Surface Unsigned and No Pay-To-Play In Brum
Surface Unsigned don't like the blogs I have put on the No Pay-To-Play In Brum myspace page.
http://www.myspace.com/nopaytoplayinbrum2
They have made false complaints to myspace to have a blog removed, then the whole page, then a blog again.
The behaviour of Surface Unsigned is cowardly, an abuse of myspace, and a tacit admission that their presentation of the "deposit" to take part in their competition is deliberately misleading.
- Artists:
- None
From the archive
-
Clash and burn with Hard-Fi
-
Favourite Five: 5 Acts' favourite 5 Albums of 2008 (Part 2)
-
In Photos: ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead in Leuven, Belgium
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Blog
A blog detailing all that is wrong with the Surface Unsigned competition would last almost as long as the competition itself; (next one is due to start in February next year).
This blog is specifically about the intial £25 "deposit" that each entrant (band) pays before they participate in the competition. Each band pays the deposit at a meeting that occurs days, or weeks, prior to the first round of the competition. Only those bands who will be taking part pay the deposit; (it is not the case that every applicant to take part in the competition pays the deposit.) The deposit is paid for the first round only; no more deposits are required for later rounds.
On the FAQ (frequently asked questions) section of the Surface Unsigned website the reason for the deposit is explained as a deterrent to bands from pulling out of the competition. This reason is absurd.
It should not be the case for any gig at a relatively small venue (and the Surface Unsigned first round gigs are at relatively small venues) that a band needs to pay a deposit to the promoter to guarantee the band's appearance. It is true that bands do pull out of gigs, sometimes at short notice and for a variety of reasons. That is a scenario that a promoter has to deal with. In such circumstances, the promoter will seek to find a replacement. For Surface Unsigned, taking into account all the applicantions they receive, finding replacements shouldn't be difficult. If Surface Unsigned don't have the time to find a replacement for a band that has pulled out, what does that say about their commitment to each indiviidual gig? How much time and energy do they devote to the promotion of each individual gig? A promoter knows that gig organisation is never smooth, that the list of potential problems is long, and so he is prepared for anything, and always seeks to fix the problems that occur. If Surface Unsigned are not so prepared and not so willing to deal with such problems, then their commitment to each individual gigs is questionable. If they claim to be fully committed, then they would be willing and able to deal with band pull-outs.
If a single band pulls out of a first round gig of Surface Unsigned then they wouldn't really be missed by the audience, who presumably will have come to see the other bands. If several bands pulled out then that may be problematic, but why would that occur? After all, the Surface Unsigned "festival" is, supposively, a great opportunity for unknown unsigned bands, all of whom have already gone through the application and vetting process. The odd band might be otherwise engaged, but surely several wouldn't just decide that they couldn't be bothered, thus missing such a chance of a crack at being noticed (not forgetting the prizes). Also, the band is assigned a text vote number once their participation in the competition is confirmed, and their fans can start voting via text (at £1 plus network rate for each vote) when the number is assigned - if a band pulled out, their fans who have spent money on these text votes would be aggrieved. Therefore, there is an extra reason for the band to not pull out.
So, does the logic for the deposit stem from Surface Unsigned's lack of commitment to each individual gig, or does it stem from its lack of confidence in the appeal of the competition?
Or, is there another reason for the "deposit"?
On the FAQ section, the method for the return of the depoit is explained. If, (and the use of "if" is very important here - the Oxford English Dictionary defines "if" as "introducing a conditional clause"), twenty-five tickets are sold by the band in advance for their first round gig, (that's the condition), then the £25 "deposit" will be returned. More than twenty-five tickets sold means the band recieves more than twenty-five pounds, less than twenty-five sold means they receive nothing. Just to be clear, the "deposit" will be "returned" if the condition is satisfied that not only do the band turn up, but also that they have sold at least twenty-five tickets.
Approximately 2000 bands are expected to take part in the Surface Unsigned competition next year. That's £50,000 in deposits. I wonder how many of the bands fall short of the magic twenty-five tickets sold.
The following is a factual comment - I make that clear for the benefit of Surface Unsigned, who have already indicated to me via e-mail that they struggle differentiating between factual observation and defamation.
FACT: If a band fails to sell at least twenty-five tickets for their first round gig as part of the Surface Unsigned competition then they will not receive their deposit back. Thus, they will be paying-to-play. I hope
hang on, has your myspace seriously been removed?
they are a bunch of money making charlatans, is there nothing you (we) can do? surely it is not illegal to state fact.
