The Future of Live Music 9781501355875, 9781501355905, 9781501355899

Citation preview

The Future of Live Music

The Future of Live Music Edited by Ewa Mazierska, Les Gillon and Tony Rigg

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Inc 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in the United States of America 2020 This paperback edition published in 2022 Volume Editors’ Part of the Work © Ewa Mazierska, Les Gillon and Tony Rigg, 2020 Each chapter © of Contributor For legal purposes the Permissions on pp. vii–viii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Louise Dugdale Cover image © Gitchasron Thantupsron / EyeEm / Getty Images All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Inc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Mazierska, Ewa, editor. | Gillon, Les, editor. | Rigg, Tony, editor. Title: The future of live music / edited by Ewa Mazierska, Les Gillon, and Tony Rigg. Description: New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Examines how changes in economy, technology, and culture affect production and reception of live music, as well as the very understanding of the term “live music.””– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019053919 | ISBN 9781501355875 (hardback) | ISBN 9781501355899 (pdf) | ISBN 9781501355882 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Music–Performance. | Music–Performance–Technological innovations. | Music–Performance–Social aspects. | Music and technology. | Concerts. Classification: LCC ML457 .F87 2020 | DDC 781.4/3–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019053919 ISBN: HB: 978-1-5013-5587-5 PB: 978-1-5013-9174-3 ePDF: 978-1-5013-5589-9 eBook: 978-1-5013-5588-2 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of illustrations Notes on contributors Introduction: The continuous significance of live music Ewa Mazierska, Tony Rigg and Les Gillon

vii ix

1

Part One Approaches 1

2

Theorizing the production and consumption of live music: A critical review Arno van der Hoeven, Erik Hitters, Pauwke Berkers, Martijn Mulder and Rick Everts

19

Challenges for the future of live music: A review of contemporary developments in the live music sector Arno van der Hoeven and Erik Hitters

34

Part Two Technology 3

The Silent Stage: The future of onstage sound systems Steven Kerry

53

4

Networked performance as a means of transcending geographical barriers in live music performance Duncan Gallagher

68

Digital performances: Live-streaming music and the documentation of the creative process Mark Daman Thomas

83

5

Part Three Performers 6 7

Surrogate musicianship in the age of in vitro intelligence: Redefining the live performer Darren Moore, Guy Ben-Ary and Nathan Thompson ‘Death is no longer a deal breaker’: The hologram performer in live music Alan Hughes

99 114

Part Four Spaces 8 9 10

Sound spaces: Pop music concerts and festivals in urban environments Robert Kronenburg

131

Live music playbour: A piece of the puzzle Les Gillon

150

The present and the future of Polish coastal music festivals Ewa Mazierska

165

vi

Contents

Part Five Evaluations 11 12 13

Raves in the twenty-first century: DIY practices, commercial motivations and the role of technology Beate Peter

185

The eternal course of live music: Views and experiences of an audience Michael Tsangaris

197

Have a good night: CNBLUE, band music and the uses of live performance in K-pop Valerie Soe

209

Index

227

Illustrations Figures 3.1

3.2

3.3

5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

Data harvested in the study conducted for the purpose of this chapter into the preferences of audio professionals working in the live music industry regarding the practice of using microphones or direct injection of sources Busted on a stage void of amplified sound save for the single monitor downstage centre to cater to Simpson’s monitoring requirements. Photo: Tom Pullen Data harvested in the study conducted for the purpose of this chapter into the preferences of front-of-house engineers regarding monitoring setups. Irrespective of the size of production, the use of in-ear monitoring is generally preferable My first livestream on Instagram – I had just asked the audience where they were watching from Dawn Beyer during a livestream on Facebook. With permission of Dawn Beyer cellF performing at the Cell Block Theatre, Sydney, 2016 Guy Ben-Ary’s neural networks grown on a Multi-Electrode Array (MEA). cellF’s embodiment: cellF’s synthesizers and neural interface patched for performance Guy Ben-Ary’s stem cells differentiating to neuronal cells at day ten of differentiation cellF performing with Darren Moore (drums) and Clayton Thomas (bass) at the Cell Block Theatre, Sydney, 2016 Helsinki street concert, 2018. © Robert Kronenburg Buskers, Liverpool city centre, 2018. © Robert Kronenburg Matthew Street Festival, 2009. © Robert Kronenburg The Summer Jam main stage, Liverpool International Music Festival, 2016. © Robert Kronenburg The Puzzle Stage: Rock Night. Photo: Jennifer Hartshorn People going to the concert in Audioriver. Photo: Ewa Mazierska Festival guests swimming in the bay of the Vistula River. Photo: Ewa Mazierska Audience at Jazz on the Pier Festival. Photo: Ewa Mazierska New Orleans pageant. Photo: Ewa Mazierska

57

61

61 87 88 100 101 103 107 111 135 141 144 145 162 175 176 179 180

viii

Illustrations

13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4

CNBLUE, Makuhari, Japan, 2016. Photo: Ellie Perla, take-kr.com CNBLUE, 2017 KCON, New York. Photo: Ellie Perla, take-kr.com CNBLUE, 2017 KCON, New York. Photo: Ellie Perla, take-kr.com CNBLUE fan-made souvenirs, Between Us Concert, Taipei, 2017. Photo: Ellie Perla, take-kr.com 13.5 CNBLUE, Come 2Gether Concert, Seoul, 2015. Photo: Ellie Perla, take-kr.com

210 213 216 219 221

Tables 2.1 4.1

Overview of Challenges and Potential Solutions Audible Results of an Example Online Performance between Two People Using NINJAM

46 72

Contributors Editors Ewa Mazierska is Professor of Film Studies at the University of Central Lancashire. She has published over thirty monographs and edited collections on film and popular music. They include Popular Viennese Electronic Music, 1990-2015: A Cultural History; Popular Music in the Post-digital Age: Politics, Economy, Culture and Technology, co-edited with Les Gillon and Tony Rigg; Contemporary Cinema and Neoliberal Ideology, co-edited with Lars Kristensen; Popular Music in Eastern Europe: Breaking the Cold War Paradigm and Relocating Popular Music, co-edited with Georgina Gregory. Mazierska’s work has been translated into over twenty languages. She is also principal editor of Routledge journal, Studies in Eastern European Cinema. Les Gillon is Principle Lecturer in the School of Journalism, Media and Performance at the University of Central Lancashire. He writes about popular music and is active in practice-based music research that explores composition and improvisation, the use of non-Western music traditions and interdisciplinary collaboration. In addition to his research in the field of music, he also writes on aesthetics and the visual arts. His recent monograph The Uses of Reason in the Evaluation of Artworks uses the Turner Prize as a case study, to explore fundamental questions about the nature, purpose and value of art. Tony Rigg is a music industry professional and educator affiliated with the University of Central Lancashire. He has spent around thirty years monetizing music-related activities and occupied senior management roles in market-leading organizations, including that of operations director for Ministry of Sound. He has overseen the management of more than one hundred music venues and literally thousands of music events. In addition to his management experience, as an artist and producer he has had tracks featured on chart-topping and gold-selling albums. He co-edited (with Ewa Mazierska and Les Gillon) Popular Music in the Post-Digital Age: Politics, Economy, Culture and Technology.

Contributors Guy Ben-Ary is a researcher who currently works at SymbioticA, an artistic laboratory dedicated to the research, learning and hands-on engagement with the life sciences, located within the University of Western Australia. Recognized internationally as a

x

Contributors

major artist and innovator working across science and media arts, Guy specializes in biotechnological artwork, which aims to enrich our understanding of what it means to be alive. Guy’s main research areas are cybernetics, bio-robotics and the cultural articulation of biotechnologies. His work is inspired by science and nature. His artworks usually utilize motion, growth and big data to investigate technological aspects of today’s culture. Pauwke Berkers is Associate Professor of Sociology of Arts and Culture and head of the Department of Arts and Culture Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He is author of Gender Inequality in Metal Music Production (2018, with Julian Schaap) and has published widely on gender as well as race/ethnicity in popular music in Gender & Society, Consumption Markets & Culture, Journal of Gender Studies and IASPM@Journal. He is ‘Principal Investigator’ (PI) of the HERA project FestiVersities: European music festivals, public spaces and cultural diversity and the NWO project Staging Popular Music (POPLIVE). Mark Daman Thomas is a lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire and a visiting lecturer at University of South Wales. He has a multidimensional career as a musician, artist, lecturer and label owner. Active since 2004, he has released five albums, two mini-albums and three EPs with his bands Islet and Attack + Defend and his solo project, ‘Farm Hand’. Based in rural mid-Wales, he has over twelve years’ live and touring experience in the United States, Japan and Europe. Rick Everts is a PhD candidate in the sociology of arts and culture at the Department of Media and Communication at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Rick’s PhD research focuses on the position of pop musicians in the Dutch live music ecology. He is interested in the careers of musicians, how they navigate the demands of the precariousness of creative work and how pop musicians, live venues and music education can contribute to a ‘healthy’ live music ecology. Duncan Gallagher is an independent researcher originally from Nottingham with music degrees from the University of Manchester, Royal Northern College of Music, and University of Edinburgh. His undergraduate thesis dealt with genre in electronic dance music, and his current research interests focus on the interaction of music and technology in improvised performance and popular consumption. He maintains a career as a freelance composer. Erik Hitters is Associate Professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He has co-founded and is the managing director of ERMeCC, the Erasmus Research Centre for Media, Communication and Culture. Erik’s research interests lie in the broad field of transformations in the media and creative industries. He is Project Leader of the multidisciplinary research projects ‘Cultures of Innovation in the Creative Industries’ (CICI) and ‘Staging Popular Music’ (POPLIVE).

Contributors

xi

Alan Hughes is a cultural historian based at the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom. He has recently completed his doctorate investigating the representations of the North of England in British sound film of the twentieth century, with particular reference to class therein. Other areas of academic interest include the ‘gendering’ of the North of England and the internal and external construction of Northern English identity in mass and popular culture from the late nineteenth century onward. Emerging out of this is a growing research interest in British popular entertainment and leisure activities of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Steven Kerry is a lecturer based at Futureworks Media School in Manchester. He has worked in the touring sector of the music industry for over fifteen years. Over his career, he has worked on many productions, from small venues to arenas and stadia with artists in the electronic, rock, metal and popular music scenes. His current areas of interest for research include live music and the capture of audio. Robert Kronenburg is an architect and holds the Roscoe Chair of Architecture at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom. His research and writing engages with innovative forms of architectural design and popular music. He is a past Fulbright fellow and has co-curated exhibitions for the Vitra Design Museum, the RIBA and the Building Centre, London. His books include Flexible: Architecture That Responds to Change (2007), Architecture in Motion (2014), and Live Architecture: Venues, Stages and Arenas for Popular Music (2012). His most recent book is This Must Be the Place: An Architectural History of Popular Music Performance Venues (2019) for Bloomsbury Academic. His books have been translated into French, German, Spanish, Japanese and Chinese. Darren Moore is a lecturer in music at LASALLE College of the Arts, Singapore. He is a drummer and electronic musician working in the fields of jazz, experimental music and multimedia throughout South East Asia, Australia, Japan and Europe. His doctorate in musical arts was completed at Griffith University in 2013 and looked at the adaptation of Carnatic Indian rhythms to the drumset. His research interests centre on improvisationary practice on the drumset and modular synthesizer. Martijn Mulder is a PhD candidate in live music at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. His PhD research focuses on how local live music ecologies can contribute to value creation in the position of music venues and festivals, analysing how to find a balance between structural and temporary live music infrastructure, which caters for diverse audiences, and how to optimize the value of live music experience within its complete ecology. He is also senior lecturer at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences with an expertise in the fields of leisure, consumer experience and the attractiveness of cities and city marketing. Martijn is author of the book Leisure!, a handbook for leisure studies.

xii

Contributors

Beate Peter is a senior lecturer in German and a founding member of Music and Sonic Studies (MASS) at Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom. Since her PhD, which discussed clubbing and the unconscious, she has remained interested in both electronic music and dance as an immersive experience. Her publications discuss a variety of topics in relation to electronic music and associated cultures. Over the past three years, she has focused on rave culture in the UK, exploring aspects of identity, belonging and age. Valerie Soe is Professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University. Since 1986, her experimental videos, installations, and documentaries have won dozens of awards, grants, and commissions, and have been exhibited worldwide at venues including the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Museum of Modern Art and the New Museum. She has published extensively in books and journals including Countervisions: Asian American Film Criticism, Asian Cinema and Amerasia Journal, among others. Soe is the author of the blog beyondasiaphilia.com (recipient of a 2012 Art Writers’ Grant from the Creative Capital/Andy Warhol Foundation). Her latest film is LOVE BOAT: TAIWAN (2019). Nathan John Thompson is a resident artist and researcher at SymbioticA, University of Western Australia, Perth, where he explores the possibilities of man/machine interaction, engineered sentience and IPstem cell technology. Since 1995, he has built and performed with his musical automatons in Australia, Europe, Asia and South America. Designing intuitive interfaces to crude, chaotic machines is his life’s work. Michael Tsangaris is Senior Teaching Fellow at the Department of International and European Studies of the University of Piraeus in Greece. He completed his PhD at the Department of Communication and Media Studies at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, his master’s in Mass Media and Communications at the University of Leeds, and his Ptychion at the Department of Business Administration at the Economic University of Athens. His research interests are focused on subjects concerning visual representations, tourism, festivals, gender and more generally issues related to mass media, culture and society. Arno van der Hoeven is Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Communication at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on the contributions of media and culture to urban development. In particular, he is interested in the ways in which cultural forms, such as popular music, foster social relationships and meaningful engagements between people and their local environment. His current research deals with digital urban heritage and the impact of live music on cities. He has published widely on popular music heritage, nostalgia, the values of live music for cities and intangible urban heritage.

Introduction The continuous significance of live music Ewa Mazierska, Tony Rigg and Les Gillon

Most of the literature about live music (as well as other types of live art, such as theatre) begins with an acknowledgement that ‘live’ is a complex concept. This means that only a relatively small proportion of music phenomena can be described as ‘live’ without any qualifications (Auslander 2008; Sanden 2013; Meyer-Dinkgräfe 2015). This was not always the case. Hundreds of years ago, it was easy to establish what live music is. Before the invention of sound recording and its reproduction, live performance provided the only means of listening to music. Karl Marx commented prior to the invention of the phonograph that ‘the service a singer performs for me, satisfies my aesthetic need, but what I consume exists only in an action inseparable from the singer, and as soon as the singing is over, so too is my consumption’ (quoted in Katz 2010: 13). This clearly articulates the opinion that a musical performance could only exist at a specific and unique moment in time and space. The subsequent ability to capture sound resulted in the detachment of the artist from a performance and its listener. Its location on a tangible medium for conveyance and reproduction has made it possible for a listener to choose when, where and how he or she engages with a musical work, leading to an aesthetic regime that varies significantly from that pertaining to live experience. While it is widely considered that the first practical device for sound reproduction was the mechanical phonograph cylinder, dating back to the 1870s and invented by Thomas Edison, we do not know for certain when the first recording of music took place. However, most likely the first major composer participating in recorded performance was Johannes Brahms. This happened in 1889, when a representative of Edison, Theo Vangemann, visited the composer in Vienna and recorded Brahms’s performance on piano of his Hungarian dance, with a short spoken introduction (Berger and Nichols 1994). We know little of this event but can assume that the aim of the recording was to immortalize something from Brahms’s music – to be as close as possible to the live event. This was also the case in the first two decades or so in the history of recorded music, which Jacques Attali describes as a stage of ‘repeating’, which followed ‘sacrificing’, when music persisted solely in the memory of people, and ‘representing’, which refers to the time of printed music, roughly 1500 to 1900 CE (Attali 2014). After these early decades, the relationship between live and recorded music started to change. The recordings stopped merely capturing live events; they tried to improve on them, create their perfect versions or different versions altogether, which live performance was unable to recreate.

2

The Future of Live Music

Moreover, recordings affected live music. Rather than ‘shadowing’ live events, now live music started to imitate or at least reflect recorded music. Jazz is seen as the first genre which was affected by developments in recording. As Brian Eno observes, Around about the 1920s or maybe that’s too early, perhaps around the ’30s composers started thinking that their work was recordable, and they started making use of the special liberty of being recorded. I think the first place that this had a real effect was in jazz. Jazz is an improvised form, primarily, and the interesting thing about improvisations is that they become more interesting as you listen to them more times. What seemed like an almost arbitrary collision of events comes to seem very meaningful on relistening. … So they were listening to things that were once only improvisations for many hundreds of times, and they were hearing these details as being compositionally significant. (Eno 2004: 127–8)

In a similar vein, Mark Katz notes: In jazz, the repeatability of sound recording has had many and varied consequences. For one, it has aided the close study of the repertoire. It has also had a complex effect on jazz improvisation. Although recording may foster improvisatory skills by allowing musicians to analyse and extrapolate from solos, it can also inhibit experimentation and encourage the reproduction of once-improvised solos in live performance. (Katz 2010: 90)

Subsequently, electronic music became an epitome of music that cannot exist and develop without recording techniques (Eno 2004; Katz 2010: 124–76). Terms such as ‘sampling’, ‘synthesis’, ‘delay’ and ‘echo’ capture the need to pre-record and store fragments of music to be able to play them live. Developments in technology, especially recording technology, has had somewhat contradictory effects on live music. On the one hand, it has affected the balance of power between live and ‘non-live’ music, limiting the social, cultural, aesthetic and economic significance of the former. On the other hand, it has allowed live music to develop, integrate with non-live music and attract even larger audiences. These two influences led to the development of two paradigms concerning live-non-live relations, which we describe as ‘rivalry’ and ‘symbiosis’.

Live and recorded music: Rivalry or symbiosis Whereas before Brahms’s recording, all music was live, with the development of recording technology live music had to compete with recorded music for the listener’s attention and his or her disposable income. In 1986, Dave Laing proclaimed: The recording has now established a hegemonic position within popular music as a whole. … Today, in technical, aesthetic and technological terms, recorded music is autonomous. In economic terms, the bulk of the music industry’s

Introduction

3

income derives from the use of recordings: from direct sales in shops, from payment by radio and television stations for the right to broadcast recordings and from the public performance of records in discos, shops and hotels. As a result, the dominant institutions of the music industry are now the recording companies. (Laing 1986: 332)

Writing in 1999, Philip Auslander reiterated this view, proclaiming that non-live media, such as film and television, dominated over live formats, such as theatre and live music (Auslander 2008: 1). Simon Frith explains the domination of recorded music over live by the fact that ‘live music can achieve neither the economies of scale nor the reduction of labour costs to compete with mass entertainment media’ (Frith 2007: 1). ‘In 1780 four quartet players required forty minutes to play a Mozart composition; today forty minutes of labour are still required’ (Cowen, cited in Frith 2007: 1). Frith further observes that as a consequence of the development of recording technologies, job opportunities for live musicians have declined, while musical activity has been increasingly domesticated. Cinema organists were made redundant by talking pictures; pit orchestras were replaced by pre-recorded tapes, pub singers by juke boxes, dance halls with dance bands by discos with DJs. As people spent more time listening to music at home (on record, radio and television) so they spent less time going to hear live performers in bar rooms and public halls. At the same time, the domestic use of music has been personalized: family entertainment moved from the piano to the phonogram, from the living room radiogram to the bedroom transistor, from the hi-fi system as household furniture to the walkman and the iPod as personal music accessories. For socio-cultural as well as economic reasons, then, the live music sector seemed doomed to extinction, surviving only as the result of statesubsidised conservation. (Frith 2007: 2)

This balance of power between live and recorded music, which by the end of the last century was tipped towards recorded music, is also reflected in the state of research on the respective media. Studies of popular music are dominated by analyses of the recording industry. There are numerous books on popular music which ignore live music altogether. It is telling that the previously quoted article by Frith, published in 2007, is titled ‘Live Music Matters’. By giving it such a title, Frith suggested that live music indeed mattered little in comparison with recorded or non-live music. Moreover, as Martin Cloonan noted, when live music mattered, it was usually researched from the perspective of cultural and economic policy (Cloonan 2011); much less attention was granted to aesthetic issues of live music, its history and theory and its relationship to technology. The situation started to change around 2000. This has been affected by two interrelated factors. One is the growing importance of live music in the economy of popular music, resulting from a dramatic drop in the income of the recording music industry, caused by piracy, free sharing and, most importantly, the low cost

4

The Future of Live Music

of accessing music legally via the internet, through downloading and streaming. In other words, the crisis of the recording industry, which started around the turn of the twenty-first century, has helped live music to gain prominence (Kusek and Leonhard 2006: 114–17; Frith 2007; Holt 2010; Laing 2012; Marshall 2012; Wikstrőm 2013: 58–60; Leyshon 2014: 110–37; Sanchez 2018). The rise of live music manifests itself in the sheer number of live music events, available to the public in the form of free-standing concerts with highly efficient touring teams and the touring geography, which can be compared to big wandering exhibitions (Holt 2010: 249) and festivals, where a large number of performers present their works in one place, over several days, often around a specific genre and theme, as well as through such phenomena as live streaming. These phenomena reflect the successes in overcoming the problem of non-scalability of performance (Holt 2010: 249). The consequence is dramatic growth in revenue created by live music. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, global live music revenues, including ticket sales and sponsorship, will reach 31 billion USD in 2022, growing at a rate of 3.3 per cent annually (Sanchez 2018). The situation in the UK confirms this trend, as noted by Robert Kronenburg, who in a chapter included in this collection, observes that in 2017 popular music performance events made a £4.5 billion annual contribution to UK economy, of which £991 million was from live performance. Live performance is by far the fastest-growing part of the music industry, increasing by 37 per cent overall between 2011–15 (90 per cent growth in exports) with a 26 per cent increase in employment in this area. The total audience count for 2017 was 29.1 million, 10.9 million of whom (compared to 6.5 million in 2013) were tourists. This significant growth outpaces the general UK economy and there is now general recognition by UK government that popular music makes a large financial benefit. Many other countries across the globe experience the same trend; hence the proliferation of music festivals, as well as mega and lifestyle festivals, in which music is an important component, as exemplified by Bug Jam Festival, which presents itself as a celebration of a VW car, but which includes concerts and DJ sets (BugJam website). However, these positive figures obscure many problems suffered by the live music sector, of which the most serious is its uneven development, uncertainty or even volatility. Quoting the famous ABBA song, we can describe the current situation as developing according to the rule that ‘the winner takes it all’. This means that the bulk of the income from live music is created by large festivals and a small number of dominant companies which thwart the smaller actors, such as niche, independent festivals and venues, through having larger and, from the perspective of the mainstream audience, more attractive programmes and larger budgets, including for promotion, as well as the power to reduce the competition from independent organizations through signing exclusivity deals with artists. In fact, although live music at large is thriving, in the UK the number of smaller venues is dwindling. This often results from the pressure on accommodation, including from students and the local authorities’ inability or unwillingness to protect spaces of culture, such as music clubs. Also, the smaller the venue, the more vulnerable it is to competition from developers, often offshore ones (Clarke-Billings 2015;

Introduction

5

Harris 2019). Moreover, the majority of ‘ordinary’ (Perrenoud and Bataille 2017: 593) touring (‘live’) musicians are struggling due to low income, precarity and unsocial working hours, leading to insomnia and vulnerability to mental problems (Morgan Britton 2015). Even the most successful festivals rely on precarious, poorly paid or unpaid labour, a feature of the neoliberal economy which reflects and adds to global economic and social inequalities. In this respect, we can also observe a parallel between developments in live and recorded music, with the leading mainstream festivals such as Glastonbury and Coachella operating in a similar way to online streaming platforms such as Spotify, by presenting large numbers of popular acts and artists in one location, offering consumers convenience and value. Inevitably, the most streamed artists are also those who front and attract the largest crowds at festivals. In a larger sense, the dominance of the sector by the largest (literal, in the case of venues; metaphorical, in the case of musicians) players, reflects the pyramidlike structure of neoliberalism, with the constantly widening gap between the rich and the poor. While in the times of Brahms, the only ‘other’ of live music was recorded music, and vice versa; nowadays each of the two, recorded and live music, have many others, mostly hybrid forms of each. Examples are artists singing from playback, karaoke, DJing, live streaming, network performance, travelling holograms or even performing cyborgs; some of which will be discussed in this collection. This throws into focus what live music means today and how the dynamics of live-non-live music is likely to develop. One observation we can make is that the old opposition of live and recorded (or otherwise represented) music is no longer valid because there is an element of recorded music in the majority of, if not all, live music performances. Non-live technologies are also required to ‘enhance the perception of liveness … in the ability of those technologies to simulate or augment some recognizable characteristics of live performance’ (Sanden 2013: 7; the chapter by Steven Kerry in this collection), and technologies of mediation are needed to increase the capacity of the audience’s attendance at live events, as exemplified by live streaming and the use of social media in their promotion and preservation. Not only are non-live technologies necessary for touring musicians to achieve success, but live events are also needed to fill the media platforms. This is exemplified by the broadcast of live events first by television and later by the internet, and the use of live events to sell records.

Different types of liveness This entanglement of live and non-live (or not quite live) music requires us to differentiate between two types of liveness. One can be described as classic liveness. This type of liveness is absolute, namely not sensitive to historical shifts. According to Peggy Phelan, a researcher focusing on acting and the leading defender of absolute liveness as the only type of liveness deserving the name, it signifies the corporal, spatial and temporal co-presence of the performer and the audience, necessary for the production of a unique event. She states:

6

The Future of Live Music Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own ontology. Performance’s being … becomes itself through disappearance. (Phelan 1993: 146; emphasis in original)

The other kind of liveness, which is limited to only one of these types of co-presence (for example, it can be temporal but not spatial, as in the case of live streaming), can be described as ‘relative’ or ‘mediated’ liveness (Auslander 2008; Sanden 2013). Sanden observes that conceptualization of liveness rests on perception, not actuality, and it emerges from the dialectical tensions inherent between this perception and the perceived encroachment of electronic technologies into the terrain of fully human performance. In this sense, the concept of liveness usually represents authenticity and other musical values that are associated with performance to protect against claims of inauthenticity that are often associated with the musical use of electronic technologies (Sanden 2013: 6–7; see also Jones and Bennett 2015). If liveness is a matter of perception rather than objective reality (if such reality exists at all), then ‘live music’ is a historical and cultural concept (Auslander 2008: 3). What ‘live’ means for one generation, does not necessarily mean ‘live’ for another generation or in another culture. One of the main aims of this collection is to chart the changing meanings and connotations of ‘live’, speculate how they will develop in the years to come and how they will affect the understanding of what is not live, namely recorded or mediatized music. This means that the type of liveness which is of specific interest to the authors is relative liveness. Practically all of them proclaim that the future of live music will lie in artists and other musickers moving further and further away from absolute liveness. What is of interest, however, is what vehicles of transforming ‘old live music’ into ‘new live music’ will be regarded as technically feasible, morally acceptable and financially profitable. This question is particularly pertinent in the light of the fact, to which many of the contributors allude, that there has never been more music in the world than now and music became like water – something taken for granted, ubiquitous, omnipresent, a service rather than a product (Kusek and Leonhard 2006: 1–18). While the current level of creativity is to be celebrated, it also brings the danger of reaching a saturation point, when the market cannot absorb more music and the income from the production and performance of music is not growing but stagnating or falling.

