why you shouldn't support gigs with minimum ticket sales.

[Vio]

The threadstarter has laid out a very biased point of view against gig organisers who push bands to sell a minimum number of tickets.

After reading the post 3 times, i can see that his argument is imbalanced. Harsh words have been used that imples gig organisers as undeserving, together with absolute terms that shows little reasoning and understanding of the full picture.

The starter also hypothetically links the gig organisers intentions with negative implications, for example if an organiser had the money in his hands, he "would not bother about the event at all", even to the extent of blaming the stagnation of the local music scene on these organisers.

I believe the threadstarter has an axe to grind with these organisers perhaps due to a previous bad encounter, or more likely another round of self-supported assumptions.

The topic is one which has been discussed often, but presenting it in such a overwhelmingly negative way only lessens the weight behind the argument.


i'd liken the threadstarter to Dr Chee Soon Juan. Be proud that your argument has earned you a likeness of a PhD like him.

 

[bboy2388]

I think vio's being a little strong worded here, please give visa some respect for raising his views.

Actually i think in all cases, even without specifically requesting that bands sell a minimum, all gig organisers hope and expect that the bands they hire will be able to make the event a success by guaranteeing a decent turnout. The bands are being hired to make the event a success, and they're basically doing the organiser a service (which the bands should be paid for), and as a result, bands that don't pull a crowd just won't be hired by these organisers who don't request a minimum ticket number.

Other events where bands have to sell tickets (and also get commission), are events for entry level bands who want some experience. They have to take the risk that sometimes it may not always succeed and they end up actually paying to play. But unless there's some organisation out there that's purely voluntary where breaking even's not an issue at all, bands are going to have to respect that they're going to have to give a little as well. If they sell enough tickets, it's a win win, and if they don't think they can sell enough tickets, then they just shouldn't play, and wait for an opportunity where they are able to play without this inconvenience.

I think visa is doing a good thing, because there needs to be some work on the organiser's side, because i've seen quite a few organisers who just shove tickets into the bands' hands and sit back and wait for the money to come in. This is exploitative and reflects no desire for the music scene to progress past its present state of mediocrity.

In the end, however, i think bands just have to realise that it's up to them to find places to perform. The good ones will eventually perform and be appreciated, and the ones who don't make any effort won't progress, because no one's going to do their job for them in the long run.

 

[candie]

Great job, visa. I'll be looking forward to your gigs, and to playing at your gigs as well

Whether his opinion is biased or not, it is true that he's out there actually doing something to try to make the scene better for all of us.

And that's better than sitting at home on your bum and typing, trying to do something but never getting started, or just hypothetically rambling on about issues and hoping that someone would do something about it.

No offence

 

[CAVEvents]

VIO: Hello Vio! I love a good debate.

Let's see what debate we have here.

Basically, you're saying that i'm biased (which I am),
that i'm blaming gig organizers for the stagnation for the scene (which i am),
that presenting my argument in a negative way puts less weight behind it (which it might),
and that i deserve a PhD like Dr Chee Soon Juan. (THANKS!)

and now let's see here- your argument is... nothing. What is your argument? Come on man, i'd like to see your points! What are your points? I can't even argue with you because... you have no argument!

You are completely right in saying that there is less weight behind my argument because my views are put across so strongly and harshly, but when we weigh my argument against yours, what do we have here?

My argument is that we shouldn't support gigs with minimum ticket sales. Have you said ONE thing about why we should?

I'm looking for a fair and mature debate, I hope to hear again from you! =)

-Visa

 

[mamasita]

hahaha VIO BE BUUURNED :smt067

anyway anyway, i do think you got a good thing going here- im just saying that minimum ticket sale-gigs are pretty much allthereis, heck my band has a gig like that coming up- im just saying, because there isnt much else to rely on, bands have to rely on organisers likethat for exposure! the problem is wayhuge, and UNLESS more organisers like you pop up, the problem wont be solved, because not supporting minimum ticket sale gigs= no gigs most of the time.

cheers

 

[nick_valensi]

hey cave man! i think its a splendid thing to create your own organisation (CAVE) and trying to aid the local music scene. Personally i agree with you and will support youre cause all the way bro. But i think the bands need to promote the gig as well, in terms of advertisements etc. Any one interested to come for the event will go to the ticket seller or holder or watever it is. haha. So much easier. Maybe the price of the tickets shud be abit cheaper? I'd say $7 is considered cheap.

