Whether something is overpriced or not is not determined by whether or not a teenager can afford it.
I know you have to get there, but if you went to things individually, you'd have to get to those too.
Camping is included in the ticket price. You don't have to spend that much on food and drink.
And I know the Stones' ticket price is not typical, but it would only take three to four big shows of the sort that might headline the Pyramid to cost as much as the entire Glastonbury Festival.
The point is that £205 for Glastonbury enables you to see loads more than if you paid to go and see them individually.
glasto may be great value for money for some, but that wasn't the point i was making. i was pointing out that glastonbury has changed so it's no longer the hip place for young people as they are pricing those people out of the market and as a result it's more middle aged people who can afford to pay so much to go, and as a result the music policy has changed to appeal to the market that is buying the tickets.
in relation to other gigs, depending on where you live there are usually plenty of much cheaper gigs with less travel costs if you live locally, and no requirement to bring camping gear and buy things especially for it, including food and drink. i'm sure many attend concerts without drinking anything, although for most one or two drinks is perhaps the norm. if i went to a local gig, the ticket might be £20, travel costs are negligable or free, and a couple of drinks about £6, bag of chips and it's £30 for a night out, everything included, and i get to sleep in my own bed instead of a field
glasto may be great value for money for some, but that wasn't the point i was making. i was pointing out that glastonbury has changed so it's no longer the hip place for young people as they are pricing those people out of the market and as a result it's more middle aged people who can afford to pay so much to go, and as a result the music policy has changed to appeal to the market that is buying the tickets.
in relation to other gigs, depending on where you live there are usually plenty of much cheaper gigs with less travel costs if you live locally, and no requirement to bring camping gear and buy things especially for it, including food and drink. i'm sure many attend concerts without drinking anything, although for most one or two drinks is perhaps the norm. if i went to a local gig, the ticket might be £20, travel costs are negligable or free, and a couple of drinks about £6, bag of chips and it's £30 for a night out, everything included, and i get to sleep in my own bed instead of a field
In what way has the music policy changed? The variety of acts at Glastonbury is enormous!
So going by your local gig, not seeing any big acts of the sort that would headline Glastonbury, you could see seven for about the same cost as Glastonbury.
Far less than you can would see at Glastonbury, where there would also be the bigger acts, the circus tents, the comedy, and all manner of other stuff going on pretty much 24/7.
Glastonbury has gotten a little bit more expensive over the years, but not that much. I think if it had increased in line with inflation it would now be about £160. So I wouldn't be convinced that many have been priced out because of that £40.
Are you sure you're not confusing Glastonbury with Glyneborne? Because I still see plenty of young people at Glastonbury.
In what way has the music policy changed? The variety of acts at Glastonbury is enormous!
the key booker changed and as i've mentioned before on this thread, they are booking more commercial acts and acts to appeal to the change in customer base. have a look back at glastonbury from the early days onwards to see that commercial acts like beyonce and jayz were nowhere on the bill originally
So going by your local gig, not seeing any big acts of the sort that would headline Glastonbury, you could see seven for about the same cost as Glastonbury.
can you reword that in a way that makes sense? big acts play my locality. i can walk home quite easily from gigs from muse, madonna, stones, neil young, prince, radiohead, oasis, etc, and if they are overpriced and i don't want to pay, i won't pay
Far less than you can would see at Glastonbury, where there would also be the bigger acts, the circus tents, the comedy, and all manner of other stuff going on pretty much 24/7.
again, what are you going on about? i can't make sense of your post. but if you are talking quantity over quality, i'd pick quality. i don't want to see support acts i'm not interested in when i pay good money to go to a gig. decent supports are few and far between. the problem with a festival is if your favourites are playing on different screens, you have little chance of seeing them all close up. sometimes you might have to miss one or more if they play at the same time
but what does this have to do with kids not being able to afford tickets? it doesn't matter how much something is value for money, if you can't afford it you aren't going to experience VFM. a ferrari could come with a free mercedes, but if you don't have the money for the ferrari you aren't going to experience the value from the mercedes
Glastonbury has gotten a little bit more expensive over the years, but not that much. I think if it had increased in line with inflation it would now be about £160. So I wouldn't be convinced that many have been priced out because of that £40.
how much was the ticket for the first glastonbury and how much was the average weekly wage?
it doesn't matter though. if people can't afford it, they can't go. so your demographic will change. obviously some people can afford it as it sells out each year in advance, but it's the middle aged middle to upper income people who are going instead of young people
Are you sure you're not confusing Glastonbury with Glyneborne? Because I still see plenty of young people at Glastonbury.
no. and whilst you might see plenty of young people, what percentage of people under 20 do you see? what percentage of 20-25, 30-35, 35-40, and 40+ ?
the key booker changed and as i've mentioned before on this thread, they are booking more commercial acts and acts to appeal to the change in customer base. have a look back at glastonbury from the early days onwards to see that commercial acts like beyonce and jayz were nowhere on the bill originally
Glastonbury has always sought to be as diverse as possible. So its a bit odd to argue that by including artists they might not have previously is a bad thing.
Glastonbury is so huge, that these artists that seem to bother you so much make up the tiniest fraction of everything that's on at Glastonbury.
If you like I could post a list of every act who played this year, and we could see just how commercial it was.