Specificity of live music research Live music brings its own set of problems. One of them, as we already indicated, concerns delineating its boundaries. While the studies of recorded music do not delve into what ‘recording’ means, authors of practically all studies of ‘live music’ (including

Introduction

7

in this collection) feel obliged to include long introductions about the character of liveness. The answers to the question ‘What is live music?’ are most interesting, when the authors consider examples which are not obvious candidates, such as live performance of electronic music. Simon Emmerson, in a book-long study on this topic, lists some interesting questions which haunt the consumers of electronic concerts: How do I know you’re not just miming on stage? What clues are there? It’s only a laptop and a mouse. You claim you are taking decisions and acting on the result – even based on how I (a listener) am ‘responding’ to you. Can I hear that? Does it matter how you got there or how the music got there? Did you make it? Or did the machine? Based on what? … Do I have any real evidence that you are not a complete fraud? If icons work and give the audience a buzz, a sense of occasion … does it matter providing I enjoyed the experience? (Emmerson 2007: xv–xvi).

As Emmerson maintains, there are no categorical answers to these questions. Moreover, ‘it is precisely this ambiguity between “live” and “studio-created” which is increasingly highlighted in contemporary practice’ (Emmerson 2007: xvi). As liveness is a matter of degree rather than binary choices, and perception or experience, linked to time, place and culture, rather than hard reality, it is worth mentioning those characteristics of liveness which need to be taken into account in any discussion of liveness. One concerns the aspects of performance which are ‘live’ and those which are ‘mediated’ and their significance for the performers and the audience, in relation to different genres. For example, in club music, the mediation of music through technology, such as turntables, synthesizers and vinyl records, has little effect on the perception of liveness by the audience. What makes the event live for the listener is being in the same room with the musicians and other audience. On the other hand, such an abundance of electronic equipment at the rock concert may put off the audience, making them think that the music they are listening to is not really live. In the studies of live music, the concrete audience experience is given more attention than in studies of recorded music (Burland and Pitss 2014). It also goes without saying that the experience of live music is valued higher than listening to recordings. Even the authors of academic work boast about visiting this or that festival and keeping programmes from them for many years as precious mementoes (McKay 2015: 1). By contrast, it is unlikely to find testimonies about listening to a specific record in a specific time and place. A sign of the superiority of live music over other types of music experiences is, paradoxically, their special attraction to those who want to preserve them for posterity. There is a special type of documentary film known as a ‘concert film’ (Cohen 2012), while there are no subgenres of documentaries, known as ‘recording films’ or ‘working in the studio films’. Some of the most famous music documentary films are concert films, as exemplified by Woodstock (1970) (Mulholland 2011: 97–103), while there are few famous films about music which is not performed live.

8

The Future of Live Music

The high value attached to attending live events can be attributed to their ephemeral character. This means that if one misses a concert, one will be unable to ever make up for this loss. It is assumed that each concert is different, while each act of listening to the recording is the same or very similar to another act of listening to the same recording. Moreover, participating in a live event is seen as a communal experience in a double sense. First, the performers commune with their fans and vice versa. Second, the audience commune with each other (Burland and Pitts 2014; McKay 2015). In recent times, this value is reflected in sales of commemorative merchandise, which constitutes a significant percentage of the earnings of musicians, on many occasions exceeding income from selling records (see Valerie Soe’s chapter in this collection). Another sign of the high value of live events for their audience is making videos and taking selfies from such events, used both as a private souvenir and, increasingly, as a source of cultural capital, acquired by sharing it on social media, such as Instagram (Bennett 2014). Live performances have a power of building communities, therefore commentators often attribute them a utopian character, as was the case with famous festivals such as Woodstock and Glastonbury (McKay 2015: 4). Live music events are a particularly appropriate material to investigate the relationship between music and individual and group identity (Tjora 2016). Consequently, discussions about live music frequently touch on issues of drug consumption and their role in creating subcultural identities (Melechi 1993; Readhead 1993). Live music also forms a part of discourse about music and politics (Redhead 1993), as well as music and the everyday and its opposite – the exceptional and carnivalesque (Connell and Gibson 2005; Tjora 2016). The continuing relevance of live music to a wider cultural and social life requires us to revisit the concept of aura, introduced by Walter Benjamin, understood as a way to maintain the superiority of the upper classes in their access to art (Benjamin 1992: 299). This raises a question of how to square the positive (from the perspective of egalitarian ideologies) appraisal of live events, especially festivals, with a sense that their value is based largely on the sense that they have an aura of an original piece of art and often convey a sense of exclusivity (see Beate Peter’s chapter in this collection). Both the researchers of recorded and live music try to locate them in a wider social context, but the latter particularly lends itself to interdisciplinary inquiry. Moreover, while the focus of research about recorded music is on copyright, studies of live music typically concern the legal framework of organizing concerts and festivals (Cloonan 2011: 406; van der Hoeven & Hitters’s chapter in this collection). This includes choosing appropriate venues which conform to health and safety regulations and ensure a low risk of violent behaviour or any trouble during the event. Consequently, a large part of discussions about live music is about their venues: their architecture as a means to overcome the problem of capacity, and the relationship between the venues and the wider environment in which music events take place, such as regions, cities and rural areas (Nye and Hitzler 2015: 115; Kronenburg 2014; the chapters by Kronenburg, van der Hoeven and Hitters and Mazierska in this collection). Often the question posed by authors concerns the role of live events, especially large festivals, in reviving the economy and rebranding neglected areas (Dvinge 2015: 183; Connell and

Introduction

9

Gibson 2005: 210–61). Hence, research on live music contributes to the study of urbanism, tourism and food consumption, as well on drawing on the histories and theories of these disciplines. Until recently, technology did not play a major role in the investigation of live music. However, the situation is changing, with new work illuminating the role of technology in different stages of live music events, from marketing live music (O’Reilley, Larsen and Kubacki 2014), through setting up a show to its recording (Long 2014). This also leads us to the question of different roles played by staff employed in the live music sector, such as technicians, promoters, club managers, bookers and recorders, as well as the audience, and the character of their work, especially in the context of the exploitative character of neoliberal economy. It appears that while for the bulk of researchers interested in non-live music the term ‘musician’ suffices, for those examining live music much more useful terms are ‘musickers’ and ‘musicking’, introduced by Christopher Small (Small 1998: 14). Due to the crisis of the recording industry, an important aspect of research on live music is its role in propping up its ailing ‘sister’. As we have already mentioned, the relationship between touring and recording has changed in the last two decades, with recording being regarded as a means to have material for a new performance and a reason to return to the same place. This has affected the costs of live music in proportion to recorded music. Almost everywhere the ticket prices increase more than the rate of inflation, because nowadays they provide the main source of income for the touring artists, unlike in the ‘golden age’ of recording industry, when tickets for concerts were usually rather cheap, as their main function was to promote the artists’ records. Because touring and its associated revenue opportunities are now such an important stream of revenue, we also observe attempts to integrate recording with touring, for example by offering successful artists 360 degree contracts (Marshall 2012). It is an interesting question whether this integration will continue – for example, whether successful music platforms such as Spotify will move into the live music sector and how it will affect the relationship between the centre and the peripheries of the popular music industry.

Structure and chapter description This collection aims to engage with the current debates about the character of live music and the direction it is taking. The first part deals with the dominant approaches to live music. It consists of two chapters. The first, authored by Arno van der Hoeven, Erik Hitters, Pauwke Berkers, Martijn Mulder and Rick Everts, provides an overview of different theoretical perspectives that have been developed to enable researchers to understand the social context in which live music is produced and consumed, such as music worlds, fields, subcultures, scenes, networks and ecologies. These perspectives include work that is grounded in sociology, popular music studies and cultural studies. The authors note that these approaches were often used to examine music phenomena which are not ‘live’, but they particularly lend themselves to live music, as these theories

10

The Future of Live Music

help to understand the social relationships that both shape and are constituted by live music performances. They also examine which of these approaches provide answers to vital questions, posed by live music and which issues they fail to resolve. Implicitly, this chapter asks the question of whether there is something like ‘live music methodology’. The next chapter by Arno van der Hoeven and Erik Hitters examines the main challenges of the live music sector, based on a qualitative content analysis of twenty-one music reports and policy document from Australia, the United States, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. This chapter includes challenges in terms of the planning and policy context of live music, the economics of the live music industry, audience trends and the position of musicians. Van der Hoeven and Hitters also point to the tensions between the interests of musickers and the wider community where live events take place and discuss ways in which these challenges could be addressed. In doing so, their chapter helps researchers and policy makers to gain insight into the most pressing issues in the music sector. It also acts as a test of usefulness of those approaches outlined in the previous chapter. In particular, it demonstrates the need to apply holistic or ‘ecological’ approaches to understand the current position of the music business. The second part of the book discusses the changes in technology affecting the situation of live musicians, their fans and other musickers, as well as the very concept of ‘live music.’ It begins with a chapter by Steven Kerry, who considers the ‘Silent Stage’, namely a combination of technical devices whose purpose is to remove elements of sound that negatively affect the musician’s performance and the experience of the audience from the stage environment. Kerry assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the Silent Stage, looking at issues such as convenience and cost to the touring musicians and sound engineers and the experience of authenticity or its lack on the part of the audience. Kerry does not limit himself to describing what people think ‘here and now’, but he tries to establish if there is a difference between the opinion of performers of different generations in regard to on stage audio requirements, seeing it as a litmus test of the changing attitudes to what counts as ‘live music’. The following chapter, authored by Duncan Gallagher, examines networked and distributed performance, in which several artists collaborate using the internet as a vehicle, which allows them to transcend geographical barriers in production and performance of music. Gallagher observes that multi-localized performance over the internet came into existence with the birth of the internet, but remained a minority and technically esoteric activity. By this point, there are no examples of high-calibre, popularly accessible musical content mediated in this way, which in part is due to technological problems, such as latency and in part due to a distrust of certain hybrid forms of live music. However, Gallagher argues that with careful development and implementation, networked performance could be combined with a more traditional concert format to allow musicians to perform publicly in multiple music venues simultaneously, allowing for an extension of the concept of live music. The next chapter in this part explores another type of live performance, which became possible thanks to the internet: live streaming. Its author, Mark Daman Thomas, presents its advantages and disadvantages, drawing in part on his own experience of

Introduction

11

using this device, as well as several cases of musicians who, thanks to live streaming, achieved a stable income, significantly exceeding their earnings from touring. Daman Thomas mentions the context in which live streaming became an alternative to the traditional live performance: market saturation and, with it, a particularly precarious situation for upcoming musicians to gain access to physical spaces of performance, given that the number of small venues is diminishing. Live streaming is also convenient for musicians, like himself, who live in remote locations. Daman Thomas notes musicians’ slow adoption and apparent resistance to live streaming, resulting to a large extent from their concerns about the perceived authenticity or even liveness of such performance. He recognizes the fact that live streaming lacks one important marker of live performance, namely spatial co-presence, but compensates for it by the intensity of the connection between the artist and their audience. In the third part we consider the changing ontological status of live performers, focusing on two examples of performers who can be described as not-quite live and even human. The first example is cellF: a collaborative project at the cutting edge of experimental art and music that brings together artists, musicians, designers and scientists to create the world’s first neuron-driven synthesizer. Building upon the innovations of David Tudor’s neural synthesizer, cellF moves away from mimicking neural synthesis in computer chips towards an analogue solution comprised of a bioengineered neural network or a ‘brain’ reprogrammed from skin cells, using induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology that are housed in a custom built modular synthesizer ‘body’. CellF is discussed by its creators, Guy Ben-Ary, Darren Moore and Nathan Thompson, who present its working mechanism, as well as the ethical and practical challenges their project poses to our thinking about who performs on stage when cellF is ‘playing’ and what live music means in the context of this invention. In particular, is it moral to put such a ‘musician’ in front of the audience? And if so, what will the future of live music bring? Will it be possible to harvest tissue from famous stars and use it in future concerts, including after their death, to prove that they are in a way still performing live, even when their bodies ae decomposing? Alan Hughes follows in the footsteps of Ben-Ary, Moore and Thompson, by considering holographic performances as live music. Such performances are increasingly popular, largely as a means to bring back to life deceased musicians, such as Michael Jackson and Tupac Shakur, encompassing a growing number of genres and types of artists, not only those who died young but also those who enjoyed a long career. Hughes examines the reasons for their popularity, the ethical and ontological issues surrounding both marketing narratives and stage exhibition(s) that ostensibly present a dead musician as a living entity and the potential legal issues of commercial copyright that may arise. He asserts that rather than being an inauthentic or artificial pastiche capturing, at best, some of the essence of a dead musician, holographic performances as ‘live music’ are equitable with or even superior to a range of other contemporary live music exhibitions. After examining changes in the status of music performers, we move to the spaces where live events take place, their value for the audiences and ways to increase them. This part opens with a chapter by Robert Kronenburg, who charts the architectural development

12

The Future of Live Music

of settings and stages for live music festival performance, focusing on the situation in the United Kingdom and in the United States. He notes the shift towards urban festivals and examines their impact on the way the host city is perceived and used, drawing attention to the many functions that festivals play in the life of cities and the value they add to their economy and culture. In particular, he argues that such events can become a catalyst in urban revitalization, temporarily and permanently, thereby improving the character, image and development of places, space and city life. He concludes that urban festivals are likely to expand and diversify, despite the many challenges that they encounter, some of those mentioned in the chapter by van der Hoeven and Hitters. While Kronenburg offers an examination of music spaces and places, Les Gillon examines the future of music venues through a case study of the Puzzle Hall, a very small but significant live music venue, which operated in Sowerby Bridge, a small town in the North of England. The venue was one of a number owned by a pub company or ‘pubco’, which made the decision to close it down some years ago. Recently, however, the venue has been purchased through a crowdfunding campaign, by a group made up of former customers and so is owned by the audience it once served. The group plans to reopen the Puzzle Hall as a not-for-profit community music venue. The project has involved a large number of participants not only willing to contribute funds for the purchase of the venue but also prepared to commit to work on the project without pay. This case study opens up questions about the different ways in which such free labour can be characterized; as indicative of the exploitative nature of the live music industry or as an example of non-hierarchical mutualism in action. While Kronenburg and Gillon ‘look west’, Mazierska ‘looks east’, examining the festival culture in post-communist Poland. She singles out three coastal festivals, Open’er in Gdynia, Audioriver in Płock and Jazz na Molo (Jazz on the Pier) in Sopot, representing different genres and scales, yet being similar in embracing a neoliberal ethos by relying largely on private sponsors and poorly paid or unpaid labour. Mazierska suggests that thanks to underdevelopment of music festival culture and infrastructure, the relative weakness of Polish currency and the fact that Poland is among the safest countries in the world, the future of Polish music festivals is most likely bright, at least until Poland catches up with the more advanced countries (in terms of development of live music) and hits the wall of market saturation. The last three chapters take issue with the specific values of live performance, namely spontaneity and authenticity, as a means to attract audiences and increase the status of the performer. Beate Peter analyses Skepta’s concert at Manchester International Festival, which took place in 2019. She argues that it drew on the tradition of raves, illegal parties in the rural areas, popular in Britain in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, and the wider DIY and PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect) ethos. She notes that like the ‘proper raves’, which were marked by a tension between collectivism and individualism, entrepreneurship and community values, these new raves also present themselves as authentic events, while trying to be economically successful. Peter also addresses the role of social media in both strengthening and undermining the communal character of the new raves and offers some advice regarding organization of future rave-like events.

Introduction

13

Michael Tsangaris presents opinions about the sense of live music coming from the audience of the Arctic Monkeys concert at the Rockwave Festival of Athens in July 2018. He asserts that the arguments of the group’s fans reflected spontaneously previous academic assessments on the issue. Although to a great extent authenticity seems to be connected to classic liveness, the denotations of live music change from generation to generation. He concludes that while technology of the spectacle entraps pure corporal communication, the term live music changes meanings following the requirements of the constantly evolving social media culture. Finally, Valerie Soe discusses the case of live performances of one of the most successful South Korean bands, CNBLUE, as a means to provide the band with an aura of authenticity, characteristic of rock bands (as opposed to pop performers), widen its fan base, especially beyond the borders of South Korea and Asia, and create a cohesive community among their dedicated fans. Soe argues that CNBLUE’s success as live musicians also have repercussions beyond the band’s career, as their live shows played a major role in legitimizing rock music in South Korea, a country where for a long time this type of music had a lower status than in the Anglo-American world. CNBLUE’s live performances have also facilitated the South Korean government’s use of hallyu, or the Korean Wave, as soft power strategy to increase South Korea’s global profile and influence. All authors of this part make the point that authenticity is not a matter of objective reality, but perception. This perception is shaped by such factors as the audience’s prior knowledge about the performers and the events, their interaction with other musickers and the use of technology, by both performers and the consumers of music. Together, the chapters attest to the continuous vitality of live music, understood both as a concept and as a practice. It is ensured by the constantly developing technology, which renders live music more accessible and attractive to the audience, who implicitly or explicitly reject any pure or absolute definitions of live music, and allows enjoyment of live events irrespective of whether the artists in front of them (or the screen of their computers) enhance their performance by various technical devices or even whether these artists are human beings. Moreover, live music will continue to develop, because it is currently the best way to ensure a stable income for musicians and other music professionals, as well as accrue a certain type of social and cultural capital by the attendees of live music events. At the same time, the authors point to numerous challenges encountered by the live music sector. They include the lonely and physically straining existence of touring musicians (in comparison with studio musicians), market saturation with live events, the tension or even antagonism between musickers engaged in live music and a wider society, in particular those living near the music venues. They also point to the dominant model of neoliberal capitalism, which has the shape of a pyramid, with a small number of top musicians and biggest events taking the biggest rewards and squeezing the small and the middle-sized players and venues and grassroots initiatives. The authors also draw attention to the constant expectation of novel and authentic experiences on the part of the audience, which the organizers of live events have to meet in order not to turn off their potential consumers. One aspect which barely appears in the chapters, but is worth mentioning in this context, is the ageing of the population,

14

The Future of Live Music

especially in the ‘old world’, namely in Europe, North America and parts of Asia, which might lead both to a diminished appetite for participating in demanding outdoor events, such as music festivals and an increased intolerance of noise pollution. If such a factor will not kill live music, it will require its adjustment. In summary, we predict that live music will remain strong and develop, but at the cost of extensive labour of musicians and other music professionals, perhaps resulting in a diminished social status of musicians, returning them to the times before the advent of capitalism, when they had to adopt one of two principal roles: that of vagabond or domestic (Attali 2014: 14–18), in which they were completely dependent on their patrons. Moreover, unlike the musicians of the old era, they will have to compete with non-human musicians. But before it happens, let’s enjoy the present of live music, with its utopian potential.

References Attali, Jacques ([1977] 2014). Noise: The Political Economy of Music, trans. Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Auslander, Philip (2008). Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, 2nd edn, London: Routledge. Benjamin, Walter ([1936] 1992). ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, in Francis Frascina and Jonathan Harris (eds), Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, London: Phaidon, pp. 297–307. Bennett, Lucy (2014). ‘Texting and Tweeting at Live Music Concerts: Flow, Fandom and Connecting with other Audiences through Mobile Phone Technology’, in Karen Burland and Stephanie Pitts (eds), Coughing and Clapping: Investigating Audience Experience, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 89–99. Berger, Jonathan and Charles Nichols (1994). ‘Brahms at the Piano: An Analysis of Data from the Brahms Cylinder’, Leonardo Music Journal, 4: 23–30. Burland, Karen and Stephanie Pitts, eds (2014). Coughing and Clapping: Investigating Audience Experience, Farnham: Ashgate. Clarke-Billings, Lucy (2015). ‘Half of UK Nightclubs Close in Ten Years as Brits Abandon Rave Culture’, The Telegraph, 10 August, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ 11794636/Half-of-UK-nightclubs-close-in-ten-years-as-Brits-abandon-rave-culture. html, accessed 15 July 2019. Cloonan, Martin (2011). ‘Researching Live Music: Some thoughts on Policy Implications’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 4: 405–20. Cohen, Thomas F. (2012). Playing to the Camera: Musicians and Musical Performance in Documentary Cinema, London: Wallflower Press. Connell, John and Chris Gibson (2005). Music and Tourism: On the Road Again, Channel View. Dvinge, Anne (2015). ‘Musicking in Motor City: Reconfiguring Urban Space at the Detroit Jazz Festival’, in George McKay, The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture, New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 183–97. Emmerson, Simon (2007). Living Electronic Music, Farnham: Ashgate.

Introduction

15

Eno, Brian (2004). ‘The Studio as Compositional Tool’, in Christoph Cox and Daniel Warner (eds), Audio Culture: Readings in Modern Music, London: Continuum, pp. 127–30. Frith, Simon (2007). ‘Live Music Matters’, Scottish Music Review, 1: 1–17. Harris, Harry (2019). ‘Without Small Venues, the UK Doesn’t Have a Music Industry’, Vice, 17 January, https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/a3mxq4/without-small-venu es-the-uk-doesnt-have-a-music-industry, accessed 15 June 2019. Holt, Fabian (2010). ‘The Economy of Live Music in the Digital Age’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2: 243–61. Jones, Angela Cresswell and Rebecca Jane Bennett (2015). The Digital Evolution of Live Music, Waltham, MA: Chandos Publishing. Katz, Mark (2010). Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music, rev. edn, University of California Press. Kronenburg, Robert (2014). ‘Safe and Sound: Audience Experience in New Venues for Popular Music Performance’, in Karen Burland and Stephanie Pitts (eds), Coughing and Clapping: Investigating Audience Experience, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 35–50. Kusek, David and Gerd Leonhard (2006). The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution, Boston: Berklee Press. Laing, Dave (1986). ‘The Music Industry and the “Cultural Imperialism” Thesis’, Media, Culture & Society, 8: 331–41. Laing, Dave (2012). ‘What’s It Worth? Calculating the Economic Value of Live Music’, Live Music Exchange Blog, 11 June, http://livemusicexchange.org/blog/whats-it-worth-c alculating-the-economic-value-of-live-music-dave-laing/, accessed 15 December 2015. Leyshon, Andrew (2014). Reformatted: Code, Networks, and the Transformation of the Music Industry, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Long, Paul (2014). ‘Warts and All: Recording the Live Music Experience’, in Karen Burland and Stephanie Pitts (eds), Coughing and Clapping: Investigating Audience Experience, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 147–58. Marshall, Lee (2012). ‘The 360 Deal and the “New” Music Industry’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1: 77–99. McKay, George (2015). ‘Introduction’ to George McKay, The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture, New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–12. Melechi, Antonio (1993). ‘The Ecstasy of Disappearance’, in Steve Redhead (ed.), Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 7–27. Meyer-Dinkgräfe, Daniel (2015). ‘Liveness: Phelan, Auslander and After’, Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, 2: 69–79. Morgan Britton, Luke (2015). ‘Insomnia, Anxiety, Break-Ups … Musicians on the Dark Side of Touring’, The Guardian, 25 June, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/j un/25/musicians-touring-psychological-dangers-willis-earl-beal-kate-nash, accessed 16 July 2019. Mulholland, Gary (2011). Popcorn: Fifty Years of Rock ‘n’ Roll Movies, London: Orion. Nye, Sean and Ronald Hitzler (2015). ‘The Love Parade: European Techno, the EDM Festival and the Tragedy in Duisburg’, in George McKay, The Pop Festival: History, Music, Media, Culture, New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 115–28. O’Reilley, Daragh, Gretchen Larsen and Krzysztof Kubacki (2014). ‘Marketing Live Music’, in Karen Burland and Stephanie Pitts (eds), Coughing and Clapping: Investigating Audience Experience, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 7–19.

16

The Future of Live Music

Perrenoud, Marc and Pierre Bataille (2017). ‘Artist, Craftsman, Teacher: “Being a Musician” in France and Switzerland’, Popular Music and Society, 5: 592–604. Phelan, Peggy (1993). Unmarked: The Politics of Performance, London: Routledge. Redhead, Steve (1993). ‘The Politics of Ecstasy’, in Steve Redhead (ed.), Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 7–27. Redhead, Steve, ed. (1993). Rave Off: Politics and Deviance in Contemporary Youth Culture, Aldershot: Ashgate. Sanchez, Daniel (2018). ‘The Live Music Industry Will Be Worth $31 Billion Worldwide by 2022’, Digital Music News, 26 October, https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/10 /26/latest-live-music-revenue-31-billion-2022/, accessed 29 July 2019. Sanden, Paul (2013). Liveness in Modern Music: Musicians, Technology, and the Perception of Performance, London: Routledge. Small, Christopher (1998). Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Tjora, Aksel (2016). ‘The Social Rhythm of the Rock Music Festival’, Popular Music, 1: 64–8. Wikstrőm, Patrik (2013). The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Polity.

Part One

Approaches

1

Theorizing the production and consumption of live music A critical review Arno van der Hoeven, Erik Hitters, Pauwke Berkers, Martijn Mulder and Rick Everts

Over the past decades, different theoretical perspectives have been developed that help to understand the social context in which live music is produced and consumed. Theories from the fields of sociology, cultural studies and popular music studies have enhanced our knowledge of (live) music industries and their impact on society. They help us to answer the central question that this book poses: How can we understand the future of live music? Theories offer models for understanding; they explain social phenomena, and structure data collection and analyses. In other words, theories allow us to make sense of social reality and can help us to think about future developments. In this chapter, we will discuss different theoretical perspectives that have been used to study the production and consumption of live music. Each theory draws on a set of key assumptions, highlighting certain aspects of the live music industry over others. While this focus grants these theories their usefulness, it is insightful to compare these different approaches to get a better understanding of their contributions and shortcomings when it comes to the study of live music. We make this comparison at a time that the live music industry has undergone major transformations. On the production side, musicians increasingly depend on live concerts to earn a living in an already precarious labour market (Wikström 2009). New digital technologies have drastically altered the live music economy (Holt 2010). Furthermore, the live music infrastructure is changing through processes of festivalization and gentrification (Ballico and Carter 2018). These developments are related to changes on the consumption side of live music. Audience tastes are shifting, as omnivorous consumers have a wide range of competing cultural products to choose from in a globalized society (Berkers 2010; Chan 2019). Meanwhile, consumers’ willingness to pay for recorded music and see emerging talent has decreased (Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki 2017). This chapter is structured as follows. The next sections, respectively, discuss sociological approaches to live music (art worlds and fields of cultural production),

20

The Future of Live Music

cultural studies approaches (subcultures, scenes and neo-tribes), network approaches (social network analysis and actor-network theory) and ecological approaches. Finally, we compare these different approaches and discuss what this comparison implies for the study of live music’s future.

