The Festival's Not What It Used to Be

[ukslim]

Society has changed, Glastonbury has changed etc.

[Vanderlyle]

Problem with these threads is that a lot of good people are going to end up sounding like dickheads....

Glastonbury has changed of course. As has been said, this was primarily needed in order for ME to keep his license.

I think the crucial thing is that for the majority of people going who are left-leaning, friendly, up for a good time and (for many) bored as hell slogging their brains out at work 5 days a week, it is by far and away the most enjoyable, liberal, friendly week of the year.

I've been to a hell of a lot of festivals, and Glastonbury continues to be unique. Best set of people, best atmosphere, best variety. Of course there are more middle-class people... bankers/lawyers/politicians etc. But these people aren't necessarily bad people, and I would far rather know that at least some of the people 'running the country' were coming and seeing what joy real community can bring, rather than them being hounded out for having £100 wellies...

[Mikeydread]

Only 18000 people and £8 (I think) when I first went! Now too many flags! Still love it to bits 32 years on!

[skaggman]

I saw the glastonbury film the other night, seeing all the different characters on there, listening to people viewpoints etc. It was like a different worlk. The current festival is an obsenity compared to how it used to be.

I'd genuinely like to see it renamed. The Pilton Pop festival or something. It was steadily changing, but in the last couple of years I'd say the "old" glastonbury is pretty much completely gone.

The blame lies with the fence and the super high entrance fee. The demographic is utterly changed. It is the domain of the spoilt middle class rich kid nowadays.

Will I go in 2013? Probably not.

[elias]

what time are you referring to?

To my own mind, Glastonbury only started to become 'dangerous' in about 1995 (perhaps a year or two earlier). Until then it was very edgy but never really dangerous to my mind.

[NunuD]

Possibly, perhaps, its not that the festival changed but that you are seeing it differently? At the age of 6 Iran around and acted silly, ate donuts and fell asleep in front of whoever my parents were watching that evening. I know that when I was 16, if I went at the time, I would have spent the entire festival in front of the Pyramid or Other stage, staring at the popular chart topping bands. And would have thought it 'like totally awesome'. Now, I far prefer to bimble off and take in the Caberet or the Green Fields, try and find the Rabbit Hole or something. Perhaps if Glasto isn't doing it for you anymore, and you have been doing the same thing for the past 10 years, try doing something else?

Just my opinion, please don't take offence anyone!

[robalotalob]

Ok you can make the point that 'everything changes, you've got to adapt' but not everything has to change. You don't have to get loads of big corporations on board and appeal to a larger demographic and expand. You could continue being a non-profit, alternative festival and keep the admission cost low.

In response to the original question, it's not as good as it used to be IMO. I miss the edgy-ness, the diversity of characters from different backgrounds. The festival is now dominated by young, lower-middle class white people who can afford to go. To me this is tragic.

On the plus side, the place itself hasn't changed that much, they've stuck to their roots in keeping the green fields, circus and cabaret. Music has not changed and in fact there is probably more choice music-wise, and primarily that is what people are there for. It's great that you still feel that 'we're all on the same wavelength' thing but it was so much more when you felt that with people from a greater a mix of sub-cultures.

Anyway, hope everyone has a blast.

[arcade fireman]

problem is, and dont take this personally, but you, your mates and the rest of "your sort" (for want of a better phrase) bring absolutely nothing to the festival. You are boring clones.

I'd much rather see the hippies of the past than you lot parading around in your hunters wellies and top man tshirts. I'm sorry to say you and your ilk have priced out the former glastonbury goer.

Of course you have every right to be there, but why do you think all the "characters" have gone? Because of the likes of you and what the festival has had to become in order to accomodate you.

I mean no offence by this.

[BigMouthStrikesAgain]

I'm a spoilt, middle class kid attending Glasto for the first time. I'm going to parade around in top man t shirt and hunter wellies thoroughly dulling the whole place up waiting for the Kaiser Chiefs.

[ukslim]

I had a bad time in 2000, I didnt go for a few years, I was glad of the fence, personally. Sorry.

[arcade fireman]

Ok you can make the point that 'everything changes, you've got to adapt' but not everything has to change. You don't have to get loads of big corporations on board and appeal to a larger demographic and expand. You could continue being a non-profit, alternative festival and keep the admission cost low.

In response to the original question, it's not as good as it used to be IMO. I miss the edgy-ness, the diversity of characters from different backgrounds. The festival is now dominated by young, lower-middle class white people who can afford to go. To me this is tragic.

On the plus side, the place itself hasn't changed that much, they've stuck to their roots in keeping the green fields, circus and cabaret. Music has not changed and in fact there is probably more choice music-wise, and primarily that is what people are there for. It's great that you still feel that 'we're all on the same wavelength' thing but it was so much more when you felt that with people from a greater a mix of sub-cultures.

Anyway, hope everyone has a blast.

Edited June 20, 2011 by arcade fireman

[timbrass]

rich kids who were spending their cash so that everyone else could have a good time, not rich kids spending it on themselves. I think that's a significant difference!

Anyway, not being 'rich-ist', I'd say that what russy is really getting at is that Glastonbury used to be far more of a participant festival and less of a spectator sport - but I'm as guilty of being just as much a spectator as any 'rich kid', and I suspect that might be true for russy too.

The reason that 'rich kids' get the blame in that way is because most of the 'characters' disappeared at around the same time that they arrived.

[russycarps]

I could not disagree with you more.

Compared to reading or leeds glastonbury is a bargain! £200 for the amount that glastonbury offers campared to very similar prices for much smaller festivals (£140 for Hop farm for example) is a good price and they always try to keep tickets prices as low as possible. If prices were lower the quality of the experience will also drop.

