Pearl Jam & Taylor Swift Take On TicketMaster.
This blog entry features Chapter Ten of Twenty-Seven: The Human Right The Music Industry Forgot.
A fair resolution for the industry of music, at federal level, is needed to thwart monopolization—a dismal and regular practice that fetters songwriters, musicians and performance-givers. Moments in history exist wherein the federal government stood to give fair treatment. These may be studied at www.govinfo.gov. Such moments are…
The Sherman Act (1890)
The Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)
The Clayton Act (2004)
A monopoly is something like a single-seller position in a single line of commerce. Monopolies are kept in place by illegal pressures, such as shake-downs or through paid-for but false publicity, throughout a certain marketplace, in order to gain terrain against competitors.
Singer/songwriter Taylor Swift startled the entire world, back in June of 2015, when she wrote an open letter to Apple and the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook. In this, Taylor asked for reform of the approach by Apple concerning the upcoming launch of Apple’s new streaming service. The letter concerned the use of her own recordings on their streaming platform, as well as the use of everyone else’s. In particular, Taylor wrote about the struggle artists go through to earn any sort of a living at all within the music industry.
At that time, all the music in the world was a paid-for thing. Streaming music was not legal until one had authorization of all owners involved in every song, with the signature of every owner of both the lyrics and melody, or the authorization legally kept on file with the publisher, and also with the graceful permission of the performer. Every permission was very much required. Before the havoc wrought by Apple, back then, every artist and publisher and music company could say “yes” or “not approved” to use of their stuff by a massive streaming company.
Even a suggestion of streaming at a corporate level went against the highest of moral standards, what with America’s artists paying for their recordings, as well as paying for their publicity and their staffs through sales of their individual songs or album downloads.
Taylor Swift emerged as true leadership for every artist who had singles and albums up for sale upon Apple’s iTunes internet storefront. Single songs would cost a music consumer something like $.99 or $1.29—an earth-shatteringly huge amount in comparison to what streaming services, somehow, have been allowed to sell to mass markets around the world, in monthly subscriptions of about $10/month, for the very same product, without any regard spoken of, at all, for the loss of revenue to the entire industry.
Taylor Swift’s letter was published on Taylor’s Tumblr site. It was clear that the issue of Apple offering streaming for virtually nothing would bring catastrophe on, and hardcore. With every recording available for sale already in Apple’s catalog, the numbers were painfully obvious: the entire music industry was about to be undercut by yet another humongous company takeover, one more time.
It is patently evident that if an artist wished to deal with a particular company but couldn’t due to pressure by a leader in the industry, then an unseen force is blocking free commerce.
It was easy to follow Taylor Swift’s letter to Apple. The comparison to what Taylor herself sold access to her digital music for, compared to what Apple was offering through their streaming platform, could bring about such a negative impact on the world of music sales and earnings for songwriters everywhere that it was predicted many artists would be forced to foreclose upon their dreams.
Taylor’s frank openness demanded the attention of worldwide press. It left a lot to speculate about music industry ethics standards, back in 2015. Lawsuits against streaming companies already filled the courts, wherever it occurred.
The internet was the bedrock for the entire music community to sell to fans. With Apple’s promotion of streaming artists’ work through their massive company, the internet was becoming land for an enemy takeover.
Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal.
Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, Section 2
In the past, the United States government has been made to oppose and prevent monopolies in business that were considered not in the best interest of the people.
At the time of publication of this book, in 2024, Ticketmaster, as well as Live Nation (Ticketmaster’s new ownership since around 2009), have taken charge of an outstanding array of the nifty American performance spots—and that is NOT a comment on the artists or the venues. Coercive business procedure, as well as restricting artists to Live Nations’ extensively acquired and handled merchandise production teams, and their advertising spots, are specifically mentioned as the hot trouble monopoly areas being dealt with by the megalithic corporation, under the US Department of Justice’s close supervision.
Press reporters of the nation watched fans and Ticketmaster go toe-to-toe in November of 2022 after the unthinkable had occurred: Ticketmaster was not able to declog on-line ticket sales booths for Taylor Swift’s “Eras Tour” during the tour’s American sell-through. As a result of all this, millions of members of Taylor’s audiences were left stranded, pushing buttons for hours and hours, but then failing to complete any ticket purchase to Taylor’s show.
Then, somehow, the thing was entirely sold-out. It didn’t matter if a million people were watching the thing roll out from the moment Taylor Swift made her tour tickets available. There was no comprehensible reason. There were so many of her fans who tried from the moment she released them and still couldn’t buy a ticket through the Ticketmaster site.
Swifties next saw astronomical prices appear for alternate tickets now available on various websites. Seats were sold from $300 up into the many thousands of dollars. In short it became—wow—complicated, to say the very least about it all! And the nation watched this incredibly complex ticketing bugbear brought to the notice of national lawmakers. Some headlines spelled the happenings out:
“Live Nation president: ‘We apologize’ for Taylor Swift ticket fiasco.” USA Today
“Taylor Swift Ticketmaster Debacle Prompts Lawmaker Scrutiny of Live Nation” The Wall Street Journal
“Senators grill Ticketmaster after Taylor Swift fiasco” Chicago Tribune
“Ticketmaster Cast as a Powerful ‘Monopoly’ at Senate Hearing” The New York Times
“Essential Politics: Can Taylor Swift Unite Washington?” Los Angeles Times
“The Senate’s Ticketmaster hearing featured plenty of Taylor Swift puns and protesters” NPR
Monopolization means control of every part of a certain industry. Inherently, American Songwriters hope to avoid control by dominant behavior patterns, especially financial control used by a faceless monolith in the sky. There’s always the pending doom hanging over anyone’s head of angry outbursts by snobby, preppy people. And we already understand that nameless big companies control American media in odd ways, and so there’s no guessing what newspaper might blast an artist if they gave corporate trouble.
