sign in sign up
<<
Home , Monterey Pop Festival

Chase Barrett

5/4/2020

P. Schuette

Senior Thesis

The Natural Selection Of The Music Industry

The progression of the music industry over the past seven or so decades has been so incredibly complex and taken so many unexpected twists throughout its lifespan, that it's truly impossible to set a defined point where the music industry became the modern boheimith that it is today. Throughout this essay, the word “Evolution” will be used a multitude of times to describe how different sectors of the music industry have changed and developed, but the more accurate way to think about it is more so as “Natural Selection”. Because that truly is the most accurate way to describe how the music industry has become what it is today. Through a repetitive process of self cannibalization, innovation, and then subsequent perseverance, the music industry has seen many different forms of revenue dependence. From the ways we consume music, to the ways we experience it, the industry has never sat in stasis for long. It's always rewarded forward thinking, and that is what will be attempted within this thesis. An attempt to see with accuracy what trends and changes are just around the corner and beyond. By identifying how trends arise, and how the industry then reacts to those trends, we can try and paint a picture of what commercial music consumption and live performance, specifically in regards to the , will look like over the course of the next decade.

The modern image of the music festival is very far from what they looked like at their point of origin. One could say the music festival goes as far back as the Pythian Games in

Ancient Greece, which were a precursor to the Olympics, a “A general celebration of all things beautiful, it included a day of musical competitions.” (Humphrys 1). There was then The Three

Choirs Festival in the 18th century, in which fans of Rossi, Beethoven and Mozart all convened in the cathedrals of England to experience their work. From an American standpoint, the practice didn’t make its way to the states until the in Rhode Island, which was first held in July of 1954. The Newport Jazz Festival was truly unique because it was the first large scale event like this that didn’t have any religious connotations to the music or the gathering. It was the first truly diverse, commercial gathering of popular artists to perform their work in the context that we know it today, and it featured truly legendary artists such as Ella Fitzgerald,

Billie Holiday, and Dizzy Gilespie. But it was the next decade, the 1960’s, when the music festival became popularized and sought after as a “can’t miss experience”, in part due to the high energy and showmanship of the music that had been popularized at that point. This first occurred at California’s Festival in 1967, where legends such as Simon & Garfunkel, The

Beach Boys, , , and all converged onto one stage to provide a crowd of 8,500 attendees (in a venue that should have been capped at no more than

7,000) with a life-changing musical experience. The ladder three artists mentioned would also go on to perform at what is known as the pinnacle of the music festival, the crowned jewel of hippy culture that all festivals are striving to achieve to this day, 1969. But despite the incessant praise that Woodstock receives for being a mecca of cultural celebration, so many people seem to forget that Woodstock was a deeply flawed and dangerous event, one that likely shouldn’t have taken place at all. Local authorities were told to expect a crowd of around 50,000 attendees, when in reality the organizers sold over 180,000 tickets, while expecting around

200,000 people to ultimately attend the festival. Even these estimations were drastically underestimated, as more than 400,000 people attended the festival, most of which snuck in for free, and an estimated one million more people were stuck in gridlock traffic throughout upstate ​ ​ ​ ​ New York. This traffic caused cancelations and almost got Graham Nash and Dallas Taylor of

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young killed in a nearby helicopter crash. On top of all of this, the iconic

“3 Days of Peace and Music” slogan that was featured on the Woodstock posters could certainly be considered false advertising, as the attendees we’re just as hungry for actual nourishment as they were for guitar solos and LSD. The food shortages at Woodstock were truly severe, with most traditional food vendors declining to work the festival due to how gargantuan of a task it was. Just two weeks before the event took place, event organizer hired a small concession company called “Food For Love'' to run the food stands for the festival, and of course they were quickly overrun and forced to gouge their prices, much to the dismay of the attendees who believed this was against the anti-capitalistic spirit of the festival. “They charged $1 for hot dogs when the going rate was a quarter” (Spiegel 1). The Sullivan County sheriff had to utilize an army helicopter to perform a tactical airdrop into the festival, an airdrop that reportedly included ten thousand sandwiches, canned goods, fruit, and water. One of the most famous staples of the diet of the 1970’s Hippy was born out of this shortage as well, that being Granola.

