The Actual Site

Got any feedback for us from our first UK appearance, let us know about it in here
cuddles1
Posts: 1076
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:32 pm
Location: epsom, surrey, uk

Re: The Actual Site

Postby cuddles1 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:12 pm

Pretty well organised i think there was too many vans around the middle of the site!

The T-barier made it very dangerous at the front as it was too small for a start! During metallica there were smaller people getting propper crushed with nowhere to go!
Who ever came up with the idea of a t barier is a retard!
Image
Image
Image

CharStar
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Stevenage, England
Contact:

Re: The Actual Site

Postby CharStar » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:52 pm

Awwh So unfair

It sounds and looks amazing
i could hear it from my house
especially when Metallica was playing.. talk about LOUD! :P

So can't wait until next year
i am saving all my pennies ;]
xx
:) Char Thinks You Should Find Her On Facebook And Add Her To Msn :)

CharStar
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:34 pm
Location: Stevenage, England
Contact:

Re: The Actual Site

Postby CharStar » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:54 pm

cuddles1 wrote:Pretty well organised i think there was too many vans around the middle of the site!

The T-barier made it very dangerous at the front as it was too small for a start! During metallica there were smaller people getting propper crushed with nowhere to go!
Who ever came up with the idea of a t barier is a retard!


Awh please change this for next year..
i'm short.. only 5ft
:o i get proper crushed! lol

;] oh well.. no pain no gain but still :(
think of the shorties!
:) Char Thinks You Should Find Her On Facebook And Add Her To Msn :)

beLIEveR
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:18 am

Re: The Actual Site

Postby beLIEveR » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:05 pm

I hate T barriers with a passion as I love being central. But even putting that prejudice to one side, it was far, far too small.

Ignoring the stage situation, the site layout as a whole is the best I've seen at a UK festival.

User avatar
lewis582
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:31 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: The Actual Site

Postby lewis582 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:31 pm

Jasonisback wrote:i got mud on my shoe


Deal with it Grandma!!

If mainstage was more like Download it would have been better. Needs to be bigger next year as I imagine most people will return, and many others will join. Wires on floor in the tent was a trip hazard as the mat got lifted up at the edges. Also the plastic floor for 2nd stage was really slippery when wet. Otherwise pretty good, it was nice that the Jager truck/Riff &Destroy/Monster stands weren't too out of the way.
Image playing Sonisphere yes please- well I can still hope for 2011
Metal Sucks, I only like post-ironic guttural slamming blackened pagan neostructuralist minimal progressive power groove sumericrabcore

sozsozsoz
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby sozsozsoz » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:37 pm

cuddles1 wrote:Pretty well organised i think there was too many vans around the middle of the site!

The T-barier made it very dangerous at the front as it was too small for a start! During metallica there were smaller people getting propper crushed with nowhere to go!
Who ever came up with the idea of a t barier is a retard!


You are joking right?

-The split barrier means security can have easy access right up to the mixing desk for anyone who needs urgent medical attention.
-People on the desk can move up quickly for technical issues.
-Human survival teaches people if you are uncomfortable, do something to stop it. So anyone who was getting crushed to the point they complain about it should of gotten out. It even said in the programme if you are not comfortable to alert someone (can't remember the exact quote but it is in there!)
-Split crowd means surges are easier to contain.
-Bigger pits mean bigger danger.

So yeah, T-Barriers FTW, I don't know how anyone can realistically argue against them.

User avatar
Driftwood
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:54 pm
Location: Leytonstone, London

Re: The Actual Site

Postby Driftwood » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:53 pm

I liked how close the main stages were to each other & also the camping, didn't take long to get anywhere. I found the second stage being on a hill quite handy for getting a good view if you're near the back.
I don't think there was enough of a break between bands though, especially on Sunday, I noticed people leaving before the end of some the acts to get to the other stage which isn't really good for the bands moral - bit rude innit, not having the chance to applaud & show gratitude at the end. Plus there's no time for loo/drink/food break. I think there should be a 15 min break minimum between bands.

beLIEveR
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:18 am

Re: The Actual Site

Postby beLIEveR » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:05 pm

sozsozsoz wrote:
-The split barrier means security can have easy access right up to the mixing desk for anyone who needs urgent medical attention.


