Recorded music, followed by radio, television, audios and CDs began to replace live performances and attracted audiences. But, there lies a paradox in this since even though the rise of technology led to a diversion of audiences from a more art based industry to a more commercialized form, even to this day people enjoy live performances.
It is true that that rapid growth of technology has had both positive and negative impacts on the industry of performing arts. It is not really clear as to whether these impacts are absolutely good or absolutely bad for the industry. Most of the organizers in today’s times feel that technology is one of the biggest competitors of live art performers. In order to attract potential audiences for live shows, organizers need to compete with almost 3000-5000 both print and visual commercial marketing messages that a typical American citizen comes across every single day. It is hard for the live performing organizations to reach out to the vast expanse of the audience in the way technology based performances such as audios and CDs do.
Today, people have become self-oriented and need privatization, customization and easy access to almost everything. Live performances do not meet such demands. Live performances are bound by number of performances, timing of performances, artists performance and even travelling to the set venue and parking. In contrast to this technology such as iTunes or YouTube and even the humble recorded music allows easy access to music and other art forms to everyone and the young generation especially is attracted to such commercialized forms which allows all types of flexibility to the audience (Cameron, 2011). This is perhaps where both accessibility, convenience and financial aspects come in. When the audience can freely enjoy performances through the television, internet or watch videos, whenever they want, at whatever location while paying almost a negligible amount for this. In