Basically, to single out a handful of acts, among thousands, and argue that the shows a significant change in music policy is absurd.
can you reword that in a way that makes sense? big acts play my locality. i can walk home quite easily from gigs from muse, madonna, stones, neil young, prince, radiohead, oasis, etc, and if they are overpriced and i don't want to pay, i won't pay
The point was that if going to a local gig costs you about £30, then for the same cost as a Glastonbury ticket you could see about seven gigs locally. Far less than you would see at Glastonbury for the same money.
again, what are you going on about? i can't make sense of your post. but if you are talking quantity over quality, i'd pick quality. i don't want to see support acts i'm not interested in when i pay good money to go to a gig. decent supports are few and far between. the problem with a festival is if your favourites are playing on different screens, you have little chance of seeing them all close up. sometimes you might have to miss one or more if they play at the same time
Sure - but you'll still see a lot more for your £200 than if you went to individual gigs.
but what does this have to do with kids not being able to afford tickets? it doesn't matter how much something is value for money, if you can't afford it you aren't going to experience VFM. a ferrari could come with a free mercedes, but if you don't have the money for the ferrari you aren't going to experience the value from the mercedes
I'm not even sure what your point here is. Glastonbury isn't under any obligation to be affordable to everyone. As it is, it represents enormous VFM.
how much was the ticket for the first glastonbury and how much was the average weekly wage?
it doesn't matter though. if people can't afford it, they can't go. so your demographic will change. obviously some people can afford it as it sells out each year in advance, but it's the middle aged middle to upper income people who are going instead of young people
no. and whilst you might see plenty of young people, what percentage of people under 20 do you see? what percentage of 20-25, 30-35, 35-40, and 40+ ?
I said above that the cost had increased by about £40 over and above inflation in the last ten years or so.
So what if 10% of people there are older - people don't suddenly stop liking music when they turn 40 you know. You people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music.
It does beg the question though - if the music at Glastonbury is aimed at the over 50s, why are 90% of people who go under 50?
You are basically quoting a couple of examples, and trying to argue that those examples wholly represent Glastonbury. They don't.
Glastonbury has always sought to be as diverse as possible. So its a bit odd to argue that by including artists they might not have previously is a bad thing.
so why are you arguing that? or do you mistakenly thing i am, as i'm most certainly not, the opposite in fact
Glastonbury is so huge, that these artists that seem to bother you so much make up the tiniest fraction of everything that's on at Glastonbury.
it doesn't bother me. why would you imagine i would care? i watch what i want and ignore what i don't want. do you think that i'm saying certain artists shouldn't be at glastonbury, as i'm saying the opposite
If you like I could post a list of every act who played this year, and we could see just how commercial it was.
why? i don't care. and a list of artists wouldn't necesarily show that either, it would just be a list of artists, and then some would argue some are commercial and other people the opposite. it really doesn't matter
Basically, to single out a handful of acts, among thousands, and argue that the shows a significant change in music policy is absurd.
but why do that? i haven't done it
The point was that if going to a local gig costs you about £30, then for the same cost as a Glastonbury ticket you could see about seven gigs locally. Far less than you would see at Glastonbury for the same money.
i guess mathematics aren't your strong point. not to mention going to seperate gigs means you pick the bands you specifically want to see
Sure - but you'll still see a lot more for your £200 than if you went to individual gigs.
you could potentially, but then again maybe not. and then there is quality not quantity. some people would rather see 3 bands they really want to see than 20 bands they aren't bothered about. perhaps another festival problem - people going for the festival and not specifically to see certain artists
I'm not even sure what your point here is. Glastonbury isn't under any obligation to be affordable to everyone. As it is, it represents enormous VFM.
post 28 sums it up. glastonbury isn't cool or for the kids so who cares what bands they put on, they have to appeal to thier audience who will actually be buying the tickets. being VFM means nothing if you can't afford something though. you could have 100 bands that would normally have £100 tickets playing and charge £1000, a tenth of the price of all bands together, great value, but unafordable to many
I said above that the cost had increased by about £40 over and above inflation in the last ten years or so.
which doesn't answer the question i asked - "how much was the ticket for the first glastonbury and how much was the average weekly wage?"
So what if 10% of people there are older - people don't suddenly stop liking music when they turn 40 you know. You people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music.
what is "you people"? and what makes you think i care what age people are? you really don't understand a single point i've been making do you? you are trying to argue about something i'm not saying, and thinking i'm saying something i'm not
It does beg the question though - if the music at Glastonbury is aimed at the over 50s, why are 90% of people who go under 50?
you tell me. i really don't care
You are basically quoting a couple of examples, and trying to argue that those examples wholly represent Glastonbury. They don't.
I don't think my maths is out by much - 7 x 30 = 210.
Sorry - that should have been "young people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music".
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore - I thought you were saying that the type of music at Glastonbury had changed, but now you have just said you don't care about who is at Glastonbury.
Yes, I thought you were saying that certain artists shouldn't be at Glastonbury - you specifically mentioned "commercial artists like Jay-Z and Beyonce".
If its actually about what artists should be at Glastonbury, it would be interesting to have some examples.
I don't think my maths is out by much - 7 x 30 = 210.
it's out by a lot as you can't go to glastonbury for £210 can you? have you ever been to glastonbury, and if so, when was it, how much was the ticket, and how much else did you spend on travel, food, drinks, tents, clothing, and whatever else you did? going to a regular gig you don't have anywhere near the extra expense of a festival like glastonbury
Sorry - that should have been "young people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music".