There are always enough medical staff stageside, as well as at the mixing desk. If your comment is about access, what they used to do when I went to the MK Bowl a couple of years back was to park a couple of Ambulances directly behind it (where people aren't going to stand because they can't see). Given that it's physically impossible to travel beyond 5-10mph stageside (and that moving someone seriously injured stageside will take longer due to the danger of being hit by crowd surfers), there really is no time difference.

-People on the desk can move up quickly for technical issues.


I can't see how this would ever be an issue. If there was no means of communication between mixing desk and stage, it would be a pretty serious technical issue that probably won't be solved by a couple of men running from one place to the other.

-Human survival teaches people if you are uncomfortable, do something to stop it. So anyone who was getting crushed to the point they complain about it should of gotten out. It even said in the programme if you are not comfortable to alert someone (can't remember the exact quote but it is in there!)

While I agree with you about what people should do, the history of disasters shows that when people get to that stage they either don't, or can't.

-Split crowd means surges are easier to contain.

My response to this is that neither you or I know what is safer. You will rightly argue that surges are easier to contain, and that the liklihood of a large scale severe surge is reduced. My argument is that the same number of people determined to get into a smaller volume increases the chances of someone getting seriously injured in any given event.

The fact of the matter is that not enough research has been done, but I strongly suspect that, overall, T barriers make little difference to the numbers of serious, critical, and fatal accidents compared to a simple secondary barrier.

-Bigger pits mean bigger danger.


That's true to a point, and the reason why I strongly support secondary barriers. But provided the number of people approaching from each side is equalish, I simply don't accept that an undivided pit with a simple secondary barrier is any less safe than dividing the crowd down the middle.

User avatar
billytheweed
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:45 pm
Location: rossendale valley lancashire

Re: The Actual Site

Postby billytheweed » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:09 pm

i thought the set up was awesome , i echo the people earlier about the bottle necks and if there was anyway they could swap the two stages around and move the market further up the hill that imo would make use of the natural amputheartre of the slope .

oh and can the VIP bar stay open later say til 3 and the disco aswell , nice to see some of the bands mingling in there though :o
ImageImage
' hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way'
FMC code1k910248

User avatar
maschera
Posts: 14899
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:41 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby maschera » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:11 pm

Besides the lack of portaloos / food places in the random part we were pitched in (opposite the carpark) I thought the site was fantastic.
Short walk to the arena..the hills weren't that steep..and because the festy itself wasn't that full everything was pretty much accessible.
I like to have a martini - two at the very most.
After three I'm under the table.
After four I'm under my host

User avatar
srreid
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:43 pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland

Re: The Actual Site

Postby srreid » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:23 pm

From the buildup - the two stages facing each other, i was expecting to be able to stay in the middle and just turn around to see each stage, found different when i got there to find loads of food stalls right bang in the centre - cutting down majorly on the ability to easily see both stages with little movement. However you soon got used to it. Plus if you got a decent enough spot at one stage, you could still pretty much hear what was on the other stage even if you couldn't see it properly.

The hills weren't too bad for me, we found it worked quite well in our favour for Alice in Chains, by this point in the weekend we were quite knackered, so preferred sitting down, and since it was downhill to the stage - everyone sitting down could see perfectly well over the top of the people standing at the stage itself. Same couldn't be said for main stage - if you were below 6feet then you could hardly see anything, especially for Metallica (thank god i'm just 6 foot tall).

Other than that i thought it was well laid out - not too far between the bars, having separate soft drinks stalls right next to the bars was a good touch that cut down on bar queuing, plenty of toilets - for the males anyway - never had to queue once.
Sonisphere 2009 and 10 DID indeed rock - anyone coming for the weekend this year please use my FMC code to get some exclusive goodies! Thanks in anticipation...

