It used to be simple: an artist announces a tour, you buy a ticket for a show near you and that’s it. Now, with major ticket wars and trends like travelling for concerts, it’s a bit more complicated.
The music highlight of the week? Harry Styles’ album and tour announcement. However, a tour in his case actually seems to mean it’s the fans who will be going on a world tour to see him. Harry himself keeps it simple, with stops in only 7 cities: Amsterdam (6 nights), London (6 nights), São Paulo (2 nights), Mexico City (2 nights), New York City (30! nights), Melbourne (2 nights) and Sydney (2 nights). Edit: in the meantime, he has added several shows in those same cities.
Especially in NYC, it’s basically a residency. He must really love the city, I guess. Of course, this means fans from all over the United States, Canada and maybe even further will ‘have to’ travel there if they want to see their idol. While, in the past, the entire point of a tour was that an artist came to a venue near you.
In the past, the entire point of a tour was that an artist came to a venue near you
This is yet another sign of how the concert business has profoundly changed, especially since the pandemic. It seems like artists and their teams realized touring the way it used to be done, isn’t always in their best interest, both mentally (being on the road, away from home for a long time) and financially (the cost of touring, with concerts in smaller cities that might not sell out).
At the same time the interest in (certain) concerts became larger, with social media playing a big role. If a concert tour is hyped up on Instagram or TikTok, you can’t get around it (think Sabrina Carpenter, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift…). This constructs a fear of missing out. We see the result of that during ticket sales. Digital waiting lines easily pass 100.000 people in presale. Recently, this was the case for Ariana Grande, Bruno Mars and I expect it to also happen for Harry Styles.
It seems like artists and their teams realized touring the way it used to be done, isn’t always in their best interest
When you know an average concert venue holds 20.000 people and an average stadium 50.000, adding that most in line will buy a minimum of two tickets if not more, you know chances of getting tickets are really small. When artists furthermore limit their performances geographically or in terms of number and there are few tickets for normal prices, concerts risk becoming something very exclusive. Especially since travelling for a concert also means spending more money.
In short, there is a discrepancy between what artists are offering and the demand of fans.
The main cause of all of this according to me? The oversaturation of certain artists. As mentioned earlier, social platforms have a huge influence on our leisure choices. This also means that if one artist is trending, their audiences grow in a way that’s never been seen before. I mean, isn’t it crazy that Harry Styles and his team know it will be beneficial for them to perform the same show no less than 30 times at the same venue? They could also have decided to wait and see how the first ticket sale goes and then add shows if demand is high enough. But apparently, they’re sure it won’t be a problem. At the same time, there are artists who seem to be forgotten about a bit and subsequently have to perform in smaller venues. I talked about this in a previous article about Ella Eyre, which you can read here. This shows momentum is everything and that we live by trends a lot.
The fact that residencies become more popular, certainly can be beneficial
Of course, not all evolutions are necessarily negative. The fact that residencies become more popular, certainly can be beneficial. The best example is Bad Bunny’s 2025 residency in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The artist managed to boost tourism and generate income for the island during rainy – and possible hurricane – season, a time Puerto Rico usually has less visitors. This is a perfect example of how the music industry can have a positive impact on the economy and/or communities.
However, when we look at Harry Styles’ stops, most are in cities that don’t necessarily need more economic benefits. Especially not during the months the concerts are planned. Amsterdam, for example, already suffers from mass tourism, with a city centre that can barely sustain its own popularity. Knowing that Harry Styles will perform 6 nights in Amsterdam, it makes me wonder if this is the best decision. Is battling overtourism solely an artists’ responsibility? No, obviously not. In the first place, the city itself should invest in ways to make sure tourism remains bearable. But it does all add up.
The way concerts are held, has changed anyway. So, while we’re at it, it might be a good time for the music industry to look at the bigger picture as well.
Written by Nikita
Nikita – founder of Nikita’s World – is a Belgian author of feminist feelgood & a journalist specialized in pop culture and the creative industry.