As a very cheap and accessible food that was able to be gathered in great abundance with the amount of farms nearby, Food For Love handed out thousands of Dixie Cups filled with granola in an attempt to try and provide the attendees, many of which has gone days without any food

(while high on a litany of drugs), with some form of legitimate nourishment. All things considered, one could be surprised that the situation didn’t become more dire and violent than it did. There was one instance of a concession booth being burned down late at night, but overall the main reason the festival didn’t become a legitimate hellscape (like the festival's 1999 successor did) was due to the attendees being the ones to deliver on the promise of “3 Days of ​ ​ Peace and Music”. People shared what little food and water they had, and embraced the message that was at the core of the festival's branding. It was an incredibly complex situation to understand at the time, especially for the media. “For example, the newspaper coverage of the

Woodstock festival “flipped” from 16 August 1969, when the New York Times described the ​ ​ festival as ‘An outrageous episode’, and in the UK, The Times asked ‘what kind of culture is it ​ ​ that can produce so colossal a mess?’, to the day after when the New York Times suddenly viewed Woodstock as ‘essentially a phenomenon of innocence’ and even as a ‘declaration of independence’.” (McKay: 34). Despite how lucky the organizers were that the festival didn’t become a legitimate humanitarian disaster, and despite the fact that the festival would eventually become regarded as an iconic moment in the history of live music and musical culture, the town of Bethel New York was left completely ravaged, and the organizers were stuck with 1.3 million dollars of debt in the aftermath. One could assume that that’s solely because of the disorganization and lofty expectations of the festival, but in reality, the model of the modern music festival has yet to become legitimately efficient from a financial standpoint to this day.

Over the next few decades multiple festivals were able to establish themselves as legitimate annual events that owned their regional markets, and eventually garnered international attention, such as in 1991 and Coachella in 1999. Each of which have managed to stay in business over multiple decades through great marketing and willingness to adapt the musical identity of the festival to stay in line with what the masses of people want to see live that given year. Both started off as predominantly Rock / Alternative fests, and have grown into predominantly Hip Hop / Pop / Electronic festivals, while still trying to check as many boxes as they can. But while these two offspring of the goliaths known as AEG and Livenation have managed to maintain consistent sellouts and hold their own in their respective markets, the

2000’s and 2010’s saw the birth of many mid-size and large festivals, as well as the death of almost just as many. The simple fact of the matter is that just like with the traditional live music venue, turning a profit in this business off of the ticket sales alone is essentially impossible. The goal with both venues and festivals is to get people through the door, and then make your profits off of the food, drink, and merchandise. This is the system that truly makes live music viable, as the price of operating a venue and paying the artists far outweighs any revenue from a reasonable ticket asking price. But with the festival, there's infinitely more risk involved, as the majority of the planning of the festival is made up of writing checks that you can’t recoup your losses for until a hectic 3 day period in which success is essential, or else the festival will most likely become bankrupt. “Industry insiders point to funding challenges, increasingly stringent health and safety requirements (which are now only going to become worse than organizers could have ever imagined), media scrutiny and the difficulty of securing high profile acts for an affordable fee as key factors that are making it more difficult to pull off a successful event.” (Marriage 1). Despite these cold truths, the past decade has seen new festivals only increase at a rate that many have predicted can’t last for long. Waldemar Kuligowski states in his work on Popular Music In ​ The Post Digital Age, that the rapid rate of new festivals will only encourage segmentation and ​ identification with certain festivals and cultures of music that the festival consumer at large becomes less inclined to diversify their taste, and as a result, the live music they financially support. “He suggests that the future of music festivals will be so-called ‘festivals with a message’, and that their proliferation might be seen as a response to the apolitication and placelessness of mainstream music and a backlash against the conditions imposed by new technologies” (Mazierska: 21). A much forewarned “Bubble Burst” of the Festival Industry has been discussed for years, and an argument can be made that the past few years have already been the start of it. But now it seems as though the widespread cancellations and postponements caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic may be providing the extra pressure that could put the nail in the coffin for dozens of beloved festivals that were struggling to make it by as is. But to understand how the Festival has found itself in this increasingly precarious position, one must also understand how the music industry at large has evolved into what it is today.

