I've listened to the streaming of 'Patagonian Rats' on http://teramelos.bandcamp.com/album/patagonian-rats
This album is amazing! I haven't had much $$$ but I'm definitely ordering tomorrow and I intend on writing a track by track review where I will absolutely kiss Tera Melos' asses.
-DHAGZ
17.8.10
Between Rock and a Hard Economy
A few days ago I ran across an informal editorial by Ryan McKenney of Trap Them. Let me preface everything that follows with two caveats:
1. I have never heard anything by Trap Them (at least not consciously).
2. I did not read the editorial than spawned McKenney's response.
Allow me to paraphrase for the sake of catching everyone up. The initial question is whether or not corporate-sponsored festivals are "killing the live concert market." For the most part, this is a valid question for dedicated fans, casual listeners, and (most of all) musicians/artists/bands.
Scion Fest manages to book acts like Cannibal Corpse, Voivod, Boris, Nachtmystium (sort of), and a slew of other amazing acts, all without even sporting ticket prices. Granted, we could spend a whole week debating whether or not the aforementioned acts need any corporate backing to get a show. However, Trap Them is also on the 2010 line-up, as for several other bands whom I have only heard of conversationally. So, yes: corporate-sponsored festivals provide up-and-coming bands with the opportunity to reach large audiences without the need for multi-month-long tours, back-breaking promotion, and a healthy dose of insanity.*
Is a band less "true" or "KVLT" because they perform on a corporation's dime? Is a band "selling out" because they took a check from a corporation, rather than ending their tour in debt?
As both a musician and a music junkie, I understand why the notion of "selling out" is so toxic. Anyone seriously devoted to music understands the drive, compulsion, need to create. As much as I DESPISE Lady Gaga, I honestly believe that she is a performer because she loves to perform. to her credit, she was in an honest-to-god band before her marketed image was created (and created it was). The problem is when you come across music so bland, unimaginative, heart-less, and yet commercially polished; music that screams "IN IT FOR THE BENJAMINS."
Here lies the crux of the problem: if a band makes a profit (heaven forbid), are they less legitimate? Without even examining quality of content, is Bone Awl a better band than U2, simply because they earn less? Was Crass better than The Clash** simply because they lived in squats and shat outdoors?
This is where the fans become the problem.
Different example: I will not shell out $75 (plus fees) to see Matmos and Emeralds at Moog Fest. Is $7_ excessive? Well, when you consider that the shows are all over town, in different venues, with 10+ bands per day, not entirely. Booking multiple venues for multiple bands from all over the world sounds expensive, and probably is. Is $7_ excessive? Since I only want to see two bands, yes.
Therein is the problem: the whims of the fan vs. economic reality.
I am going out on the road in a little under a month. Fortunately, I am using frequent flyer miles and the kindness of friends to skip a lot of issues like gasoline and food. Is flying to Alaska from South Carolina for a nine-day tour insane? Yes, but no more insane than driving around the lower 48 for two months, working 20-hour days, and coming home worse than broke. If anything, I think my Alaskan tour has a better chance at success than my previous US/Ontario tour. Why? Geographically isolated area with low occurrences of tour stops and concentrated population centers.
There is little harder than trying to get people out to a show. "I can see them next time." "I have seen them before." "I went to a show last night." My hope is that Alaskans are a bit more appreciative than "outsiders" when considering live music.
That being said, the majority of the shows I have played have yielded no money at the end of the night. Turnout is too low, so the venue "can't afford" to pay. The venue is run by assholes who promise money but pocket the door "because we have to pay rent and utilities." The venue does not like you (or you somehow offend them), and refuses to pay. Even worse, when a multi-band ticket has to split less than $100; touring band gets the goods in my opinion, but you might be surprised how many people will fight you for their $16 in earnings. All of these things have happened and will continue to happen.
All finger-pointing at poor venue management aside, what really exacerbates the problem is that people do not want to pay a "fair" price to see a show.
So, here is my question:
Is corporate-sponsorship saving the live music market from the fans, or are both sides of this equation killing music? In an economy like today's, where jobs are scarce and two dollars is worth one, is a corporate festival doing more for music than the (arguably already cheap) audience?
*By no means am I implying that some out-of-the-woodwork band is going to get a spot on a corporate festival. I believe (or at least, hope) that all the bands on any festival have paid their dues, one way or another. That being said, who will get better exposure: a band that plays rock clubs across the US for a year, or a band that plays one big festival with multiple established acts?
**YES.
1. I have never heard anything by Trap Them (at least not consciously).
2. I did not read the editorial than spawned McKenney's response.
Allow me to paraphrase for the sake of catching everyone up. The initial question is whether or not corporate-sponsored festivals are "killing the live concert market." For the most part, this is a valid question for dedicated fans, casual listeners, and (most of all) musicians/artists/bands.
Scion Fest manages to book acts like Cannibal Corpse, Voivod, Boris, Nachtmystium (sort of), and a slew of other amazing acts, all without even sporting ticket prices. Granted, we could spend a whole week debating whether or not the aforementioned acts need any corporate backing to get a show. However, Trap Them is also on the 2010 line-up, as for several other bands whom I have only heard of conversationally. So, yes: corporate-sponsored festivals provide up-and-coming bands with the opportunity to reach large audiences without the need for multi-month-long tours, back-breaking promotion, and a healthy dose of insanity.*
Being a smaller band that is willing to tour relentlessly is both extremely difficult and, truthfully, a pretty stupid idea, but some of us don’t know any better, or have no other route in life to take. This is what they call being “a glutton for punishment.” The average age of my band is 32 years old. None of us have degrees or trades to fall back on when touring finally hits a brick wall. None of us can look more than six months into the futur [sic.]… and we accept that. Most of us have been touring since the 90’s with various failure of endeavors.Then there are the fans.
