Yes, today marks the beginning of the festival season, with the first day of Coachella. Which means the news media is full of stories on the state of the festival business, in light of Coachella tickets selling slower than previously, in light of the Australian festival cancellations (no, the mainstream media didn't mention these, but those in the business know about them).
It's very clear. We don't have a festival issue, we have a MUSIC issue!
In other words, we're just not minting worldwide stars that appeal to everybody. And odds are it's going to get worse. Then what?
Well, is Coachella Glastonbury?
Glastonbury emerged in the wake of Woodstock and has flourished ever since. But you can get to Glastonbury by train, and it's not a long ride from the metropolis. And Glastonbury has become a national institution, embraced by both the public and the media. Furthermore, you can watch it on TV. Yes, they want to get the latest and greatest to appear, but they also want legacy acts, and acts that have been out of the spotlight for a while... In other words, Glastonbury is unique. And the question once again is, is Coachella Glastonbury?
That's what we really want to know. Is Coachella's name, history and the experience of attending so impressive, so dramatic, that it can survive irrelevant of the talent booked to appear.
For a while it looked that way. With tickets selling out before a lineup was announced. But there's been an evolution in the music itself.
Boomers don't want to go hang with the multitudes in the desert anymore, they're all about creature comforts, they're past their festival years. Ditto most Gen-X'ers. So you're left with diehard music fans and the younger generation, which is notoriously fickle. Is Coachella an institution or a long-running fad that is on its way to extinction?
Credit Paul Tollett for trying to go along with the times, booking more modern acts as opposed to the ancient ones most festivals depend upon to draw people in. But do you really want to go to the desert to see Doja Cat? Even Lana Del Rey? My point being these acts are very successful, but don't appeal to everyone. They're not cult acts, they just don't go broad beyond their verticals, and almost none of the new acts do. And, as has been noted seemingly everywhere, if you're a true fan of these acts do you want to go to a festival to see them, to pay a lot for many other acts you do not want to see, to hang with the great unwashed, is this the experience you're looking for?
Which brings us back to ticket prices. Despite the complaints, mostly from a small minority, there seems to be no amount too high for people to pay to see their favorite acts live. Sure, some may say their limit is a hundred bucks and sit at home. But most just pay the going rate, even paying more on the secondary market. That's how hot music is, a unique experience. But how many want a specific unique experience? Don't be overwhelmed by sold out arena dates, even stadium dates, when you add attendance up it's still not that many people. You've got those who need to be there, who will do anything to get a ticket, a few who get squeezed out and the rest shrug their shoulders, they might not even go if the ticket is free.
Don't compare this with yesteryear, when Bruce Springsteen was all over MTV and everybody knew not only him, but "Born in the U.S.A.," and "Glory Days" and "Dancing in the Dark." No songs have this reach today, NONE! Not that the industry or the media want to admit it. So the potential audience for a specific concert used to be much greater. But today? You can add up all the acts at the festival and still be unimpressed, there might not be ANYBODY you need to see. Furthermore, the undercard changes every year and virtually none of these acts grows into stardom. It used to be a badge of honor to say you saw the act first, when they were developing. The Police at the Whisky. Now these acts play festivals and...almost none graduate to theatres. You've got no bragging rights, because the act never becomes ubiquitous, most people are unaware of the act and don't care.
Now in a world where there were only a couple of festivals, each one had the imprimatur of exclusivity and greatness. Now there's a multi-act festival within driving distance of everybody, so why make an expensive journey to the desert, to ANYWHERE?
And, once again, is the multi-act bill passé?
Don't forget that the Fillmore East used to have three act bills. When was the last time you saw that? It was a bond between the audience and Bill Graham, that he'd turn you on to great new music you might not be aware of. Now, many people don't even show up for the opening act, and there's only one, and the goal of the headliner is to do "An Evening With," a multi-hour show that appeals to hard core fans with no opener at all!
We're going narrower and deeper. And that which is broad...
Is failing everywhere.
It's not only music, it's in every vertical. People want specialization, not generalization. People have very defined interests, and if you're trying to appeal to all, you're heading for death.
So, do festivals go extinct?
Definitely not. Especially city-based festivals, like Lollapalooza, Austin City Limits and Outside Lands. The lift is much lighter. You can commute there from home, you don't have to drive a long distance or fly and get a hotel room... What the acts are and what you can charge? Those are interesting questions, along with who the attendees are.
Despite the international hoopla, Coachella is mostly a rite of passage for young Angelenos. The desert is part of their mind-set and they're young enough to endure the elements and the hoi polloi. But if you've lived in Los Angeles long enough, you know that Westwood used to be the hip epicenter, then the Third Street Promenade, then CityWalk and now...I'm not sure there even is one.
But once again, this has got less to do with the audience and the festival than the music itself. If you're expecting broad new superstars, you're out of touch. Look at consumption, Spotify keeps telling us the share of the superstars keeps declining. Everything is becoming narrower, specialized.
And in truth, I'm less concerned with the health of the festival industry than the health of the music industry. The music industry is operating like it's the pre-internet era when it positively isn't. The labels keep attempting moonshots and all the action is in those who start independently. And of course acts break through, but fewer than ever before. So do you really want to go see a conglomeration of niches?
Ozzy can't work anymore. So many classic acts of not only the sixties, but the seventies, are dead or retired. And there are the eighties superstars, those made by MTV, but they're pretty aged themselves. And once we hit the twenty first century we have Coldplay and Dave Matthews... Coldplay is broad, but Dave Matthews is narrow. Metallica is broad in metal, but narrow overall. We all came together in the MTV era, but now we've all split apart, and outsiders, and even insiders, expect it to be the same.
Interestingly, the biggest new stars of the past few years, Morgan Wallen and Zach Bryan, come from the country world, which is relatively controlled. On the pop and hip-hop side...everything is more splintered. And country is going that way too.
So for all the news you read about superstars selling out buildings, in truth music is becoming smaller and smaller, acts have a smaller piece of the pie, and do you really want to go to a destination festival to see a ton of acts that are not superstars, most of which don't appeal to you?
In some cases yes, but in most cases no.
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
No comments:
Post a Comment