Throughout history, music has been a great unifier of the human race. As an artform it's something that brings us together and speaks to people on an instinctual level. It’s often not appreciated enough that one of, if not the most popular form of art in the world can’t be seen or touched, it’s this incredibly abstract essence that is experienced through a single one of our senses. So although it is apparent that music holds a great deal of value in our society and culture, history shows we’ve had a truly difficult time attempting to set a value on it. In the 1949 book “Culture, Language, and Personality”, Edward Sapir states “What makes it possible for so discordant an array of conceptions to answer to the same call is, indeed, precisely this relatively constant halo that surrounds them. Thus, what is “crime” to one man is “nobility” to another, yet both are agreed that crime, whatever it is, an undesirable category, that nobility, whatever it is, is an estimable one...We disagree on the value of things and the relations of things, but often we agree on the particular value of a label. It is only when the question arises of just where to put the label, that trouble begins.” (Sapir: 308). This is the concept that the record industry and those who patronize it have been struggling with for years, as the industry has gone through a myriad of different stages throughout the past three decades. As technology and accessibility have greatly affected the way we consume music, the way we value music and it’s different forms has and constantly has been in flux .The 1990’s were a truly defining era for the music industry. As the asking price on physical copies of albums became more than consumers were willing to shell out, and the internet was growing in its capabilities, it was inevitable that there would be a revolt against the traditional system of buying a 10+ dollar album, to most likely only listen to a few key tracks. The form that this revolt took was that of Napster, the music file sharing site that was the first true wake up call to the music industry that the masses weren’t going to keep paying for music at the rate that they had been forced to for so many years. To the public, Napster was the much needed reprieve from the restriction of access to music that had become the norm for decades, simply because no other financially viable option really existed. In a 2013 article, Tom ​ Lamont of The Guardian asked colleagues who were similar in age to himself about their first experiences with Napster. “"The thrill," said one, whose first download was by Smashing

Pumpkins, "even when I listened to the music through my Mum's tinny computer speakers." Another quickly sought to mine Marlena Shaw's backlist and "couldn't believe it worked". For my part – plundering singles by Artful Dodger, by Semisonic – I have a memory of actually looking over my shoulder. How was this possible? It was as if the door to a bank vault had been left open, no guards in sight.” (Lamont 1). But of course, the major record labels weren’t going to let this trend last, as it was completely shredding their profits. Napster would soon be ordered by the government to suspend this free music sharing model, and eventually shut down. But the damage was done, and the consumer established that outright paying for music on an album by album basis would never be the norm again. Plenty of other pirating sites would rise in popularity, such as LimeWire or PirateBay, but the legitimate side of digital music consumption was greatly held up by the iTunes store. Allowing for the purchasing of single tracks, along with the integration and accessibility coinciding with the massive popularity of Apples computers, iPods, and iPhones, was able to maintain this high cost model for an entire decade before the true alternative stepped onto the scene. This of course, was the streaming model, mostly initiated by the birth of Spotify.

Officially launching in 2008, Spotify certainly didn’t take over the world overnight. The

Swedish startup went through loads of revisions before it became the bohemyth it is today. The company was founded in 2006 by Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon, and Napster co-creator Sean

Parker would eventually join the team as well to help negotiate with the major labels. In the

Summer of 2009 Spotify was able to raise fifty million dollars to pay to the major record labels in exchange for their music catalogues. From that point on Spotify would only increase in profile and popularity, as their US launch in the Summer of 2011 was extremely successful, and they now sit at over 100 million paid, Premium users, and over 200 million total users. But Spotify’s success hasn’t been without drawbacks, as the ripple effects of moving to a subscription based model of music consumption have been drastic. For starters, the popularity of streaming has decimated the amount of revenue that artists make from their actual art. The actual figure is very fluid and constantly changing, but it’s been estimated that an artist will make $0.0038 per stream, and although some of the other streaming services like Apple Music and Tidal are higher than this, it isn’t by much (Starr 1). With the majority of people consuming their music through streaming, physical sales have dropped tremendously, and labels have resorted to bundle deals with Merch or Tour tickets to try and boost their sales figures. Meanwhile, iTunes has essentially become obsolete, and has been left in the dust by Apple, in favor of their own streaming service.

