Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Culture

The Future of the Music Festival Post-Pandemic

Mark Stock
By
Jason Kempin/Getty Images

At this point in the pandemic, it’s hard to know if institutions before will ever be the same again. The music festival is one such gathering, something sacred that will almost surely have to be reimagined if it hopes to persist.

It’s a massive business so it’s hard to see it going away entirely; Time reports Coachella grossed $115 million in 2017. Festivals like Coachella and Pitchfork have streamed performances for years now, and it’s possible that the focus could shift to those recordings, potentially protected by a paywall. Attendees would essentially partake from home, watching Frank Ocean and Lana Del Rey (this year’s headliners) on their laptops or smart televisions. Presently, Coachella has rescheduled to mid-October. But if we’re hit with multiple waves of COVID-19, it’s tough to imagine 100,000 people coming together anytime over the next year or two.

Recommended Videos

The festivals that may have the brightest immediate future may be the smaller ones.

Promoters may look to assemblies such as Live From Out There for inspiration going forward. It managed to clear $100,000 over a weekend in late March, despite lacking any major artists. It was put together rapidly, in mid-March as other more traditional festivals were announcing postponements. Part of the proceeds went to relief for musicians, mostly falling out-of-work at the time, and a subscription format was set up for the audience.

Live From Out There went on to complete six consecutive weekends, featuring smaller bands like Twiddle and Pigeons Playing Ping Pong. It might just provide some framework for the likes of Austin City Limits, Bonnaroo, Governors Ball, and more. In fact, with the added interactive element inherent to a digital livestream (via realtime comments with the crowd), it could — rather ironically — bring the band and its fans closer than ever.

Carlos Alvarez/Getty Images

The festivals that may have the brightest immediate future may be the smaller ones. Gatherings like Huichica, launched by sixth-generation winemaker, Jeff Bundschu, about a decade ago in his native Sonoma. Its since expanded to Walla Walla and the Hudson River Valley. Last year, the Walla Walla leg of the series featured excellent indie bands like Destroyer, Yo La Tengo, Allah-Lahs, Fruit Bats, Waxahatchee, and more. The sets are accented with a wine country backdrop, wines, and farm-to-table grub. The Sonoma leg, originally scheduled for this June, has been postponed.

“We’ve always strayed from calling Huichica a ‘music festival’ because we designed it to be spread out across bucolic, open spaces” says Bundschu. “Since its inception, we’ve limited our guest count and ticket sales to ensure Huichica remains a very intimate experience — so we don’t anticipate our guests’ experience to change that much. Of course, we’ll be taking all appropriate measures to ensure that our staff and volunteers are safe and adhere to guidelines from the state and county.”

Pickathon in the rural outskirts of Portland is another good example. The festival is 20 years old and while it draws a reliable crowd of about 3,500 per day over a long summer weekend. It’s plausible that it would weather CDC guidelines as the layout is sprawling and caters to social distancing. There are multiple stages, most of which are outdoors, and many are connected by forested trails. With some newfound etiquette (6 feet, people) and a change in some of the more crowded, albeit small, sets like those that happen in an old barn, the show just might be able to go on.

“Since its inception, we’ve limited our guest count and ticket sales to ensure Huichica remains a very intimate experience.”

But for the Summerfest and New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festivals of the circuit, something will have to give, at least this year and possibly next. The conversation now is already discussing the end of prior societal norms like offices and mass transit as we know it. We’ll still work and commute together, but how we’ll do so will likely shift. So, too, will the way we take in live musical performance (in fact, it already has).

Festivals will likely look into pandemic insurance for stability in the future. It’s not an option now, but as we learn more about the extent of things and what sizes of gatherings are allowed and when, safety net policies might make sense, at least for certain festivals. For now, though, organizers will have to swallow the losses and hope conditions look a bit better by autumn.