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore - I thought you were saying that the type of music at Glastonbury had changed, but now you have just said you don't care about who is at Glastonbury.
my point is pretty simple. the punters at glastonbury have changed, so the music has to reflect what the punters want. it's far from a hip and cool festival for young people as the tickets price many young people out of the market meaning it's more middle aged people with decent jobs that are going thus the acts needs to reflect what they want, so artists that people were poo-pooing like kylie and rihanna shouldn't be written off as they are popular and likely to appeal to the people who do go
Yes, I thought you were saying that certain artists shouldn't be at Glastonbury - you specifically mentioned "commercial artists like Jay-Z and Beyonce".
no, the complete opposite. if you want to charge £200+ for tickets you have to put on acts people want to see. you have to have a commercial appeal
If its actually about what artists should be at Glastonbury, it would be interesting to have some examples.
i'm not saying who should or shouldn't be there. what i'm saying is you shouldn't write off artists appearing because they are commercial. it's a huge festival with a number of stages, over a few days for many hours so there is space for a variety of acts to cover many tastes, and there is certainly space for the biggest commercial live acts to headline. i doubt justin beiber will be at the top of the list for the next festival, but who knows in future. many artists in history started off playing teeny orientated music and developed into credible acts. maybe one day he'll pen a hear my dear
I started going in 1979 { the first year it was a three day event } and my ticket cost me £5 but at that time the Programme was extra - I know in 1983 entry had shot up to £12 { Programme price was a extra 80 pence } - in 1984 it was £13 - in 1985 it was £16 { Programme: 90p.} - in 1986 it was £17 { Programme: £1 } - in 1987 it was £21 { Programme was either £1 or £1.50 } - I became a Glastonbury volunteer in 1989 so did not have to pay the £28 but did pay £2 for the Programme
There was a big jump in 1990 because punter tickets were £38 { Programmes: £3 } and again in 1992 £49 { Programme: £4 } - in 1993 punter tickets were £58 { Programme: £4 } - in 1994 it was £59. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1995 it was £65. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1997 it was £75 including official programme.
so you can see prices did creep up although I have never met anyone who thought they were being ripped off.
next year will be my 29th Glastonbury and I really don't care who the main acts are - as long as I am alive I will be there.
Glastonbury in 1979 was tiny so its pointless trying to compare ticket prices.
Seeing tickets are sold before any full band list is announced - take this year - the tickets were all sold before we knew for sure the Stones were going to play so its the old chicken and egg problem.
I doubt it matters who the headliners are as there is so much to see.
I started going in 1979 { the first year it was a three day event } and my ticket cost me £5 but at that time the Programme was extra - I know in 1983 entry had shot up to £12 { Programme price was a extra 80 pence } - in 1984 it was £13 - in 1985 it was £16 { Programme: 90p.} - in 1986 it was £17 { Programme: £1 } - in 1987 it was £21 { Programme was either £1 or £1.50 } - I became a Glastonbury volunteer in 1989 so did not have to pay the £28 but did pay £2 for the Programme
There was a big jump in 1990 because punter tickets were £38 { Programmes: £3 } and again in 1992 £49 { Programme: £4 } - in 1993 punter tickets were £58 { Programme: £4 } - in 1994 it was £59. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1995 it was £65. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1997 it was £75 including official programme.
so you can see prices did creep up although I have never met anyone who thought they were being ripped off.
next year will be my 29th Glastonbury and I really don't care who the main acts are - as long as I am alive I will be there.
Glastonbury in 1979 was tiny so its pointless trying to compare ticket prices.
Seeing tickets are sold before any full band list is announced - take this year - the tickets were all sold before we knew for sure the Stones were going to play so its the old chicken and egg problem.
I doubt it matters who the headliners are as there is so much to see.
i'm not saying it's not VFM or a rip off, just that it's a lot of money to go, so the audience is getting older as they can afford it when younger people can't, so they have to provide suitable entertainment for those who do attend. if it was all shoegazing or hippy stuff all weekend a lot of people wouldn't be interested
you seem to be a good example of two things i've mentioned, the older audience and people who don't care who is playing and go for the experience
i'm not saying it's not VFM or a rip off, just that it's a lot of money to go, so the audience is getting older as they can afford it when younger people can't, so they have to provide suitable entertainment for those who do attend. if it was all shoegazing or hippy stuff all weekend a lot of people wouldn't be interested
you seem to be a good example of two things i've mentioned, the older audience and people who don't care who is playing and go for the experience
Now I don't have a clue when the switch was made because it happened after I became a volunteer but when I was buying tickets GFL always released a full lineup before the tickets went on sale and in recent years the tickets were bought before any lineup was announced so the lineup is unknowing to most.
people may be buying tickets in the hope there will be acts there that they like .
The age of who attends has not drastically changed although I have not conducted a survey.
if people cant afford a ticket there is loads of ways they can volunteer and work for their ticket so the actual cost should not put people off.
This looks a more balanced interview than what was in the NME.
it's out by a lot as you can't go to glastonbury for £210 can you? have you ever been to glastonbury, and if so, when was it, how much was the ticket, and how much else did you spend on travel, food, drinks, tents, clothing, and whatever else you did? going to a regular gig you don't have anywhere near the extra expense of a festival like glastonbury
my point is pretty simple. the punters at glastonbury have changed, so the music has to reflect what the punters want. it's far from a hip and cool festival for young people as the tickets price many young people out of the market meaning it's more middle aged people with decent jobs that are going thus the acts needs to reflect what they want, so artists that people were poo-pooing like kylie and rihanna shouldn't be written off as they are popular and likely to appeal to the people who do go
no, the complete opposite. if you want to charge £200+ for tickets you have to put on acts people want to see. you have to have a commercial appeal
i'm not saying who should or shouldn't be there. what i'm saying is you shouldn't write off artists appearing because they are commercial. it's a huge festival with a number of stages, over a few days for many hours so there is space for a variety of acts to cover many tastes, and there is certainly space for the biggest commercial live acts to headline. i doubt justin beiber will be at the top of the list for the next festival, but who knows in future. many artists in history started off playing teeny orientated music and developed into credible acts. maybe one day he'll pen a hear my dear
OK, fair enough about the food - but even if you add £4 per day to match your bag of chips, it's not much different. It's not as though your budget for food away from Glastonbury is £0.