In addition to this, the average life cycle of artists, albums, and singles have all been greatly accelerated. As the ability to make professional sounding music has become extremely accessible, as all one truly needs is a laptop and software, the rate at which new musicians are jumping on to the scene, as well as the rate at which they are expected to release new music, has exponentially increased. As a result there are more artists than ever trying to claim a piece of a rapidly dwindling pie. Talking Heads frontman David Byrne outlined this issue years ago, in his

2012 book “How Music Works”, when he stated “Music technology is in some ways appears to have been on a trajectory in which the end result is that it will destroy and devalue itself. It will succeed completely when it self-destructs. The technology is useful and convenient, but it has, in the end, reduced its own value and increased the value of the things it has never been able to capture or reproduce”. He also states “Technology has altered the way music sounds, how it’s composed, and how we experience it. It has flooded the world with music. The world is awash with (mostly) recorded sounds. We used to have to pay for music or make it ourselves; playing, hearing, and experiencing it was exceptional, a rare and special experience. Now hearing it is ubiquitous, and silence is the rarity that we pay for and savor.” (Byrne: 137). Due to this dire drop in revenue gained from selling their art, musicians have shifted towards relying on another aspect of the music industry to make their money, touring and playing festivals.

Whereas touring used to be just one aspect of how artists make their living, they’ve now become dependent on it. A 2018 report shows that “"consumer outlays," which includes ​ streaming, sales, and purchased music, generated an all-time high of more than $20 billion last year (2017). But music businesses, including labels and publishers, took almost $10 billion, while artists received just $5.1 billion, the "bulk" of which came from touring.” (Lynch

1). Included in this touring, is the Summer Festival circuit that so many artists embark on every year. Festivals often pay significantly more than artists typical going rate for venues, as signing a

‘radius claus’ is often included in the contracts, which prevent artists from playing the same general area within a span of time from the festival (most often 90 days before and after the festival, and a 90 mile radius from where the festival is held). The disparity in the potential money a headliner level act can make is outlined very clearly by Steve Knopper of The Rolling

Stone, when he reported “ In 2001, the last time Outkast hit the road for a major tour, they were ​ ​ coming off a multi platinum album and a Number One single, “Ms. Jackson.” André 3000 and

Big Boi played 46 shows on the Stankonia tour, and grossed $4.8 million, according to Pollstar. ​ ​ That sounds impressive – until you compare it with the reunion tour they’re launching this spring and summer. Outkast will play fewer gigs – 40 shows, every one at a festival – and make vastly more money: around $60 million, according to concert-business sources.” (Knopper 1). So how is it that we have gotten to a point where music festivals, which are struggling to remain profitable, have become the go to source of revenue for artists? It’s a truly odd form of infrastructure, and one that doesn’t seem to be entirely sustainable.

The overall future of the music festival seemed to be on a down-hill slope going into the

Summer of 2020. The large scale, strongly established festivals such as Coachella and Bonnaroo both managed to sell out, but the likes of Firefly, Governors Ball, and Boston Calling all seemed to be struggling to move tickets. Nevertheless, all the projections about which Festival would sell enough to survive and live on another year became a moot point very quickly, as the COVID-19

Pandemic, also known as the Coronavirus, quickly spread and made it blatantly clear that no festivals would, or should, be taking place in the Spring and Summer of 2020. Now dozens of