Legality or otherwise has nothing to do with it
If Surface threaten legal action against myspace, myspace will remove the page without even looking into it. It's not worth their bother to even spend the time reading what has been written, let alone trying to ascertain the veracity of the matter.
John, you're better off hosting your own pages and just using myspace and facebook to promote it. The fact that social networking sites can do what they want with your page (intentionally or not) is why anyone who is serious about their web presence should get their own domain.
Yes, that's true
The second page has been removed
Your entire myspace has been removed
that's disgraceful.
it shouldn't be a surprise really, so many people out there to make money off the back of hard working unsigned bands
Yes, for a second time
Cowardly behaviour by Surface Unsigned
Surface and Sons may feel smug
However, my radar suggests that these nasty little truths are leaking out and are gaining momentum
by the day. When the whole sorry mess starts again in February, the organisers may find that many of the bands that they have signed up, are not quite as naive as they had hoped. It is not good to find yourself on the wrong side of musicians who might start causing a spot of bovver. Bands might start being awkward by not selling enough tickets. Oh dear! So damaging to profit margins.
How silly of me: I forgot that this company cares deeply for bands and musicians.........So ticket sales don't matter, right?
They say that you reap what you sow.
I say let the show begin!
I think you're being unecessarily militant about this.
It's only £25 after all. Between an average band size of 3-4 people that's nothing.
The competition sounds rubbish, but there's no point in getting your knickers in a twist over it. If the ONLY way to get a gig was via this method you might have a legitimate grievance, but as it stands it's still possible to get gigs in the normal manner.
"It's only £25 after all. Between an average band size of 3-4 people that's nothing."
2000 bands is £50,000
Of course, as a Tory, you will understand a little bit of fleecing goes unnoticed and the numbers add up to a nice tidy sum.
I still don't really see your point.
People willingly enter into that contract, and it is important to remember that if those bands uphold their end of the deal they will het back it back. So 2000 bands doing what they have agreed to do will equal no money for the promoter. So you bandying around this figure of £50,000 as though it is guaranteed money in the promoter's pocket; it simply isn't.
And, if you want to bring cod politics into it, as a Tory I walso believe in a free market, the bedrock of which is competition. Surface Unsigned do not have a monopoly on all gigs played by unsigned bands in Birmingham. So what's the problem? Bands can go with them, or they can go with someone else, it's their choice.
And, whilst am it, I don't really see what's overly wrong with what Surface Unsigned are doing. I hate pay to play gigs because they attact rubbish bands that no-one wants to see, but i have no moral problem with it. Should promoters, even unscrupulous ones, not be allowed to make money? All they're doing is offering people a service that isn't overly necessary, but that's how large swathes of our economy works; but what are you gonna do about it?
You actually touch on what the real problem with this is
and that's the question of choice. Although we're now living in an apparently joyous age where pay to play is thankfully a rarity, that wasn't always the case. In the 80's London was virtually sewn up by shysters like this, including internationally renowned venues that were major stop offs for unsigned bands. It took a concerted campaign that included picketing to get rid of this practice as the norm.
Unfortunately it's in the nature of the game that there's large numbers of inexperienced bands who don't know better and may not of even heard of pay to play. So publicising the nature of this type of promoter is really no bad thing, and actually benefits not just potential victims but the market for bands as a whole and the punters. Like you say, the gigs are invariably rubbish with promoters having little incentive to actually promote. Of course, if bands go into this with their eyes open and decide it's worth it as some kind of vanity project, then so be it. A little information about what they can realistically expect is probably the least they deserve, and if it falls to people like John to publicize that then so be it. It's preying on the ill informed and naive that's the problem.
It was a struggle to get rid of pay to play before: we really don't want them back.
*they will get it back
Oh, the Tory definition of "choice" rears its ugly head
The £50,000 is only part of the money Surface Unsigned will make
The bands have to sell 25 tickets before they receive any payment and then they get a pound a ticket (which for the first gig is the "return of the deposit")- the rest, at least five pounds, goes to Surface Unsigned. So, SU get at least £125 per band per gig. It's hundreds of thosuands generated.
Of course you support the "free market" - free to exploit, mislead, fleece.
Also, as Rockefeller says, other unsrupulous types will follow SU's lead and are doing so.