I have been to every Glastonbury since 2002. You can spend as little or as much as you like on food - you can bring your own. Budget for clothes is £0 because I already own clothes. We have a tent, but not exclusively for Glastonbury.
You have always had to pay for food at Glastonbury, so I don't think you can blame food costs on the festival.
The only way you can really compare is by comparing the fixed costs, which are the tickets. So you might get to 10 gigs at £20, so the bottom line is that you get much better VFM with your £200 Glastonbury ticket. As I Sid before, the ticket price has only increased by about £40 over and above inflation over the last 10 years or so.
And I'm not sure the music has changed that much - maybe if you could give some examples of the sort of bands you don't see at Glastonbury any more that you would have in the past? The headliners at Glastonbury have always had commercial appeal.
Because as far as Ican tell, there still is an enormous range of music on offer at Glastonbury.
What is your experience of Glastonbury over the years?
^ Well, they certainly dont have any of those nasty hard rock or heavy metal bands on anymore. In fact any music which is liable to raise your heart rate is a big no no.
The reason the Eavises gave for this was that it was in response to the Roskilde festival, when some people were crushed, so they stopped booking any "high energy" type bands. However, the Roskilde tragedy happened in 2000. After nearly 15 years, that excuse doesnt really fly. I wonder what the real reason is?
i dont mind who is playing as long as the bbc showcase as many performances via the red button; bbc 3 hd and inlayer .... the summary show with numerous presenters on radio 1;2 and bbd is no longer needed.... just as many cameras as possible with no embargo
^ Well, they certainly dont have any of those nasty hard rock or heavy metal bands on anymore. In fact any music which is liable to raise your heart rate is a big no no.
The reason the Eavises gave for this was that it was in response to the Roskilde festival, when some people were crushed, so they stopped booking any "high energy" type bands. However, the Roskilde tragedy happened in 2000. After nearly 15 years, that excuse doesnt really fly. I wonder what the real reason is?
Given that Glastonbury's roots are a bit more hippy, was nasty hard rock / heavy metal a big part of the festival?
The 70s would be before my time, but did the big metal bands if the era used to play?
There were only 4 Glastonbury Festivals in the 70's anyway. Mostly hippy stuff like Hawkwind & Gong.
well it all depends what you count - this is long before they formed a Company called GFL.
before anyone mentions it - As far as I am aware Gong and Hawkwind, played at them all .
1970 Marc Bolan, Keith Christmas, Stackridge, Al Stewart, Quintessence - Attendance: 1,500.
1971 Hawkwind, Traffic, Melanie, David Bowie, Joan Baez, Fairport Convention and Quintessence.- Attendance: estimated at 12,000.
1977 it was called ' Glastonbury Free Festival 7.7.77 ' - No acts were booked as there was no festival planned but some did show up - there was a festival held but it was not held on Worthy Farm - it ended up in a Nationla trust ground { near Street. } - Attendance: no estimate but higher than 1978.
1978 No acts were booked as there was no festival planned but 500 did show up from Stonehenge - Attendance: estimated at 500.
1979 Peter Gabriel, Steve Hillage,Mother Gong, Tim Blake, John Martyn , Tom Robinson, UK Subs, Sphynx ,Sky,Footsbarn Theatre ,Nona Hendryx , Alex Harvey, Leighton Buzzards,The Pop Group/The Slits and The Only Ones - Attendance: 12,000
Officially there was only three but two unofficial ones.
OK, fair enough about the food - but even if you add £4 per day to match your bag of chips, it's not much different. It's not as though your budget for food away from Glastonbury is £0.
£4 for food for the whole weekend? are you on hunger strike? normal people would spend far more than that. it's a festival, people will be drinking booze and then need something to pick them back up in the morning. with a normal gig you eat before you go, you might have a couple of drinks but as you are only spending about a couple of hours there you aren't spending anything near as much as at a festival where prices are inflated for everything. plus you don't need to organise gear for it, like tents, sleeping bags, wellies, waterproofs and whatever, you just go in the gear you already have. i don't have wellies, a tent, sleeping bag or any of that outdoor gear and i'm not the only one in the same boat. few would have all the gear needed and not buy anything else specifically or mainly for the festival, and even then those people would still have to pay for food and drink and travel. at a local gig people can use their bus pass to get there and back, you don't even have to have a drink or eat anything whilst there. i've been to gigs and not spent a penny or had a drink, just turned up, saw the band and left. you can't do that at a weekend festival
I have been to every Glastonbury since 2002. You can spend as little or as much as you like on food - you can bring your own. Budget for clothes is £0 because I already own clothes. We have a tent, but not exclusively for Glastonbury.
You have always had to pay for food at Glastonbury, so I don't think you can blame food costs on the festival.
