Glastonbury looks to ditch 'middle-aged, respectable' clientele

 

Last updated at 13:00pm on 12th July 2007 Comments

The organiser of Glastonbury Festival wants to attract younger people to next year's event after claiming it had become "too middle-aged" and "respectable".

Michael Eavis said the decision to sell tickets online for this year's event had attracted an older clientele, at the expense of teenagers.

Around 40 per cent of tickets will be sold via phone lines next year to help get youths back to the legendary three-day event in Somerset.

Scroll down for more...

 

Plenty of exuberance on display from Glastonbury crowds this year, but for organisers it wasn't youthful enough

 

 

"We're trying to get the youngsters because numbers were down this year,î Mr Eavis said. "People say we're getting middle class, but we're attracting more people in their thirties and forties and need the Radio 1 and NME crowds.

"These kids add so much to the flavour of it. The people who now come have the right attitude, they grin and bear the mud, but they do change the nature of the show."

Mr Eavis said this year's internetonly sales policy favoured people with fast internet connections. "Next year kids will be able to use their mobile phones to get tickets," he said.

Thrll b a presale by tx msg nxt :rolleyes:

Quick hint to Mr. Eavis. Lower the ticket price, then more young people will be able to afford to go.

Quick hint to Mr. Eavis. Lower the ticket price, then more young people will be able to afford to go.

 

And improve the line-up while you're at it.:rolleyes:

Shut the f**k up!!!!^

 

Glastonbury's line up was the best of all the festivals this year. Even if you didnt like the 'main' bands, theres numerous other tents/music areas for everyone's tastes.

 

You make me cringe with the way that you think if you don't like something, and someone else likes it then it must be crap.:rolleyes:

Shut the f**k up!!!!^

 

Glastonbury's line up was the best of all the festivals this year. Even if you didnt like the 'main' bands, theres numerous other tents/music areas for everyone's tastes.

 

You make me cringe with the way that you think if you don't like something, and someone else likes it then it must be crap.:rolleyes:

 

Well it was crap (and muddy)!!:P

How can you say it was crap when you weren't even there?

How can you say it was crap when you weren't even there?

 

It's the general impression I got from all the TV coverage.:rolleyes:

:laugh3:

Whats wrong with oldies going there? :angry:

How many stages were there at Glastonbury?

 

23ish?

 

The TV coverage couldn't cover all the stages, so they stayed at the main stages.

Another idea for the ticket sales.

 

Like they had with the pre-registration, they should do an open ballot for tickets, with people whom has pre-preregistered entering the draw, of which say 60% of the tickets on general sale gets drawn, you get an email saying "well done you have been successful, you can purchase 2 tickets". Like they had at the London leg of Live Earth.

How many stages were there at Glastonbury?

 

23ish?

 

The TV coverage couldn't cover all the stages, so they stayed at the main stages.

 

It's the big stages that matter.

The small stages tend to be full of people you've never heard of (and maybe never wanted to).:rolleyes:

What stage did Coldplay play in 2000?

 

Sometimes the smaller bands are a lot better than the big bands.

What stage did Coldplay play in 2000?

 

Sometimes the smaller bands are a lot better than the big bands.

 

Well that might very well have been the case on this occasion, as the "big" bands sucked!!:laugh3:

You're so narrow-minded mc_squared.

Quite funny, really listening to you!! *shakes head*

You're so narrow-minded mc_squared.

Quite funny, really listening to you!! *shakes head*

 

Not as funny as your extremely blinkered viewpoint.:rolleyes:

 

I watched the two-hour highlights show this morning and although there were some OK bits (Lily Allen with Terry Hall for example), the headline acts were generally a let-down.;)

How on earth can The Who be the top headline act?? When was the last time they released anything decent?

At most they should have been on earlier in the evening.:rolleyes:

The Who wasn't the top headline act, the Killers were the top headline act, headling the saturday.

The Who wasn't the top headline act, the Killers were the top headline act, headling the saturday.

 

That isn't much better.

 

2005 - Coldplay

2007 - Killers.

 

Massive difference.;)

That isn't much better.

 

2005 - Coldplay

2007 - Killers.

 

Massive difference.;)

 

Well be careful, I guess you've never seen the Killers live in concert (no I don't mean concerts on TV). Then you'll definitely have another opinion... :rolleyes:

If I saw the Killers live, than my opinion of them would fall down even more.

I don't think so...

 

But well it's always the same... you can't discuss about different music tastes. I only wanted to say that you can't really create your own opinion without having see them live once.

Well be careful, I guess you've never seen the Killers live in concert (no I don't mean concerts on TV). Then you'll definitely have another opinion... :rolleyes:

 

I doubt it, as Coldplay have far better repertoire, and when I watched them at Glasto on TV two years ago, I didn't have to be there to see their performance was phenomenal.;)

I don't think so...

 

But well it's always the same... you can't discuss about different music tastes. I only wanted to say that you can't really create your own opinion without having see them live once.

 

Whatever way you look it, the Killers aren't in the same league at Coldplay when it comes to "headline act" status.;)

If I'm honest... I don't think that it was Coldplay's best performance ever two years ago... That doesn't mean the Killers were better now. It's just about two different point of views. As I mentioned above comments like yours are unnecessary simply to the fact that your music taste is different and you can't discuss about it.