Zeppelin Mysteries Hosted by Steve A. Jones

[Knebby]

You made me laugh even more.

Glad to have been of service. Your responses are typical of a type who think reading a few books makes them experts above those who were there.

Just imagine that you go to a gig tomorrow - it is a wonderful, magical event, every part of it becomes embedded in your soul as one of the loveliest times of your gig-going experiences - you spend the following weeks and months absorbing all the different anecdotes and facts about it, the memory of it always makes you smile.

Then 35 years down the line, someone who has read a couple of books and looked at a photo comes along and tells you your memories of it are wrong and your facts "excluded" - they may not have even been BORN at the time, but they are so much more of an expert about it than you that your recollections of it even make them laugh.

Good luck with that.

Oh and I'd rather have had the experience over any of the smart-arse collector's knowledge that so many try to accrue.

BTW - answering your question in this thread wasn't a problem - you're welcome.

[Knebby]

Knebby, it's very good that you attended the show, but I don't think you could've accurately measured the number of people by just being in the crowd. We know the exact acreage of the area, and anyone who's into that type of things will confirm that 37 acres cannot hold more than 150K people.

I am more inclined to agree with Peter Grant and my memories of the day than I am with this kind of factoid.

Also, sorry for being irritable about your responses. Again, as quite often happens, I didn't make allowances for English not being your first language, and your responses seemed a bit rude to me in parts. Language barrier I am hoping?

So I hope we can move on from this with our different opinions intact. You won't change my mind, and I clearly won't change yours.

Peace.

[Geezer]

What the heck did I just read... I come up with specific information, such as the exact measure of the area where the festival was held, but you don't want to take that in(quoting: "but it is reckoned there were 250,000 there the first weekend and it certainly looked that way to me - never seen so many folk as far as the eye could see."). Terrible rebuttal, by the way.

Also, sorry for being irritable about your responses. Again, as quite often happens, I didn't make allowances for English not being your first language, and your responses seemed a bit rude to me in parts. Language barrier I am hoping?

Could you be more specific? I'm pretty sure that none of my responses were rude, to my understanding at least.

Just imagine that you go to a gig tomorrow - it is a wonderful, magical event, every part of it becomes embedded in your soul as one of the loveliest times of your gig-going experiences - you spend the following weeks and months absorbing all the different anecdotes and facts about it, the memory of it always makes you smile.

Then 35 years down the line, someone who has read a couple of books and looked at a photo comes along and tells you your memories of it are wrong and your facts "excluded" - they may not have even been BORN at the time, but they are so much more of an expert about it than you that your recollections of it even make them laugh.

Unless you actually counted the number of people in attendance, your memories of the concert have nothing to do with what we're discussing, Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[SteveAJones]

What the heck did I just read... I come up with specific information, such as the exact measure of the area where the festival was held, but you don't want to take that in(quoting: "but it is reckoned there were 250,000 there the first weekend and it certainly looked that way to me - never seen so many folk as far as the eye could see."). Terrible rebuttal, by the way.Could you be more specific? I'm pretty sure that none of my responses were rude, to my understanding at least.

Could you be more specific? You've said the festival site was 37 acres which could not hold more than 150,000 people. What is this based on, exactly? I'd like to see the math because it seems to me if it were this easy to deduce then Bannister would not have capitulated to Grant.

Edited to add:

Following the event, a dispute arose between Grant and Bannister about the attendance figures at the event. A query by Grant over ticket sales for the concerts resulted in him sending aerial pictures of the crowd to a monitoring laboratory in Nassau, New York, in order to establish the extent of the attendance. He claimed that some 218,000 people were at the first concert and 187,000 at the second. However, the license was for only 100,000 and Bannister claimed that only 104,000 had attended in the first week. For the second show, Grant brought in his own staff to man turnstiles and count tickets.

This disagreement eventually forced Bannister's concert promotion company into liquidation, which allegedly left unpaid bills of £50,000 for the police and £2,000 to the local borough council

Edited further to add:

I've found the mathematical formula you are referencing:

http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/79-Knebworth-festival.html

The site maintains an overtly anti-Led Zeppelin bias. I'll simply point out that although the overhead photos reveal large patches of unoccupied space, Led Zeppelin had yet to take the stage, having gone on well after dark. Secondly, the fact that Bannister could

not (or would not) produce the "dead wood" (as Peter liked to call ticket stubs) suggests Bannister didn't know the actual attendance

or knew it was well in excess of the 100,000 the event was licensed for. We also know there were gate crashers.