The only way you can really compare is by comparing the fixed costs, which are the tickets. So you might get to 10 gigs at £20, so the bottom line is that you get much better VFM with your £200 Glastonbury ticket. As I Sid before, the ticket price has only increased by about £40 over and above inflation over the last 10 years or so.
but as i've explained before, VFM means nothing if you can't afford it in the first place. it doesn't matter if you get a million pounds worth of entertainment for £1000 if you can't afford £1000. you can't go to glastonbury for £200, you have travel costs, food costs, drink costs, and whatever other costs you have to attend, such as tents, suitable clothing and footwear, etc. young people are less likely to have all of those things as they won't have been going to festivals for 10 years and have accumulated all the gear
And I'm not sure the music has changed that much - maybe if you could give some examples of the sort of bands you don't see at Glastonbury any more that you would have in the past? The headliners at Glastonbury have always had commercial appeal.
it's not so much the bands that you don't see, than the bands that you do see. artists like jay z and beyonce and kylie wouldn't have appeared at glastonbury in the 70s and 80s. the level of commercial appeal of headliners has changed
Because as far as Ican tell, there still is an enormous range of music on offer at Glastonbury.
What is your experience of Glastonbury over the years?
there is an enourmous range of music and it's increasing, and it's encompassing more commercial music than ever before to appeal to the changing demographic of ticket buyers, to appeal to the older people who can afford to buy the tickets and cover all the costs
£4 a day, as that was the figure you gave if you went to a gig.
I'd you want to argue that you'd spend more than £4 a day, then are you arguing that if you weren't at Glastonbury, your food budget would be £4 a day? Or "the food you eat before you go" is free?
And you are still going on a out organising gear specifically for Glastonbury, when its the sort of stuff people have anyway, or would use for other things. You can't just say associate their entire cost with Glastonbury. And young people have always had to but all that gear - that's not a new thing.
The main problem with your argument here is that you initially complained that Glastonbury had priced itself out of some people's reach by referring to the fixed price of the actual ticket. But since then you have mostly been talking about the variable costs of other things. What would you have Glastonbury to do? Take into account all of these variable costs, and so price tickets at £50 to keep the total cost down?
I really don't think they music is changing that much, and certainly not to reflect the older people who make up a minority. If you look at the entire line up, it certainly doesn't look like that to me.
And if the majority of people going are still under 40, how come they are still going? And who are all these older people friendly bands anyway? If you count someone like the Roling Stone due to their age, then there simply wouldn't have been equivalents to them back in the 70s and 80s.
What proportion of acts are these? And what proportion of the over 40s who go do you think would not go if they were not playing? A mistake you make here is that the over 40s only attend because of this shift. I doubt that's the case, becauseGlastonbury is about a lot more than who is headlining the Pyramid. In fact, it's about a lot more than just the music.
And also, if someone like the Rolling Stones are only of interest to the older people, how come so many people bother to watch them?
I'm also slightly confused by the argument - is it that they are including more commercial acts like Jay-Z and Beyonce to appeal to the older people?
I'll ask again, what is your personal experience of the festival?
£4 a day, as that was the figure you gave if you went to a gig.
I'd you want to argue that you'd spend more than £4 a day, then are you arguing that if you weren't at Glastonbury, your food budget would be £4 a day? Or "the food you eat before you go" is free?
are you trying to suggest that your entire food budget for a day, including drinks, at glastonbury is only £4? so wednesday to monday, from arrival to departure, you are only spending £24? that doesn't sound realistic. however depending on your lifestyle and budget you can feed yourself including drinks for less than that at home. if you are a young person living with parents you may not have to pay anything, but you would if you went to glastonbury
And you are still going on a out organising gear specifically for Glastonbury, when its the sort of stuff people have anyway, or would use for other things. You can't just say associate their entire cost with Glastonbury. And young people have always had to but all that gear - that's not a new thing.
well i don't have a tent or sleeping bag, or wellies or any camping gear and i'm sure i'm not the only one. young people in particular are perhaps less likely to own that gear, so you are wrong there
The main problem with your argument here is that you initially complained that Glastonbury had priced itself out of some people's reach by referring to the fixed price of the actual ticket. But since then you have mostly been talking about the variable costs of other things. What would you have Glastonbury to do? Take into account all of these variable costs, and so price tickets at £50 to keep the total cost down?
there is no problem with what i say. the price of the tickets alone are too expensive for many to afford, before you include further costs. the idea of reducing tickets to £50 is nonsense as it's simply not going to happen as the wouldn't be able to cover costs if they did that
I really don't think they music is changing that much, and certainly not to reflect the older people who make up a minority. If you look at the entire line up, it certainly doesn't look like that to me.
well that's the point. you really don't think. but it has changed
And if the majority of people going are still under 40, how come they are still going? And who are all these older people friendly bands anyway? If you count someone like the Roling Stone due to their age, then there simply wouldn't have been equivalents to them back in the 70s and 80s.
because you don't need to be over 40 not to be considered young. do you consider 35 young? or 30? where is the jump from young to not young in your mind? what percentage of under 20's go? what percentage of 20-25's go? is there more 35-40's going than under 20s?
