As music festivals become more commercialized and driven by capitalist motives, many become skeptical. This money-focused approach to performance stands in stark contrast to the 1960s atmosphere, in which artists often played outdoor shows for free, having no desire to take part in the materialistic American culture. Bands, such as the Grateful Dead, were primarily driven by the music, and large amounts of LSD, not by profit. As we evolve from Beatnik and Hippie culture to the age of millennials, the concept of “bigger is better” manifests itself in music festivals and profits skyrocket. Regardless of increasing ticket prices and disagreements about festival motives, fans all around America still set reminders on their phones and mark their calendars for lineup and ticket releases, desperate for a chance to attend.

Erupting in the 1960s with psychedelic rock and heavy metal, we see the first music festivals, such as the Newport Folk Festival in 1965 and Woodstock in 1969. Fueled by a growing sense of empowerment during severe national turmoil, youths flocked to these festivals that allowed people to find purpose and peace in the music. Woodstock, in particular, set out to prove that “peace and understanding were possible,” according to organizer Michael Lang (Szatmary, 2014, 201). Paired with the heavy use of drugs, the music gave listeners an escape and the wide range of performers, from the Grateful Dead to Jimi Hendrix, emphasized the importance of harmony and peace. Melanie, one of the performers, referred to the crowd as “one family” (Szatmary, 2014, 201) because they came together around an assortment of music during a time of such unrest.
 

This laissez-faire attitude, focusing on music and emotions, may have distracted the organizers from properly preparing for these early festivals. Without a proper plan, organizers of the 1969 Woodstock festival were unable to prevent people from hopping fences and attending the shows without purchasing a ticket. Instead of imposing authority and demanding payment, the organizers decided the solution was simple- make the festival free. Lovesey states this declaration of a free festival reflects the “1960s’ cultural and political radicalism, revolutionary embrace of imaginative and individual freedom” (Lovesey, 2020, 121). Instead of commercializing music like preceding figures in the industry, such as Dick Clark, those involved in the hippie movement of the 1960s emphasized the emotional aspects of music and promoted free expression regardless of economic factors. 

While the emotional aspects of festivals have survived the ever-changing industry, commercialization of festivals mark the death of free expression. According to Hiller, festival organizers weigh the demand of each act against the “budget constraint of hiring in the context of their quality level,” in order to create a lineup consisting of a hierarchy of acts (Hiller, 2016, 310). Unsurprisingly, festival organizers search for high-quality artists to satisfy the audience’s needs. However, the issue with hiring well-known, high quality musicians is the massive cost of hiring, which is why festival organizers tend to hire lesser known acts. According to Hiller, a “top touring band is 40 percent more likely to be hired in the first year, but 45 percent less likely to be hired in the following year, likely due to an increased cost of hiring” (Hiller, 2016, 309). While the hiring process is heavily influenced by costs, the quality of music is still evaluated so that the festival can have a positive reputation, attract consumers, and satisfy the diverse audience. 
Once a lineup is secured, there is still an incredible amount of decisions to make about stage design and setup, merchandising and food tents, schedule of shows, and other accommodations. Hiller notes that music festivals use “product bundling” (Hiller, 2016, 313) to extract the most profit and provide the most value to customers. All of the elements of a festival, such as food merchandise, tickets, and additional activities generate an immense amount of revenue, especially as attendance increases. Bourdeau, Coster, and Paradis uses the phrase “cultural consumption” to describe the consumer experience in cultural products, such as music, that is intangible and emotional (2001, 40). This emotional experience is why people turn a blind eye to the commercialization of these festivals and willingly spend hundreds on tickets and merchandise.  
 

Setting aside any economic and social factors, music festivals, at their core, are a powerful tool used to create a community of music lovers. Although the lineups vary and each festival offers its own unique set of amenities and accommodations, festivals create a community, or subculture, or individuals who share the passion for music. Arnold, in his book, Half a Million Strong: Crowds and Power from Woodstock to Coachella, states that the Newport Folk Festival “explicitly foreshadowed a future relationship between rock crowds and power” (Arnold, 29). Listeners can use festivals as a means to connect to the lyrics, performer, and other fans, creating a place of cooperation and discovery. Some may place more importance on the nonmonetary value derived from festivals, overlooking the motivations behind the festivals, while others may argue the end results do not justify the capitalist driving force. Arnold argued that the “crowds and crowding out to be to make some kind of ideological and symbolic gesture,” yet assumed this meaning is only temporary (Arnold, 14). He sees the environmental destruction and economic repercussions as the primary lasting effect of music festivals. I disagree.