Assuming the photos provided by Grant were also taken during the day, I presume what was done was to calculate the max density

and multiply it by the acreage, thus arriving at approximately 218,000 attendees.

We may never know for certain what the actual attendance figures were, but it does seem to me the max capacity of the acreage should be a mystery that can be solved.

Edited March 23, 2013 by SteveAJones

[Geezer]

Could you be more specific? You've said the festival site was 37 acres which could not hold more than 150,000 people. What is this based on, exactly? I'd like to see the math because it seems to me if it were this easy to deduce then Bannister would not have capitulated to Grant.

Quoting Freddy Bannister:

"What rot! Even if it were true, how on earth we have fit a quarter of a million people into thirty-odd acres? They would have to have been standing on top of each other."

Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[Knebby]

.Could you be more specific? I'm pretty sure that none of my responses were rude, to my understanding at least.

How about you asking a question, me taking the time to try to answer you , and you responding with "Excluded".

Followed by how much I made you laugh.

I'll be sure to remember that this is how you answer people who try to answer your questions in future, Taro.

As for my "Terrible rebuttal" - thanks for the critique, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Knebby

[Knebby]

No one from NASA has actually looked at any photo of Knebworth Festival. It's just something that Grant concocted as a pretext to cajole Bannister into adding the second show.

And I'm afraid that this is 100 % conjecture on your part.

(BTW - do you really think that the second show, a week later, was only added AFTER the first? You make me laugh

Edited March 23, 2013 by Knebby

[Geezer]

And I'm afraid that this is 100 % conjecture on your part.

Yes, it is my conjecture, but I think it's more accurate than your infeasbile 250K. Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[SteveAJones]

Quoting Freddy Bannister:

"What rot! Even if it were true, how on earth we have fit a quarter of a million people into thirty-odd acres? They would have to have been standing on top of each other."

I think we need a qualified mathematician to accurately deduce how many adult human beings can stand in close proximity to each other within a 36.4 acre space.

An acre is 4840 square yards, or 43,560 square feet. If you take average-sized adults (50/50 male-female), the cross-sectional area is about 1.5 to 2.0 square feet at chest or hip level. Dividing, you would get quotients of 29,040 and 21,780. I think it would be safe to say between 20,000 and 30,000 average adults could stand on one acre of land. Or pick the average of those two numbers, about 25,000.

The festival site is believed to be 36.4 acres.

25,000 x 36 acres = 900,000 attendees.

Suddenly Grant's assertion of 218,000 attendees for the first show looks quite plausible.

Edited March 23, 2013 by SteveAJones

[Knebby]

Yes, it is my conjecture, but I think it's more accurate than your infeasbile 250K.

That's fine - like I said, enjoy your books and facts, I'll enjoy my memories, we'll live happy parallel lives

[Geezer]

What we know for sure is that under 110K tickets were printed for the first show, and Steve, I hope you understand that no gatecrasher can double the audience.

"Mr Pruette further stated that even with an estimate of 4,000 persons per acre, only 24 acres were densely occupied and 8 acres were lightly occupied , this gave a total of 109,000 people which was the number Freddie Bannister had given to Grant."

Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[SteveAJones]

What we know for sure is that under 110K tickets were printed for the first show, and Steve, I hope you understand that no gatecrasher can double the audience.

How do we know for certain under 110,000 tickets were printed? I presume you'll say it's because the event was only licensed for 100,000, but this was the point of content between Grant and Bannister. Clearly - by any estimation - there were more than 100,00 attendees.

Edited to add: I'll take 24 acres at face value but even so if my math is correct (24 x 25,000 per acre) the max capacity is still 600,000.

If my estimations are correct (I'm not saying they are) then Pruette's figure of 4,000 per acre is woefully inaccurate. For one thing, as I said, Led Zeppelin went on at night so how does he in referencing daylight photos know 8 of the 24 acres remained sparsely populated? He may may have also factored in x amount of personal space for each of the 4,000, of which there was virtually nil as the film recordings show.

Edited March 23, 2013 by SteveAJones

[Geezer]

Let's assume for a second that Grant's numbers that festival was attended by 405K people are correct. In this case, the festival would have grossed 405K * 7.5 pounds = 3037500 pounds. If these numbers were true, the festival could not have been a financial loss for Bannister.

"The financial loss suffered by Bannister led to the liquidation of the Bannister's company, as they had had to shell out substantial fees to both Zeppelin and the company who were providing the sound and lighting."

Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[Geezer]

(BTW - do you really think that the second show, a week later, was only added AFTER the first? You make me laugh

Bannister was reluctant to add the second show, since he was afraid that it would be a financial fiasco. It was Grant who coaxed him into adding the second show because it would justify Led Zeppelin's $1 million remuneration. Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[SteveAJones]

Let's assume for a second that Grant's numbers that festival was attended by 405K people are correct. In this case, the festival would have grossed 405K * 7.5 pounds = 3037500 pounds. If these numbers were true, the festival could not have been a financial loss for Bannister.

"The financial loss suffered by Bannister led to the liquidation of the Bannister's company, as they had had to shell out substantial fees to both Zeppelin and the company who were providing the sound and lighting."

Well again, as I understand the point of contention was that each date was only licensed for 100,000 attendees. I take this to mean Bannister was only paid for approx 200,000 attendees in total, thus he apparently took a loss as a result of providing security and services for approx. 405,000 attendees.

[Knebby]

Bannister was reluctant to add the second show, since he was afraid that it would be a financial fiasco. It was Grant who coaxed him into adding the second show because it would justify Led Zeppelin's $1 million remuneration.

I'm fully aware of the background of the shows. However, the second show has NOTHING to do with the NASA/photograph incident, which Grant only brought into play after the disputes began. How could the NASA /photograph incident be used to persuade Bannister to hold a second show when the second show was planned, announced and sold months before the photograph could have been taken??

[SteveAJones]

Bannister was reluctant to add the second show, since he was afraid that it would be a financial fiasco. It was Grant who coaxed him into adding the second show because it would justify Led Zeppelin's $1 million remuneration.

Speaking for myself, I'd never bash or second-guess either Bannister or Grant and certainly not 30+ years after the fact.

I do believe ultimately Bannister found himself in over his head with regard to the 1979 Knebworth Festival but Grant was fiercely loyal to the band and too shrewd a business man to take a loss. I cannot imagine him meeting with the band afterward to explain "you drew 405,000 attendees but you'll just break even".

I can definitely imagine Grant telling the promoter (Bannister) "we drew 405,000 attendees; you'll only be paid for the licensed amount of 200,000 but we will cut our renumeration to allow you to just break even."

Edited March 23, 2013 by SteveAJones

[Geezer]

How about you asking a question, me taking the time to try to answer you , and you responding with "Excluded".

How about not taking things too personally, especially online? "Excluded" referred to the number of spectators.

[Geezer]

Speaking for myself, I'd never bash or second-guess either Bannister or Grant and certainly not 30+ years after the fact.

I do believe ultimately Bannister found himself in over his head with regard to the 1979 Knebworth Festival but Grant was fiercely loyal to the band and too shrewd a business man to take a loss. I cannot imagine him meeting with the band afterward to explain "you drew 405,000 attendees but you'll just break even".

I can definitely imagine Grant telling the promoter (Bannister) "we drew 405,000 attendees; you'll only be paid for the licensed amount of 200,000 but we will cut our renumeration to allow you to just break even."

Where did this additional 250K come from? Bannister only sold 109K + 40K = 150K tickets. Are you trying to say that 250K people were able to breach into the venue/area? Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[Knebby]

How about not taking things too personally, especially online? "Excluded" referred to the number of spectators.

LOL well you couldn't have been excluding me, could you, so I knew you meant the figure - it's still a rude way to respond by anyone's standards. It's nothing to do with me taking it personally but it actually WAS a personal response to my post.

[Knebby]

Steve I think we are beating our heads on a brick wall here. Taro never wanted any answers - he knew them all anyway.

[Geezer]

What's so personal in saying that "I exclude that you've accurately measured the number of spectators of a concert you attended 35 years ago?" I wish you would just leave this topic to me and Steve.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[Knebby]

What's so personal in saying that "I exclude that you've accurately measured the number of spectators of a concert you attended 35 years ago?" I wish you would just leave this topic to me and Steve.

Well that's NOTHING like what you said, but this is pointless. I'll accept "language barrier" and move on - I thought we had, but I guess when I showed you how the NASA/photograph thing couldn't have had anything to do with Grant persuading Bannister to add a second show, you came back to this.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Knebby

[Geezer]

So you keep referring to the nonexistent language barrier... Okay, I think we should put an end to this pointless discussion.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Geezer

[SteveAJones]

Where did this additional 250K come from? Bannister only sold 109K + 40K = 150K tickets. Are you trying to say that 250K people were able to breach into the venue/area?

Where did the 40k figure come from? Bannister? The anti-Zep site? Grant's staff manned the turnstiles (so to speak) and counted the dead wood at the second date and apparently their figure (187,000) was substantially higher.

Edited March 24, 2013 by SteveAJones