What proportion of acts are these? And what proportion of the over 40s who go do you think would not go if they were not playing? A mistake you make here is that the over 40s only attend because of this shift. I doubt that's the case, becauseGlastonbury is about a lot more than who is headlining the Pyramid. In fact, it's about a lot more than just the music.[/uote]
a mistake you make is jumping to conclusions and misquoting people. i've never said or suggested the over 40s only atttend due to any shift. i'm saying the organisers book the bands to suit the punters
And also, if someone like the Rolling Stones are only of interest to the older people, how come so many people bother to watch them?
who said the rolling stones are only of interest to older people? you seem to be misquoting or misunderstanding more and more as you go on. you simply have the wrong end of the stick. the stones are a band that appeal to many ages. on the other hand they could have booked a band that would appeal to younger people, but not so much the main demographic that attends, thus alienating them. and if they continued to do that for a few years they could have problems selling tickets. the majority of punters who can afford to pay for tickets aren't necesarily looking for the cutting edge of music and instead want to hear music they know and like
I'm also slightly confused by the argument - is it that they are including more commercial acts like Jay-Z and Beyonce to appeal to the older people?
I'll ask again, what is your personal experience of the festival?
of course beyonce and jay z will appeal to older people as well as younger people. jay z has been releasing music for about 20 years and beyonce not that far off it, so people in thier 20s when they had their first hits will be in or near their 40s now, and both acts still chart today so will also appeal to younger listeners. it's the same with other bands like coldplay, muse, radiohead, rem, the usual glastonbury bands that were popular in the 90s and the audience now are in their late 30s or 40s or even older. even kylie had been releasing music for 25 years so someone who was 13 when she had her first hit is going to be 38 years old now
Comments
in relation to other gigs, depending on where you live there are usually plenty of much cheaper gigs with less travel costs if you live locally, and no requirement to bring camping gear and buy things especially for it, including food and drink. i'm sure many attend concerts without drinking anything, although for most one or two drinks is perhaps the norm. if i went to a local gig, the ticket might be £20, travel costs are negligable or free, and a couple of drinks about £6, bag of chips and it's £30 for a night out, everything included, and i get to sleep in my own bed instead of a field
Ridiculous statement. I seem to recall Bruce Forsyth going down a storm at Glastonbury.
In what way has the music policy changed? The variety of acts at Glastonbury is enormous!
So going by your local gig, not seeing any big acts of the sort that would headline Glastonbury, you could see seven for about the same cost as Glastonbury.
Far less than you can would see at Glastonbury, where there would also be the bigger acts, the circus tents, the comedy, and all manner of other stuff going on pretty much 24/7.
Glastonbury has gotten a little bit more expensive over the years, but not that much. I think if it had increased in line with inflation it would now be about £160. So I wouldn't be convinced that many have been priced out because of that £40.
Are you sure you're not confusing Glastonbury with Glyneborne? Because I still see plenty of young people at Glastonbury.
Adam Ant Stand and Deliver Jools holland
the key booker changed and as i've mentioned before on this thread, they are booking more commercial acts and acts to appeal to the change in customer base. have a look back at glastonbury from the early days onwards to see that commercial acts like beyonce and jayz were nowhere on the bill originally
can you reword that in a way that makes sense? big acts play my locality. i can walk home quite easily from gigs from muse, madonna, stones, neil young, prince, radiohead, oasis, etc, and if they are overpriced and i don't want to pay, i won't pay
again, what are you going on about? i can't make sense of your post. but if you are talking quantity over quality, i'd pick quality. i don't want to see support acts i'm not interested in when i pay good money to go to a gig. decent supports are few and far between. the problem with a festival is if your favourites are playing on different screens, you have little chance of seeing them all close up. sometimes you might have to miss one or more if they play at the same time
but what does this have to do with kids not being able to afford tickets? it doesn't matter how much something is value for money, if you can't afford it you aren't going to experience VFM. a ferrari could come with a free mercedes, but if you don't have the money for the ferrari you aren't going to experience the value from the mercedes
how much was the ticket for the first glastonbury and how much was the average weekly wage?
it doesn't matter though. if people can't afford it, they can't go. so your demographic will change. obviously some people can afford it as it sells out each year in advance, but it's the middle aged middle to upper income people who are going instead of young people
no. and whilst you might see plenty of young people, what percentage of people under 20 do you see? what percentage of 20-25, 30-35, 35-40, and 40+ ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/glastonbury/8577706/Glastonbury-goes-middle-aged-as-over-50s-increase.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-467942/Glastonburys-founder-says-festival-middle-aged-middle-class.html
and look how old those articles are
The Stone Roses
Fleetwood Mac
Kanye West
Glastonbury has always sought to be as diverse as possible. So its a bit odd to argue that by including artists they might not have previously is a bad thing.
Glastonbury is so huge, that these artists that seem to bother you so much make up the tiniest fraction of everything that's on at Glastonbury.
If you like I could post a list of every act who played this year, and we could see just how commercial it was.
Basically, to single out a handful of acts, among thousands, and argue that the shows a significant change in music policy is absurd.
The point was that if going to a local gig costs you about £30, then for the same cost as a Glastonbury ticket you could see about seven gigs locally. Far less than you would see at Glastonbury for the same money.
Sure - but you'll still see a lot more for your £200 than if you went to individual gigs.
I'm not even sure what your point here is. Glastonbury isn't under any obligation to be affordable to everyone. As it is, it represents enormous VFM.
I said above that the cost had increased by about £40 over and above inflation in the last ten years or so.
So what if 10% of people there are older - people don't suddenly stop liking music when they turn 40 you know. You people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music.
It does beg the question though - if the music at Glastonbury is aimed at the over 50s, why are 90% of people who go under 50?