Sociological approaches Art worlds Together with field theory, the art worlds approach has been one of main ways to study the production of arts and culture with cultural sociology. Embedded in the tradition of Chicago sociology, this approach focuses on arts and culture as a consequence of occupational contingencies and problems rather than considering the supposed qualities of the works themselves (Martin 2006: 98). In his seminal book Art Worlds, Howard Becker (1982) defines such worlds in relation to three core elements. First, taking issue of the myth of the individual artistic genius, he argues that ‘works of art […] are not the products of individual makers, “artists” who possess a rare and special gift. They are, rather, joint products of all the people who cooperate […] to bring works like that into existence’ (1982: 35). Art is thus viewed as a collective activity instead of an individual product. Second, art worlds are characterized by a division of labour. Whereas core personnel are those actors who receive most recognition for doing ‘artistic’ work, support personnel – doing the ‘hand work’ – are equally essential in the production of any work of art. Hence, Becker (1982) invites us to ‘think of all the activities that must be carried out for any work of art to appear as it finally does’ (5). Third, conventions ‘make collective activity simpler and less costly in time, energy, and other resources; but they do not make unconventional work impossible, only more costly and difficult’ (1982: 35). Conventions offer solutions for practical problems in the production of art, such as what materials will we use, how to convey meaning or emotion and who will do what? Art worlds have certain accepted conventions and do not reinvent the wheel each time. The ‘art work’ is the outcome of these choices. Until recently, surprisingly few studies had adopted Becker’s art world approach to study popular music (Martin 2006). Most of these works focus on music-making as a social process of people working together – in learning music, writing songs, coordinating tasks (Finnegan 2007; Lewis 1988). Yet, they often contextually address live music as well. For example, Lewis (1988) writes ‘A live musical performance – to take just one example – is not solely the creation of the artist who happens to be performing. It is created by many cooperating individuals, established in a network within a specific art world, of whom the performer is one, albeit fairly important, element’ (36). More recently, these ideas have been further developed into a music worlds approach, that is, collectives involved in making music (Bottero and Crossley 2011; Crossley and Bottero 2015). Whereas Becker’s focus is more on the production of culture, making music here includes ‘perceiving, interpreting, and appreciating, such that audiences belong to this collective, alongside artists and various support personnel’ (Emms and

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

21

Crossley 2018: 112). The audience is a particularly crucial aspect in the study of live music as the bodily presence in a physical space is what draws people to music (Berkers and Michael 2017). Moreover, the locus of a music world can be a musical style (e.g. punk), an ethos (e.g. DIY), an ideology (e.g. feminism), a locality (e.g. the Rotterdam music world) or a combination of elements (Emms and Crossley 2018: 114). Locality and its material implications are a particularly relevant specification of Becker’s conceptualization for the study of live music as the local – often in relation to authenticity – has become increasingly important as a result of globalization (Bennett 1999a). The art worlds approach has been critiqued on several grounds, also affecting its usefulness for studying live music. First and foremost, this approach has been extensively criticized for its lack of attention to conflict. In line with symbolic interactionism, Becker’s work strongly focuses on doing things together, seemingly ignoring power structures and power struggles (Bottero and Crossley 2011). Yet, issues of inequality are at the heart of live music. Not only are few musicians able to make a living from live music, but success is also unequally distributed by, for example, gender (e.g. Savigny and Sleight 2015). In order to address the latter issue, the Keychange project has successfully encouraged 100+ festivals to pledge to achieve a 50:50 gender balance by 2022. Second, Becker’s art world approach focuses specifically on how conventions help to coordinate collective action; yet, pleasure and commitment of participants also play a crucial role in doing things together (Crossley and Bottero 2015), which have largely remained unaddressed.

Fields of cultural production A second more widely used approach to study music has been field theory, even though Bourdieu himself ‘rarely engaged with music directly or in any detail’ (Prior 2011: 126). According to Bourdieu, a field can be defined as ‘a field of forces within which the agents occupy positions that statistically determine the positions they take with respect to the field, these position-takings being aimed at either conserving or transforming the structure of relations of forces that is constitutive of the field’ (Bourdieu 2005: 30). In the field of live music, agents include booking agencies, artists, concert organizers and promotors who struggle over what a ‘good’ live concert is and who determines how it should sound and look like. Fields operate at three levels: macro-, meso- and micro-level. At the macro-level, fields operate relatively independently of each other. This means each field is rather autonomous (Bourdieu 1993), that is, it has its own logic (autonomous pole) but is also influenced by other logics (heteronomous pole). In fields of artistic production, the autonomous logic is that of cultural capital, where a good artist is defined as an aesthetically innovative artist, agents have faith in critics and gallerists as ‘brave discoverers’ of such artists and the focus is on long-term rewards (positive reviews, canonization). At the other end of the field, the heteronomous pole is dominated by the logic of economic capital, where a good artist is a successful artist and agents rely on audience demand and short-term rewards from the market, represented by sales figures. The degree of autonomy can be measured by strength of

22

The Future of Live Music

negative sanctions on violation of the field logic. Within the study of popular music, much research has used Bourdieu’s conceptualization of relative autonomy to address the distinction between mainstream pop music – the commercial, heteronomous pole of the pop music field – and alternative music – the more autonomous restricted field of pop music production (Hesmondhalgh 2006; Negus 1995). At the meso-level, the functioning of the field is affected by doxa, the common – often undisputed – rules of the game. For example, agents within the field of artistic production often share the idea that it is possible to objectively distinguish ‘good’ art from ‘bad’ art. Yet, they battle over what is good and bad art (legitimacy) and who should define it (power of consecration). This struggle often occurs between those dominating the field (orthodoxy) and those trying to change the field (heresy). For example, Prior (2008) discusses how the new genre of glitch ‘remains a sonic signifier of experimentation, and its defence is felt by protagonists to be a matter of cultural purity’ (310). Guerra shows (2016: 624) how alternative rock bands entered the Portuguese field of music production by, for example, following a logic of sonic exploration and experimentation and avoiding involvement with major labels. At the micro-level, a field is a network of objective relations between positions and homologous position-takings. Agents occupy different objective positions, affecting the behaviour of, for example, artists or bookers in artistic field. However, they take these positions differently, depending on – among other things – the characteristics of those who occupy that position. For example, bookers support different artists and different styles to position themselves in a particular way in artistic fields. The field of cultural production approach has been critiqued on several grounds, also affecting its usefulness for studying live music. First, as Hesmondhalgh (2006) has pointed out, ‘It is simply astonishing how little Bourdieu has to say about largescale, “heteronomous” commercial cultural production’ (217). Yet, this pole is highly important in popular music. Second, a major drawback for our study is that it lacks a spatial component. Bourdieu does address the social space, but it links more to relationships than material location. Although this perspective is helpful to understand how power affects the field of live music at different levels, it fails to address how it is locationally and commercially embedded.

Cultural studies approaches Subcultures There are two sociological traditions that have developed subcultural thinking, mainly in relation to youth cultures. An early conceptualization of subculture was developed by Chicago school sociologists in the 1920s. Their subcultural research was aimed at understanding deviant youth behaviour in situations of urban fragmentation and marginalization and as such they did not develop a subcultural theory. Subculture for them was primarily a social subsystem which emerged among urban poor, youth and criminal groups in reaction to dominant cultural and economic forces (Williams 2007).

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

23

Subcultural theory was further developed in the 1970s by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) at the University of Birmingham in order to understand the intersections between youth culture, music, style and taste. A subculture in general terms ‘is a group with certain cultural features that enable it to be distinguished from other groups and the wider society from which it has emerged’ (Muggleton 2007). For the CCCS theorists, subcultures are inherently class-based, acting out resistance to dominant cultures in style, musical taste and deviant behaviour. In this, it adds to the American tradition as it is not just understood as deviance, but puts a focus on the symbolic (stylistic) solutions of working-class youth for class struggles. Nevertheless, it does recognize that the protagonists’ intentions were not always to resist, nor that actual change to class relations was achieved (Hebdige 1979; Muggleton and Weinzierl 2003; Williams 2011). Subcultural research has contributed considerably to the understanding of the importance of music to youth cultures, but it has also sparked a debate on whether the concept is still useful in the digital age. According to Andy Bennett, the usage of ‘subculture’ may be ‘deeply problematic in that it imposes rigid lines of division over forms of sociation which may, in effect, be rather more fleeting, and in many cases arbitrary, than the concept of subculture, with its connotations of coherency and solidarity, allows for’ (Bennett 1999b: 603). This can also be related to the particular historical circumstances, as pointed out by Hesmondhalgh (2005: 38), in which the study of popular music intersected with youth studies, which tended to privilege youth in the study of music and society. In addition, post-subculturists criticized subcultural thinking by contending that subcultures have become commodified and commercialized. They consist of many small, diverse and fluid groups in an age where there is no hegemonic mainstream to resist and the line between subcultures and mainstream becomes increasingly diffuse (Williams 2011: 34). This commodification and commercialization of youth culture has accelerated with the increasing centrality of technology and digital media in everyday life. Bennett (2014) points to the relevance of post-subcultural perspectives to understand how the advent of new media brings changing forms of social–cultural affiliation and identity. Meanwhile, others defend the use of the term ‘subculture’, arguing that this debate has become polarized through too narrow interpretations of the concept (Hodkinson 2016). The subcultures/ post-subcultures debate is not likely to become less heated in the years to come.

Scenes and neo-tribes While subcultures have been widely used to look at in- versus out-group dynamics in genre- and style-based communities, the scene approach has been arguably the most influential one in popular music studies, and one that has been developed from music research to begin with. Based in cultural studies, scene approaches take account of historical change within national and international music cultures and offer useful insights into the role of space and place in musical production and consumption. Scenes can be understood as loosely bounded networks of actors (e.g. performers, journalists and fans) who collectively contribute to what they perceive as a specific genre of music

24

The Future of Live Music

(Straw 1991; Shank 2011; Bennett and Peterson 2004; Berkers and Schaap 2018). This concept was later developed to include other forms of cultural expressions as well, while a valuable addition to the subcultural perspective is that it is also mindful of scenes’ connections to global cultural flows and industries. In particular, Bennett’s and Petersons’s (by now) classic collection of Music Scenes (2004) has pointed at the mostly local, or at least geographically bounded origins of scenes, while at the same time underscoring their connection to translocal or virtual communities and (industrial) networks. However, while scene approaches principally map socially networked worlds of actors, institutions and intermediaries, a criticism is that it remains rather descriptive and vague and bears in it the risk of being conflated to describing musical (and musicassociated) practices occurring within a particular geographical space (Hesmondhalgh 2005). In many cases it has merely been used to describe actors within their localized music communities (one genre, one city). The concept is thus rendered merely descriptive instead of analytical of even theoretical. Widening up the scene perspective in order to move beyond the local, and using it holistically to encompass ‘the sum total of all global phenomena surrounding a subgenre’ (Straw 2001: 248) contributes even more to the muddling of the concept and its problematic elasticity (Hesmondhalgh 2005: 29). Andy Bennett’s (Bennett 1999b) neo-tribalism is another critique of subcultural theory. It is based on Maffesoli, and aims to overcome the contradictory usages of subcultures, as well as the overestimation of the coherence of youth groups. He adds a lifestyle and performative element to do justice to the ‘unstable and shifting cultural affiliations which characterize late modern consumer-based identities’ (605). The tribe, then, is a more fluid notion; a state of mind, expressed and performed through lifestyle. Especially the performative and lifestyle element opens up possible usages of the neo-tribe concept in the analysis of live music, particularly for research with a focus on audience behaviour and experiences. In the setting of electronic dance clubs and festivals, it may help to better understand the appeal of eclecticism in musical styles, value creation and lifestyle and ‘tribal’ rituals and staged behaviours.

Network approaches Social network analysis Although social network analysis (SNA) is actually a method, it is relevant to discuss it here because various researchers have fruitfully applied it in relation to theorizations of music production. Furthermore, this method comes with a conceptual apparatus that enhances our understanding of spatial and historical dynamics in live music. In their edited volume on social networks in music, Crossley, McAndrews and Widdop (2014) position their book as a contribution to the research on ‘music worlds’. Building on Howard Becker’s understanding of collective action in art worlds, SNA can chart the networks of people (e.g. musicians or support personnel) and non-human things

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

25

(e.g. venues and musical styles) that play a role in the production and consumption of music. In so doing, SNA enables an exploration of the connections and interactions within a particular ‘music world’. Two basic elements in any network are nodes and ties (Crossley, McAndrews and Widdop 2014). Nodes concern the objects in a network, which are connected through ties. Additionally, a set of node attributes can be included in a study, which give additional information about the nodes such as the gender or income of, or the instrument played by, a musician. Crossley and Emms (2016) have used SNA to study the relationships between different music worlds (e.g. metal, jazz and mainstream) in the universe of UK music festivals. They have aimed to move beyond the existing literature by not focusing on a particular music world in isolation, but on the connections within a common ‘musical universe’. In their analysis, Crossley and Emms looked at the extent to which distinct ‘worlds’ can be identified within the wider festival universe. They did so by examining the artist rosters of 106 music festivals in the 2011–13 period, recording whether festivals shared the same artists. The authors found that although the different festivals were connected to each other, separate music worlds could be identified. In particular, jazz, metal and folk festivals form distinct worlds within the network of UK music festivals. Furthermore, the analysis shows that the mainstream is situated in the core of this ‘festival universe’. This study illustrates how SNA can be useful to assess the cohesion within a network and the extent to which they are isolated from other music worlds. Another interesting application of SNA to live music research is Emms and Crossley’s (2018) study of the connections between events in the underground heavy metal music world. Using interviews and surveys, they analysed the events attended by audience members in six localities in the UK. In so doing, they observe how a translocal music world consists of geographically dispersed networks, in which there are some central localities of musical activity. This means that the flows of audience members between different localities result in translocal networks within the underground heavy metal music world. In particular, the authors found that festivals are central to the generation of translocality. Festivals attract bigger audiences and the survey respondents are more likely to travel to festivals in other cities than to concerts. A relative disadvantage of SNA is that it lacks the rich qualitative depth provided by other approaches. As Crossley and Emms (2016: 2) argue about SNA: Its own limitations, which stem largely from its exclusive focus upon ties and its insensitivity to their qualitative nuances and complexity, mean that it can never substitute for a rich, qualitative investigation of a music world. However, the centrality of networks to such worlds and SNA’s aforementioned capacity to handle and analyse relational data make it a powerful addition to the cultural sociologist’s toolbox.

Nevertheless, the integration of qualitative methods and archival research can help to understand the relationships between the nodes in the network (Crossley 2009). The research on underground metal by Emms and Crossley (2018) shows how interviews can be used to further understand and contextualize the findings from formal SNA.

26

The Future of Live Music

To conclude, SNA can complement many of the other approaches to live music. Despite the methodological and theoretical differences, SNA shares a focus on relationality with actor-network theory, field theory and the music ecologies approach. However, Emms and Crosley (2018: 132) argue that SNA enables a more precise analysis of relationality and structure than other approaches in which networks ‘remain a vague place-marker for who knows what’.

Actor-network theory Actor-network theory (ANT), which has its roots in science and technology studies, is concerned with the assemblages of human and non-human actors that enable a certain event, product or situation to happen in the social world. It allows researchers to open the ‘black box’ of cultural production, shedding light on how the relationships between actors generate particular outcomes. Gander (2011) clarifies the difference between SNA and ANT by stating that for the latter networks do not simply connect but actively construct links. In other words, the focus in ANT is on how things become rather than just the connections between them. Gander’s PhD thesis on the creation of pop songs is an example of how ANT can be used to uncover the process behind the production of cultural goods. Instead of seeing the creation of a musical product as the transmission of a recorded piece of music into the market, he looks at what happens in the pipeline. ANT allows Gander to trace how a pop song is produced in the moments of songwriting, recording, mixing, mastering and live performance. In this process, non-human actors such as sound, instruments and space play a vital role. During a live music performance, the song as recorded in the studio shapes the way in which it is performed on stage. At the same time, the live setting creates a new assemblage of human and material objects. Factors that affect the live performance are, for example, the audience, the size of the venue and the atmosphere. Another application of ANT to live music performance is Chesher’s (2007) study of mobile phone use at a U2 stadium concert. Among other things, he asks how ‘thousands of individuated connections mediated by mobile phones transform a “mass” spectacle’ (Chesher 2007: 217). In the ethnographic style characteristic of ANT, Chesher observes the different ways in which audiences use their mobile phones at the performance. For example, they use it to locate each other in the stadium, to record the show or just to kill time. The mobile phones even become part of the performance when U2 singer Bono asks the audience to ‘set the stadium alight’ with their mobile phones. After the song ends, Bono invites the audience to express their support for the ‘make poverty history’ campaign by sending a SMS. Chesher describes how during the concert some of the names of those in attendance scroll across the stadium screen. Furthermore, the next day a text message follows from Bono to raise awareness of the ‘make poverty history’ website. Again, the assemblage of various human and non-human actors enables this specific situation to happen. As Chesher reminds us, this includes offstage associations such as the touring crew and the innovations made possible by the mobile phones.

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

27

In these studies on live music, ANT is used to uncover the networks of human and non-human actors that enable live music events. Focusing on the role of festivals in contemporary cities, Nunes (2019: 5) explains the benefits of using ANT as follows: We applied Latour’s theory because it allows us to represent the views of diverse research subjects in a rich and multi-vocal way. From this perspective, the investigation process becomes more collaborative than other forms of qualitative work. Importantly, it allows us to capture the complexity of the research site through strategies such as multi-vocal writing, use of images and primary resources.

However, contrary to SNA, ANT does not offer a formal analysis of the relations within a network. Furthermore, applications of ANT often remain very descriptive, offering relatively little theoretical or methodological development.

Ecological approaches to live music The concept of ‘ecology’ is increasingly used to describe the relationships between actors in specific sectors and their embeddedness in a wider environment. The term has been used both in policy and in academic fields to analyse, for example, media ecologies (Baltruschat 2010), the cultural ecology (Holden 2015), more specifically, news ecologies (Lowrey 2012) and live music ecologies (Behr et al. 2016; Elbourne 2013). The advantage of the term ‘ecology’ is that it has a broad scope and allows a holistic approach to the connections between diverse actors and the material conditions in a sector. Furthermore, it is associated with a range of other concepts such as ‘resilience’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘diversity’, which enable an analysis of how ecologies deal with external threats and disruptions. However, the term ‘ecologies’ has also been understood as a buzzword that is conceptually vague (Behr et al. 2016) and as an inappropriate application of a naturalistic trope (Keogh 2013). Particularly relevant to the study of music has been the ethnomusicological approach developed by Schippers and Grant (2016). Building on analogies with the natural world, they are mostly concerned with the sustainability of particular musical forms and communities across the globe. Their focus is mainly on performance-based traditional music practices, ranging from Ghanese Dance-Drumming to Balinese Gamelan performances. Musical practice, in their view, is embedded within a larger framework of an ecosystem consisting of musicians and their communities, traditions and institutions of learning and teaching; infrastructure and regulations; media, audiences and the music industry and contexts and constructs such as identities, values and aesthetics. For them, an ecological approach is primarily a tool to map, explore, understand and clarify what factors are conducive for particular music practices. A ‘deep awareness of these main factors in musical ecosystems and their interrelationships can be a powerful tool to ensure the cultural diversity of our planet’ (Schippers 2016: 17). This suggests that ecology approaches may promote issues of sustainability and diversity of particular traditional musical forms.

28

The Future of Live Music

Another take on the ecological approach was developed by British music researchers (Behr et al. 2016) in the context of the Live Music Exchange project. This perspective focuses on the changing ways in which different actors contribute to the qualities of the live music sector. It views the live music ecology as a (inter)local network of different social actors within live music (e.g. musicians, concert organizers, agents) and beyond (e.g. regulators, policy makers, sponsors). The ecological perspective pays due attention to the material aspects of live music, such as the size of music venue and the urban setting in which music events take place. These material aspects affect, for example, acoustics and the kind of bands that can be booked. The intangible aspects of live music ecologies concern, among other things, the musical experience and the histories associated with a specific venue. Taken together, these material and intangible dimensions of live music can shed light on the ‘health’ of specific live music ecologies. ‘Healthy’ music ecologies include venues of varying sizes, which cater for different music audiences and bring diversity to the local music culture. However, while discussing ecologies in terms of ‘healthy/unhealthy’ (Webster and Behr 2013), their approach offers little clarity on what makes a live ecology ‘healthy’ (sustainable) or how we should measure this. Although this research has firmly positioned the ecological approach in the study of live popular music, its focus was largely on the British context, on the genre of rock/ pop music and on permanent venues. As a result of their local social and material embeddedness, live music ecologies are both deeply relational and highly contextual. Previous music industry studies (Rutten 1991) show how artists in smaller internal markets have more difficulty exploiting rights than their British counterparts. As a result, they rely more on live performances. Furthermore, following the increasing popularity and urbanization of festivals – and processes of festivalization, popular music festivals are taking central stage in the live music production system. In addition, cities have always been places of diversity and hubs of various mobilities, for example, touring music acts. Despite the global appeal and interconnectedness of music ecologies, local music cultures have remained important in creative industries and policies. An ecology approach allows for an integrated analysis of the local, national and internationally interwoven structures of the (live) music industries. Some remarkable similarities between ANT and the live music ecology approach can be observed. Like ANT, the ecological approach to live music performance is concerned with the different relationships that enable the social events of concerts (Behr et al. 2016). Moreover, for both approaches these relationships include nonliving actors such as the type of venue and transport links. The connections between the ecology metaphor and ANT are explicitly made by Piekut (2014: 212) in a study of music history writing: An ecology is a web of relations, an amalgamation of organic and inorganic, or biological and technological, elements that are interconnecting and mutually affecting. In other words, like experimentalism or anything else, an ecology is an emergent, hybrid grouping that connects many different kinds of things. It has real boundaries that mark it off as distinct from its surrounding environment, but those boundaries are variable and open.

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

29

Both perspectives thus allow researchers to understand the complex relationships between human and non-human elements that affect the production of live music performance. While the ecology approach suggests the integration of the micro-, meso- and macrolevels of music ecologies, current applications hardly ever pay serious attention to it. Underscoring the macro-level complexity of music practices, the ways in which these affect meso-level institutions, micro-level interactions (e.g. impact of festivalization on audience experiences, or local effects of globalized music promotion) and consumption and performance practices tend to remain hidden. It offers the possibility to consider qualities of sustainability of the macro context of (live) music but should also take the temporally specific nature of performances into account. This perspective is useful to analyse the structure of social relations between different actors and how that contributes to the qualities of the live music sector and the sustainability of live music cultures, including the material aspects of live music (e.g. characteristics the of music venue) and intangible dimensions (e.g. the histories associated with a specific venue).

Conclusions: Theorizing the future of live music This chapter has reviewed different theoretical perspectives on the social context in which live music is produced and consumed. As popular music has become a central element in people’s lives and interactions, the study of this cultural form has also been increasingly institutionalized through dedicated journals and academic conferences. In terms of its theoretical underpinnings, this academic field is as diverse as its study object. It includes social–scientific, interpretivist and critical approaches. As Hesmondhalgh (2005: 32) argues, we need an ‘eclectic array of theoretical tools’ instead of an overarching master concept. Over the years, the field of popular music has been enriched by fruitful crossovers between disciplines such as sociology, cultural studies and media studies. In fact, most concepts in popular music studies have been adapted from other disciplines. Meanwhile, social scientists use music as a case to advance their own theories. Due to its ubiquitous nature, music is a vital lens to study contemporary and future societal developments. For example, Krueger argues that ‘musicians have long been at the vanguard of the gig economy’ (2019: 55), struggling with issues of precarious labour that many people face today in the digital gig economy. The different theoretical perspectives discussed in this chapter all share a concern with the social relationships that both shape and are constituted by live music performances. Furthermore, scenes, fields, social networks, subcultures and ecologies all have, in one way or the other, local manifestations. These theories underscore that local music infrastructures of venues, festivals and organizations are essential for this cultural form, because the performance always takes places somewhere. Indeed, an important factor in live music’s appeal is its immediacy and social experience. Nevertheless, live music theories are increasingly challenged to also conceptualize the global and mediated nature of the live music industry. New technologies affect how people engage with this cultural form before concerts (e.g. interactions on social

30

The Future of Live Music

network sites), during the performance (e.g. concerts using virtual reality) and after the event (e.g. sharing videos online). In a globalizing and digitalizing society, it is not surprising that many publications cited in this chapter approach live music from a network perspective. The concept of networks is useful to understand how connections between actors in different geographical and virtual places shape processes of production and consumption of live music. As the digitalization of society is likely to continue in the years to come, network approaches to live music are a welcome tool to understand the dynamics in this sector. Another theoretical trend is to use a holistic perspective, which serves a similar purpose of understanding the connections between different institutions and people. Indeed, the ecological approach to live music demonstrates that each gig is enabled by a range of actors in and outside the field of music such as regulators, policy makers and transnational conglomerates (Behr et al. 2016). In order to understand the future of live music, theoretical attention to these power relations is vital to analyse how and what kind of concerts are organized. It is hard to predict the future of live music theorization, but it is likely to stay eclectic since theoretical concepts rarely leave the stage. ‘Subculture’s Not Dead!’ (Williams 2019), proclaims a recent article about this contested concept. Even if concepts are heavily criticized, they sometimes resurface or are still widely cited as a yardstick to compare new work. While the stage of popular music studies is thus filling up with a growing number of concepts, the show must go on. New technologies, changing forms of social interaction and economic developments require that music scholars improve and expand their theoretical repertoire. Future theories of live music’s product and consumption must be verifiable, able to guide data collection and be specific enough to explain processes of live music production and consumption. In other words, these theories need to be attentive to the complexities of this cultural form without becoming fuzzy.

Acknowledgements This work was supported as part of the project Staging Popular Music: Researching Sustainable Live Music Ecologies for Artists, Music Venues and Cities (POPLIVE) by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Taskforce for Applied Research (NRPO-SIA) [grant number 314-99-202, research programme Smart Culture – Arts and Culture]. Partners in this project are Mojo Concerts and the Association of Dutch Pop Music Venues and Festivals (VNPF).

References Ballico, Christina and Dave Carter (2018). ‘A State of Constant Prodding: Live Music, Precarity and Regulation’, Cultural Trends, 3: 203–17. Baltruschat, Doris (2010). Global Media Ecologies: Networked Production in Film and Television, London: Routledge. Becker, Howard (1982). Art Worlds, Berkeley : University of California Press.

