When that nice farmer chap who invites 180,000 mud lovers onto his Glastonbury land every year sits down and asks himself why his world-famous festival failed to sell out until the last minute, I hope he remembers this: BBC.
Why? Forget the discussion about whether rap artists should be allowed to perform at Glastonbury (answer is yes, after all the festival has it origins with all-embracing hippies) and whether that knocked sales. The answer is much simplier. The middle class who have made it so hard to get tickets in the past now know they can experience Glastonbury in a much nicer way, from their living room.
Why spend four or five days living under canvas, unsure whether your tent will have slipped down a muddy hill overnight, when you can sit on the sofa. Why spend a fortune on food, for which you often have to stand in long queues to get, and therefore risk missing an act, when you can ring the takeaway as you flick the red button on BBC 3 and choose which stage you want to look at?
Ah, the red button. Made famous by Sky News several years ago for people wishing to waste their money taking part in votes about the news headlines, but never used so superbly as by the BBC at Glastonbury.
How many people at Glastonbury, now, as we speak, actually SAW Amy Winehouse go for someone in the audience? Sure, they'll all have heard about it, but the people who have seen it will have done so from the comfort of the living room, sat back with a six pack and a curry.
Because the problem is this: For years, Glastonbury hasn't been about seeing great music for many of the people who went. It became a status symbol. Something to tell your friends back in the office that you experience. "You mean you camped, Hugh?" "Oh yes, Tarquin. We even queued for the toilet. Favourite act? The Kaiser Chefs of course! Cooking!"
I'm sure it annoys the people who really are there for the music (they are the ones who'd welcome rappers to the Pyramid stage) as much as anyone. In fact, they're probably happy that the must-say-I've-been-there-Guardian-readers have opted for the telly this year. No doubt Glasto parties have been all the rage this year.
In fact, for most of us, it's the nearest the BBC has come to public service broadcasting in years. With up to six different acts via the red button at any one time, plus great commentary and support from a wide range of hosts (although Mark Radcliffe flying over Glastonbury in a helicopter before announcing Neil Diamond did seem a bit over the top), Glastonbury is probably one of the few events which most "fans" would rather watch via the TV. A bit like football - the diehards go and the rest, who talk about the game on email of a Monday.
Which rather begs the question: Is the BBC's coverage too good? It's a question which the organisers at Glastonbury need to get an answer for reasonably quickly. After all, those of us watching on the telly aren't paying through the nose for food, aren't staying up half the night to buy tickets or jumping through hoops to get the right ID to go. We're just ligging along. And, as football knows to its cost, losing paying fans to the TV isn't a good way to go - unless TV covers the cost in return.
- Post to:
del.icio.us
Digg
Newsvine
Nowpublic
Reddit
« Previous | Home | Next »