You are basically quoting a couple of examples, and trying to argue that those examples wholly represent Glastonbury. They don't.
what is "you people"? and what makes you think i care what age people are? you really don't understand a single point i've been making do you? you are trying to argue about something i'm not saying, and thinking i'm saying something i'm not you tell me. i really don't care no i'm not
Sorry - that should have been "young people don't have some sort of exclusive dibs on music".
I'm not really sure what your point is anymore - I thought you were saying that the type of music at Glastonbury had changed, but now you have just said you don't care about who is at Glastonbury.
Yes, I thought you were saying that certain artists shouldn't be at Glastonbury - you specifically mentioned "commercial artists like Jay-Z and Beyonce".
If its actually about what artists should be at Glastonbury, it would be interesting to have some examples.
it's out by a lot as you can't go to glastonbury for £210 can you? have you ever been to glastonbury, and if so, when was it, how much was the ticket, and how much else did you spend on travel, food, drinks, tents, clothing, and whatever else you did? going to a regular gig you don't have anywhere near the extra expense of a festival like glastonbury
my point is pretty simple. the punters at glastonbury have changed, so the music has to reflect what the punters want. it's far from a hip and cool festival for young people as the tickets price many young people out of the market meaning it's more middle aged people with decent jobs that are going thus the acts needs to reflect what they want, so artists that people were poo-pooing like kylie and rihanna shouldn't be written off as they are popular and likely to appeal to the people who do go
no, the complete opposite. if you want to charge £200+ for tickets you have to put on acts people want to see. you have to have a commercial appeal
i'm not saying who should or shouldn't be there. what i'm saying is you shouldn't write off artists appearing because they are commercial. it's a huge festival with a number of stages, over a few days for many hours so there is space for a variety of acts to cover many tastes, and there is certainly space for the biggest commercial live acts to headline. i doubt justin beiber will be at the top of the list for the next festival, but who knows in future. many artists in history started off playing teeny orientated music and developed into credible acts. maybe one day he'll pen a hear my dear
I started going in 1979 { the first year it was a three day event } and my ticket cost me £5 but at that time the Programme was extra - I know in 1983 entry had shot up to £12 { Programme price was a extra 80 pence } - in 1984 it was £13 - in 1985 it was £16 { Programme: 90p.} - in 1986 it was £17 { Programme: £1 } - in 1987 it was £21 { Programme was either £1 or £1.50 } - I became a Glastonbury volunteer in 1989 so did not have to pay the £28 but did pay £2 for the Programme
There was a big jump in 1990 because punter tickets were £38 { Programmes: £3 } and again in 1992 £49 { Programme: £4 } - in 1993 punter tickets were £58 { Programme: £4 } - in 1994 it was £59. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1995 it was £65. { Programme price: £5 } - in 1997 it was £75 including official programme.
so you can see prices did creep up although I have never met anyone who thought they were being ripped off.
next year will be my 29th Glastonbury and I really don't care who the main acts are - as long as I am alive I will be there.
Glastonbury in 1979 was tiny so its pointless trying to compare ticket prices.
Seeing tickets are sold before any full band list is announced - take this year - the tickets were all sold before we knew for sure the Stones were going to play so its the old chicken and egg problem.
I doubt it matters who the headliners are as there is so much to see.
i'm not saying it's not VFM or a rip off, just that it's a lot of money to go, so the audience is getting older as they can afford it when younger people can't, so they have to provide suitable entertainment for those who do attend. if it was all shoegazing or hippy stuff all weekend a lot of people wouldn't be interested
you seem to be a good example of two things i've mentioned, the older audience and people who don't care who is playing and go for the experience
Now I don't have a clue when the switch was made because it happened after I became a volunteer but when I was buying tickets GFL always released a full lineup before the tickets went on sale and in recent years the tickets were bought before any lineup was announced so the lineup is unknowing to most.
people may be buying tickets in the hope there will be acts there that they like .
The age of who attends has not drastically changed although I have not conducted a survey.
if people cant afford a ticket there is loads of ways they can volunteer and work for their ticket so the actual cost should not put people off.
This looks a more balanced interview than what was in the NME.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23955793
OK, fair enough about the food - but even if you add £4 per day to match your bag of chips, it's not much different. It's not as though your budget for food away from Glastonbury is £0.
I have been to every Glastonbury since 2002. You can spend as little or as much as you like on food - you can bring your own. Budget for clothes is £0 because I already own clothes. We have a tent, but not exclusively for Glastonbury.
You have always had to pay for food at Glastonbury, so I don't think you can blame food costs on the festival.
The only way you can really compare is by comparing the fixed costs, which are the tickets. So you might get to 10 gigs at £20, so the bottom line is that you get much better VFM with your £200 Glastonbury ticket. As I Sid before, the ticket price has only increased by about £40 over and above inflation over the last 10 years or so.
And I'm not sure the music has changed that much - maybe if you could give some examples of the sort of bands you don't see at Glastonbury any more that you would have in the past? The headliners at Glastonbury have always had commercial appeal.
Because as far as Ican tell, there still is an enormous range of music on offer at Glastonbury.
What is your experience of Glastonbury over the years?
The reason the Eavises gave for this was that it was in response to the Roskilde festival, when some people were crushed, so they stopped booking any "high energy" type bands. However, the Roskilde tragedy happened in 2000. After nearly 15 years, that excuse doesnt really fly. I wonder what the real reason is?
Given that Glastonbury's roots are a bit more hippy, was nasty hard rock / heavy metal a big part of the festival?
The 70s would be before my time, but did the big metal bands if the era used to play?