FMC code - 1k946372

sozsozsoz
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby sozsozsoz » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:31 pm

@beLIEveR

Ok, well the reasons I gave are all potential benefits, and I can't think of a single potential benefit NOT having a T-Barrier would provide. And to add to that, a T forces people to leave from two different points, wheras with Sonis having staggered stages, without it chances are there would be a big surge to move to the side with toilets rather than the side with bars once a main stage band finishes.

User avatar
davetkd666
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:23 am

Re: The Actual Site

Postby davetkd666 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:50 pm

sozsozsoz wrote:@beLIEveR


Ok, well the reasons I gave are all potential benefits, and I can't think of a single potential benefit NOT having a T-Barrier would provide. And to add to that, a T forces people to leave from two different points, wheras with Sonis having staggered stages, without it chances are there would be a big surge to move to the side with toilets rather than the side with bars once a main stage band finishes.



I don't think your quite getting it, but it's mainly due to conusion over what a T barrier actually is.

With the traditional T the crown of the letter shape would be the stage barrier with a vertical colomn extending to the sound desk. And in that respect your comments are true, there are several benifits.

What people believed it to be was more of an H design, the front barrier, the colomn to the sound desk but with a second barrier half way up
What we got was a sort of D shape (golden circle idea) - with the colomn again, but the curve didnt meet or go as far around to connect to the frot barrier.

The idea is that it should break the crowd and reduce the pressure on the frot of the crowd - avoiding crushes.
In reality it just seems to create more pressure points in the crowd as people try to cram into a smaller space.

So left to right here you have the T, H and D barriers, Soni one was obviously a cross between the the last 2
Attachments
stage.jpg
stage.jpg (10.34 KiB) Viewed 831 times
Last edited by davetkd666 on Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

sozsozsoz
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby sozsozsoz » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:15 am

Yes I think I know what you mean, either a "H" on it's side or a roman I numeral? Because that's the one I would go for.

Personally I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't have the stage like this, and potential benefits of having it far outweigh any negatives that people can think of, but that's just my opinion I suppose.

guitarherocloud
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:00 pm
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: The Actual Site

Postby guitarherocloud » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:28 am

Only major complaint...

Surely all earlybird campers should be put nearest the arena when camping. We all felt left out 'cos we had the furthest walk!

sozsozsoz
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby sozsozsoz » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:32 am

I've never actually seen a festival use the D one before! Wouldn't that end up with a surge trying to get into it once bands finish though? I suppose you could limit the amount of people allowed inside via VIP bands, but that would suck if it was all but empty and there were people waiting outside

User avatar
davetkd666
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:23 am

Re: The Actual Site

Postby davetkd666 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:47 am

sozsozsoz wrote:I've never actually seen a festival use the D one before! Wouldn't that end up with a surge trying to get into it once bands finish though? I suppose you could limit the amount of people allowed inside via VIP bands, but that would suck if it was all but empty and there were people waiting outside



It's rare but i believe Metallica sometimes use it.

No it wouldn't cos it works differently adn you are more or less right on the HOW.
At the start of the day the first to get there (depending on the capacity the D can hold) get a seperate wrist band which allows them to move in and out of the D as no one else can get in unless they have the band.
Or in some cases it me require membership to something such as a certain camping package etc.
It was used at download Scotland (04) not sure if it was also used at donnington that year

Fleagirl
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:11 am

Re: The Actual Site

Postby Fleagirl » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:17 pm

The festival itself could've been organised better. The main stage was at the top of a hill and it was difficult to see the stage: it would've been better to put it at the bottom of a hill like at Download. The site was too small and not enough space was allowed for people to sit down. There was a bottleneck between the two stages. There were'nt enough toilets and the ones by the main stage were too close meaning that the queues backed out into the audience. The mens urinals were overflowing by about 7:00pm. There weren't enough litter bins and the market stalls were too near the stages.

