ComEnts

In answer to my learned colleague's suggestion that performing "quiet" concerts may be seen in some circles as being a bit lame, I've enjoyed a number of gigs that have been broadcast via the radio, and didn’t feel that I was missing out on any of the excitement just because my radio didn’t turn up to 110 decibels. To that extent, if - say - I were at Glastonbury, chilling on a rug on the floor, topping up my tan and my THC levels at the same time I would absolutely love it if I could have a pair of headphones to receive a high-quality broadcast of the band playing at the time, away from the crush of the moshpit, and the high volume levels, etc.

That's not to say that it would be preferable to actually being at the front having my ears blasted, but that if I had the option I could pick and choose at my discretion. It's more about not being able to be in two places at once - if Anthrax were Among the Living on stage 2 where I was, and I knew I wouldn’t make it over to stage 8 in time to see Ben Folds Five, I could just tune in on my headphones and listen to BF5 after Scott Ian and the lads were done, whilst sauntering over to a hot dog stall or summat, innit.

If Glasto organisers can figure out how to have each stage set at a different frequency on the transmitters, they could sell headphones for people to wander around with so they could listen to any stage they wanted to from any point in the festival grounds, and maybe even one day sell them around the globe so audiences of millions could tune in to listen London Electricity rinsing it out good and pwopah, or Steve Earle acousticing it up like the wild man he is. Glasto will sell out every year, but not everyone will be able to listen to the acts - that could change. A good thing, methinks.