Is a band less "true" or "KVLT" because they perform on a corporation's dime? Is a band "selling out" because they took a check from a corporation, rather than ending their tour in debt?
As both a musician and a music junkie, I understand why the notion of "selling out" is so toxic. Anyone seriously devoted to music understands the drive, compulsion, need to create. As much as I DESPISE Lady Gaga, I honestly believe that she is a performer because she loves to perform. to her credit, she was in an honest-to-god band before her marketed image was created (and created it was). The problem is when you come across music so bland, unimaginative, heart-less, and yet commercially polished; music that screams "IN IT FOR THE BENJAMINS."
Here lies the crux of the problem: if a band makes a profit (heaven forbid), are they less legitimate? Without even examining quality of content, is Bone Awl a better band than U2, simply because they earn less? Was Crass better than The Clash** simply because they lived in squats and shat outdoors?
The rest of us come home to roll burritos, work at record stores, flip burgers and walk dogs for “a living”… the rest of us eat shit at home as well as on tour. You know what makes that shit taste a little better? Someone you don’t know, giving you money to help you do what you want to do. If this makes me a bastard, then give me that fucking crown and put a spotlight on me… I’ll take it all day, week, month, year, decade and century. As long as no one is telling me how to write lyrics and songs and present myself or my band in a live setting, I simply do not care who helps me continue to do this.I can not fault an artist or band that has an opportunity to survive a little more comfortably without having to compromise their vision. For god's sake, no one is talking about the Free Credit Score bands. They are the reason people are skeptical of corporate sponsorship; they are the reason bands are wary of being linked with a household name.
This is where the fans become the problem.
Guess what? You want the bottome [sic.] line? Depending on the show, anything less than $25 is a deal.I know I am guilty beyond reproach. There have been shows that I would have loved to have gone to, and even though I could afford to, I chose not to because the tickets were "too much." Granted, when I went to What The Heck Fest in 2005 and 2006, the unlimited festival pass was only $50 for three days and about forty acts. Spoiled? You bet I am.
Different example: I will not shell out $75 (plus fees) to see Matmos and Emeralds at Moog Fest. Is $7_ excessive? Well, when you consider that the shows are all over town, in different venues, with 10+ bands per day, not entirely. Booking multiple venues for multiple bands from all over the world sounds expensive, and probably is. Is $7_ excessive? Since I only want to see two bands, yes.
Therein is the problem: the whims of the fan vs. economic reality.
I am going out on the road in a little under a month. Fortunately, I am using frequent flyer miles and the kindness of friends to skip a lot of issues like gasoline and food. Is flying to Alaska from South Carolina for a nine-day tour insane? Yes, but no more insane than driving around the lower 48 for two months, working 20-hour days, and coming home worse than broke. If anything, I think my Alaskan tour has a better chance at success than my previous US/Ontario tour. Why? Geographically isolated area with low occurrences of tour stops and concentrated population centers.
There is little harder than trying to get people out to a show. "I can see them next time." "I have seen them before." "I went to a show last night." My hope is that Alaskans are a bit more appreciative than "outsiders" when considering live music.
That being said, the majority of the shows I have played have yielded no money at the end of the night. Turnout is too low, so the venue "can't afford" to pay. The venue is run by assholes who promise money but pocket the door "because we have to pay rent and utilities." The venue does not like you (or you somehow offend them), and refuses to pay. Even worse, when a multi-band ticket has to split less than $100; touring band gets the goods in my opinion, but you might be surprised how many people will fight you for their $16 in earnings. All of these things have happened and will continue to happen.
All finger-pointing at poor venue management aside, what really exacerbates the problem is that people do not want to pay a "fair" price to see a show.
Local punk or hardcore or metal shows with bands on tour are too expensive, but you’ll drop $150 for two tickets in the balcony of a Lady Gaga show because your girlfriend wants to go… you’ll drop $300 for tickets for Opening Day because your boyfriend has gone every year. Comedians charge $75-$150 to have you sit down and laugh for an hour[.]I have heard that very excuse from people. "Man, I don't want to pay $5 to go to _________." Maybe the venue has no a/c. Maybe the venue is non-smoking/alcohol free. Maybe the venue is in a "bad part of town." Maybe, maybe, maybe, and the only definite is that you are not going to get paid at the end of the night, and more than likely, the bands playing are never going to come back to your town.
So, here is my question:
Is corporate-sponsorship saving the live music market from the fans, or are both sides of this equation killing music? In an economy like today's, where jobs are scarce and two dollars is worth one, is a corporate festival doing more for music than the (arguably already cheap) audience?
------------------------------------------
*By no means am I implying that some out-of-the-woodwork band is going to get a spot on a corporate festival. I believe (or at least, hope) that all the bands on any festival have paid their dues, one way or another. That being said, who will get better exposure: a band that plays rock clubs across the US for a year, or a band that plays one big festival with multiple established acts?
**YES.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)