Expensive tickets = People will come
Cheaper tickets = MOREEEE PEOPLE will come


Cheaper tickets do cover the cost price for renting the place. It's like maths. Just do the calculation yourself. ;p
If the place is small, then dont seat! stand and mosh!! you cant have a gig where everyone is just sitting down and smilling at the band. haha.. crap..

 

[DONKS]

To CAVE and Saito, it is very much appreciated that you replied to my post( I was afraid of being igonored. Would not say that I am representing the entire cohort of extreme music enthusiasts but just putting forth my opinions and fears as well, perhaps.

I also see where you guys are coming from. The concept of supply and demand is pretty logical for application in this case as well, especially during this period of lacklustre from the local event scene.

Thanks once again.

 

[nXa]

Hey cave, what about those new bands who wants to get exposure outside so that they can be good enough to perform in big events like yours? Who will give them the gigs to play in? The gigs where new bands can play are those which we have to sell a minimum number tickets in order to perform..

 

[JiveB]

Another point to add on after I reflected what my friends and I did way back when we first started out..

I remember that when I was like in sec2 starting out we were like a bunch of scared chickens.. don't dare to approach organiser don't dare this don't dare that. In the end we lose out a lot in terms of splitting of cash after pooling to rent venue and stuff. Once when we were like 15 we bluffed saying we were 18 to play in this weird metal gig in some bar at orchard. Could see that everyone tried to take advantage of us by forcing to buy drink and this and that just so we can play. So my advice to new bands wanting exposure is: KNOW WHAT YOU WANT, AND DON'T BE AFRAID TO STAND YOUR GROUND. opportunities are everywhere with so many DGOs and organisations like CAVE. if you don't like what's happening at that scene then just walk off. that is, if there's no black and white involved.

Personally I feel that the band-organiser relationship should be more like a friend-friend relationship. In the sense that the bands and GOs work together, not the bands work for the GO and make the gig successful so GO got $$ and band got exposure. Sure, the end result is the same, but there's a better way to go around achieving it, no?

my 0.02$.. i think i talk too much.

 

[CAVEvents]

exactly man. new bands, please don't be afraid to approach promoters like saito, agingyouth, heartrocksingapore, CAVE ourselves, etc.

 

[CAVEvents]

nXa:

Hey cave, what about those new bands who wants to get exposure outside so that they can be good enough to perform in big events like yours? Who will give them the gigs to play in? The gigs where new bands can play are those which we have to sell a minimum number tickets in order to perform..

haha. this is a problem faced by MANY bands. the problem is that we have a top level scene (which is like Mosiac Music Festival, Good Vibrations, BIG stuff!) and a low level scene (all those 20 unknown bands per night gigs).

CAVE is trying to change that by bringing in the mid-level scene- where the opening band or two might be newer and the final headlining band might be worthy of moving on to the top level scene. That way, the best of the mid-range can go up, and the best of the low-range can come up to the mid range.

It's sort of like having the premier league and division 3 without division 1.

 

[soft]

i feel if the terms and conditions are spelt out by the organiser before the band, then it is fair. just like if i want to hire a salesman, he/she must be able to meet certain target.

there are different ways to look at this issue. if you like it, just go for it. if you dont, just ignore it.

one thing that is MOSTLY neglected here is the quality of the music/band. to improve the overall image of local music, i hope that bands who are not ready, not to perform in public. it will discredit the image of local music. i know i am being very cruel but this is the thing that we choose to bluff ourselves all the time.

 

[CAVEvents]

james: (it's awesome to see you in the thread i started =)

i feel if the terms and conditions are spelt out by the organiser before the band, then it is fair. just like if i want to hire a salesman, he/she must be able to meet certain target.

but what happens is, the organizer sometimes ends up giving the slots to bands that are not ready to play in public- and as a result, the crowd loses energy and the event loses steam. it is definitely fair- but does it help the scene?

who is to say whether a band is ready to play in public or not? if the organizer, who is organizing the event, doesn't do quality control, then who is to blame? Every band looking for a gig will think that it's ready to play in public- whether or not it really is.