There were only 4 Glastonbury Festivals in the 70's anyway. Mostly hippy stuff like Hawkwind & Gong.
well it all depends what you count - this is long before they formed a Company called GFL.
before anyone mentions it - As far as I am aware Gong and Hawkwind, played at them all .
1970 Marc Bolan, Keith Christmas, Stackridge, Al Stewart, Quintessence - Attendance: 1,500.
1971 Hawkwind, Traffic, Melanie, David Bowie, Joan Baez, Fairport Convention and Quintessence.- Attendance: estimated at 12,000.
1977 it was called ' Glastonbury Free Festival 7.7.77 ' - No acts were booked as there was no festival planned but some did show up - there was a festival held but it was not held on Worthy Farm - it ended up in a Nationla trust ground { near Street. } - Attendance: no estimate but higher than 1978.
1978 No acts were booked as there was no festival planned but 500 did show up from Stonehenge - Attendance: estimated at 500.
1979 Peter Gabriel, Steve Hillage,Mother Gong, Tim Blake, John Martyn , Tom Robinson, UK Subs, Sphynx ,Sky,Footsbarn Theatre ,Nona Hendryx , Alex Harvey, Leighton Buzzards,The Pop Group/The Slits and The Only Ones - Attendance: 12,000
Officially there was only three but two unofficial ones.
£4 for food for the whole weekend? are you on hunger strike? normal people would spend far more than that. it's a festival, people will be drinking booze and then need something to pick them back up in the morning. with a normal gig you eat before you go, you might have a couple of drinks but as you are only spending about a couple of hours there you aren't spending anything near as much as at a festival where prices are inflated for everything. plus you don't need to organise gear for it, like tents, sleeping bags, wellies, waterproofs and whatever, you just go in the gear you already have. i don't have wellies, a tent, sleeping bag or any of that outdoor gear and i'm not the only one in the same boat. few would have all the gear needed and not buy anything else specifically or mainly for the festival, and even then those people would still have to pay for food and drink and travel. at a local gig people can use their bus pass to get there and back, you don't even have to have a drink or eat anything whilst there. i've been to gigs and not spent a penny or had a drink, just turned up, saw the band and left. you can't do that at a weekend festival
but as i've explained before, VFM means nothing if you can't afford it in the first place. it doesn't matter if you get a million pounds worth of entertainment for £1000 if you can't afford £1000. you can't go to glastonbury for £200, you have travel costs, food costs, drink costs, and whatever other costs you have to attend, such as tents, suitable clothing and footwear, etc. young people are less likely to have all of those things as they won't have been going to festivals for 10 years and have accumulated all the gear
it's not so much the bands that you don't see, than the bands that you do see. artists like jay z and beyonce and kylie wouldn't have appeared at glastonbury in the 70s and 80s. the level of commercial appeal of headliners has changed
there is an enourmous range of music and it's increasing, and it's encompassing more commercial music than ever before to appeal to the changing demographic of ticket buyers, to appeal to the older people who can afford to buy the tickets and cover all the costs
I'd you want to argue that you'd spend more than £4 a day, then are you arguing that if you weren't at Glastonbury, your food budget would be £4 a day? Or "the food you eat before you go" is free?
And you are still going on a out organising gear specifically for Glastonbury, when its the sort of stuff people have anyway, or would use for other things. You can't just say associate their entire cost with Glastonbury. And young people have always had to but all that gear - that's not a new thing.
The main problem with your argument here is that you initially complained that Glastonbury had priced itself out of some people's reach by referring to the fixed price of the actual ticket. But since then you have mostly been talking about the variable costs of other things. What would you have Glastonbury to do? Take into account all of these variable costs, and so price tickets at £50 to keep the total cost down?
I really don't think they music is changing that much, and certainly not to reflect the older people who make up a minority. If you look at the entire line up, it certainly doesn't look like that to me.
And if the majority of people going are still under 40, how come they are still going? And who are all these older people friendly bands anyway? If you count someone like the Roling Stone due to their age, then there simply wouldn't have been equivalents to them back in the 70s and 80s.
What proportion of acts are these? And what proportion of the over 40s who go do you think would not go if they were not playing? A mistake you make here is that the over 40s only attend because of this shift. I doubt that's the case, becauseGlastonbury is about a lot more than who is headlining the Pyramid. In fact, it's about a lot more than just the music.
And also, if someone like the Rolling Stones are only of interest to the older people, how come so many people bother to watch them?
I'm also slightly confused by the argument - is it that they are including more commercial acts like Jay-Z and Beyonce to appeal to the older people?
I'll ask again, what is your personal experience of the festival?
are you trying to suggest that your entire food budget for a day, including drinks, at glastonbury is only £4? so wednesday to monday, from arrival to departure, you are only spending £24? that doesn't sound realistic. however depending on your lifestyle and budget you can feed yourself including drinks for less than that at home. if you are a young person living with parents you may not have to pay anything, but you would if you went to glastonbury
well i don't have a tent or sleeping bag, or wellies or any camping gear and i'm sure i'm not the only one. young people in particular are perhaps less likely to own that gear, so you are wrong there
there is no problem with what i say. the price of the tickets alone are too expensive for many to afford, before you include further costs. the idea of reducing tickets to £50 is nonsense as it's simply not going to happen as the wouldn't be able to cover costs if they did that
well that's the point. you really don't think. but it has changed
because you don't need to be over 40 not to be considered young. do you consider 35 young? or 30? where is the jump from young to not young in your mind? what percentage of under 20's go? what percentage of 20-25's go? is there more 35-40's going than under 20s?