Wondering whatever was resolved after the acid-like attack from Ticketmaster, in the 1990’s, against the rock band Pearl Jam? Things didn’t go well. It’s fair to further explore this Pearl Jam scenario and edify a past relationship between Pearl Jam and Ticketmaster, way back when, in 1994, because it appears before us all, and still exists today, even in the present.
After filing a memorandum with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, on May 6, 1994, Jeff Ament and Stone Gossard quickly found themselves testifying in front of a House sub-committee. Their big get-together took place on June 30, 1994.
“All the members of Pearl Jam remember what it’s like to be young and not have a lot of money. Many Pearl Jam fans are teenagers who do not have the money to pay $30 or more that is often charged for tickets today. It is well known in our industry that some portion of the service charges Ticketmaster collects on its sale of tickets is distributed back to the promoters and the venues. It is this incestuous relationship and the lack of any national competition for Ticketmaster that has created the situation we are dealing with today. As a result, our band, which is concerned with keeping the cost of its tickets low, will almost always be in conflict with Ticketmaster which has every incentive to try to find ways to increase the price of the tickets (themselves).” Stone Gossard, Songwriter/Founding Member of Pearl Jam
“Last week I was with Aerosmith, in Italy, where the band is currently on tour. We were talking about Ticketmaster and how it relates to our concert business. Steven Tyler, Aerosmith’s lead singer, said to me, ‘Mussolini may have made the trains run on time, but not everyone could get a seat on that train.’ That’s the problem that Aerosmith and I have with Ticketmaster. Yes, they have an efficient and profitable system, but its monopolistic aspects are unfair and hurtful.” Tim Collins, Manager for Aerosmith
Many companies work together to pull off a concert tour for a major act: ticketing, promotion, security personnel, setting up and selling merchandise, lighting, delivery of personnel to the stage, and much more. There is no room for debate when all of the pieces are moving full-speed. The success of it all rests upon the resilience of a single person: the artist.
Often, artists have a lot of trouble dealing with the press, or paying for press to arrive and cover their work. Therefore, the time to forge friends and supporters is achieved on these tours. Friendships last a lifetime after a single show if the artists can be allowed to take their time to connect with everyone, and at every location. Taking this control away from artists, temporarily, puts the artist in a zone of risk, potentially.
National newspapers of June and July, in 1994, were in on the pile of people promoting half of Pearl Jam’s move to deactivate Ticketmaster’s seemingly monopolistic control, as well as the other half of the argument touting Ticketmaster’s supreme dynastic prophecy.
“Pearl Jam, Ticketmaster and Now Congress”
Los Angeles Times
“Pearl Jam Musicians Testify On Ticketmaster’s Prices”
The New York Times
“Pearl Jam testifies against Ticketmaster”
Entertainment Weekly
“Before a House panel, members of the Seattle band allege monopolistic practices by Ticketmaster, whose chief executive counters the charges.”
Los Angeles Times
In a not-very-good-style of move, Rolling Stone magazine took an ambivalent stand. It’s impossible not to quote the magazine article to clearly show how the parody looked in the eyes of the people. Rolling Stone‘s massively-read follow-up article of December 28, 1995, went something like this way: “Pearl Jam: Taking On Ticketmaster,” but then it started off by downplaying the enormity of the essential problem dealt with by these guys:
“The Seattle rockers may have lost in court, but the fight against the ticketing giant isn’t over,” screamed the Rolling Stone headline. It goes on: “If Pearl Jam couldn’t do it, who can? America’s most powerful rock band thought it had Ticketmaster in its sights this year. By swearing off the ticketing giant during their summer tour, Pearl Jam tried to crack Ticketmaster’s dominance in the concert business. By year’s end the corporation was more powerful than ever, but the Seattle rockers had given the company a public-relations nightmare by bringing some of the industry’s back-room dealings into the light. As a result, a previously rigid Ticketmaster started bending its service-fee policies so that other alternative-rock bands could mount low-cost tours without fleecing their fans. 'I’m not sure it helped Pearl Jam,’ says David Sestak, who co-manages Live, ‘but it definitely helped consumers.’”
Eric Boehlert. Rolling Stone magazine. 1994.
Even though the remainder of the article really digs into it further, and though we know how many people spend a lot of time reading everything in Rolling Stone magazine, the opening comments by Boehlert are all in favor of the other side’s victory. It doesn’t really make someone feel very good about continuing to try. Yet, more of the people seemed needed to speak up in support of Pearl Jam, in order to somehow allow all the performance-givers and bands to get away from the Ticketmaster grip, back then. They just wanted to set the prices to their own shows.
All that is being noted in these pages, to any ally or corn-shredder, is how media could have participated in every moment of the fray such as these stone-cold artists have endured while working under monopolistic domination, and even still endure unfair treatment in the industry today. Media outlets can participate all the way to the very end, not just when things get predictable, for sure.
Blockages in the executive area of touring places needless risk at the hot point of the stage. What should have been seen as a no-brainer so as to help bring forth support for each artists’ peaceful revolution instead turned into a cosmopolitan rush so that, thirty years later, the essence of the monopolistic problematic situation continues intact.
In May of 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster for operating together in the formation of a megalithic monopoly operating illegally inside the American music industry.