You have to start learning somewhere- maybe opening for an event where the crowd isn't as unforgiving.

if you like it, just go for it. if you dont, just ignore it.

I agree whole-heartedly!

to improve the overall image of local music, i hope that bands who are not ready, not to perform in public.

our view is that these bands will not perform in public if they are not given the opportunity by organizers. some organizers don't care about this if they can squeeze money out of these bands. it is a very sad and very real situation happening to alot of newer local bands today.

-visa

 

[soft]

things will take it's natural course. if a band cannot entertain, the audience will not watch them. if the show is not happening, the band wont want to play in them. if the venue is not good, the organiser will not use them.

currently, there IS alot of things going on and maybe in a year or so, things will quiet down again. then, we will see who is still standing.

 

[CAVEvents]

i do agree with that, but i refuse to sit back and watch bad show after bad show because some organizers keep putting bad bands in badly organized events in bad venues with bad equipment-

as it keeps going on, the audience will simply get sick of it and give up on the scene.

when people not involved in the scene go to such shows, they think "wow, local music sucks" and avoid it. if the scene is to expand, we need better shows- and bands are not going to quality control themselves. Better promoters/organizers are definitely needed.

And i disagree that bands won't want to play in non-happening shows. Alot of bands do anything to get a chance to play anything at all, anywhere.

 

[Vio]

i don't have an argument. whether gig organisers sell tickets beforehand or not isn't something i would get frustrated over, much less start a thread about it and pull allies.

i replied simply bcos this thread was posted with a biased view on the verge of slander. my point is for the threadstarter to please present the other possible advantages of what has been achieved by those organisers, in order to give credibility to the threadstarter for having considered all factors.

 

[CAVEvents]

I am here saying that we shouldn't support gigs with minimum ticket sales, and you are telling me that I should give reasons why we should as well?

Do you ask a lawyer defending the prosecutor to defend the accused, to give credibility to him having considered all factors?

I have studied the issue long enough, both from an outsider's and insider's point of view, and my firm conclusion is that the only people who stand to gain from such organizers are the organizers themselves. Minimum effort, maximum gain.

If I said that we shouldn't support war, racism, bigotry, would you tell me to give reasons why we should support it as well, to give myself credibility for having considered all the factors?

 

[CAVEvents]

anyway i'm going to bed man, i'll read your reply and post tomorrow.

cheers =)

 

[bboy2388]

vio, even if you feel its bordering on slander, what you're doing is like killing someone to bring his murders to justice. you're both working together to build the same dream, it's no point trying to get at each other over what you're going to realise is trivial in the long run. i don't think flaming vio back is a good thing or justified either though. It takes two pricks for a flaming session to be successful. If one walks away, nothing happens and everyone's still happy. Let's keep the prick population down.

i think james is right. it's the quality of the bands in the end. no matter how much promoting you do, they have to be good entertainers for them to sustain a crowd and bring the promoter credibility. We have to a be a little realistic in the end, though it's good that opportunities are being created for bands to have performance experience, so that they can improve.

we've recently been seeing alot of such related topics. about organisers being exploitative , and other threads discrediting organisers for not doing enough. But seriously, when there's standard, it will be noticed. When there's effort, it will be rewarded. some gig organisers don't give a damn, but all opportunities are good opportunities. at such a low level, we bands just have to take what we can and keep working toward the next level, instead of waiting for someone to carry us there.

 

[bboy2388]

i just reread the posts, and vio does have a point about presenting balanced views. CAVEevents' analogy about the lawyers is simply twisting his words around to make vio sound ridiculous, and it's invalid.

i think what vio means about presenting balanced views is that you have to cite the possible reasons and rationale for the system you are attacking, and show how those reasons and rationale are simply invalid or how your method would be an improvement.

i'm sure you've done your research but maybe you didn't take care to present it as such and took it for granted that people would know, and maybe this is why vio took offence, though his reaction was probably far from necessary.

maybe what vio could have done and should do in future events is to ask for clarification and request an explanation for certain statements and deductions before setting up a rebuttal. I think if this was done in a civil manner, CAVEevents would have gladly explained.

If he doesn't offer an explanation or any form of elucidation whatsoever, it should then be obvious to the onlookers that there is no substance in the argument. The fighting just inhibits the process of getting to the root of the issue.