Detective Mr_JDTraynor
The whole thing is being reported in a very negative, tell tail light. Mr_JDTraynor, don’t dictate your views onto ‘naïve’ musicians like me, its very patronising. People can make choices based on there own assumptions. Your sentence above 'Of course you support the "free market" - free to exploit, mislead, fleece' is rubbish. Why are bands being exploited? Who is being mislead? The Surface website seems clear enough to me. I can read, therefore I can judge for myself. Who is being fleeced? Can you expand on this?
Why do you assume that Surface are making all this money? Your quick to analyse ticket sales and deposits but you don’t account for how many bands will receive that deposit back, nor do you account for the costs that Surface must have. Office rent, servers, staff (how many people work for Surface?), venues hire costs, vehicle hire costs, website designs, petrol, etc? I dunno, that’s a few things, but I’m sure theres more. The thing is I don’t know and nor do you. I also know 5,000 is being given away this year as a prize. Bands get paid. They also get loads of free stuff. This isn’t a stupid gig, it’s a national event. Also it’s a business that makes money, like any record company, download company, promoter, event organiser – good luck to them.
The blog above is a repeat of whats on the Surface website – why do you feel the need to waste your time re-printing material and trying to be clever thinking you’ve ‘uncovered’ something special that nobody else can see. I not surprised Myspace took the blog down – it’s not a balanced argument, in fact the first sentence ‘A blog detailing all that is wrong with the Surface Unsigned competition would last almost as long as the competition itself’ is a real shitty thing to say – Myspace don’t allow something that expressly stated or implied to be factual, may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. You are giving Surface a negative image by not stating a balanced argument.
It’s interesting to hear the Chairman’s (they won 2008) view on all this on the pineapster forum:
http://pineapster.com/forums/announcements/the_chairmen
Have you lot at SU not worked out that it's better to keep quiet?
Every time you open your mouths to defend yourselves or criticise someone else, you just end up looking foolish, and reinforcing the points of criticism made against you.
"naive" musicians - "patronising"? It seems to be a tactic of you lot to attack people who criticise who by trying to create a barrier between them and musicians and other people in the music business. You will notice from the myspace profile, that is back up, that the first sentence I use is an apology if what I write is an idiot's guide.
So, you admit that some bands don't get their deposit back? Well done for admitting that.
"you don't account for how many bands will receive that deposit back" Indeed, they get £25, you get £125.
£5000 in prizes? A fraction of income, most of which is generated by the bands (ticket sales) and fans (phone votes).
"I not surprised Myspace took the blog down" Now you are insulting the itelligence of the readers of this forum. You know that myspace don't check things that are reported - they just remove them.
"it’s not a balanced argument" It's not supposed to be moron. It is, however, a truthful argument that doesn't transgress any of the myspace rules.
"‘A blog detailing all that is wrong with the Surface Unsigned competition would last almost as long as the competition itself’ is a real shitty thing to say" No it isn't. It is merely an opinion.
"Myspace don’t allow something that expressly stated or implied to be factual, may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." What I state IS factual and then an anlysis.
"You are giving Surface a negative image by not stating a balanced argument." It's called an opinion you TWAT. You were welcome to respond to provide this spurious "balance".
Nothing in the blog trangresses the myspace rules. Your complaints against it are driven solely by the desire to hide your dubious practices and deny a discussion. You have abused the myspace reporting process in the same way that you abused the legal process with the issue of a Cease And Desist notice against Cretaed In Birmingham earlier this year.
The false, dishonest compalints to myspace and the knowingly unethical manipulation of the myspace rules is the behaviour of yobs.
PS
It's The Chairmen (plural)
Nice photo of them on the front of Surface Unsigned magazine......oh, hang on, that's The Arcadian Kicks. Not that I have anything against them of course.
“It's called an opinion you TWAT”
So you’re calling me a TWAT? Why, because I have an opinion that differs from yours? This competition has nothing to do with me – I’ve got nought to do with Surface you prick – its called an observation.
Playin the big man sat behind the computer calling people TWATS and MORONS because of a point of view they happen to have about something makes you look like a total fuckin loser.
Heres an opinion: you are a paranoid, deluded, sad fuck. Shit man, your gunna be soooooo pissed when you find out I skull fucked your mom last night and tattooed ‘my son is a twat’ on her ugly fuckin head.
The way to express a balanced view
Well, well you sound like a really nice guy!
