Could this spell the end of Glastonbury (as well as other festivals)?

[robu]

An American music industry analyst has suggested (and it's not a totally spurious argument) that the current steady demise of the album will lead within the next ten years to a dearth of bands that can fill large venues -- arenas and stadiums primarily, but consequently also larger acts at festivals.

His argument is that because we increasingly 'graze' music, we are failing to build 'meaningful relationships' with artists. As evidence (among others): Spotify recently published a report that said the average streamer doesn't even listen to the end of songs any more.

Already, according to this analyst, owners of live venues are diversifying in preparation for the collapse of live music and companies such as Live Nation are preparing for a future in which most of the acts they promote are streamed into our homes because there won't be large enough audiences to fill single venues.

More about it here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analyst-collapse-arena-bands-within-171400107.html.

And also here: http://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/what-future-for-the-album-in-the-on-demand-age/

Of course, the death of live and recorded music has been heralded many times before. I can remember the 'home taping is killing music' campaign in the late 1970s. Nevertheless, it seems to me that popular music (i.e. not classical, jazz, folk etc) no longer appears to have quite the same cultural importance as it did even ten years ago, let alone in the 1960s and 70s. Or maybe I'm just an old fart...

Anyway, what does anyone else think? Will festivals -- even Glastonbury -- die a slow death because of a lack of engagement with artists? Could we see Glastonbury go back to the way it was in the 1980s and 90s , a more niche interest (and probably no bad thing)?

Edited July 22, 2014 by robu

[Pinhead]

All conceivable as an argument. However turning it around somewhat could the demise of 'pop' albums actually lead to festivals such as Glasto being put into a position where they can promote a greater variety of more eclectic bands and artists who actually care enough about the art to put enough music together to fill a whole set? Anyway - haven't many always said on here that Glasto is not just about the music...?

[musky]

The old 'changing patterns of consumer consumption driving changes within the industry' chestnut huh?

Personally, I'm just P'd off that we might have to wait before stadium gigs start to die out.

[Ruwise]

I would think the death of albums bands and the increase in singles artists would be a good thing for festivals as most festival audiences only want to see the hits anyway. In reality when looking for a band or artist who is big enough to headline you are looking for ones who have enough hits not enough albums.

[Pinhead]

Decoupling Glasto from 'pop' headliners is not a bad thing imho

[#FreeComTruise]

Spotify recently published a report that said the average streamer doesn't even listen to the end of songs any more.

That could have something to do with avoiding adverts

[robu]

I would think the death of albums bands and the increase in singles artists would be a good thing for festivals as most festival audiences only want to see the hits anyway. In reality when looking for a band or artist who is big enough to headline you are looking for ones who have enough hits not enough albums.

Hmm...how many singles artists have headlined the major stages in the last decade?

Anyway, the argument being put forward by the analyst is slightly different -- a band needs to produce albums to build a fanbase. Without a fanbase, a band doesn't get booked on tours or festivals. If that happens widely enough, the result is less live music, fewer big tours by bigger bands, smaller line-ups at festivals.

Sure, you can book a certain number of singles bands, but they tend not to last that long, so they don't have the kind of back catalogue and live performance experience needed for the bands near the top of bills.

Someone like Lily Allen is a case in point. Not bad as mid to late afternoon act, but would you want to go to a festival where all the acts, including all the headliners, were single acts like Lily?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

The reason the majority of people skip the end of a song on Spotify is so they can avoid sitting through the adverts.

"companies such as Live Nation are preparing for a future in which most of the acts they promote are streamed into our homes because there won't be large enough audiences to fill single venues." - If the acts don't have the fan base to go to their gigs, why/how would they have the fan base to hold a streamed/televised performance worth LiveNation's time/money to promote/stream? That makes little to no sense what so ever.

Live music isn't in danger, you only have to look at how many festivals there are globally now compared to twenty or even ten years ago to notice that.

[robu]

Decoupling Glasto from 'pop' headliners is not a bad thing imho

I totally agree, but 'pop' headliners might be all that survive, if the predictions are correct.

[robu]

"companies such as Live Nation are preparing for a future in which most of the acts they promote are streamed into our homes because there won't be large enough audiences to fill single venues." - If the acts don't have the fan base to go to their gigs, why/how would they have the fan base to hold a streamed/televised performance worth LiveNation's time/money to promote/stream? That makes little to no sense what so ever.

Because instead of playing a European tour over the course of two months, a band will play a single gig in one city with a sufficiently large population, say London or Paris, and stream it live across Europe simultaneously. They won't need tens of thousands of fans within reach of each venue, just tens of thousands of fans stretched across a continent.

Edited July 22, 2014 by robu

[Pinhead]

Some bands build a fanbase on live performance and touring alone. The Levellers have always taken this view.

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

I totally agree, but 'pop' headliners might be all that survive, if the predictions are correct.

'pop' isn't even a thing. It isn't a defined genre, it's anything that's 'popular' at a particular time. So how could that be "all that survives", when in fact 'pop' could be anything from heavy rock to hardcore dance & all that's in between.

I'm sorry, but these 'predictions' you're spouting about are a load of shite.

[robu]

Some bands build a fanbase on live performance and touring alone. The Levellers have always taken this view.

True - but most bands don't.

And most festivals wouldn't be able to survive if they offered a line-up consisting entirely of bands like the Levellers.

[Dan R]

The only issue I can see happening is festivals having to downscale headliners and take more risks, which a lot of people here would prefer. And plenty of bands build up big followings, its just a bit slower and bands arent as likely to be global megastars.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Dan R

[robu]

'pop' isn't even a thing. It isn't a defined genre, it's anything that's 'popular' at a particular time. So how could that be "all that survives", when in fact 'pop' could be anything from heavy rock to hardcore dance & all that's in between.

