Safety at live music events has become an increasing concern
in recent years, spurred by high-profile incidents that have attracted global attention.
These incidents have driven calls for more government support and funding to
improve crowd safety at live events, without which, experts
argue, further incidents are inevitable.
Widely reported crowd disasters underscore the inherent
risks of participation in large crowds. The dynamic nature of crowd events make
it difficult to establish a hard and fast metric for safe crowd density.
However, densities well exceeding the 5 people per square metre
maximum recommended in some
guidance regularly occur at live music events without causing a safety
incident, and without diminishing attendees' positive experiences. This raises
the question: if safety isn’t purely about density, what other factors
influence audience experiences of safety at live music events?
Over the past two years, we have been conducting research
looking at people’s experiences of participation in crowds at live music
events. As part of this, we have explored the factors which influence
perceptions of safety. Our research combines insights from 26 interviews with
regular attendees and event staff in the UK and USA, ethnographic observations
at large-scale events, and survey responses from over 2,000 participants to
uncover the factors influencing felt safety at live music events.
Feeling
Safe in a Crowd
Research has previously shown the role of the crowd in influencing
perceptions of a safe environment. Specifically, work adopting a social
identity approach to crowd behaviour highlights how participating in a
crowd can foster a sense of shared group identity, which in turn can influence
the values and behaviours deemed acceptable within the crowd. These findings
have been replicated in the context of live music events. For instance, Morton
and Power (2021) demonstrated how shared identity and trust among festival attendees
played a crucial role in fostering perceptions of safety when live events
re-opened following closures imposed because of the COVID pandemic. Elsewhere, Drury and
colleagues (2015) investigated a near
disastrous outdoor music event, finding that that social identification
within the crowd enhanced feelings of safety by fostering trust and
expectations of mutual aid among attendees.
Similarly, across our interviews, we found that other
members of the crowd were cited as one of the most important factors in
perceptions of safety. Interviewees frequently mentioned that their sense of
safety was influenced by the behaviour and perceived identities of those around
them. Attendees felt safer when they shared identity with others in the
audience—be it based on age, gender, or a shared love for the same genre of
music.
Previous research on crowds at religious mass
gatherings and mass
demonstrations found that sharing identity with others can lead people to
feel safe in a crowd, even where levels of density are very high and
objectively dangerous. Echoing this, our survey found that participants who
felt a stronger sense of identity with others in the crowd were more likely to
report standing in a crowded location.
This is not to say that shared identity with other members
of the crowd is the only factor influencing perceptions of safety. Many
of our interviewees highlighted the role played by atmosphere in promoting
feelings of safety: a positive and cohesive crowd mood -- often inferred
through interactions and responses to the music -- can help foster a sense of
community and security. Conversely, poorly managed events can lead to
frustration and erode this sense of positive atmosphere, increasing feelings of
vulnerability, and highlighting the importance of organisational factors in
contributing to feelings of safety.
Our survey study provides further evidence of the role of
organisational factors: alongside the friendliness of others in the crowd, both
the appropriateness of security measures and the presence of staff were found
to positively influence participants’ sense of safety. This was echoed in our
interviews, where participants frequently emphasised the importance of
contextually appropriate security measures. While visible security was
reassuring at larger events, it could inhibit a sense of freedom and expression
at smaller gigs. Striking the right balance between professionalism and
relatability is crucial for staff to positively contribute to the overall event
atmosphere.
Just as a common identity within the crowd is important for
enhancing safety, so a common identity with staff and organizers is crucial. Of
course, staff are not ‘the same’ as the audience, but at another level they can
be seen as ‘our staff’ in a superordinate group identity. This inclusive
sense of community or ‘family’ is something that successful festivals like
Roskilde and Glastonbury promote, and it is key to their identity.
How does one create such a superordinate identity and how
does it contribute to safety? Our survey found that the more that audience
members felt that staff treated them in fair and supportive way, the more that
they felt a sense of community with staff, which in turn predicted trust in
staff and listening to them. In short, the more that audience members see staff
as ‘part of our group’ the more likely they are to follow any safety
instructions from them.
The Crowd
as a Safety Resource
Despite the inherent risks associated with participation in
dense crowds at live music events, crowds themselves can be an incredibly
valuable safety resource. Multiple interviewees gave examples of support they
had received in times of need in a crowd, again often tied to a sense of shared
identity with others at the event.