I might have been able to forgive you, if you had a vested interest.
Will you be adding to other interesting discussions on these boards or are you just passing?
i'm reading the chairmen's view
"Maybe they have been a little over protective but they are within their rights to defend their product and their brand as much as other people are within their rights to give their own opinions on it."
there we go then.
It's only £25?
I think that Traynor's point is fairly clear and that the value of explaining what is wrong with the Surface Unsigned project is fairly obvious.
"militant", on the other hand, is a fairly silly word to use in the context of open discussion in a music site's forum. A sense of proportion is the thing to aim at. Traynor is not out to help the poor and the needy or stop war, for sure. But this is a pop music website. His complaint and his message are exactly where they should be.
ClicheGuevara's substantive point seems to be that Surface Unsigned, Emergenza and other enterprises of this type are legitimate services, offered with a clear prospectus and no pressure to sign up. I think that's a valid point of view.
However, I also believe that in the context of juvenile fantasies about a "music industry" and the almost complete impossibility of any band going through Surface Unsigned to even a brief period of pop fame and fortune my opinion is that the advertising copy on Surface Unsigned pages is, at least, deluded.
Sophisticated people like ClicheGuevara can see through the silliness of it all and would never buy into such nonsense. But the advertising is not aimed at such people. It is aimed, for the most part, at bands whose experience is either negligible (the complete beginners) or the perennially unsuccessful (the untalented and/or the unmarketable).
And then, while I can see that the deposit is small, and recoverable in some circumstances, there are larger problems whose significance might not be obvious to bands thinking of signing up. Once the first round has been conquered (in a local venue with none but friends and family watching) subsequent rounds are further from home and ticket prices are higher. The loyal supporters are invited to cough up more time and more money to travel further and to buy more expensive tickets.
And, to date, there is no evidence beyond the pr material supplied by Surface Unsigned that the gigs and victories have led to any improvement in either the music or the public acclaim of even those who reach or win the final: no management, recording, agency or publishing deals from any company except Surface Unsigned itself have been claimed. I have read the blurb and can remember not one instance. If a company has a "success" in meeting its claims one would expect fairly loud trumpeting. Surface Unsigned are either very modest, or 100% unsuccessful. Pointing out negative aspects of goods and services is not uncommon (and sometimes required) in the business world.
To put it more simply - their advertising implies a well-managed crack at fame and fortune: the reality suggests that even their winners make no headway.
The whole thing is a sham from start to finish. If bands want some good fun playing gigs, there are much better ways of doing it than risking the taint of being a "talent show band". Enthusiasts like Jay Mitchell of Surface Unsigned and weary forum cynics should change their pitch and revert to offering sensible advice and genuine opportunities to the few they can help.
TO see how such help can be developed and applied over several years they could learn something from the Futuresound event run each summer in Leeds, where 30 bands are chosen (quality control is a good idea) to fill slots in ten gigs in a good room at the local independent venue - The Cockpit. Each band is given tickets to sell (sale or return) and they keep a fair share of what they collect - with no deposit and no need to sell any at all. Good crowds mean that all bands get a good hearing and all get paid. And then, six are chosen to play another gig - this year at Reading/Leeds Festival on the BBC Introducing Stage that. This gig actually does give a little exposure and a lot of fun. It isn't fame and fortune - but there are a few who have gone on to get small whiffs of both. Not because of the competition - but as a well as. Talent and/or marketability are required and the formula that Surface Unsigned copied from Emergenza offers neither. The bands are playing, Surface Unsigned are getting paid and a few sponsors are giving away baubles to susceptible participants as a way of winning them as customers.
Family and Friends
I might have added that while bands, perhaps, should know better than to enter such competitions, their friends and families are the ones who pay the most - and their loyalty is what levers the biggest payout for Surface Unsigned. Their money and their time is worth a lot more than the bands'. They are the ones who are paying (lots) for their friendship and care. Naive or not, they might take the view that a small sacrifice on their relatives'/friends' behalf is worth doing. They, perhaps more than the bands, are the ones being offered a poor deal.
Good points
well made.
Wow
another cunt company in the flooded Cockwaters of pay to play wanker-dom
Found this too....
Surface Unsigned Festival’s PR Idiocy
Back in March of this year, Danny Smith wrote about Surface Unsigned, a battle of the bands kinda thing, on Created In Birmingham. His fairly innocent post has provoked a bit of fuss over the past couple of days. Here’s the story in a nutshell:
On 18 March, Danny posts about Surface Unsigned.