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

31

Behr, Adam, Matt Brennan, Martin Cloonan, Simon Frith and Emma Webster (2016). ‘Live Concert Performance: An Ecological Approach’, Rock Music Studies, 1: 5–23. Bennett, Andy (1999a). ‘Hip Hop Am Main: The Localization of Rap Music and Hip Hop Culture’, Media, Culture & Society, 21: 77–91. Bennett, Andy (1999b). ‘Subcultures or Neo-Tribes? Rethinking the Relationship between Youth, Style and Musical Taste’, Sociology, 3: 599–617. Bennett, Andy (2014). ‘Youth Culture and the Internet: A Subcultural or Post-subcultural Phenomena?’, in The Subcultures Network (eds), Subcultures, Popular Music and Social Change, Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 89–104. Bennett, Andy and Richard A. Peterson, eds (2004). Music Scenes: Local, Translocal and Virtual, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Berkers, Pauwke (2010). ‘Gendered Scrobbling: Listening Behaviour of Young Adults on Last.fm’, Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 3: 279–96. Berkers, Pauwke and Janna Michael (2017). ‘Just What Makes Today’s Music Festivals So Appealing?’, in Peter Koudstaal (ed.), Music Brings Us Together: Music & Art Festivals, Den Haag: Uitgeverij Komma, pp. 98–115. Berkers, Pauwke and Julian Schaap (2018). Gender Inequality in Metal Music Production, Bingley : Emerald Publishing. Bottero, Wendy and Nick Crossley (2011). ‘Worlds, Fields and Networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the Structures of Social Relations’, Cultural Sociology, 1: 99–119. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, London: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre (2005). ‘The Political Field, the Social Science Field, ant the Journalistic Field’, in Rodney D. Benson and Erik Neveu (eds), Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity, pp. 29–47. Chan, Tak Wing (2019). ‘Understanding Cultural Omnivores: Social and Political Attitudes’, The British Journal of Sociology, 3: 784–806. Chesher, Chris (2007). ‘Becoming the Milky Way: Mobile Phones and Actor Networks at a U2 Concert’, Continuum, 2: 217–25. Crossley, Nick (2009). ‘The Man Whose Web Expanded: Network Dynamics in Manchester’s Post/Punk Music Scene 1976–1980’, Poetics, 1: 24–49. Crossley, Nick and Rachel Emms (2016). ‘Mapping the Musical Universe: A Blockmodel of UK Music Festivals, 2011–2013’, Methodological Innovations, 9: 1–14. Crossley, Nick and Wendy Bottero (2015). ‘Music Worlds and Internal Goods: The Role of Convention’, Cultural Sociology, 1: 38–55. Crossley, Nick, Siobhanand McAndrew and Paul Widdop, eds (2014). Social Networks and Music Worlds, London: Routledge. Elbourne, Martin (2013). Reverb: Adelaide’s Live Music Movement, the Future of Live Music in South Australia, Adelaide: The Don Dunstan Foundation. Emms, Rachel and Nick Crossley (2018). ‘Translocality, Network Structure, and Music Worlds: Underground Metal in the United Kingdom’, Canadian Review of Sociology/ Revue Canadienne de Sociologie, 1: 111–35. Finnegan, Ruth (2007). The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English Town, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Gander, Jonathan (2011). Performing Music Production: Creating Music Product, PhD Thesis, King’s College London. Guerra, Paula (2016). ‘Keep It Rocking: The Social Space of Portuguese Alternative Rock (1980–2010)’, Journal of Sociology, 4: 615–30. Hebdidge, Dick (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London: Routledge.

32

The Future of Live Music

Hesmondhalgh, David (2005). ‘Subcultures, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above’, Journal of Youth Studies, 1: 21–40. Hesmondhalgh, David (2006). ‘Bourdieu, the Media and Cultural Production’, Media, Culture & Society, 2: 211–31. Hodkinson, Paul (2016). ‘Youth Cultures and the Rest of Life: Subcultures, Postsubcultures and Beyond’, Journal of Youth Studies, 5: 629–45. Holden, John (2015). The Ecology of Culture, Swindon: Arts and Humanities Research Council. Holt, Fabian (2010). ‘The Economy of Live Music in the Digital Age’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2: 243–61. Keogh, Brent (2013). ‘On the Limitations of Music Ecology’, Journal of Music Research Online, 4: 1–10. Krueger, Alan (2019). Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us about Economics and Life, New York: Currency. Lewis, George H. (1988). ‘The Creation of Popular Music: A Comparison of the “Art Worlds” of American Country Music and British Punk’, International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 1: 35–51. Lowrey, Wilson (2012). ‘Journalism Innovation and the Ecology of News Production: Institutional Tendencies’, Journalism & Communication Monographs, 14: 214–87. Martin, Peter J. (2006). ‘Musicians’ Worlds: Music‐Making as a Collaborative Activity’, Symbolic Interaction, 1: 95–107. Muggleton, David (2007). ‘Subulture’, in George Ritzer (ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, New York, NY: Blackwell Publishing. Muggleton, David and Rupert Weinzierl (2003). The Post-subcultures Reader, London: Berg. Naveed, Kashif, Chihiro Watanabe and Pekka Neittaanmäki (2017). ‘Co-evolution between Streaming and Live Music Leads a Way to the Sustainable Growth of Music Industry–Lessons from the US Experiences’, Technology in Society, 50: 1–19. Negus, Keith (1995). ‘Where the Mystical Meets the Market: Creativity and Commerce in the Production of Popular Music’, The Sociological Review, 2: 316–41. Nunes, Paulo (2019). ‘Cities Regulated by Cultural Events: Tracking Music Festivals in Lisbon and São Paulo’, International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 1–2: 147–62. Piekut, Benjamin (2014). ‘Actor-Networks in Music History: Clarifications and Critiques’, Twentieth-Century Music, 2: 191–215. Prior, Nick (2008). ‘Putting a Glitch in the Field: Bourdieu, Actor Network Theory and Contemporary Music’, Cultural Sociology, 3: 301–19. Prior, Nick (2011). ‘Critique and Renewal in the Sociology of Music: Bourdieu and Beyond’, Cultural Sociology, 1: 121–38. Rutten, Paul (1991). ‘Local Popular Music on the National and International Markets’, Cultural Studies, 3: 294–305. Savigny, Heather and S. Sam Sleight (2015). ‘Postfeminism and Heavy Metal in the United Kingdom: Sexy or Sexist?’, Metal Music Studies, 1: 341–57. Schippers, Huib (2016). ‘Cities as Cultural Ecosystems: Researching and Understanding Music Sustainability in Urban Settings’, Journal of Urban Culture Research, 12: 10–19. Schippers, Huib and Catherine Grant, eds (2016). Sustainable Futures for Music Cultures: An Ecological Perspective, New York: Oxford University Press. Shank, Barry (2011). Dissonant Identities: The Rock’n’roll Scene in Austin, Texas, Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Theorizing the Production and Consumption of Live Music

33

Straw, Will (1991). ‘Systems of Articulation, Logics of Change: Communities and Scenes in Popular Music’, Cultural Studies, 3: 368–88. Straw, Will (2001). ‘Scenes and Sensibilities’, Public, 22/23: 245–57. Webster, Emma and Adam Behr (2013). ‘Live Music 101# 6–What Makes for a “Healthy” Musical City?’, Live Music Exchange, https://livemusicexchange.org/blog/live-music -101-6-what-makes-for-a-healthy-musical-city-emma-webster-and-adam-behr/, 12 August 2019. Wikström, Patrik (2009). The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud, Cambridge: Polity Press. Williams, James Patrick (2007). ‘Youth‐Subcultural Studies: Sociological Traditions and Core Concepts’, Sociology Compass, 2: 572–93. Williams, James Patrick (2011). Subcultural Theory: Traditions and Concepts, Cambridge: Polity Press. Williams, James Patrick (2019). ‘Subculture’s Not Dead! Checking the Pulse of Subculture Studies through a Review of “Subcultures, Popular Music and Political Change” and “Youth Cultures and Subcultures: Australian Perspectives”’, Young, 1: 89–105.

2

Challenges for the future of live music A review of contemporary developments in the live music sector Arno van der Hoeven and Erik Hitters

It has become a commonplace to observe that the economic and cultural significance of live music has increased, while the sales of recorded music have declined. With a sense of relief people observe that the physical experience of live music attendance remains vital under conditions of rapid digitalization. This observation runs the risk of neglecting the actual challenges faced by the live music sector. In fact, live music organizations are also competing for the attention of the consumer in the dynamic entertainment landscape of a digital society. Meanwhile, many small music venues and musicians operate under precarious conditions (Webster et al. 2018). It has been argued that the live music industry is a superstar market where a small number of big players take most of the revenues, echoing income inequalities that can be observed in society at large (Krueger 2019). This chapter provides an overview of contemporary challenges in the live music sector and discusses potential solutions. It helps the live music sector to anticipate on future developments, identify impending risks, and consider possible interventions to address those challenges. A review of the current state of live music’s production and consumption is relevant to develop adequate strategies and policies that support the interests of the various stakeholders in this field. We distinguish four sets of challenges, focusing on the planning and policy context, economic challenges, audience trends that have an adverse impact on the live music industry and negative developments for musicians. These four categories follow on from a qualitative content analysis of music reports and strategies from Australia, the United States, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These reports are generally commissioned by the music industry to assess the impact and state of live music in particular cities, regions or countries. Furthermore, such reports are often used to influence policy agendas, in order to strengthen the long-term viability of the sector. These reports have been analysed as part of the project ‘Staging Popular Music: Researching Sustainable Live Music Ecologies for Artists, Music Venues and Cities’ (Van der Hoeven and Hitters 2019), which takes place in the Netherlands.

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

35

Our project, including this chapter, draws upon the ecological approach to live music that was developed by a group of British researchers (Behr et al. 2016). A report about strategies for supporting live music in Adelaide defines live music ecologies as follows: ‘Live music does not exist in a vacuum but is part of a complex ecosystem consisting of many interdependent elements in the local, national and international contexts. The elements of the ecology include physical spaces in which to produce and record music, networks of people, social groups and the physical, social, cultural, political, educational, industrial and economic environment’ (Elbourne 2013: 16). This approach thus recognizes that live music is always shaped by the materiality of a musical place (e.g. size and physical accessibility). Furthermore, it raises awareness of how live music ecologies ideally consist of diverse places for performing, ranging from small to big venues (Behr et al. 2016). As the ecological approach is concerned with the conditions that enable or constrain live music performances, we discuss the various challenges within and outside this sector. Furthermore, we propose interventions that can be used to support the future sustainability of this sector. This chapter is divided in four sections, focusing on challenges in terms of the planning and policy context, the economics of the live music industry, audience trends and the position of musicians. For each challenge we discuss potential solutions, recognizing that their success depends on local circumstances and policy conditions. In the concluding section, we reflect on what the challenges imply for the future of live music.

Planning and policy context Increasing attention is being paid in policy circles and academic research to the ways in which urban planning can support live music ecologies (Van der Hoeven and Hitters 2019). This contributes to our knowledge about the right conditions for making, performing and consuming popular music in urban environments. The ecological approach to live music raises awareness of the power relations between live music organizations and actors outside the music sector such as regulators and policy makers (Behr et al. 2016). As the following quote demonstrates, government policies can both support and constrain live music ecologies: Government policies have a direct impact on the ability of music businesses such as live performance venues, recording studios and rehearsal spaces to operate sustainably. Business licensing, liquor licensing, transportation planning and parking, as well as land-use planning all have an impact on the health of the music economy. Compliance requirements should be appropriate without becoming a barrier to doing business. (Terrill et al. 2015: 13–14)

This section will focus on how regulation and the spatial embedding of live music affects the future of this cultural form.

36

The Future of Live Music

Regulation Live music is closely connected to the nightlife economy of cities. Alcohol consumption is generally central to the business models of venues and festivals as well as the experience of live music (Ansell and Barnard 2013; Homan 2017; Terrill et al. 2015: 13–14). This affects the ways in which spaces for musical performances are regulated and policed. Liquor licensing conditions have an impact on opening hours, the minimum age of patrons, the times at which alcohol can be sold and whether sponsorship by companies from the alcohol industry is allowed. In addition, music organizations have to comply with other forms of regulation on, for example, safety, smoking, sound levels and, in some cases, which instruments are allowed in venues (Terrill et al. 2015). Perhaps unsurprisingly, it becomes clear from the reports we analysed that many venues experience existing regulations as too restrictive (Government of South Australia 2016; Davyd et al. 2015; Parkinson et al. 2015). An example of this are the lock-out laws in Sydney, which aim to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence with strict rules on when the doors close for new visitors. This type of regulation might result in less foot traffic and lower audience numbers (Muller and Carter 2016). In order to reduce the regulatory burden, one report calls for ‘an enabling culture for licensing of events and venues all year round’ (Music Venue Trust 2015: 4). A red-tape reduction review can help to achieve such an enabling culture (Government of South Australia 2016). Another often mentioned solution for such regulatory issues is the establishment of music advisory boards or task forces. Such bodies can represent the interests of music organizations and lobby for favourable conditions: ‘Music advisory boards present an effective means to avoid potentially negative impacts of government legislation on the music community’ (Terrill et al. 2015: 59). Many cites also work with night mayors or night czars that mediate between night-time economy businesses, residents and local authorities (Music Venue Trust 2015). For example, in Amsterdam the night mayor has supported the implementation of 24-hour licences for nightclubs (O’Sullivan 2016). Furthermore, a single point of contact in city halls ensures that licensing procedures become less time-consuming for event organizers (Government of South Australia 2016). As one report sums up the challenge: ‘Reduce the regulatory burden on hosting live music for both licensed and unlicensed premises while meeting common neighbour and community concerns about noise and safety’ (Government of South Australia 2016: 12).

Spatial embedding A second set of challenges concerns the spatial embedding of live music. Most of the spaces where live music is performed are embedded in the urban landscape. The experience of live music is always shaped by the environment in which it takes place (Kronenburg 2019). Of course, this is often a positive factor, as the location of a concert adds to the general atmosphere. Nevertheless, a lack of parking spaces, public transport and loading/unloading facilities can negatively affect the accessibility of performance spaces for audiences and musicians. Furthermore, gentrification is a challenge to music

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

37

organizations as rising rents and urban infill threaten the viability of music venues (Cohen 2013). Conversely, live music itself might also have adverse effects on its environment. Travelling audiences and musicians generally leave a big carbon footprint, while outdoor festivals might harm flora and fauna (Webster and McKay 2016). Moreover, concerts in parks imply that this public space is not available to residents for a period of time. Such issues could undermine the support for live music events taking place in dense urban spaces. A solution in this case is agreements between event organizers to reduce the negative impact on the environment (Terrill et al. 2015). Furthermore, permanent facilities for outdoor concerts, including power connection points, could reduce the time and money needed for setting-up concerts (Live Music Taskforce 2017). Of course, the locations for these facilities should be well chosen, in order to minimize the negative impact on the environment, while still being accessible to audiences. One of the most dominant issues in the various reports is the impact of noise. Live music often takes place in buildings that were originally not intended for musical performances (Kronenburg 2019), increasing the risk of sound leakage. As cities become denser, the likelihood of complaints from neighbours grows. Sometimes there are relatively simple solutions such as paying for the double glazing of neighbours, self-regulating noise issues through acoustic mapping or mediation between venues and complainers (Government of South Australia 2016; Music Venue Trust 2015; Parkinson et al. 2015). However, the rescue plan for London’s grassroots music venues demonstrates that in some cities more comprehensive urban planning interventions are required: Planning officers and committee members urgently need guidance on music venues. In particular how to manage housing developments in close proximity to music venues. If this issue isn’t considered at the planning application stage it often results in the slow death of that venue from a spiral of building site disruption, noise complaints from the new residents and costly additional licensing conditions imposed by the local authority. (Davyd et al. 2015: 17)

One way of dealing with encroaching residential buildings is the agent of change principle, which came into force in the UK in 2018. In this case, the onus for addressing existing noise issues falls on the newcomer in the area (i.e. the agent of change), not on the venue. This prevents a situation in which venues with a long history are suddenly threatened with closure because of noise complaints from people in adjacent new buildings (Ross 2017). Another possible urban planning intervention is to designate music or entertainment zones with an increased noise tolerance in a geographically defined area (London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014; Live Music Taskforce 2017). Furthermore, cities could provide subsidies for noise attenuation and building compliance (Government of South Australia 2016). Finally, there are communication strategies to deal with this issue, such as informing prospective neighbours about the presence of a venue (Terrill et al. 2015), increasing

38

The Future of Live Music

the public awareness of the negative consequences of noise complaints and replacing ‘noise’ with the more positive word ‘sound’ in debates about this issue (Live Music Taskforce 2017). The challenges discussed above particularly affect small independent venues because they often struggle to bear the costs associated with increased regulation, policing and gentrification (London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014). Paul McCartney used the following words to express his support in a campaign of the Music Venue Trust (2016) to protect the declining number of grassroots music venues in the UK. ‘If we don’t support live music at this level then the future of music in general is in danger.’ As we will further discuss in the section about musicians, these small venues are important in terms of talent development and artistic experimentation. Yet, Holt and Wergin (2013) observe a trend towards larger and more commercial venues in cities, which is catering for a market of headliner artists. They raise awareness of the consequences of this development for urban live music ecologies: ‘The implication is a separation of DIY and commercial cultural production between neighbourhoods and therefore a weakening of the ecology that constitutes a scene and ultimately a vibrant neighbourhood’ (Holt and Wergin 2013: 19). To ensure a diverse music ecology for future generations, it is thus vital to acknowledge the value of grassroots venues and low-budget cultural production in urban policy and planning.

Economic challenges Live music is a thriving business sector and a vibrant part of the creative industries. According to industry consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers, global live music revenues, including ticket sales and sponsorship, will reach 31 billion dollar in 2022, growing at a rate of 3.3 per cent annually (Sanchez 2018). The live music industry is comprised of a number of very large companies that operate globally (e.g. Live Nation) as well as thousands of smaller firms, promotors, venues and festivals, which are embedded in local live music ecologies. When wanting to understand the economic challenges that are faced on the local level, one needs to take into account that live music ecologies are interdependent of the global economic environment. In this section, we will therefore discuss the competitive international environment in which music organizations work and the challenges of business operations in live music.

The competitive environment The market for live music is rife with uncertainty and competition, which poses a threat to the future sustainability of this sector. Some even refer to it as a situation of market failure (Davyd et al. 2015) since it does not lead to optimal outcomes and there are considerable welfare losses (Homan 2015). This mainly has to do with the imbalance between the recorded music industry, large festivals and promotor-owned arena venues on the one hand and small scale and grassroots venues and festivals on the other. The

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

39

live music report of the UK’s House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2019) discusses concerns that some dominant companies might drive out independent organizations through, for example, exclusivity deals with artists. The competitive environment of live music venues and festivals is generally perceived as a major challenge in the reports under study. On the macro-level, the combination of many years of economic downturn with a situation of market saturation has led to difficulties for venues, major cutbacks or closures and bankruptcies. Parkinson et al. (2015) relate this to the recession, a general trend of diminishing audiences due to a lack of disposable income and increasing competition from non-music sectors for audience spending. In addition, many non-music venues are putting up live shows, which causes issues of identity and branding for the ‘real’ music venues: ‘Perhaps the most difficult aspect of venue identity therefore relates to how venues can differentiate themselves from other places that programme live music’ (Parkinson et al. 2015: 40). Such issues of competition often play out within the direct environment in which venues operate, for example, the city in which they are located. However, there is also strong inter-urban or international competition in this respect, fuelled by government interventions in order to draw large audiences for economic benefits. The Hamilton Music Strategy report discusses the problem of being located so close to Toronto, fearing that ‘Hamilton’s music scene could get lost beside the magnitude of Toronto and its initiatives’ (Priel 2014: 18). Another report points at the competition London is facing from emerging music cities internationally such as Austin, Nashville and Berlin (Davyd et al. 2015: 19–20): ‘London is losing acts to parts of Europe where venues are of higher quality and customers have a better experience. […]. The average government support for music venues across Europe is 42% of venues’ income, with the highest being France at 60%.’ Brexit might have further negative effects on the international position of the British music industry (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019; Rozbicka and Conroy 2017). These developments illustrate that competition is stark within the live music ecology – between venues, between venues and festivals and between venue programmers and promotors. Large venues, major festivals and international promotors generally have more bargaining power and are often able to attract the most profitable acts worldwide and domestically. This requires measures that support the continued diversity in live music ecologies, enhancing the viability of all segments of the live music industry. Music taskforces and researchers can play an important role in gathering data and conducting market studies in order to develop informed policies.

Business operations A general observation in most reports is that the operating costs for venues and festivals have risen quite drastically over the last decades, while revenues and profits are under increasing pressure. As far as the costs are concerned, these usually consist of personnel costs, rents and equipment costs, and fees for bands. Especially the latter two surface in our analysis. The Austin Music Census shows that some 70 per cent

40

The Future of Live Music

of the venues consider the cost of rent, of maintaining and upgrading equipment and paying bands as the most impactful to business sustainability (Rowling 2015: 69). Many venues struggle with short-term lease contracts and run the risk that possible improvements might not be recouped financially if their lease is not renewed. The latter is a common concern, as buildings may be located in places which have gentrified and could be sold to property developers or leased to more upmarket renters. An example from London shows this quite clearly: ‘As a result of increased demand for accommodation, rents are increasing and some landlords are choosing to sell their properties to developers. Venues like the Flowerpot in Camden have been demolished and turned into flats, whilst others have had to close due to escalating rents’ (Davyd et al. 2015: 15). Another concern on the cost side are increasing business rates, especially in the British context, where this type of property tax for commercial users has risen steeply over the last years (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019). The cost of paying bands is a major expense for venues, and one that has been growing drastically over the last years as a result of the waning profitability of recorded music. The UK Live Music Census cites a venue operator/booker who explains how record companies no longer invest in tours, which results in higher fees, higher costs for artists and higher ticket prices (Webster et al. 2018: 64). A direct consequence is that overall profit margins have become very small and that revenues are dependent on many other factors. Audiences are less willing to pay cover charges for smaller venues like clubs and pubs, rising VAT in many countries has a further negative impact and the sale of alcohol and beverages is taking up an increasingly larger part of the total revenue. Austin’s Music Census concludes that venues operate on narrow margins which are progressively narrowing over time, particularly for small- and mediumsized venues (Rowling 2015). By way of solution to these seemingly persistent operational issues of the live music sector, most reports advocate for dedicated live music policies and funding opportunities or structural local government support, especially aimed at the smalland medium-sized venues. A precondition is that there is more awareness on the level of local government and policymakers of the added value of live music to the local economy and sociocultural fabric (see Van der Hoeven and Hitters 2019). Furthermore, it is argued that popular music should be eligible to the same public funds as other forms of culture like opera and classical music (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019). Specific measures that are proposed include, for example, establishing music funds, the provision of micro-loans for building improvements (Terrill et al. 2015), tax breaks (Parkinson et al. 2015) and a levy on tickets to support small venues (Webster et al. 2018). Furthermore, the reports suggest that venues can professionalize their practices though collaborative improvement of marketing and communication (London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014), staff training, diversifying revenue sources (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019) and supporting cultural entrepreneurship (Van Dalen, Van der Hoek and Vreeke 2009). Finally, innovation in music businesses is necessary to stay relevant to audiences, as we will further discuss in the next section.

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

41

Audiences In this section we will focus on challenges related to the audiences of live music. Ultimately, live music ecologies depend on the attention of audiences for their continuity and viability. At the same time, audiences are created in these ecologies, as music organizations bring people together in specific local settings (Behr et al. 2016). A first set of challenges that we will discuss concerns issues of inclusions and accessibility. Next, we discuss audience trends that affect whether and how people attend concerts.

Inclusion and accessibility Live music fosters feelings of belonging and social cohesion. Concerts are often moments where collective identities are celebrated such as those associated with subcultures, specific places or nations (Connell and Gibson 2003; Van der Hoeven and Hitters 2019). However, Carter and Muller (2015) argue that music scenes can also involve aspects of ‘tribalism’, leading to ‘systems of exclusions’ that hinder participation by outsiders. Indeed, several reports observe issues of inclusivity in the live music sector (London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014; Parkinson et al. 2015; Rowling 2015; Webster et al. 2018). Unfortunately, for women the experience of going to concerts can be remarkably different than for men. As argued in the UK Live Music Census, issues such as sexual harassment and assault show that venues often fail to offer a safe space for women (Webster et al. 2018). In the survey of this report, it is found that a majority of the venues and promoters does not have a sexual harassment policy. Furthermore, women are generally underrepresented on stage, leaving a large segment of the audience without role models. Consequently, various initiatives have emerged that seek to make live music ecologies more inclusive. Examples are the Keychange initiative, aiming to achieve a 50:50 gender balance of the performers at festivals (Keychange 2018), and the Dutch NO THANKS! organization that creates awareness of sexual harassment at concerts (Klomp 2017). People with disabilities encounter specific issues at live music concerts. Many venues and festivals do not have dedicated policies and facilities for disabled people such as, for example, someone overseeing access, an assistance dog policy, clear information on the website, step-free access and a functioning accessible toilet (Parkinson et al. 2015; Webster et al. 2018; Attitude is Everything 2018). A disability awareness training for staff at venues and festivals could help to make concerts more inclusive for people with disabilities. Another issue that affects who can enjoy live music concerts is the issue of ticket pricing and reselling (Behr and Cloonan 2018). According to the UK Live Music Census, ‘as revenue from live music has grown, so too have the ways in which to make money out of it, particularly around ticket (re)selling’ (Webster et al. 2018: 57). In this case, large numbers of tickets are bought and then resold at higher prices. The practice of ticket reselling has led to calls for government intervention in various countries. It is a complex problem for which a range of potential solutions has been proposed such as new and

42

The Future of Live Music

stricter enforcement of ticketing regulation, digital ticketing and technological measures against automated tools (i.e. ‘bots’) that purchase multiple tickets (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019). The issue of ticket reselling connects to wider concerns about increasing ticket prices and the extent to which concerts are still affordable for music lovers in lower economic strata (Holt 2010). Addressing this issue, a Dutch organization that represents performing arts festivals started an initiative that gives festival attendees the option to buy an extra ticket for people with less financial means (De Verenigde Podiumkunstenfestivals 2018). Finally, a group that faces issues of accessibility is the young who have not yet reached the age at which they are allowed to drink alcohol (Muller and Carter 2016; Parkinson et al. 2015). As discussed earlier, the business models of many live music organizations rely on alcohol sales. This means that there is generally no financial incentive to organize events for young people or families. In fact, some venues are not open to under-18s due to licensing restrictions (Webster et al. 2018). Since particularly small venues face several economic challenges, it is problematic when they fail to build connections with younger generations. As one report argues about the relevance of all-age events that are drug, alcohol and smoke-free: ‘All-ages events can help engage younger audiences, thereby encouraging youth to develop a lifelong relationship with music’ (Terrill et al. 2015: 15). It is important to work with and understand young audiences, as their music tastes and the ways in which they consume culture are everchanging. Audience development is necessary to enhance the future prospects of the live music sector.

Audience trends Overall, the demand for popular music has grown over the last decades. This cultural form is no longer exclusively associated with youth but is now widely accepted among all generations (Van Dalen, Van der Hoek and Vreeke 2009). However, this does not necessarily mean that all segments of the live music sector benefit from the ubiquitousness of music. Audience tastes and consumption patterns are changing, challenging the live music sector to adapt to these dynamic market conditions. Various live music reports observe diminishing audiences for local and emerging talent playing original music in small venues (Muller and Carter 2016; Parkinson et al. 2015; Priel 2014). Some argue that audiences seem to prefer the familiar sounds of cover bands instead (Parkinson et al. 2015). Meanwhile, other popular genres such as electronic dance music draw audiences away from local bands. In the current competitive entertainment landscape, it has become more difficult to capture the attention of consumers (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Webster et al. 2018). As one report sums up this challenge (Terrill et al. 2015: 79): ‘It can be hard for lesserknown, homegrown talent to get attention in an interconnected, media-saturated world where global superstars dominate the airwaves.’ Finally, audience demographics are changing, particularly in what can be described as ‘super-diverse cities’ (Vertovec 2007). This challenges music organizations to cater for a wider range of communities and to diversify their programming.