In fact, we observed this capacity of the crowd to act as a
safety resource during our ethnographic work at a three-day festival in Atlanta,
USA. During a performance, we noticed a medic walking through the crowd to
attend to an audience member, with a few attendees in the area appearing to
signal to the medic the precise location (see Figure 1, below). Interestingly,
once at the scene, the medic appeared to signal towards the front of the stage,
both waving and using what looked like a flashlight. This resulted in a large
number of attendees in the immediate vicinity joining in the signalling to the
front by waving (Figure 2), thereby amplifying the medic’s signal, and
ultimately resulting in an acknowledgement from the artist, who proceeded to
check with the group in that area:
Artist: “Can we get
someone in the middle here? We’ve got someone down. [Asks audience] They’re
coming? They’re coming? Oh they’re good, they’re good.”
Figures 1 and 2: Members of the
crowd work together to collectively signal for medical assistance
The
Artist’s Role in Crowd Safety
The above example points to a further factor in experiences
of safety in crowds at live music events – the role of the artist. Artists
emerged as significant influencers of crowd behaviour and safety perceptions.
Many interviewees highlighted the duty of care artists hold in setting the tone
for events, highlighting how artists have the capacity to carefully choreograph
crowd interactions and crowd movement, as well as establish general safety norms
such as one example where the lead singer of a band requested audience members
to wear masks in relation to the COVID pandemic to reduce health risks.
Artists can also undermine safety. Some interviewees
described incidents where artists encouraged risky behaviour, such as ignoring
venue rules, leading to crowd management challenges. Others described how an
artist turning up late led to a feeling of restlessness and aggression within
the crowd – something again observed in our ethnographic research, where crowd
members waiting for a late artist took to throwing bottles of water into other
areas of the crowd.
The power of the artist to shape crowd behaviour, and the
limits of that, is further evidenced in our survey study. When participants
were asked which factors most influence crowd behaviour, the artist was listed
as number 1, above the organisation of the event and even levels of
intoxication of other crowd members. This appears to be particularly the case
for participants who identify strongly as a fan of the artist – those who
identify as fans more strongly are more likely to respond to calls for action which
come from the artist, including potentially unsafe behaviours such as jumping
up and down, crowd surfing or participating in a ‘wall of death’.
What This
Means for Practice
Our findings have several practical implications for event
organisers, artists, and staff:
Foster a Positive
Crowd Atmosphere: Facilitating a sense of shared identity and
mutual respect within the crowd, and between the crowd and staff, can
significantly enhance safety perceptions and objective safety. This can be
achieved through communication of event values beforehand, fostering inclusive
environments, and forms of (fair and supportive) interaction with staff during
the event (informative, engaging/ listening, empathizing, respectful).
Consider Pre-Event Organisation: The perception of
safety begins long before attendees arrive at the venue. Transparent
communication about safety protocols -- such as health measures or ticketing
procedures -- can reassure attendees that organisers take their safety
seriously. We know safety and service are linked – both in audience experience
and in underlying psychology. So link these procedures to audience experience:
‘this is how we care for each other’.
Leverage the Crowd as a Safety Resource: Crowds can
act as a valuable safety resource through their capacity to coordinate actions
like signalling for help or maintaining order (collective self-regulation).
Event organisers should ensure that staff are trained to recognise and respond
to such signals effectively, through knowing
group psychology.
Equip Artists with Awareness: Artists should
recognise and understand their influence on crowd behaviour and receive
guidance on how to set positive behavioural norms. Small actions, such as
acknowledging safety concerns or addressing inappropriate behaviour, can make a
significant difference. Just as staff need to understand the group psychology
underlying audience behaviour and experience, so do artists.
Conclusion
Felt safety at live music events is not solely determined by
logistical factors but is deeply intertwined with the behaviour and identities
of the crowd, artists, and staff. By fostering shared purpose and trust among
all parties involved, event organisers can create environments that not only
feel safer but also enhance the overall experience for attendees. As the live
music industry continues to evolve, these insights offer valuable guidance for
creating safer and more enjoyable events for everyone.
Acknowledgements
The research described in this blogpost was the work of
Harry Lewis, John Drury, Hanna Eldarwish, Danielle Evans, Fiona Green, Sanj
Choudhury and Lewis Doyle.
