Is Illegal Filesharing Responsible For The Music Festival Boom?

[RotationSlimWang]

To enter a new thread in the long-running series of arguments about how illegal P2P filesharing is impacting the music industry--and specifically the future of artists and fans, not so much the record companies--I would like to posit to the Coachella Board that filesharing may be the true reason we've seen this explosive surge in new music festivals the past few years.

This might seem suspect coming from me since I've always been on the side that downloading music without paying for it will not result in ruination for artists or fans (although the record companies are totally fucked), but rather will force musicians to shift their revenue focus from record material to live performance.

My utopian vision of how the future shapes up with things following their current trends says that soon the conglomerates who got rich by overcharging for the creative work of their poorly-treated talent will all die, or at least transform into strictly live performance focused entities. It will be effectively impossible for artists to charge for their albums at all but this won't be as bad as it seems as the quality of concerts will skyrocket (probably ticket prices too), the musicians will end up making more money from this REAL work than the pittance their old album pimps gave them, and this crazy sidetrack our world took off on for a few years where everything is ClearChannel or TRL or similar horseshit will get back to the truth of music:

Are they good live?

Sorry, let me get back on track and to the point already, fuck the recap--I was reading Pitchfork tonight and saw something that reminded me of how many new music festivals (particularly destination fests) we've seen born in just the past few years. Since 2004: Stagecoach, V Festival, Virgin Fest, All Points West, Monolith, Rothbury, Vegoose (RIP), Mile High, Outside Lands, Wakarusa, Lollapalooza (reborn as destination fest), and I'm sure the list could go on. More new destination multi-day festivals started in these four years than there were options prior to 2004--it was pretty much just Coach, Bonnaroo, ACL, Sasquatch, and I suppose a slew of more regional smaller fests I don't feel obliged to include.

My question is to what can we attribute this? An industry like the modern music establishment is frankly with precious few options--they must find new revenue. Attempts to thwart the free exchange of their horseshit copyrighted product starting around 2000 failed pathetically, and their once astronomical income continued to disappear at an alarming rate. 1999 was very probably the most prosperous year for the industry ever, selling an approximate total of 13 BILLION retail copies according to the RIAA. By 2004 it was down 1.5 billion--not totally cripping--but within three short years that number plummets another 4 billion. The industry will see its total sales figures halved in only 9 years of widespread filesharing when 2008 data is released. Sucks to be you, record companies.

FORTUNATELY for those of us who are not record companies, our music is cheaper and attractive concert opportunities have never been more plentiful. Almost everyone has a fest right in their backyard nowadays, and though Capitol may be dying a slow, ugly death doesn't it seem a little more than just coincidence that AEG, Livenation, and other promoters are reaping the rewards of an unprecedented surge of interest in live music?

This is how real trickle-down economic theory should work, dammit: make the sample of the product available to everyone for free, which will result in more fans for any given property thanks to the greater exposure rate, ease, and lack of cost, and then see the demand for more personal engagement with the art push new fans to spend the 15 dollars a CD would have cost on more expensive concert or fest tickets and even more on merchandise.

THE FREE MARKET SAVED MUSIC. This has been yet another rambling dissertation brought to you by RSW, TLGM, the number 3, and thieves.

[Memorial_07]

this brings up a good point, but I don't think that is why so many festivals appeared

music just had to be around downloaded or not

[RotationSlimWang]

"Music just had to be around downloaded or not?" I don't follow. Why is the destination festival industry skyrocketing during a four year span when the entire economy and in particular travel and recreation industries are taking such massive losses? It doesn't make much sense as a logical economic growth, so there has to be a shift in the industry to explain it.

[bug on your lip]

hot girls like drugs

[TommyboyUNM]

It is more feasable and appealing to hold a destination festival now because the promoters are able to book 3 or 4 days worth of music and fans have easier access to every band's work. Though headliners are still very important, promoters don't have to rely as much hitting a grand slam with the headliner.

I also think the artists like playing music festivals more and more because it is becoming one of the easiest ways to reach a huge audience. I think some bands like MGMT, Ghostland Observatory, Gogol Bordello and even My Morning Jacket have greatly benefited from music festivals.

That's a bit of a digression. I do think it is a result of the boom of music festivals which can be attributed, if even a little bit, to widespread filesharing. In any case, we as consumers definitely benefit all around. And the artists are showing that they can benefit.

[gaypalmsprings]

was this a poll?

