With the rise of live concert streaming, our couch cushions are destined to become even warmer.
In the past, it was difficult to green light live music webcasts because of production costs, union fees, and bandwidth issues. Some promoters felt that the option to stay at home would decrease ticket sales. And, of course, rights to a performance can get tricky between record labels and publishers, especially if an artist indulges in a few cover songs.
Hopping onto this untapped business model are Verizon Digital Media Services and LiveXLive, who recently announced a partnership in streaming at least three music festivals this fall. LiveXLive aims to eventually push these projects into the realm of a 24-hour live music network: “We’re endeavoring to create the ESPN of premium live music experience.”
Other companies such as YouTube and Vyrt have already been live streaming concerts for a couple of years. YouTube Live has monetized through the use of ads, while Vyrt provides an ad-free environment with the cost of a virtual ticket. However, leaking of exclusive content has increasingly become a problem, prompting Vyrt founder Jared Leto to threaten its shutdown.
There may be a few kinks to work out, but there are many advantages to live music webcasts. It allows the concert experience to extend to hard-to-reach demographics. Fans can connect via webcasts and take a behind-the-scenes look at sound checks and more. Plus, there are no lines, crowds, overpriced coconut water, extreme weather, or any movement required whatsoever. Let’s just hope that our craving for immediacy doesn’t evolve into a scene from Pixar’s “Up.”
Live Concert Streaming's Journey To Success
Why Live Concert Streaming Has Yet To Take Off
Streaming a concert in the comfort of your own home sure beats battling crowds, mud and interminable lines
Jared Leto threatens to shut down streaming website over leaks