reading some of your comments has definitely perked my interest.

[CaledonianGonzo]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's dead obvious why there's been that expansion of the years the music covers, and i'd say it's similarly obvious that will have changed the demographics.

Yeah – that makes sense, the shift from having 30 to 60 years of popular music to play with.  Broaden the remit and it'll broaden the diversity of attendees.

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Back when I first started going, all of what Glastobury did was much closer to that time's youth culture than is the case today

Though I dunno if a detailed look at the line-ups really bears that out.  Not sure what, say, Van Morrison, Joan Baez and Gong had to do with 80s youth culture.  It looks like a right old mix, and long as that mix still exists then I’m all for it – a significant contraction either way would be to the detriment as anything that becomes too fixated either on the retro or on instant novelty will instantly lose a lot of its appeal. 

 

 

[baggienick68]

When I first went back in 97 I had several conversations with kids asking why an old-timer ( in my 40s ) like me was at the festival. They were impressed when I said I was simply into the music as Radiohead etc were less mainstream then. Now 20 years on no-one bats an eye at an old codger like me wandering round.

[eFestivals]

where can't you go instead? T in the Park.

It's joined the dodos.

[CaledonianGonzo]

That was looking like an inevitability.  It was broken past the point of any repair.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Though I dunno if a detailed look at the line-ups really bears that out.  Not sure what, say, Van Morrison, Joan Baez and Gong had to do with 80s youth culture.  It looks like a right old mix, and long as that mix still exists then I’m all for it – a significant contraction either way would be to the detriment as anything that becomes too fixated either on the retro or on instant novelty will instantly lose a lot of its appeal. 

Oh it does what i said, I didn't say it was all 80s culture. The oldest acts were 15 or 20 years old, while today the oldest acts are 50 years old.

It's still all "music from the rock age" (if it might be grouped together like that), but back then the rock age couldn't mean ancient like it does today.

It's not so much the aging that I see as a problem, it's the lack of newer stuff coming thru in a similar way for it to be working in a similar way in (say) 20 years time. In a sentence, there's so few new mega-big bands.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

That was looking like an inevitability.  It was broken past the point of any repair.

I can't much disagree.

It was in a bit of obvious trouble before the move too, so i'm already wondering how the finger-of-blame pointing is going to go down (it reads like blame pointing to me, tho perhaps it's fairer to look at it as an explanation for what went wrong at the new site, and them trying to show it got sprung on them by circumstances out of their control and to their late surprise).

 

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In a sentence, there's so few new mega-big bands.

True, but maybe that only applies to rock music - and if you want to make the case that as a form that's disappeared down a cul-de-sac that it shows little sign of escaping from I wouldn't much argue.

It's why some folk have kicked off at bookings like Beyoncé, Kanye and Adele, as they're not typical 'rock festival' fayre - but in a climate where rock music isn't punching its weight any more then the headliners need to come from somewhere else.  At least, they do if Glastonbury still wants to look like the alpha festival.

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I can't much disagree.

It was in a bit of obvious trouble before the move too, so i'm already wondering how the finger-of-blame pointing is going to go down (it reads like blame pointing to me, tho perhaps it's fairer to look at it as an explanation for what went wrong at the new site, and them trying to show it got sprung on them by circumstances out of their control and to their late surprise).

Just got an email with the press release blaming - among other things - an osprey's nest!

[Gnomicide]

56 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I would say the best alternatives to glastonbury I've been to are end of the road, womad and bearded theory in this country. I also enjoyed solfest but I have no idea what it's like these days, or even if it's still going. Sziget is the place to go abroad. The world stage was really good.

 

I didn't know you'd been to Bearded Theory, Russy. When did you go?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Just got an email with the press release blaming - among other things - an osprey's nest!

And sort-of the SG, too. It's a bit spurious to include that, I think. Either there's laws around ospreys or there isn't.

But perhaps it's more about an explanation for what went wrong on that site, than blame pointing. Whatever other troubles there might have been I guess it's still true that the ospreys changed what was able to be done.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

True, but maybe that only applies to rock music - and if you want to make the case that as a form that's disappeared down a cul-de-sac that it shows little sign of escaping from I wouldn't much argue.

It's why some folk have kicked off at bookings like Beyoncé, Kanye and Adele, as they're not typical 'rock festival' fayre - but in a climate where rock music isn't punching its weight any more then the headliners need to come from somewhere else.  At least, they do if Glastonbury still wants to look like the alpha festival.

I know Glastonbury has always been a 'pop' festival, but there's pop and then there's pop.

And i'd say that Beyonce is more Take That than Blur on the two sides of pop, and the Take That side of things was an area where Glastonbury didn't really stray. (If it was then they'd have probably had Take That 20 years ago )

(I've avoided using the other two names in that just because I think there's different and stronger arguments that might be made for them)

I think the change to lesser music superstardom nowadays is going to mean that the only ones there are are from the dark side of 'pop' music. so get ready for Westlife.

[CaledonianGonzo]

I honestly don't think it'll come to a situation where it has to resort to boy bands or girl bands - their appeal, whilst sometimes massive in terms of numbers, is still limited within a pretty narrow age range and over a short duration.