Festivals have either been “postponed” until 2021, postponed until a later date this year, mostly to late September or October, or just outright canceled. Although many of the large festivals are secure enough to survive this, it will undoubtedly be the nail in the coffin for many others. These mid-tier festivals have already been operating within the thinnest of margins, and an outright cancelation in addition to public pressure to provide full refunds will surely cause bankruptcies that the production companies can’t recover from. Festivals such as Ultra have elected to use the language of “Postponing until 2021” to cover themselves from an insurance front, and offered discounted merchandise deals and exclusive set access in 2021 for the ticket holders that are willing to wait until next Spring. Some of the larger festivals such as Firefly, Governors Ball, and even the legendary Glastonbury have all outright canceled, and are all offering full refunds. These will be able to survive to 2021, and likely beyond assuming their comeback is successful and efficient. But the likes of Big Ears, Lightning in a Bottle, and Mountain Jam are all going to be losing serious money and time, which can’t be recouped for at least 12-16 months, in the most optimistic cases. It would be absolutely fantastic to see them persevere, but the likelihood of that seems to be very low. None of this is even accounting for the late-summer Festivals that are yet to announce their lineups, such as Lollapalooza and Austin City Limits, which are now faced with the decision of whether to announce in hopes that the situation will be resolved by late July / Early August, delay the festival a month or two to fall in line with everything else that has postponed, or just cut their losses and start preparation for 2021. The situation is constantly in flux, and it’s next to impossible to attempt to predict how long the virus will hold the live-music industry captive, but it will take some real luck for these festivals to take place in

2020 at all, and even more-so for the wide-spread economic fallout to be minimal enough that the average festival consumer is able to even afford to attend a festival, with all the accompanying travel and lodging costs that come on top of their already purchased tickets. The future of the festival industry is going to be determined over these next 8-12 months, and at this moment, that future is looking increasingly bleak.

At the original inception of this thesis back in February, this was intended to be the point at which there would be an attempt to provide some form of an answer to the question, “What does the future of live entertainment and the music industry look like?”. But alas, so much has radically changed in this short amount of time, and continues to change every day in the wake of the havoc that coronavirus, to the point that the better question would be “Does live entertainment and the music industry have a future?”. It’s an extremely pessimistic question to even ask, but one that is rapidly becoming a part of our reality. As stated earlier, the music industry as a whole has seen a great shift in the last decade that has caused artists to primarily rely on their concert and festival checks to make their living. But as of April 14th, the Live

Nation President Joe Berchtold told CNBC that the company is preparing for to not return until a vaccine is developed, manufactured, and widely distributed, whether that is within

6-8 months, or as most medical experts are predicting, closer to 12-18 months (CNBC 1).

Nevertheless, even when a vaccine is developed, it won’t be the end-all answer that saves the music industry and puts it right back on it’s previous track. This experience in quarantine has ​ truly affected how people view large crowds, almost to a degree of Phobia. A recent poll released by Reuters/Ipsos, when asked about how Americans intend on returning to some state of normalcy, “Only about four in 10 who follow sports avidly and go to arts and entertainment venues and amusement parks said they would do so again if they reopened before a vaccine was available, the poll found. Another four in 10 said they were willing to wait, even if it takes more than a year to develop a vaccine. The rest said they either “don’t know” what to do or may never attend those events again.” (Segar 1). Of course people’s perspectives could shift once a vaccine is actually a reality, and is proven to be effective, but regardless, this report from Reuters is an extremely troubling sign for the music industry. As the fact’s currently stand, artists have become dependent on revenue from touring, and touring is going to be off the table as a dependable form of income for the foreseeable future. So where do artists look to now? They aren’t making much money off of streaming, so do they and the labels encourage consumers to return to the former model, where consumers pay 1.29 for a song or 10.99 for a full length LP? Not likely, as the majority of consumers are facing their own financial hardships, and won’t be privy to handing over their money after years of becoming ingrained in a system that has only taught them to drastically devalue music. Perhaps we could Spotify and Apple Music raise their subscription prices, with the intention of sending some of that money to the artists, but that still likely won’t come close to recouping the losses that are being faced. One answer that many mid-level artists that are going to be struggling could possibly turn to, as drastic as it may sound, is streaming. If this quarantine has taught America anything, it’s that a lot of our jobs can be accomplished from home, and I think that (temporarily) could apply to artists as well. Although donation-driven live streams was extremely popularized in the past few years by gamers, it’s a model that one could see musicians resorting to as well if touring isn’t a possibility for over a year. It would be much less glamorous, but either private-link live streams that you have to pay