What’s important to remember about the music festival is that in most cases, it’s a perennial thing. It’s one, maybe two weekends per year. Like winemaking, you get one shot a year. Eliminating even a single SXSW has huge economic consequences. Crews that normally work year-round to prepare such gatherings aren’t doing so. The musicians aren’t getting paid. And this is to say nothing of the local economies that tend to thrive during these brief annual windows when tens of thousands, if not more, descend on their domains. 

SolStock/Getty Images

Technology may have to save the music festival. It may be the only safe route of replicating the experience of, say, dancing with 40,000 fellow humans to a live Daft Punk set in the sweltering desert. Virtual and augmented reality can certainly lend a hand. If we can bring Tupac back from the dead to perform with Snoop, can’t we mimic the sweaty, packed-to-the-gills general admission pit from your favorite fest, right at home?

As a diehard music fan who loves the live show and the tangible assembly of interested fans, it’s a tough pill to swallow. However, I think there are too many creative people invested in the institution for it to change to a point where it’s not still quite enticing.

Editors' Recommendations

Mark Stock
Mark Stock
Contributor
Mark Stock is a writer from Portland, Oregon. He fell into wine during the Recession and has been fixated on the stuff since…
Pro Athletes, Pay Cuts, and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Lebron James in his #23 Lakers uniform

As the economy limps along under the ominous skies of the pandemic, people left and right have lost jobs and are obliged to be more frugal than ever. Even those with the most protected careers are left wondering what their position might look like when this begins to simmer further.
Some of the most insulated folks within the economic hierarchy are professional athletes. The stars especially are among the wealthiest people on the planet, making in a week what a lot of us only make over the course of many years, if not a lifetime. Many of them, though, are going the noble route, slashing their own salaries for the greater good.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B-pofLhA60r/
It’s easy to forget that the sporting world is about so much more than just the athletes. There’s so much happening beyond the court, field, or track, from trainers, nutritionists and physicians to security personnel, stadium vendors, marketing teams, film crews, and more. It’s a layered machine that’s dependent on functioning seasons to stay funded and healthy.
Many superstar players are cutting their wages to keep non-playing personnel on the payroll. Lionel Messi, one of the planet’s richest humans and arguably the best to have ever played the game of soccer, recently cut his salary by 70%. It’s a substantial move that will keep countless members of the Barcelona Football Club happy and able to provide for their families. Messi, of course, will be fine as Forbes estimates he made something to the tune of $127 million last year alone (including endorsements). Still, the move is a somewhat selfless one that others are following. In fact, his entire team's roster has agreed to as much.
https://twitter.com/tsf_podcast/status/1244586884803821571?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1244586884803821571&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fftw.usatoday.com%2F2020%2F03%2Flionel-messi-barcelona-covid-19
Other major soccer clubs throughout the world, like Juventus in Italy, have taken similar across-the-board actions. Players like Cristiano Ronaldo have made large donations to hospitals, inspiring others to do the same. But in sports stardom also involves a lot of ego, which can very much get in the way. In the Premiere League right now players are saying no to a proposed 30% slash. It seems selfish, and may be to some extent, but it's also a response to players knowing that many of the clubs themselves probably have deep enough pockets to ride it out. That, and there are reports that players are upset with the U.K. government's handling of the pandemic and don't want to bend to its public demands for players to "play their part." They feel unfairly targeted, especially as giant corporations take in handy bailout cash. 
NBA players have agreed to a 25% pay cut effective May 15. It’s a large lump of loot considering that in 2019, the minimum salary for the league started at $582,000. Most players, of course, make more than that. The richest, like Lebron James, are equipping their foundations to feed those in need. Others are using their colossal platforms to spread useful information. Star point guard Steph Curry, for example, has been pushing proper quarantine protocol and even had a conversation with Dr. Fauci.
Stephen Curry and Dr. Anthony Fauci | COVID-19 Q&A
At the ballpark, things are a little more complex. The MLB is still paying its players at various rates depending on individual contracts. Some cuts have been made and some visible names, like Florida Marlins CEO Derek Jeter, have agreed to forgo their salaries for the time being. The league is floating the idea of starting the season in late May, even if before a backdrop of crowd-less stadiums.
The NFL is pushing to preserve the status quo amid the pandemic. One of the main reasons the league may just get away with that is that it’s the off-season right now, meaning franchises aren’t missing out on lucrative games. We’ll have to wait and see what things look like in late summer as teams get ready for the season. For now, the players' association has fought to protect present pay rates. With the draft having just wrapped up (virtually) as the most-followed of its kind to date, and with big trades like Tom Brady to Tampa unfolding, you'd never really know a pandemic was happening in NFL land. 