I'm sorry, but these 'predictions' you're spouting about are a load of shite.

I think we know what is meant by 'pop' in this context. Reading the thread makes it clear that it means 'singles acts', as opposed to 'albums acts', so please don't attempt pedantry for the sake of trying to be contentious. I'm genuinely interested in the argument put forward by the so-called analyst. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a valid and interesting point of view. If you don't think it's worth discussion, don't bother. And incidentally, I'm not 'spouting...a load of shite'. The predictions come from the analyst.

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

Because instead of playing a European tour over the course of two months, a band will play a single gig in one city with a sufficiently large population, say London or Paris, and stream it live across Europe simultaneously. They won't need tens of thousands of fans within reach of each venue, just tens of thousands of fans stretched across a continent.

So these die hard fans are expected to travel across an entire Continent (which can be a hell of a way depending on which Continent we're talking about) to a single gig, to see a band who apparently don't have enough fans to fill a decent sized music venue in more than one city in each Continent... But at the same time LiveNation are going to make enough money by streaming this concert to thousands more fans who are expected to watch it at home than they would by promoting a proper tour? And all this is going to work in a day & age where you predict nobody is really interested in live music anymore & that's why there's only one gig instead of several...

That makes perfect sense.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Frankly Mr Shankly

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

I think we know what is meant by 'pop' in this context. Reading the thread makes it clear that it means 'singles acts', as opposed to 'albums acts',

Once again, that isn't a definite thing either. Simply a way for narrow minded people to fit 'pop' music into which ever box they like.

'The analyst's' argument is flawed. You also seem very defensive for somebody who "doesn't necessarily agree' with the argument.

[jeffie]

True - but most bands don't.

And most festivals wouldn't be able to survive if they offered a line-up consisting entirely of bands like the Levellers.

So, so disagree.

[robu]

The only issue I can see happening is festivals having to downscale headliners and take more risks, which a lot of people here would prefer. And plenty of bands build up big followings, its just a bit slower and bands arent as likely to be global megastars.

But isn't this ultimately the analyst's point? With downscaled headliners, more risks and fewer global megastars, a lot of festivals are going to struggle.

It might not mean the total demise of Glastonbury, but it would certainly mean a very different Glastonbury, something closer to the festival in the 1980s. Personally, it's a future I'd prefer to some of the audience experiences I had this year, but there are a lot of people on this forum (and an even greater proportion among the general Glastonbury audience) who wouldn't welcome it.

[Guest]

An American music industry analyst says blah blah blah

Who gives a fuck?

[robu]

So these die hard fans are expected to travel across an entire Continent (which can be a hell of a way depending on which Continent we're talking about) to a single gig, to see a band who apparently don't have enough fans to fill a decent sized music venue in more than one city in each Continent... But at the same time LiveNation are going to make enough money by streaming this concert to thousands more fans who are expected to watch it at home than they would by promoting a proper tour? And all this is going to work in a day & age where you predict nobody is really interested in live music anymore & that's why there's only one gig instead of several...

That makes perfect sense.

No - that's not what I said at all.

What I said was that a city like London (i.e. with a catchment of something like 15 million within a 100 mile radius) could support an arena gig that would be streamed to the rest of Europe. I never suggested a band would have to attract fans flocking from every corner of Europe to a single gig. That is patently nonsense.

This isn't about bands that are big now, but those that are currently starting out, but which will hopefully form the festival headliners and mainstays in ten to fifteen years time. And the argument put forward by the music industry analyst is that today's embryonic bands won't attract the same kind of fandom as the big bands of the past because music consumers are more fickle, choosing to download individual tracks from albums, rather than having to buy whole albums to access maybe only one track.

Yes, long before downloads, we used to borrow albums and tape individual tracks or record individual tracks off the radio, but if I look at the way my teenage children consume music, it is markedly different to the way that I and my peers did it. I often bought albums because I wanted to hear just one or two tracks, but then I'd become familiar with a wider range of the artist's music.

[robu]

The reason the majority of people skip the end of a song on Spotify is so they can avoid sitting through the adverts.

"companies such as Live Nation are preparing for a future in which most of the acts they promote are streamed into our homes because there won't be large enough audiences to fill single venues." - If the acts don't have the fan base to go to their gigs, why/how would they have the fan base to hold a streamed/televised performance worth LiveNation's time/money to promote/stream? That makes little to no sense what so ever.

Live music isn't in danger, you only have to look at how many festivals there are globally now compared to twenty or even ten years ago to notice that.

Don't you think the proliferation of festivals is in any way linked to the decline in sale of recordings and the consequent need to tour more to generate income?

[robu]

Once again, that isn't a definite thing either. Simply a way for narrow minded people to fit 'pop' music into which ever box they like.

'The analyst's' argument is flawed. You also seem very defensive for somebody who "doesn't necessarily agree' with the argument.

I'm not particularly interested in defending his argument, only in having discussions that aren't largely based on knee-jerk responses. You know, intelligent debate and all that...

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

Don't you think the proliferation of festivals is in any way linked to the decline in sale of recordings and the consequent need to tour more to generate income?

Of course. But that just goes to show that live music is increasingly popular... Record sales are down because the internet has provided people with an easy access way to get music for free (granted illegally, but free nevertheless). That doesn't mean that artist's in the future won't/can't be as popular as in times gone by, or that the general population are any less interested in music, it just means the industry needs to find a way to adapt in order to make it work legally in the 21st century. Edited July 22, 2014 by Frankly Mr Shankly

[dingbat2]

I long for the time when I don't have to spend all September shitting myself about not getting a ticket on t day