Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
man marries goat? doesn't matter - you should all know about this it's very important.
next thing I know, Napalm Death will be playing next door.
gonna mull it over some more before coming to a solid conclusion.
that was just a gentle josh.
we're quite similar, I reckon. not bad looking air-heads.
any time you're up manchester way pal.
maybe something about loud music during normal, quiet hours. give me time.
I'm sure it's welcome news for big breweries but this potentially comes at the expense of indendent music venues. I don't know, I might be wrong. I hope I am.
manchester is full of shitty venues trying to charge £200 just for room hire. it's going to make putting gigs on and being in bands a much less expensive affair. which is good
I guess my concern is that the future of live music in relation to small gigs lies in the hands of breweries/back rooms of a pub. I don't mind going to pub gigs but I'd be sad to see the likes of Club 85 and The Adelphi shut down.
i'm talking about places that just have a room empty. they should stick to making money by selling beer. i personally think it's a shock that even 'proper venues' like the night and day and the roadhouse (two of my least favourite venues in manchester fwiw) try to charge as much as they do. they make a fucking fortune on alcohol. they're just greedy fuckers.
owned by a guy who runs the bar downstairs and the bar in the venue. There is someone who rents the venue out from the owner and makes no money from bar takings, so if he were to put on a free gig that was sold out he would make no profit. Perhaps The Roadhouse or Night & Day operate in a similar manner?
that set up where you live (brighton was it??) sounds really fucking weird. i've never heard of a set up like that before.
my first instinct is the guy renting the venue is trying to make money through being a middleman, and it's stupid. i don't like that set up at all in fact.
I may not be entirely correct but I know that no money from bar takings is generated back into the venue.
shouldnt be paying for the room if he's bringing in people who are buying drinks?
and putting on a free gig under those circumstances seems entirely silly.
when i've put on free gigs (well, just once), it's because the venue has paid me money to put on a gig, on the understanding that i'm bring people to the room. i think that this is a good model
but it's definitely something like that. Maybe he doesn't rent it out, I just assumed he would. In any case, I can see the imminent increase in local gigs may be damaging to the venue.
(there are seldom free gigs at the venue, it was purely hypothetical)
in my opinion, it's because they are doing things wrong
and have a reputation for it, will continue to do alright. It's more the freedom for a band or promoter now that they can put a show on elsewhere for cheaper if needed. There will be good and bad venues despite this.
for example, the briton's protection in manchester. everyone loves drinking in that place but, for some reason i'm not certain of, they were unable to get a license despite having a perfect little room upstairs. that place will get used brilliantly now and everyone will be happy about where they are buying their beer. it's even tempting me to start putting more gigs on and i basically hate doing it
surely these venues won't have to charge quite as much for drinks if there's no extra cost? In theory anyway
I think it's just good for society to be free to make music and listen to music wherever and whenever it wants to. Hopefully it will help to make public space in general a little less sterile.
Basically anything that annoys an organisation called the Noise Abatement Society is alright by me.
or will the availability of many, many more places to play fuck their shitty business model up?
I don't think a lot more cool, DIY venues will matter to Monto's revenue stream.
water rats' name means nothing anymore, as they just dont put on good gigs
and I'm not even sure I care that I don't care.
gut reaction is that it's a very good thing, the first thing that this government's done that i'm behind.
am open to arguments against it, but noise pollution laws remain the same, so it's not like it's an open invite for people to just put on loud gigs constantly
concerned that it could possibly drive down the monetary value of live music through everything being spread more thinly, and, as joe says, big breweries who could easily afford licences for their pubs now having a revenue stream at the expense of dedicated places with performer-favouring ethoses. is ethoses a word?
pretty sure the venues still need a PRS licence? but unlike these otehr licences, afaik these can't be refused
and i wouldn't worry about big breweries etc either. the little performer-centric pub has everything to gain and won't lose out. it's the best news ever.
don't really care about emerging artists/the future of live music.
Especially Royter. I hear he beats kittens to death.
I don't care about either, but that's not to say I don't think they're important.
the change in law will mean he can now beat kittens to death in live venues. It'll be like Dylan going electric.
Less venues on the "starter" circuit paying a PRS license = less money being paid out to bands for playing them.
I know it's not mega bucks, but the hundred quid or so we get every 3 or 4 months pays for new leads, mics and other crap you don't really want to buy.
Which is why PRS payments make all the difference. It's some income when you're not getting paid by promoters.
The article's not clear on that.
and as it wouldnt make any sense for PRS to be included in this, i think it's safe to say that PRS continues
because that would be good I think
And will tide us over until TheWza buys us that hotel
As long as only 200 people or less show up, which is pretty certain.
and good for failing pubs.
Probably good for promoters as hire charges are likely to come down, but I'd be a little concerned that the network of support between venues and promoters might become more diluted, and that the more successful pubs might squeeze out the more specialist venues. I'd be worried if I was somewhere like Cafe Oto or the Vortex. They've built a reputation on creating exciting, interesting, almost curated venues with good sound, good atmosphere and a supportive community. They charge a fair bit to put bands on, but then again, they have to do so to cover their costs and their ethos.
I wonder if they've carved out a strong enough niche within the community that they are at the centre of to be supported by that community. I don't think that noise shows are going to be moving to the Spoons down the road.
I need to get me some of that ethos.
then they have nothing to worry about.
helping to nurture the next generation of English bands we will enjoy in years to come?
I think it is...
to see a thread where everyone is applauding the Tory deregulation of business.
while I think this sounds like a good move, my preferred system is one where the state owns lots of small music venues that are run by local cooperatives and bands have to fill out forms to apply for permission to play. So there.
Venues and promoters are subsidised to a much more significant level though.
That's why I chose to ignore them.
upon which many venues, labels and promoters depended.
Something something noun, something something verb.
I don't need a license but do I need proper fire exits, insurance and all that? Can the police still tell us to stop if someone complains about the noise? I expect yes...
if it's out like my mates place oop north. from what i've read on FB it sounds the same.
(i dunno if you have or not)
There's an annoying step thing over the door...but we can DIY a ramp or something. I dunno, "they" can't be too keen on enforcing the disabled access thing 'cause there's that one guy in a wheelchair, who goes to all the Damn You shows, that gets carried up to the top floor of the Chameleon for every gig.
Watch out for it, think the old Doghouse studios had some problems with fire exits and ended up having to move. Watch out for Health and Safety too. :S
But I get the impression that becoming 100% "proper" would be too expensive for us.
andy from the luminaire on the change;
he keeps talking about "nine million people" when he means "however many people making up nine million gig attendances" eg 1 million people going to 9 gigs a year or 20,000 people going to a gig a week
which is that it's now OK to have some live music in the pub, open mic nights, a covers act, an open jam, whatever, which you could sniff at but it's better than Wetherspoons silence or some god awful barman's ipod on shuffle.