Monopolies are the opposite of choice.
Comment on Scalpers Work With Hackers to Liberate Ticketmaster's ‘Non-Transferable’ Tickets
downpunxx@fedia.io 2 months ago
ultimately it's the artists that allow their shows to be ticketed by these monstrous usurious companies who are at fault. if the artists refuse to work with tickemaster, ticketmaster would cease to exist. the problem with live shows is directly attributable to artists, their production companies and management, and greed. that's it.
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
catloaf@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Artists don’t have enough money in the bank to enact what would basically be a strike. If they stopped playing Ticketmaster venues, they’d basically stop playing actual venues entirely. They’d have to play tiny independent venues, where they’d end up losing money, because they physically can’t sell enough tickets to cover the cost of time, travel, paying roadies, etc. Or, the ticket prices would be inaccessibly high.
The problem with live shows is directly attributable to the effective monopoly that Ticketmaster has, allowing them to fuck over artists and venues equally.
nickhammes@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The very few artists who do, and have the creative freedom to so do are probably the only ones who could get away with this. Convention Centers don’t seem to have the same density of existing Ticketmaster relationships, and while they’d have to pay to bring in seating at some, I bet they could do it for something similar to Ticketmaster’s middleman fees.
I’m not sure the difference between costs for concert venues and convention centers, but if it’s anywhere near comparable, it could be feasible.
turbowafflz@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A lot of venues require events to use ticketmaster so the artists often have no choice
downpunxx@fedia.io 2 months ago
the. artists. always. have. a. choice. in. everything. they. do. they. could. choose. not. to. play. the. venues. unless. the. venues. divest. themselves. from. using. ticketmaster.
it all comes down to what the artists allow, they're the talent people are paying for
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
And how will they earn a living? Record, radio, and streaming pays almost nothing. Live performance is how most make their living.
Going ticketmaster-less for a tour has been tried before by a huge name at the time Pearl Jam. This was almost 30 years ago now. It just wasn’t viable playing the few venues that could accept ticketmaster-less shows.
Here’s part of that history:
rollingstone.com/…/pearl-jam-taking-on-ticketmast…
TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 months ago
It still makes me angry that the whole music industry left Pearl Jam out to dry on this. Had even half the artist touring joined in solidarity with Pearl Jam it would probably be a much better market for concert goers these days.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 2 months ago
You must starve for your ethics obviously \s
downpunxx@fedia.io 2 months ago
yes, dummy
they could take the year off, they could only play smaller venues, or even larger ones that don't use tickemaster. the artists are the talent, the fault usurious ticketmaster fees falls squarely on the shoulders and in the fault of the artists allow them to pimp their tickets. the change must come from the artists refusing to work with venues that work with ticketmaster
this is not fucking rocket science
BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The artist does have a choice in that they can play at a live nation venue and work through Ticketmaster, or they can find a new career because live nation has a monopoly on venues as well as ticketing. So in reality the only artists that have a choice are the Taylor Swifts that are essentially market makers, and the nobodies that aren’t selling tickets anywhere but at the door anyway.
That’s the nature of monopolies. Yes, if all artists banded (no pun intended) together and told live nation to fuck off, it would work, but getting everyone to do it won’t ever happen. So unfortunately, you have to play the game or get out. Ideally, existing laws would prevent this from happening, but our law makers and enforcers are a bunch of money hungry, corporate sluts, so we end up with this broken system.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 months ago
None taken.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Kinda naïve view…
Artists that have to work hard are not really free. They need every stage where they can get on.
Artists that are actually rich cannot make such a decision just for themselves. There is a whole company of people around them. They create and perform their shows together.
filcuk@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Sure, they can choose to get paid or not.
downpunxx@fedia.io 2 months ago
how that boot taste?
PunnyName@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Having a choice isn’t much if s choice when it’s a monopoly.
Also here’s some inside baseball about the Dimension 20 / Ticketmaster nonsense that happened earlier this year
www.tiktok.com/t/ZPREpJjss/
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Yes, they can choose to either NOT be a professional artist, or to work with Live Nation and Ticket Master. I
It’s one, or the other.
TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 2 months ago
It was also cheaper 30 years ago to pay everyone involved in that band’s tour, which all comes out of the artist’s pot of money. So a smaller venue means less for artists and the crews supporting them.
So, while doing this now sounds great, that would mean your either continuing to pay a road crew no longer needed for these much smaller tours/venues, or laying these people off (when some of these people will have been part of these crews for the bands touring lifetime).