(the same way you would with a ticket) to attend, or donation driven live streams could be a viable answer for artists that are very uncertain about their ability to survive this pandemic on their album sales and streaming figures alone. Ultimately the best way to understand and prepare for what the future of the life of a musician will be, could be looking to the past. Less than 100 years ago, musicians, and the rest of America alike, were in a very similar position, as The Great

Depression decimated the music industry for a period, and left musicians answerless about their financial future. “The loss of concert audiences during the Depression prompted imaginative musicians to seek methods of creating new audiences. The most notable result was the so-called

“music appreciation” movement, in which a speaker would “explain” concert music to listeners, hoping to stimulate interest and an “appreciation” for works of fine music.” (Fink: 313). We could very much see history repeat itself in this way, with promotional marketing campaigns created to incentivise people to support musicians and artists financially, and it could very much help, but ultimately, just like with the Great Depression, our upcoming recession will likely put the music industry in a place where this simply isn’t enough, and government assistance is required. “Another stimulus to music during the Depression was the Federal Music Project of the

Works Progress Administration (WPA). The aim of the program was to provide employment and to preserve the skills of unemployed professional musicians who were on relief. Over ten thousand persons had received benefits from the project by the end of the 1930’s. (Fink: 314).

There are far more than ten thousand people that will need Government assistance today due to how much the music industry has grown since the 1930’s, but a legitimate stimulus package to not just the artists, but the entirety of the industry, from engineers to venue workers, may be the only thing that prevents the music business from facing a downturn in revenue on such a gargantuan scale that it debilitates profits for years to come.

Although there is so much that is still unknown and uncertain, what can be unequivocally stated at this moment is that the future of the music and festival industry as we know it is going to be determined in the coming year. How it’s organizers, record labels, artists, patrons, and most importantly, the government, react will ultimately determine how long it takes to return to a state of normalcy, if that is even truly possible. If festivals and venues (both outdoor and indoor), aren’t able to put themselves into a position by Summer of 2021 where they can safely, and efficiently bring in enough attendees to put themselves back on the track of profit, they may never be able to do so on the same scale again. Livenation and AEG will live on, but independant venues and production companies will have extreme difficulty doing so. Honestly, the situation at hand is very reflective of the state of high risk that Festivals have been operating under for years. While in the past, a single day of random thunderstorms (and subsequent full day of loss of revenue) for a festival could be so catastrophic that it ends the festival permanently (See

Goldenvoice backed Panorama 2018). Today, we face a very similar situation, but on a macro scale. A random occurrence of nature has put the entire industry in a position where money is being rapidly lost, and the state of the future is in dramatic limbo. So instead of trying to identify and predict the future in such a turbulent and uncertain time, the best course of action may be to analyze why we’re in this precarious position in the first place. Why did we allow the industry to become so reliant on festivals and touring? Why have we allowed events with as fragile of an infrastructure as festivals become such a large portion of artists income? Perhaps this is a sign that the large scale festival was doomed to fail from the start, and that it is a practice that should have been foreseen as unsustainable when it’s biggest claim to fame, Woodstock 1969, was actually a disaster for both the organizers and the local surrounding area. Amidst all of this , the term “Natural Selection” seems to still stand out as the simplest way to view the progression of the music industry going forward. When this Thesis was first created, the possibility of a

COVID-19 level disaster for the music industry could not have been foreseen, but it eerily falls in line with the original comparison between the way the music industry grows and progresses, and Natural Selection. By definition, “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring” very much will apply to musicians, venues, and festival organizers. How we define “better adapted” is yet to be seen. For some, it may mean having a strong plan of return that brings in enough patrons to maintain profit, but not so many that it becomes unsafe, and for others, it may be as simple as having the financial ​ support of Livenation or AEG. That is where what could ultimately be the greatest loss of this

Pandemic lies, in the death of independance. For years the industry has only become more homogenized, slowly growing closer and closer to a monopoly in certain respects. This may be what pushes the industry over this edge, in the same way that many other sectors already have been. Independent labels, artists, venues, and production companies all are going to be facing the fight of their lives, and those that are able to adapt, adjust, and survive into the eventual return of live music, will be testaments to the inspiration and passion that music ignites within all of us.