[bmack86]

I think it definitely had a profound and important effect, even if it wasn't the only reason behind the boom. Because of online filesharing, all of a sudden bands that would have been under the radar or popular to a small group of fans could attract a larger audience nationwide. Thus, a festival could book a large number of small acts and people would either already know them or easily be able to find out about them. I think Coachella 2008 was an attempt to prove that this sort of booking could work on a large scale. Portishead isn't a huge act, no matter how much we'd like to believe they are, in the same way My Bloody Valentine isn't a huge act; they have devoted fanbases, but even the average music fan wouldn't necessarily know them. Of course Jack Johnson and Roger Waters are draws for more fairweather fans, but they proved that people would come out despite a lack of large names. I think that, within a few years, we'll have contemporary, modern headliners at our fests, something that hasn't happened at Coachella since 1999, when Beck and Rage/Tool were both at the top of their game.

Good thread, Randy. I can't wait for the geniuses who come in here and say that downloading is going to kill music.

[RotationSlimWang]

It is more feasable and appealing to hold a destination festival now because the promoters are able to book 3 or 4 days worth of music and fans have easier access to every band's work. Though headliners are still very important, promoters don't have to rely as much hitting a grand slam with the headliner.

I also think the artists like playing music festivals more and more because it is becoming one of the easiest ways to reach a huge audience. I think some bands like MGMT, Ghostland Observatory, Gogol Bordello and even My Morning Jacket have greatly benefited from music festivals.

That's a bit of a digression. I do think it is a result of the boom of music festivals which can be attributed, if even a little bit, to widespread filesharing. In any case, we as consumers definitely benefit all around. And the artists are showing that they can benefit.

I don't see how it's any easier or more attractive to stage a festival now than it was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Sure a big factor is the success of Coachella and Bonnaroo proving that this business model could work after Woodstock 99, but I still don't think that you can remotely call this anything like a natural market boom. I'd like to be able to pull figures for concerts in general, not just fests, and see how much more promoters made in 2007 than 2000. Just a hunch, but I'll bet you it's a fucking significant difference.

But yeah, it's all win-win-win, unless you're an asshole record company. In which case, well, glad you're dead.

was this a poll?

It was, but then you smoked the poll all up.

[RotationSlimWang]

Thanks Bry, glad somebody dug it before the inevitable derailing and insults.

[bmack86]

The one problem with the change in the way people consume music now is that artists are expected to tour at least regionally pretty quickly into their career as a way to reach/develop a fanbase, something that, for many small bands, is barely an option due to rising costs of gas, insurance and other commodities. Until a band can reach Pitchfork recognition level, which isn't big, but is automatic nationwide recognition, they could be playing shows to twenty or thirty people and not making enough money to pay for gas. These small shows were always the case, but with inflation recently, it's made it much harder for bands to grow. This is an issue that both Dan Deacon and F Yeah Fest have tried to answer by converting tour vans to veggie oil and parking outside of fast food restaurants to refuel for free, so there are ways around the problem, but it is going to be interesting with the way things are going, at the very least.

[TheWatcher]

I am not sure that it's directly responsible. But, you may have a point about the free market. If there are x number of dollars that people have available for entertainment, and they no longer are spending these dollars on physical media, then there is a larger market for other ways to spend money, like concerts, and someone will see this and provide the product.

Also, being able to try out different types of music risk-free may be helping to change the dependency on the major labels / media to tell people what they *should* be liking. People get used to listening to a wide variety of music and so festivals look more attractive.

Personally, I have been buying more CDs since P2P file-sharing became popular, and there are a lot of people like me. Although, most of the CDs I buy are used; I think Amoeba Records is doing very well.

[bmack86]

Amoeba is the only record store that has shown widespread growth since downloading started to explode. Their profits have skyrocketed.

[gaypalmsprings]

Amoeba is the only record store that has shown widespread growth since downloading started to explode. Their profits have skyrocketed.

Their prices are still overpriced.

[TommyboyUNM]

I don't see how it's any easier or more attractive to stage a festival now than it was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Sure a big factor is the success of Coachella and Bonnaroo proving that this business model could work after Woodstock 99, but I still don't think that you can remotely call this anything like a natural market boom. I'd like to be able to pull figures for concerts in general, not just fests, and see how much more promoters made in 2007 than 2000. Just a hunch, but I'll bet you it's a fucking significant difference.

But yeah, it's all win-win-win, unless you're an asshole record company. In which case, well, glad you're dead.



It was, but then you smoked the poll all up.

I think it's a little easier to put together a 3 or 4-day festival now because music is just more accessible. There is just less of a chance of fesitval-goers not being familiar with the lineup. So promoters can book artists deep into the lineup that have a chance to be a little more well-known because of filesharing and accessibility. That goes along with what I said about less reliance on ultra-big headliners. Though, clearly, that is still important. I guess it could have an impact on the depth and quality of the lineups than actually being able to hold the festival.