CiB regulars diss Surface Unsigned in the comments. Danny defends Surface Unsigned.
Danny comes back from the gig and, having done a bit of digging into the Surface Unsigned business model, reports that some aspects of the Surface Unsigned business model aren’t to his liking. On 20 March he quotes a single paragraph from the info pack Surface Unsigned give to bands.
Danny reiterates that he had a good time and that, from a punter’s point of view, it was good value for money.
Two months later, on 15 May, Surface Unsigned Festival Limited send Danny a letter threatening prosecution if the post is not taken down by 22 May.
You can see the email on Pete Ashton’s blog along with a bit more detail on the events. To my mind his analysis is spot on but I’d like to add a few extra thoughts of my own.
There’s no copyright infringement. Danny didn’t quote a whole or substantial part of the information pack and if you tell me that the market value of that document was diminished by Danny’s post I will laugh at you, and you won’t like that. If anything it could almost be a confidentiality matter, but frankly that’s just grasping at straws.
Surface Unsigned don’t just want the ‘offending’ paragraph removed, they want the whole post deleted. Their ‘copyright infringement solicitors’ would do well to find a court willing to order that. Makes me think it’s Danny’s digging in the rest of the post they’re worried about, not just their T&Cs.
If Surface Unsigned had asked nicely then there’s a much better chance that a paragraph on a long-forgotten post would have been removed/paraphrased as a courtesy. Oh, but I forget - it’s the rest of the post they’re concerned about.
As Danny said in the inital post ‘Surface don’t seem to do any promotion’. With PR pratfalls like this you can see why.
So what have we at Created In Birmingham done? Well, we’ve left the post up, obviously - we’re not going to stand for being bullied. As a compromise Pete’s gone and rewritten the post in LOLspeak (yes, I know translation of copywritten works is unauthorised, you’re missing the funny).
As Pete points out, the real problem for Surface Unsigned is to do with Google search results. In particular people linking to the original CiB post and using Surface Unsigned as the anchor text like I have here - Surface Unsigned.
It’d be interesting to hear what you, your friends and maybe even your forum buddies think about this whole thing. Link back to the ‘offending’ blog post and chances are I’ll notice and give you a mention on CiB on Thursday.
surface unsigned
are the live music equivalent of AIDS...
The Chairmen's comments on Surface Unsigned are quite poor
Given who entered the competition, The Chairmen were probably the deserved winners. But their attempts at defence of Surface Unsigned are very disappointing.
"We played some great gigs in some wicked venues, met some great bands and it never cost us a penny. We simply promoted the gigs to our fan base, as we would do anyway. We found it kind of gathered its own momentum. In the first couple of rounds we didn't take many at all (or promote the gigs to any great extent) but we had good days out and the people that came enjoyed themselves so they told other people who then decided that they were going to come to the next one. By the time we got to the semis we had people contacting us asking for tickets. It really wasn't that difficult or that much work."
So, The Chairmen have a solid fanbase who want to go to see the band, and want to see them at bigger venues. Given that, surely it shouldn't be difficult to get gigs in Birmingham anyway. The full-time professional promoters in Birmingham promote at small and large venues. Like all such promoters, bands who bring many fans to the smaller gigs are likely to get gigs at the larger venues. There are loads of part-time promoters in Birmingham too. The promoters know oneanother and each other's gigs. Success at a smaller venue leads to opportunities at a larger venue. A band like The Chairmen who put the work into promoting would not find it difficult to impress at a smaller venue and be offered a gig at a larger one. That is, everything the band say in the quote above would be true.
But, there would be many advantages: The band would receive more payment per ticket, their fans would pay less per ticket, there would be no text vote costs and the promoters would actually promote the gigs. The promoters in question have good reputations. People come to their gigs without needing to be a friend or in the existing fan base of one of the bands.
There are also disadvantages of taking part in Surface Unsigned. Surface Unsigned have a very poor reputaion, for the reasons expressed in this thread and elsewhere. In particular, there is an assumption that the bands taking part aren't very good. This assumption is probably false for some of the bands but the mud sticks. People in the music business couldn't give a damn who wins Surface Unsigned. Minds are already made up about the competition.
"As a result, we got a load of cash, some recording time in a decent studio" Well that's fine. Some bands, who aren't as popular, or maybe not as good as The Chairmen, have bought you some studio time and given you some money.
