Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them)
Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials… I’m sure I’m forgetting something.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-live-nation-ticketmaster-monopolizing-markets-across-live-concert#%3A~%3Atext=The+complaint+further+alleges+that%2Crevenue+to+lock+up+artists
Just read a bit.
That doesn’t mean they have to play at their venues. They have enough money that they could just post up in an empty field somewhere.
Yeah sure, they could go play in a field, and never play in Live Nation venues ( which is basically all of them)
Then they can worry about transit access, food and beverage services, garbage, toilets, safety staff, medical staff, weather, ticket vending( because if they play for free 10x people will come), local accommodation, local permits, stage construction, electrical service, rentals for the above equipment and materials… I’m sure I’m forgetting something.
Yes. Especially if the alternative is profiting billionaires.
Also theres plenty of smaller-ish venues not owned by live nation
It would be irresponsible to play at a venue that can’t handle the crowd needs that the artist would attract.
Breaking up Live Nation is the solution. Expecting musicians to put touring on hold while that happens isn’t reasonable.