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

43

These developments imply that marketing will become more important for music organizations (Van Dalen, Van der Hoek and Vreeke 2009). Effective promotion and audience targeting are necessary to stand out among the many entertainment options that people can choose from. This requires research to understand the contemporary consumption patterns of audiences, so that new live music concepts can be developed. For example, live music shows could be booked at different times of the day, in unexpected locations, or in combination with other forms of leisure (e.g. comedy). Furthermore, some music organizations offer a range of additional options to audiences such as VIP packages and meet-and-greets. New live music concepts could even involve variations on the conventional gig ritual of one hour and an encore. Furthermore, the Dutch music venue Effenaar is experimenting with new technologies such as virtual and augmented reality in their Smart Venue project (Vermeeren 2019). Similarly, the tech startup Peex seeks to improve the audience experience by using augmented audio, offering earbuds and an app that allow people to create their own five-channel mix of the concert sound (Hussain 2019). Finally, innovations in catering might be necessary because the trend towards healthy lifestyles is a risk for a sector that relies heavily on alcohol sales (Webster et al. 2018).

Musicians In this last section, we focus on the challenges that musicians face in terms of income position and talent development. We discuss these at the very end, because many of the earlier discussed challenges have an impact on the work of artists. Indeed, the ecological approach to live music is concerned with the various conditions that enable concerts. Of course, what matters most in the end are the actual performances by musicians. As Behr et al. (2016) argue, a concert is the live music ecology ‘in action’. Therefore, it is vital to consider the perspective of musicians in live music ecologies.

Income position A large number of musicians are struggling with a lack of income. According to the UK music census report: ‘68% of respondents to the musician survey said that stagnating pay for musicians makes it difficult to bring in a viable income while this figure rises to 80% for those respondents identifying as professional musicians’ (Webster et al. 2018: 4). Similar issues have been observed in other countries (Von der Fuhr 2015). Musicians often work unpaid or for less money in order to get exposure, even if this implies that they undercut each other (London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014). In addition, this precarious nature of the job may affect the mental health of musicians (Gross and Musgrave 2017). The weak income position of many musicians is the consequence of various developments. First of all, it is the result of changes in audience tastes and the ways in which people consume music. As discussed earlier, audiences seem less willing to

44

The Future of Live Music

pay a small entrance fee to see local emerging talent playing original music. As the Austin Music Census finds: ‘A recurring theme from respondents is that a “cover charge” for local Austin musicians has all but evaporated for many venues, despite the high number of quality local artists’ (Rowling 2015: 22). Secondly, musicians see their income stagnate or decline, while rents are rising in many cities (Rowling 2015). Thirdly, this challenge could be understood as a matter of demand and supply, where some markets seem to be saturated with musicians of particular genres (Deloitte Access Economics 2011). Finally, record labels are less inclined to make long-term investments in the development of artists (House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 2019). The reports that were analysed suggest a range of financial measures to improve the income position at the low end of the market. A price floor or fair pay scheme could prevent the practice in which musicians are undercutting each other by lowering their fee (Deloitte Access Economics 2011). Furthermore, grants, scholarships and subsidies can support musicians to build their career and get international touring experience. Finally, dedicated housing and insurances for musicians can help them to reduce their costs (Ansell and Barnard 2013). These different measures could be partly financed by, for example, using the revenues from music tourism (Rowling 2015).

Talent development A healthy live music ecology has performance spaces of different sizes, allowing musicians to gradually build up their career by performing for growing audiences (Terrill et al. 2015; Behr et al. 2016). Furthermore, it should support different genres performed by and catering for diverse socio-economic communities. This prevents a situation in which performers of particular musical styles face prejudices, as happened to grime artists according to the report by the UK’s House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2019). The mastering of a Music City report describes the importance of representing different genres as follows: A Music City is invariably built on a thriving live music scene. This means more than just having a large number of live performances. It means having a diversity of music offerings, as well as support for local and indigenous cultural expression, in addition to support for larger touring acts. Ideally, there is a balance between local artistic expression and international content. (Terrill et al. 2015: 18)

However, the diversity in live music ecologies is under pressure: the number of performance spaces for upcoming artists are declining because of the struggles that small venues are facing (Muller and Carter 2016; Webster et al. 2018). Meanwhile, many bigger venues also offer less opportunities for young musicians to hone their skills. The professionalization of music venues implies that their operating costs rise, making it more difficult to take risks on emerging musicians (Van Vugt 2018). Of course, a professional crew and equipment improves the quality of venues, but also

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

45

makes it more expensive to put on a show or to hire a performance space. This lack of venues for upcoming artists hinders talent development, which could eventually affect the future availability of high-quality performers (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Terrill et al. 2015). In other words, big venues and festivals ultimately also benefit from a strong live music ecology that supports young artists. A first set of solutions proposed in the report focuses on the training of musicians. Of course, next to performance spaces formal and informal music education is also of vital importance. Career guidance, consultation hours in a music office, mentoring and clinics can help to nurture talent. Such activities not only should focus on artistic growth but also involve negotiation skills, the financial side of the music industry and digital skills (Deloitte Access Economics 2011). A second set of solutions aims to create a supportive environment for beginning musicians so that they can develop and showcase their talent. It is important to have places where musicians can meet colleagues and other music professionals, such as networking events or co-working buildings (Terrill et al. 2015). Furthermore, it is helpful if local media pay sufficient attention to emerging talent (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014). Finally, the performance opportunities for musicians can be increased by involving them in activities of the city council or by organizing showcases and award shows (Van Vugt 2018; London’s Music Industry Development Task Force 2014).

Conclusions This chapter has provided an overview of challenges in the live music sector by taking an ecological approach. This approach understands live music events as constituted by networks of actors both inside (e.g. bookers) and outside (e.g. regulators) the music industry (Behr et al. 2016). Such live music ecologies are influenced by complex global and local dynamics that have an impact on their future development. As Table 2.1 shows, this chapter has distinguished four sets of interrelated challenges, focusing on the planning and policy context, economic challenges, audience trends and musicians. Furthermore, it has discussed potential interventions to address these issues. An understanding of those challenges and solutions allows the sector to prepare for future developments. In this chapter, we have discussed a range of macro-economic developments that have an impact on the business operations of live music organizations. These developments affect the future sustainability of the sector. Years of recession, budget cuts in the cultural sector and increasing competition between different organizations booking music (e.g. festivals and venues) have had a negative impact on the business operations of small venues in particular. In terms of the policy and regulation context, there are additional challenges such as regulatory pressure on live music organizations and issues connected to their spatial embedding. Gentrification and urban infill imply that many music stages are struggling with rising rents and

Table 2.1 Overview of Challenges and Potential Solutions Challenges Planning and Regulation policy context Spatial embedding

Restrictive licensing; regulatory pressure.

Economic challenges

The competitive entertainment landscape; competition between organizations booking music; market saturation; economic downturn; inter-urban and international competition. Rising operating costs, rents and business rates; declining revenues; short-term lease contracts.

The competitive environment

Business operations

Audiences

Inclusion and accessibility Audience trends

Musicians

Gentrification; unavailability of parks during festivals; impact on flora and fauna; noise issues; transportation issues.

Solutions Red-tape reduction; night mayors; music advisory boards and taskforces. Agent of Change principle; mediation between venues and neighbourhood; music zones; informing (prospective) neighbours; subsidies for noise attenuation and building compliance; permanent facilities for outdoor concerts. Research on live music ecologies; collecting and sharing data; market studies; policies and funding schemes that support diversity within the live music ecology. Music taskforces; music funds; micro-loans; tax breaks; a levy on tickets to support small venues; collaborative improvement of marketing and communication; staff training; diversifying revenue sources; supporting cultural entrepreneurship and innovation.

Sexual harassment and assault; lack of inclusivity; Sexual harassment policy; policies and facilities for lack of events for under-18s; accessibility for disabled people; all-age events; ticketing policy and disabled people; ticket reselling; rising ticket prices. regulation; innovations in ticketing. Diminishing audiences for local and emerging talent; Promoting local talent; innovation in live music changing audience demographics and tastes; the concepts; marketing and audience targeting; research competitive entertainment landscape; declining on changing audience trends. alcohol sales.

Income position

Lack of income; mental health issues due to precarious labour; rising rents.

A price floor; fair pay scheme; grants, scholarships and subsidies; housing and insurance for musicians.

Talent development

Lack of performing spaces for emerging talent; venues avoiding financial risks of booking emerging talent.

Formal and informal music education; career guidance; mentoring; networking events; co-working buildings; local media promoting shows of emerging talent.

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

47

maintaining their position in city centers. In this chapter, we have also stressed the necessity of engaging in new ways with audiences. We have discussed issues of inclusion and accessibility in the live music sector, affecting who can attend live music concerts. Furthermore, changing audience demographics and tastes require music organizations to adapt to the dynamic market conditions of a competitive entertainment landscape. These various issues are ultimately felt by many musicians, who face declining opportunities to perform in small venues and are often insufficiently paid by music organizations. These challenges suggest that the diversity in live music ecologies is at risk. The live music sector is highly unequal, with a small group of superstars and transnational corporations responsible for a large share of the revenues (Krueger 2019). This chapter echoes the concerns in other publications about the many issues at the grassroots level of the live music industry (Webster et al. 2018). The challenges for small venues and emerging musicians can hamper talent development and musical experimentation. The reports that were analysed for this chapter demonstrate, on the one hand, a growing awareness in policy circles of the different values of live music and, on the other hand, a recognition that these values cannot be taken for granted. Music boards and local music strategies are increasingly used to ensure that adequate local music policies are developed. In so doing, it is vital that the social and cultural value of live music are treated as important as its economic value (Van der Hoeven and Hitters 2019). A narrow orientation on profit maximization in the present negatively affects the opportunities for a new generation of musicians to emerge in the years to come. Talent development, audience development and urban planning for live music are essential strategies to invest in the future of this cultural form. Live music ecologies are complex networks of actors in which developments at different levels affect how, where and what kind of concerts can be performed (Behr et al. 2016; Webster et al. 2018). These live music ecologies are dynamic, implying that continued innovation and research is required. Particular areas of interest that deserve more attention are changing consumption patterns of audiences, the talent pipeline and the ways in which the place of small venues can be strengthened – both their place in the live music ecology and the physical place in rapidly changing cities. In the longterm, strong live music ecologies are essential to keep offering musicians and audiences rich opportunities to perform and enjoy music.

Acknowledgements This work was supported as part of the project Staging Popular Music: Researching Sustainable Live Music Ecologies for Artists, Music Venues and Cities (POPLIVE) by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Taskforce for Applied Research (NRPO-SIA) [grant number 314-99-202, research programme Smart Culture – Arts and Culture]. Partners in this project are Mojo Concerts and the Association of Dutch Pop Music Venues and Festivals (VNPF).

48

The Future of Live Music

References Ansell, Gwen and Helena Barnard (2013). Song Lines: Mapping the South African Live Performance Landscape, Johannesburg: Concerts SA. Attitude Is Everything (2018). State of Access Report 2018. Ticketing without Barriers, London: Attitude Is Everything. Behr, Adam and Martin Cloonan (2018). ‘Going Spare? Concert Tickets, Touting and Cultural Value’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2018.1431224. Behr, Adam, Matt Brennan, Martin Cloonan, Simon Frith and Emma Webster (2016). ‘Live Concert Performance: An Ecological Approach’, Rock Music Studies, 1: 5–23. Carter, Dave and Paul Muller (2015). The Economic and Cultural Value of Live Music in Australia 2014, University of Tasmania, Australian Live Music Office, South Australian government, City of Sydney : City of Melbourne and Live Music Office. Cohen, Sara (2013). ‘“From the Big Dig to the Big Gig”: Live Music, Urban Regeneration and Social Change in the European Capital of Culture 2008’, in Carsten Wergin and Fabian Holt (eds), Musical Performance and the Changing City: Post-industrial Contexts in Europe and the United States, New York: Routledge, pp. 27–51. Connell, John and Chris Gibson (2003). Soundtracks: Popular Music, Identity and Place, London and New York: Routledge. Davyd, Mark, Andrew Russell, Auro Foxcroft, Dave Webster, Jeff Horton, Paul Broadhurst and Tom Kiehl (2015). London’s Grassroots Music Venues – Rescue Plan, London: Greater London Authority. De Verenigde Podiumkunstenfestivals (2018). ‘De Verenigde Podiumkunstenfestivals starten met “Geef een Toegift”’, https://podiumkunstenfestivals.com/2018/02/07/de-verenigde-p odiumkunstenfestivals-starten-met-geef-een-toegift/, accessed 28 June 2018. Deloitte Access Economics (2011). The Economic, Social and Cultural Contribution of Venue-Based Live Music in Victoria, Melbourne: Arts Victoria. Elbourne, Martin (2013). Reverb: Adelaide’s Live Music Movement, the Future of Live Music in South Australia, Adelaide: The Don Dunstan Foundation. Government of South Australia (2016). Streamlining Live Music Regulation, https://publics ector.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Streamlining-Live-Music-Regulation-Report.pdf, accessed 9 June 2019. Gross, Sally Anne and George Musgrave (2017). Can Music Make You Sick (Part 2)? Qualitative Study and Recommendations, London: MusicTank. Holt, Fabian (2010). ‘The Economy of Live Music in the Digital Age’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2: 243–61. Holt, Fabian and Carsten Wergin (2013). ‘Introduction: Musical Performance and the Changing City’, in Fabian Holt and Carsten Wergin (eds), Musical Performance and the Changing City: Post-industrial Contexts in Europe and the United States, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–24. Homan, Shane (2015). ‘The Popular Music Industries’, in Kate Oakley and Justin O’Connor (eds), The Routledge Companion to the Cultural Industries, London: Routledge, pp. 157–67. Homan, Shane (2017). ‘“Lockout” Laws or “Rock Out” Laws? Governing Sydney’s NightTime Economy and Implications for the “Music City”’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 4: 500–5014.

Challenges for the Future of Live Music

49

House of Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee (2019). Live Music. Ninth Report of Session 2017–19, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cms elect/cmcumeds/733/733.pdf, accessed 9 June 2019. Hussain, Jordan (2019). ‘Music Tech Startup, PEEX, Set to Launch an Interesting New Audio Device at Elton John’s Concert on June 12–13’, Irish Tech News, 12 June 2019, https://irishtechnews.ie/peex-launch-interesting-new-audio-device, accessed 12 September 2019. Keychange (2018). Keychange Manifesto: Recommendations for a Gender Balanced Music Industry, London: PRS Foundation. Klomp, Chris (2017). ‘Nederlandse vrouwen gaan strijd aan met handtastelijke concertgangers’, Algemeen Dagblad, 17 November 2017, https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/ nederlandse-vrouwen-gaan-strijd-aan-met-handtastelijke-concertgangers~a224bac4/, accessed 12 September 2019. Kronenburg, Robert (2019). This Must Be the Place: An Architectural History of Popular Music Performance Venues, New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Krueger, Alan B. (2019). Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us about Economics and Life, New York: Currency. Live Music Taskforce (2017). Report and Recommendations to Help Drive the Gold Coast’s Reputation as a Live Music-Friendly City, http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/ bf/live-music-taskforce-report.pdf, accessed 9 June 2019. London’s Music Industry Development Task Force (2014). London Music Strategy, London, Ontario, Canada: London’s Music Industry Development Task Force. Muller, Paul and Dave Carter (2016). The Economic and Cultural Contributions of Live Music Venues in the City of Sydney, 2016, Tasmania: University of Tasmania. Music Venue Trust (2015). Report for City of Edinburgh Council: The Challenges for Live Music in the City, http://musicvenuetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/MusicVenue-Trust-Edinburgh-Report.pdf, accessed 12 September 2019. Music Venue Trust (2016). ‘Music Venue Trust Receives the Endorsement of Sir Paul McCartney’, http://musicvenuetrust.com/2016/10/music-venue-trust-receives-end orsement-sir-paul-mccartney/, accessed 14 August 2019. O’Sullivan, Feargus (2016). ‘A “Night Mayor” Is Transforming Amsterdam after Dark’, Citylab, 29 January 2016, https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/01/night-mayor-a msterdam-mirik-milan/433893/, accessed 14 August 19. Parkinson, Tom, Mark Hunter, Kimberly Campanello, Mike Dines and Gareth Dylan Smith (2015). Understanding Small Music Venues: A Report by the Music Venues Trust, London: Music Venues Trust. Priel, Joe-Anne (2014). Hamilton Music Strategy Report: Background Document, Hamilton: Tourism and Culture Division of the City of Hamilton. Ross, Sara (2017). ‘Protecting Urban Spaces of Intangible Cultural Heritage and NightlifeCommunity Subcultural Wealth: International and National Strategies, the Agent of Change Principle, and Creative Placekeeping’, Western Journal of Legal Studies, 1: 1–20. Rowling, Nikki (2015). The Austin Music Census, a Data Driven Assessment of Austin’s Commercial Music Economy, Austin: Titan Music Group, the City of Austin’s Economic Development Departments’ Music and Entertainment Division. Rozbicka, Patrycja and Michael D. Conroy (2017). ‘Live Music and Brexit’s Cliffhanger’, Music Business Journal, 1: 8–11.

50

The Future of Live Music

Sanchez, Daniel (2018). ‘The Live Music Industry Will Be Worth $31 Billion Worldwide by 2022’, Digital Music News, October 26, https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/10 /26/latest-live-music-revenue-31billion-2022/, accessed 2 July 2019. Terrill, Amy, Don Hogarth, Alex Clement and Roxanne Francis (2015). The Mastering of a Music City, http://www.ifpi.org/downloads/The-Mastering-of-a-Music-City.pdf, accessed 9 June 2019. Van Dalen, Thomas, Harmen Van der Hoek and Frans Vreeke (2009). Het Grote Poppodium Onderzoek 2008. Analyse van de Ontwikkelingen in de Bedrijfsvoering van de Nederlandse Poppodia, Bussum and Amsterdam: Vreeke & Van Dalen. Van der Hoeven, Arno and Erik Hitters (2019). ‘The Social and Cultural Values of Live Music: Sustaining Urban Live Music Ecologies’, Cities, 90: 263–71. Van Vugt, Jasper (2018). De waarde van pop 2.0. De Maatschappelijke Betekenis van Popmuziek, Amsterdam: POPnl en Vereniging Nederlandse Poppodia en -Festivals. Vermeeren, Hans (2019). ‘De Effenaar Eindhoven wordt een “smart venue”’, Eindhovens Dagblad, 11 June 2019, https://www.ed.nl/eindhoven/de-effenaar-eindhoven-wordt -een-smart-venue~a2151552/, accessed 12 September 2019. Vertovec, S. (2007). ‘Super-Diversity and Its Implications’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6: 1024–54. Von der Fuhr, Saskia (2015). Pop, wat levert het op? Onderzoek naar inkomsten van popmusici in Nederland, Tilburg: Cubiss. Webster, Emma and George McKay (2016). From Glyndebourne to Glastonbury: The Impact of British Music Festivals, Norwich: University of East Anglia. Webster, Emma, Matt Brennan, Aadam Behr, Martin Cloonan and Jake Ansel (2018). Valuing Live Music: The UK Live Music Census 2017 Report, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh/Live Music Exchange.

Part Two

Technology

3

The Silent Stage The future of onstage sound systems Steven Kerry

This chapter will explore what will be referred to as the ‘Silent Stage’, particularly within the context of the popular music industry. I believe that moving towards stages void of sound sources at live events presents the most viable option for optimizing the experience for the performer, audio engineer(s) and the quality of sound for the audience. The ‘silent’ aspect of the concept refers to the removal of amplified sound sources on a stage; however, there will always be certain elements that can never be truly silent, acoustic sources such as drums, for example. By conducting primary research including interviews, surveys and case studies, recommendations are made for the future as to how to incorporate the findings and why the Silent Stage will be a prevalent part of the future of live music.

History The second half of the twentieth century saw a steady growth in the recording industry in the United Kingdom and United States. By the mid to late 1960s there had been significant growth in the live music sector with acts such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones beginning to move their performances to larger venues such as arenas and stadia to satisfy demand (Bennett and Waksman 2014). Early concerts such as the Beatles live at Shea Stadium, New York, in 1965 showed that in terms of concert audio, the industry had arguably moved into this new environment prematurely. For musicians and spectators, the requirement for the amplification used at these events clearly needed to be significantly improved (Spitz 2012). The early attempt at the Shea Stadium concert of utilizing the Electro Voice LR4 column speakers ‘splayed around the field toward fans’ (Popale 2017) was inadequate for the audience and left both spectators and musicians alike unable to properly hear the performance. Over time, concert audio systems improved and diversified to suit the varying environments they were to be used in with manufacturers such as Clair and Heil Sound and later L’Acoustics developing systems capable of satisfying demand

54

The Future of Live Music

(Prosoundweb 2019). The introduction of onstage monitoring allowed performers on a stage to have their own speaker system with a mix tailored towards their own listening requirements. The first use of onstage monitoring is difficult to establish as there are many differing accounts of where it began. One possible account of its first use, specifically as part of a touring sound package, takes place on Bob Dylan’s 1966 tour (Mulder 2015). Bill Hanley, engineer for Buffalo Springfield, has suggested that it was in fact Neil Young that came up with the idea for onstage monitoring (Benson 2016). Artists such as the Grateful Dead experimented in innovative ways of catering for the sonic experience of both audience and artist without the use of separate onstage monitoring, perhaps most notably with the ‘Wall of Sound’. This array of various speaker clusters, each representing a single musical element was an idea generally credited to Owsley Stanley, and was developed as a response to the band beginning to play bigger shows in the early 1970s (Jackson 2006). Although a novel idea that received acclaim from many, the idea was retired in the mid-1970s demonstrating that trying to cater for both artist and audience sound with the same system was not the solution to the problem being faced. At all levels of the live music industry there are currently a variety of scenarios for onstage sound, in terms of both instrumentation and monitoring systems. Each of the various solutions having advantages and disadvantages in regard to sonic capabilities, logistics and from a financial point of view. The Silent Stage, if utilized correctly, could potentially address and resolve the disadvantages inherent to more traditional practices.

Digital audio in live music Many technological advances have been required to take place in order to reach the point where the Silent Stage is a potential solution to be used in live sound reproduction. A factor that has in part made the concept possible is the transition from analogue to digital. The representation of audio within the digital domain is a process that has been in development in a number of different iterations since the invention of Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) in 1937 by British scientist Alec Reeves. The original purpose of PCM was primarily for telecommunication applications (Dofat 2016), however by the early 1980s, the technology had started to be utilized within the recording industry as a means of capturing, storing and reproducing audio signals. Within the live music industry, although the ability for use of digital technology was being utilized on stages for various instrumental purposes, playback systems and outboard effect processors prior to the turn of the century, it was only really in 2001 with the introduction of the PM1D digital console by Yamaha that the industry began to see workflows re-examined due to digital technology (Swallow 2010). This was followed in 2004 by the introduction of Yamaha’s PM5D which saw huge success in the area of monitor engineering and was a firm favourite with many monitor engineers for many years after its introduction. One of the major successes of the digital mixing console in the live music environment is the recall-ability and the reasonably small footprint of the systems in

The Silent Stage

55

comparison to the functionality they contain. The ability to recall is particularly useful in terms of on stage monitoring in the touring sector of the live music industry. With touring productions often travelling equipped with full monitoring systems, the recall functionality of the console allows for recall of key settings from one show to the next. A benefit of this is alleviating the need for artists to be available for sound checks to enable them to engage with busy promotion schedules and other equally important commitments. The ability to recall is also extremely useful when a sound check is not possible in situations such as festivals where it is common for many artists to rely on nothing more than what is known as a line check where levels are brought to the mixing console and monitored solely on headphones before going on stage. It could be argued, however that this reliance on technology may affect performance if relied upon too heavily, increasing the possibility of mix issues if a blasé attitude towards sound checking is adopted. In recent years, the idea of the ‘virtual soundcheck’ has greatly mitigated this problem. It is common practice to take a full multitrack recording of a previous night’s performance which can then be replayed through the sound system the following day in soundcheck further alleviating the requirement for a band to be present, or at least present for a shorter amount of time. Through personal experience this has been a very successful modification to the soundcheck process as it allows for more time and attention to be paid to each of the individual elements and to the mix as a whole. This is because an engineer can work for as long as they require with the assistance of pre-recorded material which can be played and replayed, rather than having to rely upon a musician to create the sound on stage. In addition, the sound of an instrument can differ between players so as opposed to having a member of the crew on stage playing the instrument, the recorded material gives a more authentic representation of the player that will be performing in that respect. Another factor that this practice has improved is that the soundcheck will be based on the way in which the artist will be performing in the actual show; the dynamic of a musician’s performance can differ greatly with the addition of adrenaline so this practice gives a greater consistency of quality between the soundcheck and the actual show. Using virtual soundchecks supports the Silent Stage model more effectively than a stage that has many sound sources, as during the virtual soundcheck the mix is created purely based upon the sound of the speaker system and not the speaker system reinforcing the sound coming from the stage.