[Memorial_07]

"Music just had to be around downloaded or not?" I don't follow. Why is the destination festival industry skyrocketing during a four year span when the entire economy and in particular travel and recreation industries are taking such massive losses? It doesn't make much sense as a logical economic growth, so there has to be a shift in the industry to explain it.

getting music out there is what I meant.
by downloading it or through festivals

[greghead]

I think that's a very good thought, Randy. It makes a lot of sense. I mean, how the fuck would any of us have heard of half of the bands at Coachella, OSL, or any of the other myriad 3-day festivals were it not for the amazing musical resource we call the internet? Sure there are a lot of other factors involved, but I think you're really onto something

[Ardentbiscuit]

I don't fully believe that those people who are illegally downloading music would have bought it in the first place. I know many people who never use to buy music back in the old record store days but now that there is file sharing they collect tons of music. I think only a small portion of those people who receive copyrighted music would have actually bought it in the first place.

I think the numbers just look worse because it's so easy to do it and people do it just because it's free.

I think it follows the same principal in the fact that 1) People are cheap bastards, 2) If it's free most people would take almost anything even dog poop out of someone's yard.

I think the music industry has seen some really successful music festivals over the years and figures they can cash in by creating a cheap copy cat product. It does 2 thing, 1) It over saturates the market which causes a fall out (a good number of festivals have been canceled). 2) It lowers the overall quality of the product so people lose faith in festivals.

I remember when Nirvana hit, suddenly every music company wanted to sign someone from Seattle/Washington whether they were good or not. It became almost lubricious the hype that was involved.

[BobCaygeon]

I am not sure that it's directly responsible. But, you may have a point about the free market. If there are x number of dollars that people have available for entertainment, and they no longer are spending these dollars on physical media, then there is a larger market for other ways to spend money, like concerts, and someone will see this and provide the product.

I agree with this paragraph. Music fans aren't going to festivals because bands need to make money *somehow*; rather they go to festivals because they feel they are getting value from doing so. If the cost of going to destination festivals increases to the point where few fans feel they are a valuable expenditure, they'll cease to exist. Artists would then have to find another way to get fans to pay for their product.

TheWatcher's point about fans having more money available for festivals (because the money is not being spend on legal acquisition of music) is a good one, but it would only hold so long as destination festivals provide an economic alternative for those entertainment dollars.

Right now, I think it holds.

[RotationSlimWang]

I don't fully believe that those people who are illegally downloading music would have bought it in the first place. I know many people who never use to buy music back in the old record store days but now that there is file sharing they collect tons of music. I think only a small portion of those people who receive copyrighted music would have actually bought it in the first place.

I think the numbers just look worse because it's so easy to do it and people do it just because it's free.

I think it follows the same principal in the fact that 1) People are cheap bastards, 2) If it's free most people would take almost anything even dog poop out of someone's yard.

I think the music industry has seen some really successful music festivals over the years and figures they can cash in by creating a cheap copy cat product. It does 2 thing, 1) It over saturates the market which causes a fall out (a good number of festivals have been canceled). 2) It lowers the overall quality of the product so people lose faith in festivals.

I remember when Nirvana hit, suddenly every music company wanted to sign someone from Seattle/Washington whether they were good or not. It became almost lubricious the hype that was involved.

Well regardless, the sales figures are accurate insofar as the RIAA is reporting true figures. 13 billion to 7.5 billion in eight years. If not filesharing then what?

[RotationSlimWang]

I agree with this paragraph. Music fans aren't going to festivals because bands need to make money *somehow*; rather they go to festivals because they feel they are getting value from doing so. If the cost of going to destination festivals increases to the point where few fans feel they are a valuable expenditure, they'll cease to exist. Artists would then have to find another way to get fans to pay for their product.

TheWatcher's point about fans having more money available for festivals (because the money is not being spend on legal acquisition of music) is a good one, but it would only hold so long as destination festivals provide an economic alternative for those entertainment dollars.

Right now, I think it holds.

It wasn't his point, actually. It was mine. But thanks.

Regarding your first paragraph, I think you've missed a lot of the point. These destination festivals have become numerous and spread out enough to provide a reasonably accessible event for more or less every part of the country, thereby significantly reducing the costs for any given person to attend at least one of them. They are responding to the unprofitable nature of record sales by trying to increase awareness of concert opportunities across the map. It might not matter to the fans whether bands have another way of making a living, but it certainly matters to the bands and touring is basically their only recourse. Festivals are a logical route to try to draw in the sections of the public who might not be concert types yet and try to convert them into bankable audience.

[SoulDischarge]

Well regardless, the sales figures are accurate insofar as the RIAA is reporting true figures. 13 billion to 7.5 billion in eight years. If not filesharing then what?

I assume those figures are for RIAA supported labels? If so, part of it could be a rise in indie music. Just a quick browse through their members shows that a lot of the most well known indie labels, like Sub Pop and Matador, aren't RIAA members. File sharing is probably the lion's share, and is probably why more people know more indie bands, but I imagine the increasing popularity of indie bands contributes to that figure somewhat.