Regardless, this is a fight that everyone all must be prepared for. Loss of income will continue and the future will remain uncertain for some time, but for the music industry to survive, we must not lose that passion that brought us to it in the first place. As previously stated, there is something truly special about the fact that arguably the world's most popular medium of art can’t be seen or touched, it can only be experienced through a singular sense and it still has a universal, almost instinctual appeal. For all the much earned criticism that has been levied against Woodstock throughout this Thesis, it should be remembered that despite the conditions, the overpopulation, the lack of food, hundreds of thousands of people still endured, adapted, and persevered, simply to enjoy a live music experience. There is a strong example to be followed here. Despite how awful and unprecedented of a situation the music industry is currently facing, the ability to endure, adapt, and persevere, all in the name of our love for live music, lies within all of us.

Bibliography

Chase Barrett

Senior Thesis Rough Draft

1. Byrne, David. How Music Works. Three Rivers Press, an Imprint of the Crown ​ ​ Publishing Group, a Division of Penguin Random House LLC, 2017.

2. “Live Nation President Joe Berchtold on Cutting Costs amid the Coronavirus Outbreak.”

CNBC, CNBC, 14 Apr. 2020, ​ www.cnbc.com/video/2020/04/14/live-nation-president-joe-berchtold-on-cutting-costs-a

mid-the-coronavirus-outbreak.html.

3. Fink, Michael. Inside the Music Industry Creativity, Process, and Business. Schirmer ​ ​ Cengage Learning, 1996.

4. Humphrys, Julian. “From Ancient Greece to Glastonbury: A Brief History of Music

Festivals.” HistoryExtra, 24 June 2019, ​ ​ www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/history-music-festivals-woodstock-glastonbury-f

irst/. ​ 5. Kingsbury, Henry. Music, Talent, and Performance: a Conservatory Cultural System. ​ ​ Temple University Press, 2001.

6. Knopper, Steve. “How Festivals Revamped the Music Industry.” , 25 June ​ ​ 2018,

www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/how-coachella-bonnaroo-and-more-festivals-r

evamped-the-music-industry-184777/ 7. Lamont, Tom. “Napster: the Day the Music Was Set Free.” The Guardian, Guardian ​ ​ News and Media, 24 Feb. 2013,

www.theguardian.com/music/2013/feb/24/napster-music-free-file-sharing

8. Lynch, John. “Musicians Only Got 12% of the $43 Billion the Music Industry Generated

in 2017, and It Mostly Came from Touring.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 7 Aug. ​ ​ 2018,

www.businessinsider.com/musicians-received-12-percent-43-billion-generated-by-music-

industry-study-2018-8

9. Marriage, Madison. “Is This the End of an Era for the Blockbuster Festival?” Subscribe ​ to Read | Financial Times, Financial Times, 5 May 2019, ​ www.ft.com/content/98c0ea32-4009-11e9-9499-290979c9807

10. Mazierska, Ewa. Popular Music in the Post-Digital Age: Politics, Economy, Culture and ​ Technology. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. ​ 11. McKay, George. The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture. Bloomsbury ​ ​ Academic an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc, 2015.

12. Spiegel, Alison. “One MAJOR Detail That Was Missing At Woodstock.” HuffPost, ​ ​ HuffPost, 7 Dec. 2017, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/food-at-woodstock_n_6793300. ​ ​ 13. Starr, Liane Bonin. “Streaming Royalties Explained.” Songtrust, 10 May 2018, ​ ​ https://blog.songtrust.com/streaming-royalties-explained