Isolation and emulation In order to achieve the Silent Stage in practice, the traditional method of placing microphones in front of sound sources on a stage has needed to be addressed. As stated by prominent microphone manufacturer Shure, in the area of live sound one of the main objectives of the microphone techniques employed is ‘to maximize pick-up of suitable sound from the desired instrument’ and ‘to minimize pick-up of undesired sound from instruments or other sound sources’ (2007). As the live sound industry has developed, there have been numerous innovations in regard to isolating onstage

56

The Future of Live Music

elements such as the use of plexi-glass drum screens to remove unwanted spillage from the drum kit and isolation cabinets to contain guitar amplifiers. These practices suggest that a possible realization of Shure’s minimization of other sources would be to completely isolate every element on stage to the greatest degree possible, to enable the audio engineer to deal with each source sound without the influence of other elements. There are many advantages to removing elements of sound from the stage environment, such as using direct injection (DI) of instruments as opposed to microphones, the result of which can provide an audio feed with a ‘cleaner, sharper attack and solve some or all leakage problems’ (Huber and Williams 1998). To discover the thoughts of professionals working in the industry on the practice of replacing microphones with DI’d signals and other prominent issues, a survey of 340 audio engineers working in the live music industry has been conducted for the purpose of this chapter. The results of this survey have given an invaluable insight into the opinions of a broad range of audio professionals. Although it could be said that some of the information harvested is subject to interpretation, an important element that should be recognized is the survey’s inclusion of an age range of the audio professional completing it. By correlating the opinions of a large group of people, taking this factor into consideration, it may be possible to make predictions about the practices that enable the adoption of the Silent Stage moving forwards by observing how opinions change based upon the age of the participant. When posed the question of an engineer’s preference of use of microphones or a DI where possible, 30.5 per cent of respondents favoured the use of microphones compared to 39.5 per cent preferring to opt for a DI. The remainder of participants had no preference which is positive in the sense that they did not object to removing microphones in favour of DI’d signals. There is unfortunately no clear correlation throughout the age ranges surveyed to suggest a future trend and unfortunately when looking at the relationship between engineer’s preference to using microphones specifically, the category most in support of this are aged twenty-one and under. It may be, however, that the age range above this, specifically 21 to 30 years may be most indicative of future trends as before the age of twenty-one, there is a very limited amount of time to gain experience in the industry. The data shows that the age range of 21–30 years is comparable to the overall average, however, with 40 per cent preferring to use DI’d signals compared to 30 per cent supporting the use of microphones where possible. It is in fact the professionals aged over forty-one that show a greater preference towards the use of DI’d signals.  A possible conclusion to this may be that there is simply not a generational divide on the subject which could in theory suggest that with a great number of engineers unopposed to removal of microphones, an onstage sound set-up requiring the removal of microphones would generally be accepted. It may be perhaps that an observation of this data when taking other factors into consideration shows that with more experience that some engineers realize that the microphone can be the weak link in the chain. The idea of isolation of bass and electric guitars on stages is not a new concept. Isolation cabinets have long been used as an alternative approach to DI of the guitar

The Silent Stage

57

Audio professionals’ preferences between microphones and direct injection for onstage instruments 51 + 41 – 50 31 – 40 21 – 30 Under 21 0

5

10

15

No preference

20

25

30

DI where possible

35

40

45

50

Mic where possible

Figure 3.1 Data harvested in the study conducted for the purpose of this chapter into the preferences of audio professionals working in the live music industry regarding the practice of using microphones or direct injection of sources. signal, allowing the sound to be captured acoustically within an enclosed space. In doing so, the guitar tone including the coloration provided by the speakers can also be captured using one or more microphones. For many musicians, it is a preferred practice to drive an amplifier to a considerable volume to achieve their desired tone, for example, with amplifiers manufactured by British company Marshall Amplifiers Ltd (United States of America Patent No. US6,434,240B1 2002). By utilizing an isolation cabinet, the restrictions of volume are reduced greatly so the desired tone can be created without influencing other elements on the stage. Additionally, microphone placement on the speaker cone itself is marginally improved as there is more freedom to position the microphone based on its ability to capture the desired sound rather than needing to keep it as close as possible to the speaker grille as would often be the case on a loud stage. Through personal experience operating Front of House sound on a European arena tour in 2010 alongside the rock band Kiss, the advent of guitar amplifier simulation became apparent as a viable option for performers to utilize on stage instead of traditional amplifiers. The limitations of the technology at that time presented some issues sonically from an engineer’s perspective, however the benefits of the technology were very clear. Specifically, one element that was preferable, as an engineer working with the signal within a mix, was the consistency of results presented on a daily basis. Over time, other companies, perhaps most notably Kemper (2018), have pushed the technology forward. Guitar amplifier emulation is no longer just about amplifier simulation but rather about ‘profiling’ the entire amplifier, cabinet and microphone set-up, allowing the user to emulate multiple scenarios and set-ups without having the equipment present. To find out more about the way that guitar amplifier emulation has become more commonplace within the industry, it is helpful and arguably necessary to get the views of the people that have the most contact with the equipment in the context being considered in this chapter. An interview with established guitar technician Paul ‘Pjay’ Johnson, garnered a significant insight into some of the reasons why the practice is being

58

The Future of Live Music

utilized more frequently in modern music. One reasonably significant advantage of using guitar amplifier emulation noted by Johnson is that the unit(s) can be taken off the stage completely and be kept with the technicians responsible for them. With an amplifier on stage, any issue needing to be rectified would result in a technician needing to go on stage, which, in addition to being impractical, could also damage the aesthetic of the show. In addition to this, by utilizing emulation, it has been noted to improve a technician’s ability to problem-solve greatly by removing the speaker and amplifier elements of the signal chain. Guitar technician’s working at a professional level have their own set of monitoring requirements to complete their job in the most effective way. With a live amplifier on stage the technician is required to either be in a position where they can hear it, discernible from the rest of the onstage sound or have the sound of the amplifier sent to their own monitor mix. When using emulation, it would be essential that the guitar technician have their own monitoring feed of the guitar sound as hearing it ambiently would not be an option. Although this is not particularly an issue at a professional level where this monitoring solution would be expected, it may pose issues at smaller-scale events where a guitar technician does not have the comfort of their own monitor mix.

Playback systems Another shift in the industry that has changed the requirements of onstage sound is the increasing implementation of playback systems within live music. The idea of playback from recorded tracks to support a musical performance is not a recent development. However, it appears from interviews conducted with professionals in the industry that their prevalence has increased since the turn of the millennium. An interview with an established monitor engineer by the name of John Evans, who has worked in the industry for over forty years gives further insight into many of the changes over time in the field of live performance. Evans recollects that playback systems as we know them today became prevalent in his experience when working with the boy-band Westlife in 2000. There are a number of benefits to the adoption of playback systems in live performance, such as the ability to represent audio independent of musicians which can facilitate complex musical arrangements without the costs of additional musicians and without having to have an area for those musicians to perform which can enhance the desired visual aesthetic if the focus of the show is on the artist themselves as is so often the case. A practice that I have been familiar with is having the playback system output a pre-recorded Linear Time Code (LTC) information stream alongside the audio being sent for amplification. LTC is an encoded stream of audio that when decoded presents timing information based upon an eight-digit twenty-four-hour clock. This time stamped data is received by all departments of the production, including lighting and video so that there is a clock to synchronize each department which enables events to be programmed to occur at specific points in the performance. This incorporation of timecode from playback systems gives the ability to more accurately sync the visual elements of a performance and it is commonplace at large events for this kind of system to now be in place.

The Silent Stage

59

The reason that playback systems have played a pivotal role in onstage sound requirement is due to their limited flexibility to adapt to impromptu changes in performance in regard to tempo and timing. In addition to this, any part of a performance where the audio signal stops for a significant amount of time and then starts again would require a performer to have some form of count-in to be able to begin playing at the correct time. There is often the ability for a drummer to count the band back in, however for a more effective approach, especially where a gap may occur mid-song, all performers on stage need to be aware of when the playback system is about to restart. This practice does not lend itself to the use of loudspeaker monitoring on the stage, as it would break the illusion for the audience if there was an audible click track on the stage, another factor that further supports the argument of using the Silent Stage model.

In-ear monitoring Musical Instrument amplification is not the only element on the stage needing to be addressed if the Silent Stage is to be facilitated in future practice. There are also monitoring systems allowing musicians to hear themselves and each other that need to be adapted. The logical development of this is to move away from monitoring using loudspeakers in favour of monitoring for individuals directly to their ears in a similar way that a consumer would listen to music privately on headphones. Advancement in the technology of in-ear monitoring (IEM), notably led by Van Halen’s Monitor Engineer Jerry Harvey for use with drummers in 1994 (2018), resulted in a combination of technology that gave musicians on stage numerous benefits. IEMs share many of the qualities of ear plugs in that they isolate the performer and reduce ambient noise levels. However, unlike ear plugs, the IEM has speakers built into the unit which can additionally facilitate the performers listening requirements. This allows the performer a more reliable and consistent monitoring experience, irrespective of the environment in which they are performing and a monitor mix influenced significantly less by the sound of the stage because the performer is isolated from the sound of the environment they are performing in. A benefit for quieter vocalists particularly is also the resolution of the gain-before-feedback issue that is inherent to monitoring using loudspeakers. Feedback occurs when sound amplified through a speaker is re-injected into the microphone feeding said speaker (Davis and Jones 2000). This means for a performer to hear themselves on stage via a speaker, there is a limit on the volume available before feedback is incurred. IEMs on first inspection would appear to be the perfect scenario. However, there are a number of factors that may contribute to this not being the case. The use of instrument amplification and loudspeaker monitor systems on stage has traditionally been a preferred method for many artists to feel immersed in their performance (Berg et al. 2017). It has been argued that a certain amount of reflected sound reinforcement from the audience area of the hall is necessary for the impact of the sonic immersion of the performer to be fully effective (Larsen, Olmos and Gade 2004). The idea of needing to use some of the sound from the audience area has been confirmed during an interview conducted for this chapter with the artist Charlie

60

The Future of Live Music

Simpson (member of Busted, Fightstar and also a solo artist). When discussing the use of IEMs from a vocalist’s point of view, Simpson noted that he would often remove one IEM as opposed to keeping them both in. The only negative I find to using both ears, is that I feel quite isolated from the audience and also you don’t get the natural reverb from the room, which is something I like hearing. There are clear advantages to using ears and I would say the main one is that as a singer, ears are by far the best way to make sure you can get the most accurate pitching for the vocals.

The ability to add ambient microphones, microphones that are set up specifically to capture the sound of the room, would be an approach that could rectify this problem. Simpson argues that the effectiveness of this practice is dependent on the style of music being played. When playing as a solo artist supported by predominantly acoustic instruments then it does indeed solve the issue. Yet, in a louder environment, where musicians wish to respond to the energy of the sound in the room, the practice is insufficient. An argument posed by Simpson against the use of IEM was in regard to performing in a more traditional band set-up with the act Fightstar – the familiar drums, bass guitar, electric guitar and vocal scenario. ‘Because Fightstar have very heavy guitar tones, I find that I just don’t get the power I’m looking for through ears’, Simpson commented, ‘I also like feeling the sub from the kick drum reverberating around the room and so I find that having two loud monitors lets me feel the weight of the music, more so than using ears.’ It can be deduced from this statement that there is a further physical requirement for a musician in addition to audibly monitoring sound sources. When discussing sound reproduction, Hetu and Fortin (1995) remarked upon a similar theme that further supports the requirement of more than just auditory stimuli in performance. Especially in a rhythmic sense, proprioceptive sensations are now considered an integral part of the listening experience.  Monitor engineer John Evans, mentioned earlier, noted that the first time he had personally encountered IEM in a professional environment was with the band Asia, specifically for vocalist John Wetton in 1991. Wetton’s early use of the concept was to provide pitching assistance as his voice which, although good, was not very powerful. The personal monitoring set-up also enabled Wetton to monitor his bass guitar independent of changes to onstage bass levels, which had the added benefit creating space for other members of the musical ensemble to facilitate their own monitoring requirements without the need to compete with lower frequencies which can often be intrusive in a live environment. A method that may assist performers in regard to the use of ambient microphones may be to further research the positioning of the microphones. There are many logistical factors that influence an engineer’s ability to position ambient microphones but it may be that there is an optimal positioning that would further support the desire of the performer. From the perspective of the front of house engineer, there are advantages to the practice of moving away from loudspeaker monitoring systems towards IEM systems as has been shown with the data collected in the survey conducted for this chapter.

The Silent Stage

61

In addition to this, shown in Figure 3.3 is the trend that the opinion becomes more solidified as productions become larger in spite of a loud stage arguably having less impact on offstage sound at larger events. It would appear that the preference to having IEMs is already the norm with front of house engineers, which suggests this would not be an area of opposition in the transition to the Silent Stage model. 

Figure 3.2 Busted on a stage void of amplified sound save for the single monitor downstage centre to cater to Simpson’s monitoring requirements. Photo: Tom Pullen. Front-of-house engineer preference between in-ear monitoring and onstage loudspeaker monitor systems Never worked with IEMS No preference Onstage loudspeaker monitors In-ear monitors 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Working at venues with capacities of up to 3,000 Working in arenas and stadia

Figure 3.3 Data harvested in the study conducted for the purpose of this chapter into the preferences of front-of-house engineers regarding monitoring setups. Irrespective of the size of production, the use of in-ear monitoring is generally preferable.

62

The Future of Live Music

Activating the stage From research conducted and working in the professional environment, there is evidence to suggest that the ability to satisfy a musician’s auditory requirements based on the assumed use of IEMs is insufficient in fully immersing the player during a performance. In order to satisfy not only the sound but also the feel of the performance for musicians, an area that is currently being experimented with by a number of professionals, is what I will call ‘activating’ the stage. A rudimentary version of this, used fairly regularly on the arena circuit, is the idea of placing sub speakers underneath areas of the stage. Particularly useful with bass guitar players has been the idea of replacing the stage floor with a grate as opposed to a solid panel and hanging sub speakers or on some occasions the players bass cabinet, aimed upwards to support their own listening requirements while both reducing noise coming from the stage and removing the cabinet from the stage area. Although helpful in achieving a desired aesthetic on the stage and also reducing stage sound, this practice does not completely eradicate sound. Depending on the directivity of the speaker system being used, there may be a significant amount of spill of sound off stage and throughout the performance area. Through experience, I would suggest that this practice historically has been utilized with an emphasis on supporting the players sound requirements when a stage set does not allow them to use an amplifier on stage as opposed to a desire to remove sound coming from the stage. A practice familiar with many drummers is to use a low frequency Concert Transducer such as the inertial shakers made by the ButtKicker company. It is essentially a magnetically suspended piston as opposed to a voice coil attached to the underside of a musician’s stool. These devices are capable of reproducing infrasonic frequencies as low as 9 Hertz (ButtKicker 2018). The application of this technology is not limited to drummers and I believe a wider application in a live environment will be key to improving the immersive feel for musicians wanting to utilize a stage void of sound sources. By attaching a tactile transducer, or a number of devices to floor panels, it is possible to resonate large areas of staging with significantly less audible repercussion. Alternatively, companies such as Porter and Davies have created panel solutions to this problem such as the KT concert platform which offers a possible compact and workable solution to what is being suggested in this chapter (2019). A case study conducted by Michailidis and Bullock concluded that in the area of electronic music where haptic feedback from the instrument itself is often limited, providing haptic feedback ‘can significantly improve a performer’s understanding the relationship between control sensors and resulting sound produced’ (2011). It could be argued that the feedback created by tactile transducers could further support the haptic feedback involved in a live performance. Michailidis and Bullock’s study was interested in cutaneous sensations, the sensations felt by the skin. For the purpose that is being suggested in a live performance environment, kinaesthetic sensations or ‘muscle sense’ are arguably as important. The ranges of sensitivity to haptic and acoustic stimuli occupy differing frequency ranges but with some key areas of overlap. Kinaesthetic sensations occupy the area of 0–30Hertz, while cutaneous sensations occupy a larger

The Silent Stage

63

range 0–1Kilohertz (Begault 2002). The widely accepted range of human hearing based on acoustic stimuli is 20Hertz to 20Kilohertz so it can be deduced from these figures that there is overlap in the region of 20Hertz–1Kilohertz. This may give an indication of the area that a performer is referring to that they feel is missing when moving to a stage void of any sound, where representation of sound is given as acoustic stimuli by the use of IEM alone. In theory, if this area can be dealt with in a way other than by the use of traditional speaker set-ups, a situation could be created where a performer is able to satisfy all of their requirements without the use of any sound on the stage. A possible implementation of this would be to create several ‘activated’ areas of the stage, similar to the way that an area of the stage would be covered acoustically by a monitor speaker. By attaching tactile transducers to these specific areas of stage or by using a solution such as that offered by Porter and Davies, there would be monitoring environments for the performers which, when coupled with the use of IEMs, would deliver a monitoring experience that both sonically and physically supports the artist. Ideally, the tactile transducer would not only be delivering bass frequency but also be supporting higher up the frequency spectrum, towards the desired 1Kilohertz felt by the body as cutaneous sensations. In order to achieve this successfully, it is important that the areas of staging be decoupled from the rest of the staging and also that any vocal microphone stands are placed in front of those areas and not physically on top of them to minimize any resonance from the staging into the microphone.

Impact on hearing damage It has been acknowledged that listening to music at excessive volumes may be a contributing factor in many cases of hearing impairment. Current legislation regarding safe listening levels in the workplace was introduced in 2005 and was later extended to include the entertainment sector on the 6 April 2008 (Health and Safety Executive 2018). Regardless of this, its implementation is generally only a factor for the consumer as opposed to the performer, with decibel limits occasionally in place in the audience area of live events. Through personal experience, the use of noise level restrictions in live music in the UK at outdoor events is widespread and tends to be more audience-focused in European events. It could be argued that the reason for their implementation is more about off-site noise levels, although over the years there has been more of an emphasis on consumer safety. Moving away from onstage monitoring to personal IEM systems may be an effective way to remedy the issue as it allows performers to monitor more accurately at lower volume listening levels which may significantly impact on reducing hearing damage (Chasin 2009). There are a number of European countries, however, that do have much stricter regulations for indoor events, in particular Switzerland, where it is much more commonplace to be required to mix to a lower volume. An interesting counter-argument of reducing sound levels on stage to protect musicians was discovered by Axelsson et al., who found that over a twentysix-year period, the amount of hearing damage caused in the participants was much less significant than was expected, which may suggest that there is a protective effect

64

The Future of Live Music

from a continuous contraction of the stapedius muscle in the tympanic cavity of the middle ear when frequently being subjected to average volumes in excess of 85 dBA (1995). Although there may be some merit in this, what is being suggested in this chapter would in theory be more effective by removing the need to rely on the ears’ ability to adapt and to bring listening exposure down to a safer level.

Visual aesthetics An area of production which can benefit greatly from the adoption of the Silent Stage model and should not be overlooked is the visual element of the show. An important factor for the audience is what the show looks like and this can and often does take precedent when designing a stage set. When interviewing stage manager Drew Dawes, who was touring with Shania Twain at the time after previously working with The xx, he noted that in both cases the design of the show began with a view to having no onstage sound sources to maximize the potential for the visual aesthetic. For the Shania Twain tour in particular, many elements of the set were moved around from song to song, so from a practical point of view, sound sources would be an extra complication to an already complex set design. Another advantage pointed out was the ability to soundcheck, and possibly more importantly, line check prior to the show from an offstage position and with minimal noise being created. The show utilized timecode for the audio-visual sync, which has the added advantage of being able to control the patch changes on the Kemper systems of the guitarists. This removes any margin of error of a performer making a mistake and also allows the musician to not be tied to any one area of performance, traditionally a pedal board, when patch changes need to be executed. Dawes also discussed The xx’s journey towards removing sound sources from the stage, commenting that there was some opposition from the artist at first before ultimately embracing the practice. The group had traditionally had the guitar and bass amps on stage, but for the third album cycle, the group began to use additional guitar amplifiers to emulate what had been done on the record. For a combination of reasons, visual aesthetics being one and the desires of the front of house engineer to reduce spill into the vocal mics and into the front rows of the crowd being the other, the amplifiers where moved to the back of the stage, directed upstage away from the band members and audience. Dawes also commented on the logistical issues of this in terms of access to the amplifiers in case of any issues. He also suggested that they should be moved offstage completely, to the area occupied by the guitar technician, to avoid crew members needing to access the performance area unnecessarily. With a show design based heavily upon visual aesthetics, the way that an engineer mixes a show for the audience changes from being a reinforcement of what is created by the band to a completely separate mix. It may be that the removal of onstage sound to allow for a more independent mix would actually be more beneficial at smaller-scale shows in the industry where the ratio of onstage sound to offstage sound reinforcement is smallest. Although there is no doubt that having a loud stage in an arena, stadium

The Silent Stage

65

or large festival setting will have an impact on the ability to mix, especially with spill into vocal microphones, the contribution of onstage elements to the overall offstage mix in these settings can be reasonably minimal. In smaller club level shows, there can be real issues with having to compete with onstage elements and the removal of these could contribute to a much greater level of control for the audio engineer. Through the survey conducted, data has been collected from an engineer’s point of view about their preference in regard to these differing scenarios. Around 45 per cent of the audio engineers surveyed specifically stated preferring to reinforce the sound of the artist from the stage, which is a significant portion of professionals. When this data is separated into age ranges, this large opposition is not represented by engineers aged 21 to 30, possibly showing that there is a trend moving forward to support moving away from sound reinforcement to uninhibited creation of a mix. From the comments made by the various audio engineers, there does appear to be an agreement that it is dependent on the genre or type of artist, examples given being that of a jazz trio benefitting from reinforcement or a pop band preferring to mix independently of sound sources. This reasoning makes sense but it begins to fall apart when the size of the show reaches a greater level, as the ability for the artist to interact with each other in a sonically appropriate way is hampered by the distances involved between the sound sources.

Conclusions Moving forward, the live music industry must adapt to the changes in production values that are being implemented to achieve the desires of both performers and audio professionals while delivering the best possible audio quality for the consumer. The move towards the Silent Stage has been made possible by the continuing development of technology and demonstrates that, as technology improves and new possibilities are created, the concept of the live environment also changes. While the audio representation is an important factor for musicians and spectators alike, it often takes a backseat to the visual element of a production. In a similar way to how the audio industry had to play catch-up in the late 1960s to the requirement of artists performing in much larger environments than had been done previously, there is now a similar scenario in keeping up with the scale of productions that are being designed and created. The visual aesthetics of the stage will most likely always be a contributing factor to what the audio department is able to achieve in terms of placement of equipment and musicians on a stage. In terms of onstage sound, with a solution required that supports the performer, a ‘silent, activated’ stage is, in theory, a solution to that problem. The Silent Stage model discussed in this chapter allows for more accurate replication of sound sources and sound reproduction from one show to the next while reducing some of the disadvantageous impact that the equipment has on the production both sonically and physically. The reduction in physical size of the equipment needed to implement the Silent Stage model will no doubt have repercussions at smaller events, allowing for more professional productions to be achieved in smaller environments,

66

The Future of Live Music

while at large events it may also have the effect of reduction in costs involved with transportation. The key is to allow a production to be created with a focus on visuals without compromising the audio quality, and to achieve this, the solution is the Silent Stage.

References Axelsson, Alf, Anette Eliasson and Bjorn Israelsson (1995). ‘Hearing in Pop/Rock Musicians: A Follow-Up Study’, Ear and Hearing, 3: 245–53. Begault, Durand R. (2002). ‘Challenges and Solutions for Realistic Room Simulation’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111 (5): 34–8. Bennett, Andy and Steve Waksman, eds (2014). The Sage Handbook of Popular Music, London: Sage, pp. 306–9. Benson, Michael (2016). Why the Grateful Dead Matter, University Press of New England, pp. 26–7. Berg, Jan, Tomas Johannesson, Magnus Löfdahl and Arne Nykänen (2017). ‘In-Ear vs. Loudspeaker Monitoring for Live Sound and the Effect on Audio Quality Attributes and Musical Performance’, Audio Engineering Society Convention 142, Audio Engineering Society, pp. 1–4. ButtKicker (2018). TheButtKicker.com, https://thebuttkicker.com/pro-audio/, accessed 18 December 2018. Chasin, Marshall (2009). Hearing Loss in Musicians: Prevention and Management, Plural Publishing, pp. 78–84. Davis, G. and R. Jones (2000). The Sound Reinforcement Handbook, Milwaukee: Hal Leonard Corporation, pp. 47–9. Dofat, Tony M. (2016). Introduction to Digital Audio, illustrated edn, Lulu.com. Health and Safety Executive (2018). ‘Health and Safety Executive 9th December 2018’, HM Government Services, http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/regulations.htm, accessed 20 August 2018. Hetu, Raymond and Martin Fortin (1995). ‘Potential Risk of Hearing Damage Associated with Exposure to Highly Amplified Music’, American Academy of Audiology, 6: 378–82. Huber, David M. and Phillip Williams (1998). Professional Microphone Techniques, 1st edn, Vallejo, CA: Mix Books . Jackson, Blair (2006). Grateful Dead Gear: The Band’s Instruments, Sound Systems, and Recording Sessions from 1965 to 1995, Hal Leonard Corporation. Jerry Harvey Audio (2018). ‘Jerry Harvey Audio Company History’, JHAudio.com, https:// jhaudio.com/company#history, accessed 18 June 2018. Kemper (2018). Kemperamps.com, https://www.kemper-amps.com/profiler/overview#a-pr ofiling, accessed 19 June 2018. Kulas, C. J. (13 August 2002). United States of America Patent No. US6,434,240B1. Larsen, N. Werner, Esteban Olmos and Anders C. Gade (2004). ‘Acoustics in Halls for Rock Music’, Joint Baltic-Nordic Acoustics Meeting, pp. 8–10. Michailidis, Tychonas and Jamie Bullock (2011). ‘Improving Performers’ Musicality through Live Interaction with Haptic Feedback: A Case Study’, Proceedings of the Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC), p. 5.

The Silent Stage

67

Mulder, Johannes (2015). ‘Early History of Amplified Music: Tran Sectorial Innovation and Decentralized Development’, Audio Engineering Society Conference: 59th International Conference: Sound Reinforcement Engineering and Technology, Audio Engineering Society. Popale, Vijay (2017). ‘The Beatles Live at Shea Stadium’, Mixonline.com, https://www.mix online.com/issue-type/beatles-shea-stadium-429036, accessed 10 August 2018. Porter & Davies. (2019). ‘KT Concert Platform (TT6 Equipped)’, Porter & Davies, https ://www.porteranddavies.co.uk/shop/kt-concert-platform-tt6-equipped/, accessed 21 June 2019. Prosoundweb (2019). ‘Modern Pioneers: The History of PA, Part 2’, prosoundweb.com, https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/live-sound/modern_pioneers_the_history _of_pa_part_2/3/, accessed 30 June 2019. Shure (2007). ‘Shure Microphone Techniques’, Claire Trevor School of the Arts, http://mus ic.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/w14/music151/shuremicrophonetechniques.pdf, accessed 21 June 2019. Spitz, Bob (2012). The Beatles: The Biography, 1st edn, London: Hachette, pp. 576–80. Swallow, Dave (2010). Live Audio: The Art of Mixing a Show, 1st edn, Oxon: Focal Press, p. 94.

4

Networked performance as a means of transcending geographical barriers in live music performance Duncan Gallagher

The first widely acknowledged use of the term ‘internet band’ was in 2006 referring to the group the ClipBandits, who uploaded a video depicting the live performance of individual players over pre-recorded video and audio of other musicians on YouTube (ClipBandits 2006). The band went on to perform on US television, being described as ‘YouTube sensations’, and it was around this time that YouTube, then a relatively new video-sharing platform, signed deals with Sony BMG, Warner and Universal, perhaps indicating the first recognition of the platform’s relevance to the music industry (Telegraph 2010). The group has since disbanded and receded into obscurity, but their significance in the demonstration of a then-novel means of performance cannot be understated and can be viewed as one of the first widely recognized examples of ‘networked’ or ‘distributed’ performance. In fact, networked performance was a legitimate practice long before this, with the earliest experiments being conducted in the 1970s by a group of academic musicians known as the League of Automatic Music Composers (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 1). Since then, network music has become common in academic institutions and even has a life outside academia for certain applications. The present study aims to provoke a discussion about networked/ distributed performance that takes into account recent advances in technology, and aims to provide a cultural backdrop against which the practical and commercial viability of the medium can be assessed. The method employed by the ClipBandits involved ‘playing over synchronised video feeds’ (i.e. not ‘live’ in the conventional sense) (Sjoberg 2006). While this can be viewed as a type of networked performance, the practices under scrutiny here primarily involve performance over a network that is as close to live as possible, in which the performers involved can hear and respond to each other in near-real time (an explanation why ‘internet latency’ renders it nearly impossible for performers to perform in real time will follow shortly). I will begin with a discussion of past practices before moving onto internet latency. I will then present details of practical examples of networked performance before concluding with a discussion of the viability of the practice as a popular medium.

