Excellent post, Irvine, except that I disagree with you about there being less music fans. Are you talking about demographics--more young people way back when (Boomers being young) or the number of people going to shows in general? I don't necessarily think that there are fewer passionate music fans out there, the popularity of gaming and streaming TV nonwithstanding. Music these days finds itself competing for dollar and attention these days with these genres among young people, esp young males, but maybe the reason is that with the inflated prices for everything, fewer young people can actually afford to go to a concert. I doubt that we'll be seeing many of those "college kids" Bono is so fond of talking about on the SOI tour; many of the new Vertigo fans are no doubt priced out. I hope they will be noting the absence. And fewer and fewer people want to go see shows in those package tours/festivals with 3 stages, they'd rather sit at home and stream Netflix, it's far cheaper.
It reminds me of what Hollywood is going through. When the DVD market took off 15 ys ago, the movie studios said, "We don't need the Indie studio/Mirimax model anymore, we can just ditch dramas and make most of our money off franchise films and DVD sales." Well, it never occurred to them that people would complete their DVD collections and NOT want to upgrade every one of their DVD's to expensive Blu_ray and other technologies--maybe the gems of their collection, but I don't think the Blu_ray revolution is taking off at quite the same speed. After the economy crashed in 2009 many of those same collectors are being far more stingy with their money, and with fewer good jobs going around, a lot less is being bought, and now Netflix competes. The movie industry thinks it has found a quick fix that will save everything: more frachchises (is Hollywood a town of anything but prequels, sequels and superhero movies today?) geared to the far more numerous--and increasingly middle-class--international market. This may be a temporary fix for Hollywood in terms of numbers of dollars sold, and increased market, but it covers up a far more serious, and potentially fatal, danger. And that is a decrease in the amount of talent.
With the film industry, it is the talent departing movies for TV first with the screenwriters, who have been defecting to TV where scripted dramas are thriving, but now the A-list actors and even directors are following them, and many of them Oscar winners like Viola Davis who may not return to film. Rather than staying in Hollywwod and supporting the New Studio Order, they're taking their skills to other, greener pastures. And there is talent now that is being nurtured in the TV realm that is staying in the TV realm, for yrs at a time. I'd LOVE to see a great composer like Trevor Morris score a movie, or a great actress like Lotte Verbeek star in a movie, but don't think it'll happen. Why would Trevor Morris want to spend his life scoring superhero movies? And why would the next potential Cate Blanchett spend her life doing Guardians of the Glalaxy hoping an "Elizabeth" will happen? Why not be Natalie Dormer and spend your life doing critically acclaimed TV mini-series? And the occasional franchise film? Can you see an actress like Cate confined to TV? Heck no, she's larger than life. As Natalie Dormer is today. But there are no great dramas out there for Natalie to do. Except the made-for-Oscar rarity. And you can't spend years of your life waiting for those. Meanwhile those A-list stars Hollyood desperately needs to star in their global-reaching franchises are aging, and we don't have a steady supply of Tom Cruises, Angelina Jolies and Leo DeCaprios to replace them. Af ew, but not at the rate they need. Instead, the talent is going to TV> Sure we have Jenn Lawrence, but only one of her. 15 yrs ago, we had 6 or 7 coming up the pipeline.
The same is happening with music. While with the Net it may be easier for an artistto break through, there are more nichified acts. The sheer number of "stars" is declining. Justin Timberlake and Adele and Lady Gaga are fine, but they're not Micheal Jackson or Guns N Roses--acts that change people's lives and you can see them drawing massive crowds 20 yrs from now. Radiohead, Coldplay, yeah, but you tell me *Justin Timberlake* deserves to have U2-level prices? The "mainstream" industry is not nurturing talent,, and these acts that break through via the Net will have to deal with LN in the end to tour, who will price them out of reach of their fans too--just when they are ready break through to superstar status, they will have al those fans unable to see them b/c they'll have been overpriced tix. Imagine if JT Tour tix, esp the nosebleeds, had been selling for the 1987 equivalent in inflation. I still think the traditional model is best--just as an author can get more marketing muscle by going with a big publisher than being self-published, a nichified Internet star will have less of a chance to fill those arenas and stadiums. U2 lucked out back in their day--they were an "indie" act with a dream manager, and they came along before the touring industry got swallowed up by the same kind of mega-corporaton that swallowed up the indie film studios.
Now both Hollywood and the music industry face a declining amount of talent, period. And this is a long-term structural flaw that they created themselves, with their greed for short-term megaprofit. It can't be mended overnight and I fear that by the time the idustries come to grips with the seriousness of the problem, there may not be much left to have. I fear prices may get even higher. It's easy for radio stations to flip to being country stations or talk radio station, but what are all these arenas and stadiums going to be doing on the days they won't have sporting events and Disney show on Ice? Because there'll be far less music played there, and if we are in an era where era where the tour has to subsidize the act, we are in trouble.
I am moaning as much about the prices as I am about the LN/TM sleeping together and colluding in this crap. I had a U2 Tour Fund stashed away over the past 3 yrs but RL intervened and I had to spend it, otherwise I could have shelled out for a $300 nosebleed.
It was inevitable that that should happen, Though the $300 nosebleeds-there's still no excuse for that. And even Fan Club tickets ending up on TM resell site. Matt McGee over on @U2 had a excellent post on this. Why do you THINK LN wanted to own Principle Management so badly? As long as U2 had their own Mangement company they were independent and I think Paul McG inrked them epescially, it's people like Paul that are the biggest danger to them. I think once the hip lock between LN/TM became possible, it became possible for LN to swallow up the companies representing hundreds of acts, b/c TM owned the places where they had to tour. Only then, and not before. And I have no doubt that, like India for England, U2 were seen as the jewel in the crown. the last and greatest acquisiton of the Empire. With the now-total lock on the touring industry, it became possible to be in a position for LN to basically force U2 to kick out their manager and gain control of PM. LN owns PM now, and O Seary is a puppet with no power. Thus, as far as touring is concerned, they own U2. This kind of stealing most of the cheap seats just wasn't possible until now, when U2 were still independent. This is the reason, and no other. And where is it going to stop?
(apologies for long post)
The Shaft it is! 