"Not to mention the subsequent coverage via the online presence of Surface and the distribution of 50,000 copies of their magazine in which we are featured." No, you're just getting silly. Who do think reads that magazine? It's dumped in recording studios, venues and other music-related locations around the country, where it is flicked through with disdain.
"To me that was well worth the minimal effort it took for us to get people to come to the gigs." Well, of course it was worth it for you because you got the money and studio time! It wasn't worth it for the other bands. There's only one winner.
"The way I look at it, if you don't like it then don't get involved." No. If I don't like it, I'll explain why and try to persuade others why I think it's wrong. As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, if Surface Unsigned is allowed to expand, it will encourage other disreputables to follow their example, thus strangling the music scene. It has happened before. If contests like this are the only option for unsigned bands then the gig scene is dead. You claim that it is an option. Not only is that no defence of Surface Unsigned at all, but also, it could effectively be compulsory if it is allowed to prosper.
Competitions like Surface Unsigned, Emergenza (Jay Mitchell was an events manager for Emergenza three years ago), Jar and others offer nothing to bands, music and music fans. They are businesses that rely on the ambitions and desires of bands to be popular. It is a practice that has been around for as long as pop music has. In all forms of entertainment there are operators who make money for nothing via claims they have no intention of fulfilling. Simply saying that people shouldn't be stupid enough to take part is insufficient.
The Chairmen
We as a band wish the Chairmen all the best. It is important to have varied opinions here. Balance is good.
However the opinions of the Chairmen in this context are not very useful because, for whatever reason, they found themselves at the top of the pile. They would have to be brain damaged to complain from that vantage point, surely. It is the opinions of the rank and file bands who have experienced the competition at ground level that are important.
I would like to ask which studio will be providing the recording opportunity and if I were the Chairmen, I would want to know the credentials of the producer assigned to the recording project. Given the considerable revenue from the competition, I feel that the winning band has the right to expect the very best.
and
maybe The Chairmen should ask why they aren't on the front cover and why they aren't the featured band in the Surface Unsigned magazine.
Latest No Pay-To-Play In Brum page removed
even though it didn't include the blog about Surface Unsigned, just a link to this thread and to Organ Magazine forum
So, I sent an e-mail to Jay Mitchell
Mitchell
I see you've had the latest No Pay-To-Play myspace removed even though it didn't include the blogs about Surface Unsigned.
I assume you have looked closely at the myspace rules.
I draw your attention to the following:
8 Content/Activity prohibited
8.13 involves commercial activities and/or sales without prior written consent from MySpace such as contests, sweepstakes, barter, advertising, or pyramid schemes;
8.18 advertising to, or solicitation of, any Member to buy or sell any products or services through the unauthorized or impermissible use of the MySpace Services. You may not transmit any chain letters or junk email to other Members. In order to protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation, MySpace reserves the right to restrict the number of emails which a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period to a number which MySpace deems appropriate in its sole discretion. If you breach this Agreement and send unsolicited bulk email, instant messages or other unauthorized commercial communications of any kind through the MySpace Services, you acknowledge that you will have caused substantial harm to MySpace, but that the amount of such harm would be extremely difficult to ascertain. As a reasonable estimation of such harm, you agree to pay MySpace $50 for each such unsolicited email or other unauthorized commercial communication you send through the MySpace Services;
8.29 displaying an unauthorized commercial advertisement on your profile, or accepting payment or anything of value from a third person in exchange for your performing any commercial activity through the unauthorized or impermissible use of the MySpace Services on behalf of that person, such as placing commercial content on your profile, posting blogs or bulletins with a commercial purpose, selecting a profile with a commercial purpose as one of your "Top 8" friends, or sending private messages with a commercial purpose;
The Surface Unsigned myspace page includes a clickable button with the words "Sign Up Now" displayed on it. This is a commercial activity. So, 8.13 is violated.
The entire Surafce Unsigned myspace page is an advertisement for Surface Unsigned festival. Also, the purpose of the various Surface Unsigned pages is as a tool to send spam mail to bands. So, two violations of 8.18.
There are banner advertisements for Surface Unsigned's sponsors are on the Surface Unsigned myspace page. So, 8.29 is violated.