Networked Performance

69

A short history of networked performance Computers are undeniably ingrained in modern music practice (and indeed popular culture more broadly), and are essential for the production of music in most popular genres. Computers and live performance go hand-in-hand throughout popular culture, with DJs and electronic musicians almost always performing on laptops or similar devices. Since a substantial portion of private music consumption is also mediated via computers (now mostly in the form of phones), it is fair to suggest that modern audiences are both comfortable and familiar with the interplay between music and technology. Networked performance itself is a heavily technologically mediated practice of course, and a logical starting point in tracing its origins is with the League of Automatic Music Composers. The original ensemble consisted of Horton, Gold and Bischoff, and focused on ‘interaction’ between remote performers, this interaction being not audioor sound-based, but rather consisting of data messages transmitted between parties intended to influence decisions made by players in performance (Gresham-Lancaster 1998: 40). It was impossible at the time to transmit audio data due to bandwidth restrictions (‘bandwidth’ meaning a limitation on the amount of data being transferred over time) (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007). However, as larger bandwidths became more freely available, it became possible to engage in networked music interactions involving audio data. The first successful instance of this was the SoundWire project, led by Chris Chafe of the CCRMA, Stanford, resulting in the creation of ‘a set of tools for high quality uncompressed bi-directional audio streaming’ (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 1). Another precedent of networked performance is the laptop orchestra. A ‘Laptop Orchestra’ (often referred to as an ‘Ork’) is understood to be a specific type of group whose performers use computers to create sound (usually within experimental or electroacoustic styles) and who are usually affiliated with an academic institution (e.g. the PLOrk, or Princeton Laptop Orchestra) (Trueman 2007: 171). Since unlike conventional instruments, laptops are not designed solely for the production of sound and music, players will often be required to design their own performance software, and there is generally a high level of technical expertise required (Trueman 2007: 174). According to Dan Trueman, an important principle in any laptop orchestra is that players must understand that their instruments ‘will be played simultaneously with many other instruments’ (Trueman 2007: 174). While this may seem obvious in a group performance setting, it is important to note that the notion of performing with other people is by no means diminished by a heavy incorporation of technology into the creative process. In fact, it seems that this technological incorporation strengthens the identity of the practice while relying on it completely. Trueman also makes an observation that Laptop Orchestra is an example of the merging of two established things, one ‘archaic’ (the orchestra) and the other technological (the laptop) (Trueman 2007: 171) and something similar could be said of networked performance as a practice. Musical performance as a human activity has existed for thousands of years, and it is only with relatively recent technological advance that performing remotely

70

The Future of Live Music

has become possible, and the associated challenges apparent. While bound mostly to academic institutions, it is important to recognize that laptop orchestras represent a popular and well-established mode of performance that relies entirely on technology, and networked performance owes its existence to this experimental practice of musicmaking due to the research conducted in this area. Of course, the introduction of such heavy technological mediation into a creative practice such as musical performance creates particularly unique challenges and necessitates certain compromises. There are a variety of approaches to performance in networked music, some of which incorporate internet latency while others aim to replicate performance ‘in the same room’ as closely as possible. Before starting this discussion however, we first need to understand what latency is, and why it is such an important issue in networked performance.

Latency One of the challenges faced through the use of the internet in performance is latency. In a networking context: Latency is the amount of time a message takes to traverse a system. […] It is an expression of how much time it takes for a packet of data to get from one designated point to another. […] Latency depends on the speed of the transmission medium (e.g., copper wire, optical fiber or radio waves) and the delays in the transmission by devices along the way (e.g., routers and modems). A low latency indicates a high network efficiency. (Linux Information Project 2005)

In musical terms, latency is understood as the amount of time taken for sound produced on an instrument to reach the ears of the listener. For the level of responsiveness required between musicians in performance, this delay must be extremely small, ideally around 20–30 milliseconds (Rottondi et al. 2015: 864). This, of course, varies depending on the speed and style of the music (e.g. slow or ambient music is often much more tolerant to delay), but it is a useful ‘ballpark’ figure. A practical example is useful here. With the speed of sound being 343 metres per second, this is equivalent roughly to a speed of 1 foot per millisecond. If two musicians stand five feet apart from one another, it can be assumed then that the latency between these two performers is roughly 5 milliseconds. With most performances taking place in the same room, what is described here as ‘latency’ is not usually a problem, except when the size of the room and the distance between players is particularly large. With classical orchestras, this is often the case, with orchestras frequently performing in large reverberant spaces, with much larger distances between players. In instances such as these, delays in hearing sound between musicians become much more of an issue. Assume for the sake of argument that instrumentalists at opposite ends of an orchestra sit 50 feet apart inducing 50 milliseconds of latency, a delay generally considered uncomfortable in performance and especially so in faster more intricate music.

Networked Performance

71

The solution here is, of course, the use of a conductor: since light travels much faster than sound, players may use the conductor as a visual point of reference in order to stay audibly synchronized with other musicians. As already mentioned, sending packets of data over a network inevitably induces latency, and does so in four significant areas within this context (Rottondi et al. 2015: 864). The first is the latency induced by digital equipment such as audio interfaces, which must process analogue audio signals into digital ones to enable transmission over a network. There is also ‘pure propagation delay’, which refers to the distance the data travels in the physical network, ‘data processing delay’ as the network itself processes the path the data is taking and, finally, the processing that must take place on the receiving end of the connection (Rottondi et al. 2015: 864). Note here that this activity is bi-directional: data must be both sent and received by all parties, and this usually requires a large bandwidth from all users. This bi-directionality is analogous to the way in which musicians must play their own instruments while listening to others in a conventional performance setting. Further terminologies important to the understanding of the challenges presented by internet latency are ‘jitter’ and ‘quality of service’ (QoS). ‘Jitter’ refers to the time variability with which data is received by a client due to the inherent unreliability of global network systems. In order to circumvent this unreliability, network music solutions use ‘large sample buffers’ which increase reliability by allowing more time for data to be received before processing, offset by an increase in playback delay (Kramer et al. 2007). QoS simply refers to the overall quality of a given network system, but this can vary widely depending on the time of day, and the number of currently connected users within a certain area (e.g. a city or region). University networks usually have a very high QoS, and this may be one of the reasons network music has been practised historically within academic institutions. In order for musicians to partake comfortably in networked performance then, the efficiency of the networks and systems used must be optimized to minimize disruption caused by latency. A 2015 study conducted by Rottondi et al. examined the adverse effects that network delay had on the ability of performers to perform effectively in networked music situations, observing in particular that ‘rhythmically complex’ music caused performers to decelerate when faced with high amounts of lag (Rottondi et al. 2015: 873). Another interesting observation in this study is the notion that latency is present to some degree even within conventional performance situations. For example, organists are accustomed to judging the delay between pressing the keys on the manuals and hearing the sound, and piano players can experience anywhere between 30–100 milliseconds of delay between the physical action of pressing a key and hearing the hammer strike the string (Rottondi et al. 2015: 865). For Rottondi et al., this ‘natural’ latency was not considered as relevant to their study, but it suggests an interesting point regarding the way in which skilled performers can naturally adapt to reasonable degrees of delay in order to perform well. On this point, Barbosa and Cordeiro note that should the instruments being used in networked performance have a slow ‘perceptual attack time’ (i.e. with the note becoming audible gradually rather than suddenly), it may ‘lead to a better ability to perform synchronous music

72

The Future of Live Music

interaction’ (Barbosa and Cordeiro 2011). It makes sense to suggest then, that genres of music that consist of gradually sounding timbres and allow for rhythmic flexibility can be much more readily embraced in networked performance. Examples of this may be experimental electroacoustic music, ambient music or freely improvised music. While the technological quirks of networked music do indeed render the practice most suited to the styles of music just mentioned, it would be an oversight to disregard the fact that networked music can be and is used to perform all styles of music, including conventionally popular and classical styles. It is important to recognize that ‘networked performance’ can be both a term denoting a particular musical style and a term referring simply to the way the performance is mediated with no implication on musical style. With this in mind, let us move towards examining the multitude of ways networked performance can be achieved in practice.

Networked performance in practice I will now examine a variety of currently available solutions that facilitate networked performance in varying ways. First, we will examine an open-source plugin NINJAM, developed by Cockos Incorporated. NINJAM resolves the issue of latency as follows: The NINJAM client records and streams synchronized intervals of music between participants. Just as the interval finishes recording, it begins playing on everyone else’s client. So when you play through an interval, you’re playing along with the previous interval of everybody else, and they’re playing along with your previous interval. (Cockos Incorporated, n.d.)

To demonstrate this further, a tabulated representation of the audible results of a two-person performance through NINJAM is provided (Table 4.1). Hence, the most distinctive feature of using NINJAM in performance is that each performer hears a different version of the ‘live performance’ in that phrases are organized varyingly for each client. Essentially, the host’s audio is streamed to clients at predefined synchronization intervals, and through the use of a metronome players are able to play in time with past versions of each other. The developers of NINJAM have called this idea ‘faketime’ (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 3). With recorded Table 4.1 Audible Results of an Example Online Performance between Two People Using NINJAM ‘Real-time’ bar Guitarist plays Guitarist hears Drummer hears Drummer plays

1 Gtr bar 1 – – –

2 Gtr bar 2 – Gtr bar 1 –

3 Gtr bar 3 – Gtr bar 2 Drms bar 1

4 Gtr bar 4 Drms bar 1 Gtr bar 3 Drms bar 2

5 Gtr bar 1 Drms bar 2 Gtr bar 4 Drms bar 3

Networked Performance

73

performances dating back as far as 2005, a public repository also exists in which recordings of jams created using the software have been automatically deposited since its conception (Anonymous 2019). An active forum also exists for users of the software indicating the presence of a community for the practice, and development has continued steadily on the project as evidenced through consistent patches over the years (Frankel 2019). Due to the intervallic nature of NINJAM, music produced is often groove-based, with riff length being dictated by the synchronization interval set within the software. As a result, devising music with complex structures becomes challenging, and irregularity in phrase length can cause confusion among other musicians. Because of this, it would be challenging to devise a prewritten piece of music for performance with NINJAM, although within the context of delay-based jamming it functions extremely well.  NINJAM bears fascinating implications for the ontology of musical works created in this way, since different participants experience a differently organized version of the same piece of music. With conventional jams, it is safe to assume that performers will be influenced by the performances of those they are playing with in real time. With NINJAM, where this process is rhythmically displaced, responses to musical phrases come always at least a bar later than real time. Hence, musical ideas are accepted by players in a gradual manner and displaced in a fashion unique to this software. NINJAM is a way of creating networked music that fully relies on and embraces latency, and the method uniquely colours the results; it is what Alexander Carôt et al. refer to as a ‘Latency Accepting Approach’ to networked music (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 3). It may be argued that latency is embraced as part of the identity of ‘network music’ more often than not, as evidenced by another online music performance platform, blockchain-based enterprise Artsmesh (Fields 2017). The Artsmesh client allows users to connect to one another ‘peer-to-peer’ (i.e. using a direct client-to-client connection with no intermediary server connection) and jam together in near-real time. Much like NINJAM, due to the inevitability of latency when playing between cities (as the Artsmesh community does), the music created on the platform is based largely on ‘rhythmically cycling types of sounds [or] ambient layered types of sounds’ (Fields 2018). Here, creative results are influenced heavily by practical restrictions, which indeed remains one of the most distinctive features of network music at the current time. The reliance of the Artsmesh platform on blockchain technology necessitates an understanding of the complex systems underpinning it, which may be alienating for practitioners outside of the ‘network music’ bubble. Artsmesh appears most suitable for dedicated practitioners, and the platform is designed with this in mind. As such it may not appeal to a wider public at this time, but the implications of blockchain-based economies may be of great relevance to the music industry in the near future and is an area which warrants further study. It can be suggested that platforms such as NINJAM and Artsmesh appeal mostly to practitioners outside mainstream music creation activity due to the relatively high level of technological expertise required to configure and use systems successfully. A further characteristic of both platforms is their embracing of latency as part of

74

The Future of Live Music

the performative/creative process, and the creation of small but dedicated music subcultures as a result. A system for performing music ‘as if live’, or as Carôt refers to it, as a ‘Realistic Jam Approach’ (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007), has yet to be discussed. There are a number of projects that focus on a ‘close to live’ approach to networked music, and here we shall mention JamKazam, (JamKazam 2016) eJamming, (eJamming 2010) and Jacktrip, (JackTrip 2009). Each of these is similar in that they aim to facilitate ‘live’ jamming as far as possible but differ in their presentation and usability. For example, eJamming circumvents the issue of audio transfer by relying on the transfer of MIDI data, which reduces the amount of bandwidth required considerably (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 3), while both Jacktrip and JamKazam are designed to stream audio data, indicating a reliance on optimal network conditions. Furthermore, both JamKazam and eJamming are services that are relatively user-friendly, while Jacktrip requires a little more technical knowledge from the user to set up effectively. JamKazam is an example of a platform that is directed more towards mainstream users than others mentioned thus far. Their service provides an online portal which allows users to connect to others looking for or currently engaged in jam sessions and play in real-time (JamKazam 2016). From the simply designed online platform provided by JamKazam for users of the service, it can be suggested that this service possesses more mainstream appeal than the specialist approaches discussed previously. In 2016, their service expanded to provide educational-backing tracks as well as the opportunity to connect with music teachers to receive online tuition (JamKazam 2019). The decision to expand their services in this way may suggest a need to compensate for a lack of interest in their online jamming service, which poses questions about the mainstream appeal of network music in general. As such, it could be surmised that mediating music performance through the internet (as distinct from consuming music via the internet) is still unfamiliar enough for audiences to prefer a comfortable default of traditionally live music performance. Since JamKazam users would almost certainly be using domestic internet connections, latency would continue to be an issue, but JamKazam offers for sale a specialized piece of hardware (the JamBlaster) which serves as an extremely low latency audio interface. In an ideal scenario, the latency of the service has been demonstrated as being as low as 14 milliseconds, certainly low enough to facilitate ‘live’ musical performance with minimal metric discomfort (Loveridge 2017). The focus of this device is evidently intended to be as easy to use as possible owing to its simple functionality and streamlined design. However, when contacted by the author in 2018, JamKazam reported that their specialist hardware device was no longer in production. At $300, their audio interface is a fairly expensive option for non-specialist consumers, and other low latency hardware options are otherwise commercially available. As the previous case studies have shown, low latencies can indeed be achieved using opensource software such as the Jacktrip, perhaps removing a need for dedicated hardware while necessitating technical knowledge for users interested in jamming online. There are also questions raised here about musical activity over the network in the long term. For many musicians, meeting face-to-face is an integral part of the

Networked Performance

75

creative process, and working online with collaborators has often been seen as a short-term or one-off solution (such as when producers require musicians to track parts of a song remotely at their own studios). Many of the examples covered in this study focus on jamming over songwriting and rehearsals, and as such it seems that the available tools are designed with this purpose in mind. Conventionally, jamming is an important part of the songwriting process for popular musicians, and in faceto-face situations, formalizing tracks into finished products is often a result of a group of musicians living and working in close proximity. Perhaps there is something about the inherent inconvenience of network music that makes it unappealing as a solution to overcoming geographical barriers, and as such has been practised largely by academic institutions with the relevant equipment and expertise. The question is whether network performance could ever be normalized? Music-making relies heavily on modes of communication such as body language, eye-contact and tone of voice in discussion, and when these methods of communication are translated through a network, it is fair to assume that they are diluted somewhat. This is inherently difficult to overcome in network music situations that involve devising and working on music, with practitioners often having to ‘listen with bigger ears’ (Chafe 2011: 2) in order to make up for not being able to see their partners with regular clarity. It is perhaps because of the inherently distanced nature of network music that this method of music-making has been used primarily by bands who have material prewritten, and are able to put up with the challenges of performing over network in order to make the best of their geographical situation. One such band is Patriarch, who rehearsed over the internet for a reunion concert in 2014 (Google Fiber 2014). They used the JamLink, which is a device created by MusicianLink, and is similar to the JamBlaster mentioned earlier (MusicianLink 2014). While networked performance here is used as a means to advertise services offered by Google Fiber, it serves as a useful example of the success possible in situations in which the geographical situation of band members make conventional in-person rehearsals impossible or impractical. Another such band is Pop Fiction, who are a four-person band rehearsing exclusively using the JamLink (Chafe 2011: 5). Of Pop Fiction’s rehearsals, Chafe writes that the challenges faced are degradation of QoS due to the use of domestic internet connections and limited available bandwidth shared between all users of a shared single-home internet connection (Chafe 2011: 5). As a point of interest, MusicianLink clearly markets the JamLink as a device offering ‘low latency internet band rehearsals’ with no mention of live performance (MusicianLink 2014). With these practical examples in mind then, one can argue that networked performance is a legitimate and usable way to perform and rehearse music over the internet, albeit in a variety of forms and specific contexts. The question remains then: Why does networked performance exist primarily outside popular consciousness? In the following section, I will discuss the viability of networked performance for popular performance and examine what further challenges the practice must overcome if it is to become a widely accepted way of performing live music.

76

The Future of Live Music

Popular viability and the future of networked music One of the greatest logistical challenges in bringing networked performance into mainstream practice would be the availability of high-speed internet connections. As explored earlier, in order to minimize latency, the quality of a given internet connection must be extremely high. Let us propose that a group is touring between venues and wishes to perform over the internet between multiple venues simultaneously. Should such a group be touring frequently, it would be extremely difficult to ensure that each venue possessed the quality of internet connection necessary to facilitate an ideal networked performance situation. Since cheaper commercially available internet connections have yet to reach the speeds necessary for truly ‘live’ networked performance, and fibre optic cable has yet to be laid in many parts of the UK, this limits potential projects to institutional settings such as universities that already have access to fast and reliable network connections as well as a high degree of technical support. As it stands, along with the fact that the practice of networked performance is still very much outside the popular consciousness, any venue at which one would want to perform over network would be required to prepare thoroughly since they may not have the necessary resources readily available, and may lack in-house expertise. It would therefore take a significant amount of time for venues to become accustomed to facilitating networked performance in the same way that standard practices in live music are currently accepted. On the subject of the popular consciousness, livestreaming as a medium is something that is extremely popular within certain subcultures (such as online gaming communities and internet forums), and it is suggested here that it may be within these subcultures that networked performance is most suited to use as a starting point in attaining mainstream appeal. An area which may warrant additional research in relation to this is the video-streaming platform Twitch.tv (Twitch 2019a). The site acts primarily as a hub for video game streaming, and although there is a small community of performing musicians active on the site, this community is dwarfed in size by that of the gaming community which the platform was originally built around. There are some notable musicians streaming regularly on Twitch, for example ‘lara6683’ who performs piano covers regularly for between a few hundred and a few thousand viewers (Twitch 2019b). By comparison, Ninja, one of the most popular gaming streamers on Twitch (until Aug 2019, when he left for rival platform Mixer), regularly achieved between twenty and forty thousand viewers per stream, demonstrating the platform’s emphasis on particular kinds of content (Twitch 2019c). There is certainly something to be said for the intimacy achieved here between performers and viewers though, since performers often play from their bedrooms or personal spaces, and rely heavily on donations from audience members, exclusively so for those streamers who stream fulltime. The notion of the ‘professional streamer’ has become more prominent in recent years, and one wonders to what extent this business model may be applied within the scope of networked music. A particular issue that is apparent in technologically mediated music performances is the extent to which the audience understands the processes at work during the

Networked Performance

77

performance. Often, experimental music performances are attended mostly by fellow practitioners who perhaps already understand the inner workings of the medium. If a non-specialist member of the general public were to attend, it is likely that they would be confused or show a lack of engagement due to the complexity of the performance medium they are witnessing. As a result, it is necessary to put measures in place in order to mitigate these risks and render performances more accessible if the practice aims to enter the public consciousness. In live coding performances for example, the code performers type is often projected onto screens behind the performers, providing a way for audiences to obtain a level of understanding about how the code on screen is affecting the sounds produced (even if they aren’t specialists in writing code themselves) (Collins et al. 2003: 323). Without this crucial step, non-specialists may struggle to grasp the relationship between the performer and the sounds they create. The same issue could potentially be present in networked music performances and should there not be a visual representation of performers located elsewhere, audience members may question the source of sounds, perhaps even assume that they are prerecorded. Live video is also something to be considered within the context of networked performance, especially to an audience. There have been many attempts to include video in networked performance streams, but various issues such as intolerable lag and video quality render basic visual synchronization activity very difficult (Carôt, Rebelo and Renaud 2007: 5). While these function acceptably, video quality and latency are less than ideal, and the audience’s experience of the performance and understanding of the systems in use would be diminished. Online video streaming requires much more bandwidth than audio due to the sheer amount of data needed to stream video in HD, and at the time of writing, even the lowest latencies demonstrated by the highest-end technology fall in the region of five to seven seconds (Michaels 2018). This, of course, means that even if audio latency were optimal, perhaps in the tens of milliseconds, video latency would always be several seconds behind, resulting is a noticeable disjunction between the two. Low latency video solutions which would perhaps be viable would be signal transmission via WIFI radios, but these are limited by a maximum distance of 3 kilometres and are also bound by UK laws restricting frequency use and signal strength (befinitiv 2015). It is suggested then, that with video ideally being a significant aspect of a networked performance in public, the approach to video should be carefully considered, perhaps with an emphasis on visual abstraction rather than accurate synchronization. Although it would be off-putting for an audience to observe that a drummer’s actions on-screen do not accord with what they are hearing, if a certain style of music were performed, or indeed a certain visual style embraced in video presentation, these compromises could perhaps be embraced as stylistic features. As with other network music practices, the available technology must to an extent shape the aesthetic result. As an aside, one wonders about the long-term social effects of participating in a group that performs solely over network. It is safe to assume that at the time of writing, there are no notable examples of ‘bands’ in the popular sense who tote

78

The Future of Live Music

network performance as an integral part of their identity. As such there are no examples with which one can explore the extent to which conventional musicmaking might be affected by networked performance in the long term. As a speculation, the camaraderie common to traditional band settings and tours might be much disrupted owing to the dislocation of one or more members of the band, and the general social dynamic of the group would perhaps be affected. In a study exploring social psychology within the context of the internet, McKenna and Bargh acknowledge that face-to-face social interaction differs significantly from social interaction online, the factor most relevant to the current discussion being the ‘negation of physical proximity’ (McKenna and Bargh 2000: 65). The study also explores the differing pace of online social interactions when compared to those that are face-to-face: social interaction need not be ‘spontaneous’ owing to the ability to compose and edit messages to be sent when necessary, in stark contrast to the immediacy of verbal interactions (McKenna and Bargh 2000: 66). While it is acknowledged that much business occurs online in the modern world, one must consider whether this method of working and communication would ultimately be detrimental to creative individuals who so often rely on constant social and artistic stimulation to maintain motivation and enthusiasm. It is also possible that strategies for coping with this way of working may be devised in practice, but as previously alluded to, there is no practical basis on which to draw any further conclusions. Until this practice can be observed with a significant case study, it is admitted that one can only speculate on the outcome in this particular area. There is perhaps a reason then that networked performance has yet to become accepted as a mainstream format, and it may be many years before it is. For in order for networked performance to be accepted by an audience, it must first be embraced by musicians on a wider scale. The level of technological expertise required to successfully set up and troubleshoot networked performance situations is relatively high, and devices that are user-friendly such as the JamLink and JamKazam are currently not in production. Along with the difficulties in making video a part of the experience for audiences, it becomes evident that there are several obstacles that prevent a large number of musicians from firstly knowing about, and secondly taking part in, networked performance. The availability of technology and its ability to facilitate conditions for networked performance, are almost at a workable point, but there is still some progress to be made. As internet speeds become faster and faster as they will in the future, it may well become quite straightforward for musicians to connect and play with each other using domestic internet services, but it is not currently easy to achieve. A paper by Naveed et al. explores the hypothesis that ‘the notable resurgence in live music can largely be attributed to its assimilation of digital innovations incorporated in digital music and [that] this assimilation has been enabled by the co-evolution between streaming and live music industries’ (Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki 2017: 4). While this hypothesis focuses primarily on music-streaming services such as Spotify, it serves to demonstrate the symbiotic relationship between technological advancement and the development of live music business practices, and as the writers state ‘the only

Networked Performance

79

thing record labels, artists, music publishers and consumers can do is embrace the new technologies and allow the digital age to work to the advantage of everyone’ (Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki 2017: 11). Taking the notion of a ‘new technology’ and applying it to the practice of networked performance, one can posit that should networked performance be demonstrated as an effective and marketable medium for popular live performance, the industry would not struggle to assimilate it, owing to the music industry’s proven ability to adapt to technological innovation. Naveed et al. also touch on the shift from ‘ownership to access’ in the digital age, with the music industry moving from a ‘product to a service business model’, and with an emphasis on consumers as being ‘closer’ or perceptually in touch with artists (Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki 2017: 11). It would seem that networked performance would ideally offer a service that acts as a sort of middle ground between fully live performances and fully streamed performances, broadening access to usually expensive live music experiences, and potentially appealing to generations accustomed to internet culture and communication.

Conclusion So what does the future hold for networked music? Evidently, there are still barriers that prevent networked performance from becoming a common practice. As discussed, much of the research conducted on networked music centers around the restrictions imposed by latency, demonstrating that latency is a major topic in the understanding and undertaking of networked performance. It remains to be seen whether domestic internet connections will become fast enough to facilitate widespread networked performance, although with the current rate at which technology advances, this may only be a matter of time. Currently, it also seems to exist mainly as an academic practice with specific stylistic implications, or as a medium enabling popular or classical music rehearsals over long distances. But in order for networked music to become accepted as a mainstream live performance medium rather than simply a rehearsal method, it must first be embraced more widely by practising musicians, as previously mentioned. For this to happen, however, there would need to be a tangible need for musicians to rehearse over the internet as a ‘way in’ to the practice, as currently participation in the practice seems to be largely situational depending on the group and context of musicians involved. Moreover, perhaps networked music’s association with experimental or academic styles is offputting for musicians who are interested in performing more conventional music, or perhaps the difficulty in achieving latencies acceptable for synchronous performance causes musicians to disregard the practice. In these cases, musicians would either give up on the idea of networked music entirely or work towards a solution that involves meeting each other in person, often to great inconvenience and financial cost. As a problem to be solved, connecting geographically estranged musicians is a significant one, and should a solution be popularly implemented there would doubtlessly be great financial gain involved.

80

The Future of Live Music

It may be suggested that a potentially viable situation for a popularly received networked performance would be across multiple stages at a live music festival, where distance and technical support could be shared, and a novel practice (novel at least to many mainstream consumers) could be introduced among more familiar live performance formats. It makes sense that the distance should first be small, to be increased as necessary and with the required technological advancement. In the future, perhaps whole venues would be readily linked to each other, able to stream individual musicians or even full concerts bi-directionally as and when the need arose. With networked performance obviously involving the projected presence of musicians, there are also potential links with virtual reality, but this is an area which can only be speculated about at this point. It may come to pass, however, that networked performance remains a mildly esoteric practice suited to particular kinds of music, as well as a sometimes-used solution for rehearsing or jamming online. In 2019, the idea of regular, popularly attended live performances networked between venues is still just a fantasy, but it becomes more tangible with each technological step forward.

References Anonymous (2019). ‘Ninjam (Autosong): Free Audio: Free Download, Borrow and Streaming’, Internet Archive, n.d., https://archive.org/details/ninjam, accessed 6 September 2019. Barbosa, Alvaro and João Cordeiro (2011). ‘The Influence of Perceptual Attack Times in Networked Music Performance’, in Audio Engineering Society Conference: 44th International Conference: Audio Networking, Audio Engineering Society. befinitiv (2015). ‘Wifibroadcast Analog-Like Transmission of Live Video Data’, Befinitiv, accessed 15 June 2019. Carôt, Alexander, Pedro Rebelo and Alain Renaud (2007). ‘Networked Music Performance: State of the Art’, in Audio Engineering Society Conference: 30th International Conference: Intelligent Audio Environments, Audio Engineering Society. Chafe, Chris (2011). ‘Living with Net Lag’, in Audio Engineering Society Conference: 43rd International Conference: Audio for Wirelessly Networked Personal Devices, Audio Engineering Society. ClipBandits (2006). ‘ClipBandits – “Internet Killed the Video Star”’, YouTube, 14/10, https ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUKaeDwKP2A, accessed 06 September 2019. Cockos Incorporated (n.d.). ‘NINJAM’, Cockos Incorporated, n.d., https://www.cockos. com/ninjam/, accessed 6 September 2019. Collins, Nick, Alex McLean, Julian Rohrhuber and Adrian Ward (2003). ‘Live Coding in Laptop Performance’, Organised Sound, 8 (3): 321–30. eJamming (2010). ‘eJAMMING AUDiiO the Collaborative Network for Musicians Creating Together Online in Real Time’, eJamming, n.d., http://www.ejamming.com/, accessed 12 June 2019. Fields, Ken (2017). ‘The Life of an Artsmesh Blockchain Contract’, Artsmesh, 28/12, https ://medium.com/artsmesh/the-life-of-an-artsmesh-blockchain-contract-c879a54cc2f4, accessed 6 September 2018.