Take That are an exception as they've now had a career lasting over 20 years and have a back catalogue - of sorts - that is familiar to people across a pretty wide demographic spread.  I don't think it'll happen, but if it did I dunno if it'd be the worst thing in the world.  They've long since proved that they're not a short shelf life flash in the pan, which you can't say for any of their peers or the current equivalents.  But even then I think there's a sense that the window has closed again for them - they're looking less likely now than they maybe were 4 or 5 years ago.

As for Beyoncé, at this stage in her career she's as close as we've got to an Elvis - an all-timer, who's place in the firmament is assured regardless of the quality or sales of an individual album.  It would be daft of the festival not to have booked her.

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

I honestly don't think it'll come to a situation where it has to resort to boy bands or girl bands - their appeal, whilst sometimes massive in terms of numbers, is still limited within a pretty narrow age range and over a short duration.

Take That are an exception as they've now had a career lasting over 20 years and have a back catalogue - of sorts - that is familiar to people across a pretty wide demographic spread.  I don't think it'll happen, but if it did I dunno if it'd be the worst thing in the world.  They've long since proved that they're not a short shelf life flash in the pan, which you can't say for any of their peers or the current equivalents.  But even then I think there's a sense that the window has closed again for them - they're looking less likely now than they maybe were 4 or 5 years ago.

As for Beyoncé, at this stage in her career she's as close as we've got to an Elvis - an all-timer, who's place in the firmament is assured regardless of the quality or sales of an individual album.  It would be daft of the festival not to have booked her.

I've no idea if it's true because I can't remember where it came from now, but I was told in the last year or two (I think I posted it somewhere here) that Take That had been approached for each festival for the previous 5-10 years, but Barlow is adamant he doesn't want to do it.

I can't remember where it came from but I do remember that there was reason enough for me to think it was more likely true than not, so it was probably from someone who does have an inside line (somewhere) of sorts, but also where it was possible he'd be told bullshit so might be telling me bullshit.

I'd say that Beyonce is like Glasto booking Take that to headline 2002, but it's a perception thing I guess.

Edited November 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[CaledonianGonzo]

If G-Barzle keeps knocking them back you have to assume it's because he's worried about moving out of his comfort zone and tanking in front of an audience of crusties - which might have been an issue in 2002, but I reckon they'd probably have done alright, crowd-wise.

But, as they slip back down the ticket-snake from stadiums to arenas he might be wondering whether he should have said yes whilst the offer was there.

[Spindles]

I think the festival is a bit too heritage heavy as it is.  There is a never ending stream of great new music (which might not be reaching the ears of the 50 somethings on this board) that deserves a billing.

I'm all for more bookings like Kanye.  Shake the tree, scare off those people who found Kanye "threatening" and make some room for the youth.  Childish Gambino, Kendrick, Chance, RTJ, plenty of top acts that deserve a booking and would go down great.

 

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, Spindles said:

 There is a never ending stream of great new music (which might not be reaching the ears of the 50 somethings on this board) that deserves a billing.

I'm sure there is. That wasn't so much my point, it was around the headline acts, the big names who (supposedly) are responsible for the most sales. I know Glastonbury doesn't sell directly on its headliners, but I'd still say they're important for its reputation which then drives those sales.

While there might be lots of new acts, there's seemingly fewer long-stayers, and of those fewer make that mega-status that might see them headline. It ends up being a shrinking talent pool at the top end of the bill as the oldies start to go to music heaven.

It's not dried up yet, but somewhen that impacts, I think.

[JBarbour]

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

does it bollocks. It's better than many other places - but it's the most expensive of all - tho it doesn't reach Glasto's heights.

Didn't find this the case at all. Prices round about the same in my fuzzy fest head. Never did I once think this is expensive

A lot better beer options. Great food at Boom. Sometimes have to put the miles in to find the decent food places at Glasto. 

Boomtown knocked glasto for six in every way but commercial music and music depth in my opinon. 

 

[JBarbour]

22 hours ago, russycarps said:

wow thanks for these photos. This place sounds and looks just incredible. I will never go - I'm simply too old - but if I was 18-21 I would be going nowhere near glastonbury and would be all over this. 

Better go quick though, as it surely wont be long before this place gets polluted by loads of middle-aged rich people.

 

 

Boomtown's music policy will probably stop it from growing into a reading/glasto beast. 

I'm gutted I've only just discovered the festival this year. 

Boomtown is definitely more of a night time festival, when the stages and areas come alive. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Thing is, though, the venn overlap with Boomtown's music policy and what goes down at Glastonbury in places like The Blues and The Gully is pretty sizable.  Boomtown may be younger and edgier, but they don't look like they're worlds apart in terms of booking policies.  Was it Madness that was the main headliner this year?

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, craigb said:

Boomtown's music policy will probably stop it from growing into a reading/glasto beast. 

not sure about that. They've expanded the policy with the expansion in numbers, so presumably they could do again.

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Thing is, though, the venn overlap with Boomtown's music policy and what goes down at Glastonbury in places like The Blues and The Gully is pretty sizable.  Boomtown may be younger and edgier, but they don't look like they're worlds apart in terms of booking policies.  Was it Madness that was the main headliner this year?

there's nothing really mainstream at boomtown. 

Madness aside.