If the latest No Pay-To-Play myspace page is removed or part thereof removed, then I shall report your violations of myspace rules, as will many other people at about the same time. I don't want to do that, but if you persist in abusing the use of myspace by making false reports about the No Pay-To-Play In Brum page (or encouraging others to do so) then I shall have to defend my right to express an opinion.
John Traynor
Whilst your silly tirade amuses me greatly,
surely bands selling their CDs/merchandise with a paypal link is also breaking the rules as it would, by its very nature, involve a prohibited 'commercial activity'?
Furthermore, surely a band sending out a bulletin to promote a gig would contravene 'posting blogs or bulletins with a commercial purpose', after all, a lot of bands will expect to be paid for playing live.
Maybe the rules are different for band mysaces to personal myspaces, in which case I will gladly retract these comments; but i can't be bothered to read the small print.
relevance
I can see no point in debating technicalities when the real arguments are so plain to see. These seem to be:
1) Surface Unsigned are accused of contributing nothing to popular music that could justify the wasted effort, money and commitment that people are persuaded to contribute.
2) Surface Unsigned have resorted to devious means to attack some attempts to draw attention to 1)
There's no point arguing with the other poster
He is a Tory and thus has no concept or morals or ethics.
yeah, they removed a load of the organ blogs a few months back
and then tried to block anyone who made any kind of link to it, it's pathetic. but i suppose it also goes to show that those in favour of pay to play know they're doing something wrong...
Just goes to prove that myspace really don't bother reading anything
Maybe they should just put a 'delete this profile' button on every page, to save them the bother of even reading an email.
Let us know if JM gets back to you.
it's good to see pineapster crop up here.
there is an equal anti pay to play thread on the site also :
http://pineapster.com/forums/general_discussions/surface_unsignedthe_argument_continues
theres also large chunks of the text taken from the nopaytoplay myspace. if mr mitchell doesnt like this. his comment is also welcome.
Threats to Pineapster as well!
Mr Mitchell really is a threat issuing superhero!
Guilty conscience perhaps?
I wonder if he wears tights...............
Latest e-mail from Mitchell
in response to mine about myspace rules
"Dear John,
Thanks for you for your detailed email. I’m afraid I cant help you as why any blogs or Mysapce pages have been taken down.
Nonetheless, thank you for your email below detailing MySpace rules. We have made the relevant changes to our MySpace site and have contacted Myspace in regards to this matter,
Kind Regards, Jay"
Their sponsors' banners have been removed from the Surface Unsigned myspace page....
I don't know what to make of that really
other than they're covering their backs - though I doubt they'd admit to trying to remove any negative publicity.
Did you name any other promoters in there?
The blog about Surface Unsigned was removed first
and after I replaced it, the whole was removed
Same old, same old really
Surface Unsigned need to do anything and everything to stifle negative publicity. They always err on the side of being 'just' legal. Mr Mitchell will have realised from his association with Emergenza that small bush fires must be controlled lest they become a forest inferno. In the states Emergenza has been forced to pull out of certain cities when the word gets out. It doesn't cramp their style too much though, because they respond by infesting elsewhere. It reminds me of the funeral industry. No matter how unpleasant it is, the pool of new customers is all but guaranteed.
Loads of Surface Unsigned gigs at Flapper
http://www.myspace.com/midlandssurfaceunsigned
4 a week for ten weeks
that background
makes me want to see that singer's band very much.
It starts on 6th Feb. at Flapper
and goes on for months and months
The Surface Unsigned fiasco is underway!
I note that the Surface Unscrupulous Festival has commenced again for another six months of ripping fledgling bands off.
Recently my band did a "Battle of the Bands" type event which we swore we would never do again because of our experiences with Surface Unsigned.
I am relieved to say that it was a positive experience and well worth doing. It enabled us to meet other bands and have a laugh. No money changed hands, no silly deposits and no ridiculous audience voting charades. Thank God! The venue was good with an excellent backline and the promoter really did promote the event so we actually had a 'real' audience, not a bunch of partisan friends and relatives. We were not harassed on stage and after the performance we were treated to a proper balanced panel of judges who gave individual, detailed,live and sincere appraisals of our performance, warts and all. They were not 'Micky Mouse' judges either. So refreshing after all the Surface Unsigned rubbish!
So you see, it can be done properly without becoming a cash cow situation, done purely to line the organiser's pockets. Given that the winners of Surface Unsigned always disappear into obscurity extremely quickly after their illustrious victory, the question must be, 'Why pay through the nose to achieve absolutely nothing?'
PT