It's disappointing to see such a stupid article presented by Cornell. There is nothing about live music that would make it remotely comparable to Uber, which it

It's disappointing to see such a stupid article presented by Cornell. There is nothing about live music that would make it remotely comparable to Uber, which itself loses money and is not a business model worth replicating. Uber is an intermediary gig application for a commodity service. Live music is a custom, creative product created by individuals for individuals. One live music performance cannot be swapped with another with the same results, unlike car rides. This desire to "gig economy" everything is a bad road to go down. It isn't even workable for Uber, much less for musicians. Uber and live music do have one thing in common which is they are highly local. You and the provider must be in the same physical area for the service to happen. This naturally limits how far any one provider can expand. 'Cause geography, that's why. Uber cannot overcome this with an "app" as there is no app that magically moves taxis or service depots around. Likewise, there is no intermediary service that magically moves bands around and pays their living expenses without incurring all the normal costs. This should be obvious and not require academic investigation.