User avatar
nickijovi
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby nickijovi » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:04 pm

i think where the main stage was was great beein on top a hill is good idea, second stage bit close to main but was fine, the ground was rock hard but good,

the monster stage could have done with beein bit quiter at nites coldn't sleep well as was in family not ment to hear everything but did, family camp should have been where early entry over flowed to near car park.

i think to many stalls sellin the same thing., maybe to many of them all round.

the screans on main stage could do with beenin bit bigger tho.
please quote fmc 1K931715 http://www.seetickets.com/sonisphere/founders pugwash, gunner 1 of 83
Image lovely

freeze-dry-seal
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:06 am
Location: Shrewsbury

Re: The Actual Site

Postby freeze-dry-seal » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:52 pm

Thought it was a pretty neat layout. In a way, it reminded me of download inside the track.

Only meh points-
1) Slope on 2nd stage
2) Ground was uneven for main stage. Difficult to watch at the back at some places.

only problem i can think with it was the uneven ground really

If the weather turned out to be like download this year then most people would have suffered me thinks

More shelter for sun and rain. just being picky tho

Bohemia tent was pretty awesome aswell. Suprised with the size, altho i got extremely hot in there. Better ventilation wouldnt go amiss.
Download 05, 06, 07, 09
Sonisphere 09

a-muse-d
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby a-muse-d » Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:06 pm

I liked the site, it wasnt too far to walk, and the stages were quite a good distance from eachother, but i didnt like the food stalls right in the middle of the stages, they got in the way.
I Like Music :DImage

sozsozsoz
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:10 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby sozsozsoz » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:40 pm

davetkd666 wrote:
sozsozsoz wrote:I've never actually seen a festival use the D one before! Wouldn't that end up with a surge trying to get into it once bands finish though? I suppose you could limit the amount of people allowed inside via VIP bands, but that would suck if it was all but empty and there were people waiting outside



It's rare but i believe Metallica sometimes use it.

No it wouldn't cos it works differently adn you are more or less right on the HOW.
At the start of the day the first to get there (depending on the capacity the D can hold) get a seperate wrist band which allows them to move in and out of the D as no one else can get in unless they have the band.
Or in some cases it me require membership to something such as a certain camping package etc.
It was used at download Scotland (04) not sure if it was also used at donnington that year


Ok, well it could possibly work, but at a festival I disagree.

Say I love a band that is playing first/second/third to the point I wanted to get right to the front, yet I wanted to go to another tent for a headliner (as often happens at Reading/Download, and I imagine Sonis in the next few years), and I get strapped with a "golden circle" band. Say me along with 100 other people get the same band for the same reason. When the thing is nearly empty when the headliner plays, it just doesn't make sense. And for specific membership, what happens when the people who have paid the premium are struggling to get through the crowd to get to the golden circle?

Although the set up works perfectly for a place like Wembley, where the whole event is for one band.

I still don't think you can beat the sideways "H" for a festival.

d1899
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:26 pm

Re: The Actual Site

Postby d1899 » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:36 pm

the site was nice, compact but felt quite large.
alwaystook me ages though to find my tent more than normal though :doh:

User avatar
Shewolfmegadeth
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: Grimsby
Contact:

Re: The Actual Site

Postby Shewolfmegadeth » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Brilliant lay out! Loved it. xx
UP THE IRONS!
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Fifi
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:48 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: The Actual Site

Postby Fifi » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:48 pm

I have to say i absolutely LOVED the venue ! it was surprisingly small and worked really well. I would have to agree that things should have been more organised on Thursday as we were asked to pay for parking again as our tickets were at the box office - it was a pain in the ass and i agree that everything should have been set up and ready to go when the doors were opened - none of this lark of setting up stalls on friday after the doors opened.

I really hope the destival doesnt get much bigger than it was this year cause it was fantastic and i think the fact that it wasnt too big really worked!

One thing i would ask for is more signage or indication of band times and the monster times - we missed it altogether as we didnt see any sign of it!
My FMC Number:1k992916 DO NOT miss Sonisphere 2014- be there..be part of the magic!!!

ImageImage


Return to “Sonisphere 2009 Feedback”