[RotationSlimWang]

The figures didn't contain those labels in the past either. It's silly to think that Sub Pop and Matador and their ilk come anywhere near accounting for 6.5 billion records. It's also silly to think that the entire industry isn't getting hit harder than all hell by this new technology. Maybe Tower Records just suffered from the rise of indie music too.

[TheWatcher]

I wonder what effect the sales of CDs and vinyl at concerts has on the RIAA's numbers. It seems like they sell fairly well, at least at festivals like Coachella. Also, Virgin Records does pretty good business when they set up booths at the Hollywood Bowl.

And, what about the CDs that the bands sell themselves at other concerts? Do these count toward RIAA numbers? (I am guessing they still do)

A large portion of the money I spend at Coachella is at the Virgin Records tent.

[SoulDischarge]

The figures didn't contain those labels in the past either. It's silly to think that Sub Pop and Matador and their ilk come anywhere near accounting for 6.5 billion records. It's also silly to think that the entire industry isn't getting hit harder than all hell by this new technology. Maybe Tower Records just suffered from the rise of indie music too.

You don't read very well do you?

That's true about those labels not counting in the past. Still, there is a shift towards different distribution methods. More and more bands are getting fed up with the major label system and are signing to indie labels or self-releasing their stuff. That also probably contributes.

[RotationSlimWang]

You don't read very well do you?

That's true about those labels not counting in the past. Still, there is a shift towards different distribution methods. More and more bands are getting fed up with the major label system and are signing to indie labels or self-releasing their stuff. That also probably contributes.

I read excellently, thank you very much. I don't remotely see where you identify evidence of me somehow not understanding or misinterpreting your valid but frankly inconsequential point. You're talking about factors that might account for a percentile or two at best, I'm talking about a 50 percent drop after a sustained period of growth for more than a decade. This is fucking silly and a waste of time, sir.

[SoulDischarge]

I never said the new technology isn't contributing to a large degree and I never said this wasn't a waste of time.

[BobCaygeon]

It wasn't his point, actually. It was mine. But thanks.

Sorry about that. You had lots of points.

Regarding your first paragraph, I think you've missed a lot of the point. These destination festivals have become numerous and spread out enough to provide a reasonably accessible event for more or less every part of the country, thereby significantly reducing the costs for any given person to attend at least one of them. They are responding to the unprofitable nature of record sales by trying to increase awareness of concert opportunities across the map. It might not matter to the fans whether bands have another way of making a living, but it certainly matters to the bands and touring is basically their only recourse. Festivals are a logical route to try to draw in the sections of the public who might not be concert types yet and try to convert them into bankable audience.

I agree with you 100% here, but it has nothing to do with illegal file sharing. Take away illegal filesharing, and everything you have stated still holds. Reducing costs of getting to festivals boosts festival revenue. Festivals are a logical route to try to draw in the sections of the public who might not be concert types yet and try to convert them into bankable audience. These are ecomonic drivers that don't require a catastrophy to pursue. If destination festivals are profitable, then they'll come into existance. But why would they be profitable now as a result of illegal file sharing when they might not have been profitable before?

The point I was stating (and I'm not sure whose point it is anymore) is that music fans have limited resources and illegal filesharing has freed up these resources for things like destination festivals. Without the freeing up of the resources, destination festivals aren't profitable because not enough fans will partake.

However, you have convinced me that there is a second driver here in that the imperitive to find an alternative revenue stream has caused the industry to move to destination festivals when they otherwise might not have needed to. Although the profit motive is always there, the industry possibly has resource limitations the way a music fan does, and without the driver of having to find a new revenue stream, nobody would have the capacity to put the festivals on and we'd all be sitting in our basements downloading.

[SoulDischarge]

Destination festivals also put some of the touring cost burden on the fans. Bands can now go on more limited tours and expect fans to travel out of their way to see them as part of a larger package where they wouldn't travel so far just to see a single band. This probably would have happened eventually after seeing festivals like Coachella succeed and proving it to be a profitable economic model, but the decrease in record sales was probably a strong push to develop this market sooner rather than later.

[BlackSwan]

An industry like the modern music establishment is frankly with precious few options--they must find new revenue.

You entire conception rests on the generalized intent of the "the modern music establishment". Do more research on the connection between record labels and concert promoters and then this may hold some water.

[bmack86]

The record labels don't really develop these festivals. They're not profiting off of them. Labels don't really make anything from band tours, which is why that's always been the lifeblood of smaller acts.

And, sure, you can argue that downloading frees money up from people, but that's assuming that these same people would all have heard of the bands at the festivals, but didn't have the money to go because they purchased their albums, which is patently ridiculous. The people who are purchasing the albums are still going to these shows, but it's also drawing in new crowds that would never have heard of most of these bands, because downloading has opened up music to a wider fanbase than ever before.