Glastonbury is definitely not the fashionable place to go for people under the age of 21 and your "middle class rich kids" you will find reading attracts far more.

It is also the most "festivally" music festival of any UK festival, and it still has the biggest range of alternative music. Yes it has far more "Pop" acts than it originally did but that is because music is changing so the festival accomodates for that.

You strike me as somebody who cannot deal with change which would make life very difficult as it is full of change, I reccommend changing

[Guest Flip]

The authorities rule by fear. It saddens me to see you falling for it.

Health and Safety is just another means to control the masses. I find it deeply troubling that people just lap it up.

[eFestivals]

Perhaps 'danger' is overstating it somewhat. I'm not really talking about the issues with crowds prior to the super fence, more the unsavoury characters that could be found at times. I'm certainly not trying to tar everybody with the same brush, there were also many interesting and lovely people attending then as well. It's just I would feel much happier about letting my daughters attend alone (which one of them has done) now rather than then.

I realise this is a generalisation, but it's how I feel.

the issue with crowds only really started in 1995 - that was the year it went 'mega', the year the fence got properly ripped down for the first time. That year (or perhaps a year or two earlier) was the start of much of the criminality and theiving too (sure, it happened before that, but not on anything like the same scale).

And while as a parent I fully understand why you do about your daughters, was it true that you had the approval of your folks to attend, or might they have been horrified? Perhaps give your daughters the same breaks you wanted for yourself, and I'd guess they'd be the better for it (as you no-doubt were too)?

[camperman]

As someone who goes camping for hollidays and goes to gigs i'm baffled by the term used extorsionately priced.

One man one tent any campsite in june £17 per night cheepest field no toilet no water.£38 most family site,s =£85--£190

gigs most around 2hours,£35--£150.

HOW THE HELL CAN FIVE DAYS CAMPING MORE THAN YOU COULD DO IN A YEAR GOING ON 24hrs A DAY AND NEARLY 60 STAGES OF TOP ACTS BE EXPENSIVE AT £195.

I have to add i see my ticket fee as paying for the organisation and infastructure to be set up and taken down paying for acts , the fest is free u can do or see what you want, theres no extra charge to say entre avalon etc.

Edited June 20, 2011 by camperman

[eFestivals]

Ok you can make the point that 'everything changes, you've got to adapt' but not everything has to change. You don't have to get loads of big corporations on board and appeal to a larger demographic and expand. You could continue being a non-profit, alternative festival and keep the admission cost low.

In response to the original question, it's not as good as it used to be IMO. I miss the edgy-ness, the diversity of characters from different backgrounds. The festival is now dominated by young, lower-middle class white people who can afford to go. To me this is tragic.

On the plus side, the place itself hasn't changed that much, they've stuck to their roots in keeping the green fields, circus and cabaret. Music has not changed and in fact there is probably more choice music-wise, and primarily that is what people are there for. It's great that you still feel that 'we're all on the same wavelength' thing but it was so much more when you felt that with people from a greater a mix of sub-cultures.

Anyway, hope everyone has a blast.

but Glastonbury didn't change to "appeal to a larger demographic", it's far more the case that in music terms that the demographic changed so that Glastonbury appealed to it. Glastonbury has kept on being the pop festival it started as.

[russycarps]

As someone who goes camping for hollidays and goes to gigs i'm baffled by the term used extorsionately priced.

One man one tent any campsite in june £17 per night cheepest field no toilet no water.£38 most family site,s =£85--£190

gigs most around 2hours,£35--£150.

HOW THE HELL CAN FIVE DAYS CAMPING MORE THAN YOU COULD DO IN A YEAR GOING ON 24hrs A DAY AND NEARLY 60 STAGES OF TOP ACTS BE EXPENSIVE AT £195.

[BlackHole2006]

If you think Glastonbury is a pop festival then you need to try moving away from the Pyramid Stage.

I think the "Glastonbury Festival of Contemporary Performing Arts" is bang on.

[russycarps]

but Glastonbury didn't change to "appeal to a larger demographic", it's far more the case that in music terms that the demographic changed so that Glastonbury appealed to it. Glastonbury has kept on being the pop festival it started as.

[arcade fireman]

Yes. You're fortunate to be wealthy. As am I. Guess what though, some people arent.

Crowing about your wealth in capital letters doesn't really do you any favours.

[Spindles]

Only 18000 people and £8 (I think) when I first went! Now too many flags! Still love it to bits 32 years on!

[luca_79]

Yes. You're fortunate to be wealthy. As am I. Guess what though, some people arent.

Crowing about your wealth in capital letters doesn't really do you any favours.

[Big Vern]

Yes. You're fortunate to be wealthy. As am I. Guess what though, some people arent.

Crowing about your wealth in capital letters doesn't really do you any favours.

[bamber]

I've been to more than twenty Glastonburys and while it's fair so say an awful lot has changed, I think any discussion of which era was the best is flawed because each festival experience is unique to each individual and is very subjective and for me, and many others I'm sure, I actually have very little memory of vast chunks of the many months I have spent in those fields. I think it is quite wrong to suggest that all the interesting people don't go any more. I meet more people with something to say in three days than I probably do in the whole of the rest of the year, and see more smiles. Glastonbury makes you happy.

I get annoyed by some of the things I see there nowadays, like chubby white people in cowboy hats, but I'm sure as hell I annoy the f**k out of plenty of others with my drunken ramblings and general lairiness .

It's the things that stay the same that make Glastonbury endure, most people who go back again and again do so for that undefinable iridescence that you only seem to get in the Vale of Avalon. The things about the festival that make it great are all intangible.

Edited June 20, 2011 by bamber