Irony and Hypocrisy in a Live Nation

Last weekend, seemingly everyone was in Cannes, France for the annual Midem music festival. As is the norm, a myriad of people spoke about various goings on in the industry and shared a bit of insight and perspective.

As anyone who knows me can and will attest, I am often a bigger fan of managers than the artists they represent. For so many of my adult years, Paul McGuinness, manager of U2 and PJ Harvey, was someone whose thoughts on the industry I always  revered.  Then something happened. Maybe it was the internet. Maybe I got older. Maybe the industry evolved and McGuinness, to my way of thinking, didn’t wish to evolve along with it. While there is no mistaking that Mr. McGuinness is a brilliant manager, I can’t help but wonder if he’s lost touch with music consumers and fans in general.

As a long time U2 fan, I reached a point some years ago where it felt as though the band had become detached from the fan base. It seemed as though, regardless of the passion they showed during live performances, that excitement didn’t carry over into other aspects of their career. They got 5 star reviews for an album that was mediocre at best, simply because they were U2. It isn’t that easy. You have to earn it. I will gladly throw money at artists whom I love time and time again. I will buy rereleases, remasters, and reissues, even though they’re merely ploys to get money without having to record or tour. I will do so with a smile on my face….to a point. I’ve surpassed that point.

It seemed an interesting idea when U2 paired up with Apple to release the U2 iPod. Yes, it’s commercial, but it was still about music and most of the music we hear wouldn’t exist without Apple computers.

When they signed the deal with BlackBerry it seemed a bit a bit odd, but tours are expensive (especially their tours)- if pairing up with a mobile company can offset the cost a bit and make ticket prices *slightly* more affordable for fans, great.

Then came the big one. The 12 year deal with Live Nation. Live Nation. Really? When Madonna signed a deal with Live Nation that somehow made sense to me. She wasn’t the type of artist who would be averse to product placement in videos or cashing checks for appearing in Doritos adverts. But this was U2. Champions for the follow-your-dreams Average Joe. Spokesmen for charities. The band that based an entire tour on commercialisation and mass consumerism were getting millions upon millions of dollars from Live Nation. It seemed beyond ironic. All of this brings me back to Midem.

At Midem, Paul McGuiness went on a bit of a tirade about Google and their “lobbying” against PIPA and SOPA and kept speaking of how they control the internet. My favourite statement was this:  “Never underestimate the ability of a monopoly to defend itself.”

Mr. McGuinness said that in reference to Google. As a general rule of thumb, I find that statement to be entirely true. The part I find tough to swallow is that the man saying it happened to be the same man who inked a 12 year multi-million dollar deal with Live Nation. This isn’t a matter of him being “anti-corporate”- this is a matter of him being hypocritical.

In recent years, Live Nation has slowly infiltrated just about every facet of the music business.

It isn’t beyond probability that when you go to a gig, you buy the ticket from Ticketmaster (who merged with Live Nation), attend the gig at a venue owned by Live Nation, see a band whom is managed by Live Nation who also may have signed a recording contract with Live Nation. And undoubtedly, the show will be promoted by Live Nation. If you need statistics or analytics on this, Big Champagne specialises in that very thing! Oh right, Live Nation owns them now, as well.

I’m sure the people at Live Nation love music as much as the rest of us. Ultimately, we all want to be as successful as possible, and there is certainly money to made in the business of music. That said, I can’t help but think that a single company with their hands (and more importantly, their money) in so many aspects of a single industry can only lead to trouble. At a time when artists are struggling to be heard on any of the countless media sources at our disposal, doesn’t it stand to reason that single entity domination can only lead to homogenisation? How many Katy Perry’s, Ke$ha’s, and Lady Gaga’s do we really need?

All of this brings me back on point. It’s fine to hate monopolies- it’s preferred, actually. But to my way of thinking, one shouldn’t be lambasting one company for such practices while lying in a custom made bed with another.