On empty campuses across the country, the current situation is a sobering reminder of just how much of a business the NCAA is. Key members of college athletic programs like coaches and athletic directors are taking cuts, but more in the 5-15% range. It’s helpful, but the trend has still been to furlough much of these departments.
As USA Today reported, even at a school like Iowa State, which doesn’t have the athletic prowess of, say, an Alabama or Ohio State, coaches are making a lot of money. The school's football coach, Matt Campbell, agreed to a 10% pay cut that sees his salary go from $3.5 million to $3.15 million per year. Given those numbers, it’s understandable why so many would like to see NCAA coaches take even more dramatic cuts in order to help fellow staff and the schools.
It would be uplifting to see some of these pay cuts continue well into the future, in some form or another, especially at the college level. The dichotomy of having millionaire coaches and modestly paid professors at the same public institution is its own lengthy essay (with the added fold of continuing talk about potentially paying NCAA athletes). But in a broader sense, the economy will not recover swiftly and the ripple effect of the pandemic will last a long time. Agreeing to modest pay cuts going forward will keep school staff employed and prevent offloading a lack of money elsewhere, like the state unemployment office. Clearly, there’s room for more wealth sharing at major universities.
Sports are sorely missed but it's nice to know that players aren't simply owning a stereotypical jock mentality and checking out of the pandemic, mentally, with money in hand. It's an interesting combination of varying pay cuts, active protest, and a lot of silent donations, much of which goes unreported.

Read more
The Best Artists for Listening to Music in Isolation
listening music isolation headphones

Music remains one of the best medicines on the planet. It’s a universal language that’s ever-relatable, inspires escape, and even allows us to grieve.
Right now, there’s a lot to process. I can’t imagine doing it without the incredible support good music provides. Whether you’re looking to lower your blood pressure, cry a river in the bathtub, challenge your mind, or simply dance the night away, we’ve got some fine suggestions for coping with what’s unfolding.
Tough times are much less so with the right tunes.

Relaxing
There’s a lot of anxiety in the air and it’s vital that we both relax and sleep. Fortunately, there’s music that inspires calm waters. For wafting, fluid, mist-like guitar work that’ll send you right off to bed, check out Cigarettes After Sex. The band’s whispered atmospheric rock is the lullaby we all need right now.
Katilyn Aurelia Smith is another act up to the task. The Washington State-born composer specializes in ambient synth music that’s ideal for a long exhale. In fact, her latest recording, Tides, was crafted specifically for meditation and yoga, and ebbs and flows nicely, with a rhythmic backbone that’ll place you into a peaceful trance. Moses Sumney is also worth a listen. His sound is hard to pin down but quite therapeutic, falling somewhere between neo-folk and futuristic soul. He’s already received some big endorsements from the music world, like James Blake.
Cigarettes After Sex

Read more
What Companies Are Hiring During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
grocery store checkout

At a time when the news is filled with stories about people out of work, about swelling unemployment applications, and about so many of us in the American workforce who are still employed being forced to adapt to a new work-from-home paradigm, there are still a few bright spots for people looking for a job. Not every company is shedding workers off the payroll during this coronavirus pandemic. In fact, a number of companies are hiring in unprecedented numbers.

The job you score tomorrow might be cut again in a few months when COVID-19 is finally under control, but short-term employment is certainly better than a total lack of income -- just make sure you balance the benefits of working with the potential hazards of putting yourself out there right now, especially if you have any underlying conditions that make you more susceptible to complications caused by illness.

Read more