Networked Performance

81

Fields, Ken (2018). ‘What Happens When P2P Jamming Meets the Blockchain?’, Medium, 06/03, https://medium.com/artsmesh/what-happens-when-p2p-jamming-meets-the-bl ockchain-6ccbbda5e58d, accessed 6 September 2019. Frankel, Justin (2019). ‘NINJAM Server, Clients, Autosong, Etc. Contribute to Justinfrankel/Ninjam Development by Creating an Account on GitHub’, GitHub, 22/04, https://github.com/justinfrankel/ninjam, accessed 6 September 2019. Google Fiber (2014). ‘Why Speed Matters: Getting the Band Back Together’, YouTube, 15/04, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjlkDCXMRQk, accessed 6 September 2019. Gresham-Lancaster, Scot (1998). ‘The Aesthetics and History of the Hub: The Effects of Changing Technology on Network Computer Music’, Leonardo Music Journal, 8 (1): 39–44. JackTrip (2009). ‘JackTrip: JackTrip Documentation’, JackTrip Documentation, 21/07, https ://ccrma.stanford.edu/groups/soundwire/software/jacktrip/index.html, accessed 6 September 2019. JamKazam (2016). ‘Revolutionizing the Way Musicians Connect, Play, Learn and Earn. Across a City or Across a Nation’, JamKazam, n.d., https://www.jamkazam.com/, accessed 6 September 2019. JamKazam (2019). ‘Let Us Find You the Perfect Music Teacher’, JamKazam, n.d., https:// www.jamkazam.com/landing/jamclass/students, accessed 6 September 2019. Kramer, Ulrich, Jens Hirschfeld, Gerald Schuller, Stefan Wabnik, Alexander Carot and Christian Werner (2007). ‘Audio Engineering Society Convention Paper 7214, ‘Network Music Performance with Ultra-Low-Delay Audio Coding Under Unreliable Network Conditions’, AES 123rd Convention, New York, p. 11. Loveridge, Ben (2017). ‘Tweet: Audio Test with Two JamBlasters’, Twitter, 01/02, https://tw itter.com/benloveridge/status/827030303013113860, accessed 06 September 2019. McKenna, Katelyn Y. A. and John A. Bargh (2000). ‘Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 57–75. Michaels, Chris (2018). ‘What Is Low Latency and Who Needs It? | Video Series | Wowza’, Wowza Product Resources Center, n.d., https://www.wowza.com/blog/what-is-low-l atency-and-who-needs-it, accessed 6 September 2019. MusicianLink (2014). ‘Low Latency Internet Band Rehearsal’, MusicianLink, n.d., https:// www.musicianlink.com/, accessed 6 September 2019. Naveed, Kashif, Chihiro Watanabe and Pekka Neittaanmäki (2017). ‘Co-Evolution between Streaming and Live Music Leads a Way to the Sustainable Growth of Music Industry Lessons from the US Experiences’, Technology in Society, 5: 1–19. Rottondi, Cristina, Michele Buccoli, Massimiliano Zanoni, Dario Garao, Giacomo Verticale and Augusto Sarti (2015). ‘Feature-Based Analysis of the Effects of Packet Delay on Networked Musical Interactions’, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 63 (11): 864–75. Sjoberg, Lore (2006). ‘The ClipBandits – Internet Band’, WIRED, 17/10, https://www.wir ed.com/2006/10/the-clipbandits/, accessed 6 September 2019. The Linux Information Project (2005). ‘Latency Definition’, The Linux Information Project, n.d., http://www.linfo.org/latency.html, accessed 6 September 2019.

82

The Future of Live Music

The Telegraph (2010). ‘YouTube: A History’, The Telegraph, 17/04, https://www.telegrap h.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/digital-media/7596636/ YouTube-a-history.html, accessed 6 September 2019. Trueman, Dan (2007). ‘Why a Laptop Orchestra?’, Organised Sound, 12 (2): 171–9. Twitch (2019a). Twitch, n.d., https://www.twitch.tv/, accessed 6 September 2019. Twitch (2019b). ‘Lara6683 – Streamer Profile & Stats’, TwitchMetrics, n.d., https://www.twi tchmetrics.net/c/80352893-lara6683, accessed 6 September 2019. Twitch (2019c). ‘Ninja – Streamer Profile & Stats’, TwitchMetrics, n.d., https://www.twi tchmetrics.net/c/19571641-ninja, accessed 6 September 2019.

5

Digital performances Live-streaming music and the documentation of the creative process Mark Daman Thomas

With the advent of new ‘one-to-many’ livestreaming platforms, the domain of music performance will expand to include things previously considered off-limits, or of little interest to the public. Aspects like preparation and arrangement, composition, creative experimentation, iterative development and songwriting can be considered as part of a performance unfolding over months. It appears a new form of live performance is emerging where the live documentation of the creative process is the show. Furthermore, the platforms stand to re-orientate the consumer to be more intimately engaged with the creative process. Livestreaming practices, such as those described in this chapter, offer musicians and music fans the means for richer interaction and engagement. Based on my own experimentation with livestreaming over recent years (house e-concerts on Instagram Live, improvised performances and songwriting on Twitch), I explore the potential for expanding music performance in this way. I discuss my own findings which suggest that this hyper-local activity (broadcasting from home) can be a way of developing an international audience. Following on from this, I argue that livestreaming can become a key part of a DIY musician taking a record to market. The technology of livestreaming has existed for the past twenty years (Smith, Obrist and Wright 2013). The idea hit the mainstream in 2006 with the Sandi Thom webcast tour having significant impact in terms of press coverage (NME 2019). Thom quoted in McLean, Oliver and Wainwright (2010) said, ‘A web tour is basically what you do when you have a lack of money and no car … . With the webcam, it’s a great opportunity to play in front of the whole world — and cost-effective.’ Given that this happened fifteen years ago, it could be suggested that musicians have been slow to adopt, or even actively resistant towards livestreaming. However, over the past few years this has begun to change, as an increasing number of musicians are turning the camera on themselves and going live. In what follows, I explore the varied ways in which this is happening alongside the platforms being

84

The Future of Live Music

used to enable it. I consider the potential of Twitch and examine YouTube Live, Facebook Live, Instagram Live as well as purpose-built platforms such as Krue (now closed). Nevertheless, it appears that the true potential of streamed gigs has yet to be realized within the music industry as a whole. I examine the relatively slow and unenthusiastic uptake of livestreaming in music in contrast to the gaming and eSports industries, exploring this issue in terms of aesthetics, authenticity, economics, e-busking as well as audience experience. This seems like an obvious move for emerging musicians; the potential of an international audience without even leaving the bedroom. Why isn’t this happening more?

The potential of livestreaming There are trends within the UK live music business with the sector facing considerable challenges, particularly at the grassroots level with venues of under 350 capacity struggling (the UK Live Music Census 2017). This trend has continued until the time of writing in mid-2019. These struggles are a consequence of increased business rates, planning and property development threats, as well as noise-related complaints. These problems have caused a number of small venues across the UK to close in recent years (Harris 2019). UK Music chief executive Michael Dugher said, ‘These are challenging times for small and grassroots venues which play a crucial role in nurturing new talent and helping artists get their big break’ (UK Music 2019). From a musician’s perspective, livestreaming platforms offer the potential to offset some of these closures. One way that livestreaming platforms help is through lowering the cost to musicians of reaching an audience. For emerging or semi-professional performing musicians gigging at a national and international level is becoming less viable. Alongside this, there is a huge number of musicians competing for attention in the live marketplace. There has never been more music being made in the world than right now, and while that incredible level of creative endeavour is to be lauded, the recorded and live music markets are increasingly becoming saturated.  For a large section of the music makers and performers – including tribute and cover bands and session players, buskers and experimental musicians – these small venues aren’t steppingstones, they’re the pinnacle (Harris 2019). However, there is scope for musicians to reach new audience members through livestreaming platforms. Often musicians seek out open mic nights or small gigs to establish themselves as a performer. Livestreaming technologies are offering alternatives for those that want to engage with audiences in real time, and to explore new income streams without having to leave the comfort of the studio, practice space or bedroom. In addition, using livestreaming platforms to reach audiences can reduce the physical and psychological strain that often comes with touring live music. While it is easy to imagine the life of a touring musician as idyllic, travelling and playing music to adoring fans, the reality is often different. For many, touring in smaller venues results in a demanding lifestyle being away from home for long periods of time. A breakdown of personal relationships is common, with many musicians feeling

Digital Performances

85

alienated from loved ones back home. A recent study by charity Help Musicians UK found that over 60 per cent of musicians have suffered from depression or other psychological issues, with touring an issue for 71 per cent of respondents (Morgan Britton 2015).

Virtual performances and webcasts To establish a context for the discussion, I will first explore digital and virtual performances. There are clearly a range of options for fans to access music content via digital and virtual portals. Live music performances have happened within video games, such as Marshmallo performing on Fortnite in 2019, U2 appeared in Second Life (Beer and Geesin 2009) and Madonna’s first UK concert in seven years was broadcast to the world from a small venue in South London in the year 2000, making it the biggest webcast the net had ever seen up to that point (Dodson 2019). VR and AR, along with other innovative technologies are pushing the boundaries of what live performance in music actually entails; for example, virtual worlds are opening up avenues for greater control by the musician in relation to design of performance spaces and ability to attract global audiences (Jacka and Hill 2013). However, my focus in this chapter is to engage with a set of musicians who are taking it upon themselves to broadcast live in a DIY fashion, often at home, using their phone camera or webcam, and examine how these practitioners perform live music and how it is created, experienced and delivered through digital technology (Jones and Bennett 2015). This is not a live performance in the traditional sense; instead of being on a stage, the artist is in their bedroom, and instead of standing at the barriers or on theatre seats, the audience members are on mobile phones and laptops. These are real-time, shared experiences through screen-based internet technologies. As Jones and Bennett observed, the definition of live music has now expanded to include a number of forms that do not require the artist and audience to share the same space or even the same time. For traditional live music fans, the face-to-face concert lends a layer of authenticity to musical enjoyment as an identity marker, due to its relative fixity and trustworthiness, when compared to the fluid and easily manipulated digital landscape (Jones and Bennett 2015). The recent rise in the popularity of livestreaming (Yanev 2019) can be attributed to technological developments, including advances in internet bandwidth and the emergence of new streaming platforms. The proliferation of mobile devices equipped with high-definition cameras and high-speed internet has led to a surge of individuals making livestreams (Lu et al. 2018). However, livestreaming has only recently become a type of social media. As Scheibe (2018) has noted, one fast-growing form of social media are social live streaming services (SLSSs). Livestreaming is described as a ‘synchronous function’, meaning that users are producing live videos and viewers are able to interact in real time with a broadcaster. This happens via chat messages or likes, rewards or other gratifications, such as becoming a fan. The broadcaster is able to react immediately (Scheibe 2018). This development has allowed anyone to put up their own

86

The Future of Live Music

streams, with all of the major social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch) offering the option of going live. Key to live video streaming is its ability to eliminate physical, geographic and technical barriers between musicians and their audiences. It therefore provides an opportunity for remote musicians to broadcast to a potentially global audience as well as giving remote audiences access to live performances – something of which I have first-hand experience. I have been performing live for over twenty years in various bands as well as with my solo project Farm Hand. I love being onstage and get a ‘buzz’ from performing live to an audience. In late 2017, I began planning the release of my debut solo album. I was keen for it to reach as many people as possible but also aware of my limitations at that point. I live in a remote part of Wales, in the hills of rural Powys and have young children. One evening when my wife was away for work, I had the urge to perform. Unusually for such a remote location, we are lucky enough to have superfast broadband with faster upload and download speeds than we had in our previous home in Cardiff. I was thinking of new ways of reaching audiences when I noticed that Instagram had a new feature, Instagram Live. I decided that I was going to do a live broadcast from home using the feature. I first went live in October 2017 (with a baby monitor in shot and part of the performance), and in a note to myself on the following day I remarked, ‘I’m buzzing because people were there, people engaged and I had lots of fun. I really did.’ I will come back to the idea of people being ‘there’ and ‘engaged’ later in the chapter, but the main thing that struck me was, ‘we can get the buzz, so why aren’t more people doing it?’ Is the small take-up of livestreaming due to a lack of successful role models? Or due to technical issues, such as poor sound quality? Musicians at every level have become increasingly comfortable with the idea of self-promotion and are spending more time on social media platforms such as Instagram posting content, but not many are performing live music. Given that livestreaming offers such an accessible platform to perform music, and that – for many – this is such a fundamental aspect of being a musician, it seems odd that more musicians are not taking up this opportunity, or at least being encouraged to by record labels or management.  I have live-streamed various aspects of my practice across multiple platforms. For my debut solo album, I pressed 100 copies of it on vinyl and created a self-assembled package for it. One afternoon I decided to livestream myself putting together the packages on Facebook and documented myself hand stamping, numbering and folding up A3 prints and inserting them into the sleeves. I streamed for an hour and a half – me getting on with a task and occasionally talking to the camera and interacting with the audience. The peak audience was eight people. Overall, about forty people tuned in and I ended up selling five of the records during the broadcast. These were sold to people who may never have bought it if I hadn’t gone live. Over the last three or four decades, musicians have increasingly focused on making promotional music videos to market their music. Such recorded videos are costly and cumbersome to produce; livestreaming video decreases costs while increasing customer engagement and enhancing influence. Mobile video is a particularly promising platform to communicate with consumers (Gilbert 2019).

Digital Performances

87

Figure 5.1 My first livestream on Instagram – I had just asked the audience where they were watching from.

Practitioners, platforms and process as performance All that is required to perform to the world is an internet connection and a phone with a camera. But if the technology and the internet speeds are here, where are the practitioners? In order to zoom in on the topic, what follows is an account of five different live-streamers who are currently operating, as well as an analysis of the

88

The Future of Live Music

platforms that they use. Stand-alone live video apps like YouNow and LiveMe still fly under the music industry’s radar, while purpose-built platforms Krue and Live.ly both closed in 2018. These apps had native stars and tip-based economies and I offer my observations of the livestreams. The journey of singer-songwriter Dawn Beyer began like that of so many musicians in Nashville, Tennessee, trying to find their niche: playing endless hours for little money (Goyzueta 2017). Increasingly frustrated by trying to make a living on Broadway, she decided to take a new approach when she noticed the ‘Go Live’ button appear on Facebook. Positioned in her living room and using just the built-in camera on her mobile phone, she performed direct to camera to ten people in her first stream. In her own words, ‘Anytime I was playing music, I would go live for whoever wanted to watch, and that turned into selling more and more albums. … It got to the point where so many people wanted albums, and I started selling something else … I eventually made $1,200 in one weekend, and that’s when I let go of playing on Broadway.’ As a live-streamer, Dawn went on to make $74,000 in one year using Facebook Live. Those earnings comprised sales of CD albums and merchandise, as well as donations to a virtual tip jar (using a link via international online payment system PayPal) in what can be labelled ‘online busking’ or ‘e-busking’. In other words, if people enjoy a song, they can choose to pay a tip. Beyer currently has over 84,000 page likes on Facebook and streams multiple times a week. The performances themselves involve her playing acoustic guitar and singing her original songs, alongside some covers. She regularly stops to talk to the audience and has real-time interactions with people via the comments. As a result of her strategy, Beyer also plays private shows for her Facebook Live community. She refers to these as ‘live-in-person’ shows on her website and the ticket prices are at a premium. She has generated an online and offline audience through her live-streamed performances. Facebook also has a feature called ‘Top Fan’ – a title earned by being one of the most active people on the page in question. Beyer has

Figure 5.2 Dawn Beyer during a livestream on Facebook. With permission of Dawn Beyer.

Digital Performances

89

many of such ‘Top Fans’ commenting on her streams, having successfully built up an online community for her work. The audience members interact with each other and with Beyer during a stream.  Interestingly, Beyer believes in this strategy so much that she has created a consultation and coaching programme to help other artists who want to get into Facebook Live. She teaches musicians how they can make best use of Facebook Live and build their careers on their own terms, without having to sacrifice who they are (Goyzueta 2017). One of her clients, ‘Donnie Vapor’, has lung disease and a breathing condition. The livestreaming technology offers an opportunity for musicians like Donnie who have health conditions that mean that they cannot easily tour. Another example of a musician building her audience through livestreaming is British artist Emma McGann. She has nearly 204,000 fans on YouNow, a live videostreaming platform mainly used by adolescents and young adults (Friedländer 2017). Many of the most popular broadcasters are musicians and YouNow features a real-time chat environment in which these artists and fans are connecting in unprecedented ways. For the demographic group, it is important to interact with friends, be a part of the community and find ways of self-expression (Marcello 2016). McGann’s streamed videos have generated nearly 11 million views since she started broadcasting using the app four years ago (Dredge 2019). In her broadcasts she combines performing her own original pop songs (as with Dawn Beyer, stripped back to acoustic guitar when broadcasting) with chatting to fans. She has commented: ‘I was doing the whole slog of touring independently, paying for myself. Then one day I did this live stream and I got so many more impressions on socials and sales on iTunes from that one live stream than from anything else I’d done’ (Dredge 2019). This ties in with the example of Beyer – the audience is more likely to part with money as a result of experiencing live, music-themed broadcasts. McGann can now go live at any time of the day and have fans across the world listening in: ‘I broadcast once or twice a day and the money that I’m making is enough to cover my bills and then some.’ For her, ‘the main thing … is connecting to people’: ‘The reality is I’m sitting and performing to a camera but the people who are interacting with you on there make you forget about the online environment and it’s a very social experience.’ Livestreaming generates 90 per cent of McGann’s income; the other 10 per cent comes from a mix of PRS Performing Right Society) pay-outs, streaming services, YouTube and Patreon, as well as live-in-person concerts. She tends to play only a few such shows each year rather than plan lengthy tours: ‘The audience is so spread out over the world, but if we do one or two concerts a year, people fly in for them’ (McGann, cited in Dredge 2019). On YouNow, most of the users are highly motivated by the applied gamification elements (Friedländer 2017). One of the key aspects of the platform is its tips economy, whereby viewers can donate to the channel they are watching or – if they are really keen – pay a monthly $4.99 subscription fee that gives them ‘Super Chat’ privileges and a badge to display their fandom. McGann has ninety-eight such subscribers at the time of writing, but tips from viewers contribute more to her earnings (Dredge 2019). However, making a donation is optional; the content is free to watch for the

90

The Future of Live Music

viewer, with no ads and no brand sponsorships. Recent research into YouNow and its community by market research company Audiokite found that the majority of the top-rated broadcast activities related to playing music, including three out of the top four: ‘unreleased song exclusive’, ‘cover song’ and ‘original song’. The broadcast activity to which both consumers and creators had the most favourable reaction is playing an ‘unreleased song exclusive’ (Marcello 2016). Interestingly, musicians rated ‘songwriting with the audience’ as the second-best activity for engaging with their fans on YouNow (Marcello 2016). McGann’s audience on audio music-streaming platforms is still small: fewer than 4,000 monthly listeners on Spotify at the time of writing. However, rather than being a reason to write her off, this is precisely what makes her story so interesting: her audience really has grown mainly on YouNow so far, beneath the radar of the mainstream music industry. British singer, songwriter and producer Shakka has almost 50,000 followers on Instagram – the photo and video-sharing social networking service owned by Facebook. He takes a different approach to the two artists already discussed; he invites his audience to be actively involved. In one hour, he writes, sings and produces a song live on Instagram, asking followers to contribute beats, lyrics, visuals or animation. He then collates the results and records the songs on Live, before distributing the content on Instagram Stories. Shakka’s most innovative way of using Instagram is through the creative concept #TribeTuesdays. Fascinatingly, he uses lyrics written by users in the comments section of Instagram Live. This technique does raise questions about the future of IP and how these collaborations will work from a copyright perspective. Nevertheless, not only is this a new way of performing, but it is also a new way of writing and collaborating, bringing fans into the creative process by engaging directly with them before generating content to which they have contributed (Jones 2018). The traditional division between active artist/performer and passive audience (or producer and consumer) is broken down. Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki (2017) argued that consumers are not the passive listeners anymore, they want wide range of choices and are willing to actively participate, integrate and co-create value. My suggestion is that this is redefining the idea of a live music performance, by including a performance where the creator is also the presenter and documenting the process. A work stream where the music streamer discusses the work they are making, lifting the bonnet on music production and often explaining the process and the work that goes into it as they continue to work on it. Often this work can be songwriting, beatmaking, rehearsing and practising live on air. Naveed, Watanabe and Neittaanmäki (2017) suggest that the music industry needs the establishment of a platform where streamed music services would participate with live music so as to construct a co-evolutionary relationship between them. Twitch may well be that platform. Musicians are also starting to turn to Twitch, the Amazonowned, gaming-oriented video livestreaming platform, where there appears to be a trend towards more broadcasts of the process of music-making. Twitch has already established itself as the premier livestreaming site for video games, with more minutes of programming watched per month than YouTube. Esports gets the bulk of viewers, but there are also individual game streams with anywhere from 1 to 30,000 viewers

Digital Performances

91

watching concurrently live at any given time. There are practitioners actively using Twitch to perform music live. Is there a future in which music performance streams also get this kind of viewership? Even though the platform is focused on gaming it is adapted and there is now a ’Music Performance’ filter, which is an emerging user group on Twitch within the category of creativity. Here, distributors are welcome to stream themselves performing various creative tasks, often in the form of painting and visuals, or producing and performing music (Twitch 2016). Within the ‘Music Performance’ filter, there are multiple musicians performing live direct to camera. The filter/tag options used are ‘Music Performance’, ‘Music Production’, ‘Composing’, ‘Practice’, ‘Improv’ and ‘Singing’. The sound quality is often superior to that of the Facebook and Instagram livestreams as the practitioners more often use Open Broadcast Software (OBS) or an equivalent, which allows for higher audio quality and multiple tracks. As an audience member, I have observed performers improvise live music on Twitch using sounds, tempo, key and drum loops chosen by audience members. Others performed covers with professional sound quality and e-busked. I have streamed on Twitch myself, mainly improvising or trying out new effects pedals. Knowing you are being watched while you work (even if it is one person) can have a surprisingly useful impact on productivity and creativity. One of the most popular music makers on the platform is Deadmau5, a worldfamous DJ and producer, with over 462,000 followers. On his channel, Deadmau5 streams himself for long periods either producing and creating new music in the studio or playing games, and has a continuous viewer base of around 2,000 Twitch.tv. (2019). Another music maker utilizing the platform is Petravita, a rapper from Seattle but based in Stockholm who regularly streams himself writing songs and performing live via Twitch. Many such live-streamers monetize their output via donations or by becoming a Partner and getting a share of the revenue generated via advertisements across the platform (Twitch.tv.2019). Music performers on Twitch frequently engage with audience members, who are able to write in the comments section. Often this involves taking requests and playing covers. There is also a lot of electronic music production where the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) is the screen with the music maker in the corner ’presenting’ via a headshot while getting on with the work. As Dredge (2016) observed ‘Just as OK Go made their name on YouTube with a series of creative videos, Twitch may be particularly suited to musicians prepared to experiment with the form.’ There are a growing number of solo performers who play a variety of instruments and create unique multiple camera set-ups. They can then change the camera angles during the performance and flip between views and give audiences views they don’t tend to see – such as down the neck of the guitar or from above on the keys. Users may find themselves playing to the largest audiences they have ever played to without leaving the house. It appears the audience on Twitch is increasingly receptive to innovation in music performance. Seeing the opportunity and potential that livestreaming has in the music industry, a number of start-ups have attempted to enter the space and build purpose-built platforms. StageIt, Concert Window and StreetJelly make the at-home concert

92

The Future of Live Music

possible (Herstand 2018). However, some purpose-built livestreaming platforms have already disappeared: Live.ly, Busker and Krue all had unsustainable business models. Krue was a dedicated platform for livestreaming, designed to be like Twitch but for musicians. Krue promised ‘live broadcasts from musicians around the world. Watch artists perform, practice and engage with you in real time.’ The promise of the artist ‘engaging’ with you in real time is interesting, as the performer is required to connect with camera. It is a different type of audience engagement, more like a TV presenter. Unscripted, spontaneous, real-time performances require an entirely new skill set for up-and-coming musicians (Marcello 2016). From a post on Reddit after a user had asked about livestreaming music production it’s apparent that ‘Being known for something that provides entertainment value will help increase your following. Being the “Marshmello” of streaming essentially is the angle you want to think about when attempting to build a large following.’

Being there Aston (2017) defined live performance as being something that happens in the ‘here and now’, as having an ephemerality and fleetingness, which means that every performance has the potential to be different from the next. This relates to the dynamics between performers and their audience, which can be configured in different ways across different settings and which is what makes live performance different from the experience of engaging with pre-recorded material. Jones and Bennett (2015) discuss the idea of a ‘virtual only’ audience – there is no offline audience in the same space as the performer. Although live music performances captured online may lack the directness and atmosphere of actually being there, mediatized performance makes just as effective a focal point for the gathering of a social group as live performance (Auslander 2008) and online audiences find a number of ways in which to engage with and comment on live music (Jones and Bennett 2015). In these situations, the audience isn’t passive – it is engaged and involved. This also raises questions around the motivations of gig going and the idea of ‘being there’ and being lost in the moment. Jones and Bennett (2015) observe the importance of understanding the motivations and desires of live music audiences. The extent to which that can happen on a live-streamed DIY performance is perhaps limited. When Marshmello performed live on Fortnite, Mulligan (2019) observed, ‘For my son and his friends this was every bit a shared live experience, each of them talking to each other via Xbox Live and dancing with each other on screen.’ The work of Charron (2017) discusses these innovations and advances in digital technologies and context-based models which offer consumers the necessary tools to experience music rather than just listening to it. Charron finds that the boundaries are blurred between production and consumption of music, as we saw earlier with the examples of Emma McGann and Shakka, who actively encourage their viewers to engage with the process of co-creation, but also between live and mediated performances which is to say liveness.

Digital Performances

93

Little is known about the motivations underlying viewer engagement in the rapidly growing livestreaming multimedia phenomenon. These findings offer insight into the motivations for livestream engagement. Multiple and ordinal linear regression analyses identified six motivations which helped to explain livestream engagement: social interaction, sense of community, meeting new people, entertainment, information seeking and a lack of external support in real life. Compared to mass media, viewer motivations to engage in livestream entertainment appear to have a stronger social and community basis. Furthermore, livestream viewers who preferred smaller channels (