Pay-to-Play (although they call it "Crowd-Funded")

[atomic]

Jackson Family

[atomic]

Any band names with the following names should probably be avoided: all-stars, convention, reunion, family, funk.

Edit: And before someone says, "the funk brothers," i'm talking about modern era bands.

Fairport Convention, Parliment Funkadelic,  Grand Funk Railroad.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

Well I don't know what you mean by modern era.  I would think anything post 1955 would be considered modern.  Like anything not only released on 78.

[Yada]

Any band names with the following names should probably be avoided: all-stars, convention, reunion, family, funk.

Edit: And before someone says, "the funk brothers," i'm talking about modern era bands.

Fairport Convention, Parliment Funkadelic,  Grand Funk Railroad.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

Well I don't know what you mean by modern era.  I would think anything post 1955 would be considered modern.  Like anything not only released on 78.

Considering classic rock stations play music from the 80s, i'd say I disagree.

[atomic]

Any band names with the following names should probably be avoided: all-stars, convention, reunion, family, funk.

Edit: And before someone says, "the funk brothers," i'm talking about modern era bands.

Fairport Convention, Parliment Funkadelic,  Grand Funk Railroad.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

Well I don't know what you mean by modern era.  I would think anything post 1955 would be considered modern.  Like anything not only released on 78.

Considering classic rock stations play music from the 80s, i'd say I disagree.

Well I don't listen to classic rock stations.  There is a difference between classic rock (which is usually shit music) and pre-modern era.  I would consider Carter Family pre-modern era.  Modern Art pre-dates all the bands I listed. 

[Yada]

Any band names with the following names should probably be avoided: all-stars, convention, reunion, family, funk.

Edit: And before someone says, "the funk brothers," i'm talking about modern era bands.

Fairport Convention, Parliment Funkadelic,  Grand Funk Railroad.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

Well I don't know what you mean by modern era.  I would think anything post 1955 would be considered modern.  Like anything not only released on 78.

Considering classic rock stations play music from the 80s, i'd say I disagree.

Well I don't listen to classic rock stations.  There is a difference between classic rock (which is usually shit music) and pre-modern era.  I would consider Carter Family pre-modern era.  Modern Art pre-dates all the bands I listed. 

You trollin', son?

[sweetcell]

the Easy Star All-Stars released their first album in 2003.  is that "modern" enough?

[Yada]

the Easy Star All-Stars released their first album in 2003.  is that "modern" enough?

I would say yes, that is modern enough.

Also, I've never heard this band, but based on their name, I bet they suck!

[Vas Deferens]

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

[Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT]

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

IIRC, it goes back to an older-variant of this model where bands were required to purchase xx # of tickets to get a spot on the bill. If they were then able to sell them themselves, great, but if not, venue didn't care because the band paid for them. The idea that bands should do the primary promotion and ticket sale responsibilities and assume all risk associated with the event (which is the venue's job, honestly) is probably the more insulting part of this.

[hutch]

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

IIRC, it goes back to an older-variant of this model where bands were required to purchase xx # of tickets to get a spot on the bill. If they were then able to sell them themselves, great, but if not, venue didn't care because the band paid for them. The idea that bands should do the primary promotion and ticket sale responsibilities and assume all risk associated with the event (which is the venue's job, honestly) is probably the more insulting part of this.

I don't see it as insulting at all..if your band sucks or has no following and the only way you can get a place to play is that way then you do it if you want to play live at a place that is not like your garage...its not like its not optional! If you're a band with, you know, an actual fanbase that pays to see you live, then you're never going to have to do this because you'll get regular bookings...

I really don't see the problem..... I might be missing something though...

[showlistdc]

http://bandwidth.wamu.org/rabbl-roused-is-rabbl-promoting-pay-to-play/

[atomic]

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

IIRC, it goes back to an older-variant of this model where bands were required to purchase xx # of tickets to get a spot on the bill. If they were then able to sell them themselves, great, but if not, venue didn't care because the band paid for them. The idea that bands should do the primary promotion and ticket sale responsibilities and assume all risk associated with the event (which is the venue's job, honestly) is probably the more insulting part of this.

I don't see it as insulting at all..if your band sucks or has no following and the only way you can get a place to play is that way then you do it if you want to play live at a place that is not like your garage...its not like its not optional! If you're a band with, you know, an actual fanbase that pays to see you live, then you're never going to have to do this because you'll get regular bookings...

I really don't see the problem..... I might be missing something though...

Well how are you supposed to get a following if you can't get a place to play.  Your logic makes no sense.  The Ottobar seems to let unknown local bands open for national acts all the time.  That is part of what makes it a good venue.  The play to play venues tend to be places that I never attend shows. And if you pay to play it is just going to be your family and friends at the show so it isn't going to help you gain new fans. 

[azaghal1981]

This.

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

IIRC, it goes back to an older-variant of this model where bands were required to purchase xx # of tickets to get a spot on the bill. If they were then able to sell them themselves, great, but if not, venue didn't care because the band paid for them. The idea that bands should do the primary promotion and ticket sale responsibilities and assume all risk associated with the event (which is the venue's job, honestly) is probably the more insulting part of this.

I don't see it as insulting at all..if your band sucks or has no following and the only way you can get a place to play is that way then you do it if you want to play live at a place that is not like your garage...its not like its not optional! If you're a band with, you know, an actual fanbase that pays to see you live, then you're never going to have to do this because you'll get regular bookings...

I really don't see the problem..... I might be missing something though...

Well how are you supposed to get a following if you can't get a place to play.  Your logic makes no sense.  The Ottobar seems to let unknown local bands open for national acts all the time.  That is part of what makes it a good venue.  The play to play venues tend to be places that I never attend shows. And if you pay to play it is just going to be your family and friends at the show so it isn't going to help you gain new fans. 

[azaghal1981]

Hahaha I wasn't expecting anyone to quote my tweet.  One would've thought I would've gotten a heads-up but I guess once something is publicly accessible, it's fair game.

http://bandwidth.wamu.org/rabbl-roused-is-rabbl-promoting-pay-to-play/

[MindCage]

how is to pay-to-play when bands don't pay to play?

who coined the term?

IIRC, it goes back to an older-variant of this model where bands were required to purchase xx # of tickets to get a spot on the bill. If they were then able to sell them themselves, great, but if not, venue didn't care because the band paid for them. The idea that bands should do the primary promotion and ticket sale responsibilities and assume all risk associated with the event (which is the venue's job, honestly) is probably the more insulting part of this.

I don't see it as insulting at all..if your band sucks or has no following and the only way you can get a place to play is that way then you do it if you want to play live at a place that is not like your garage...its not like its not optional! If you're a band with, you know, an actual fanbase that pays to see you live, then you're never going to have to do this because you'll get regular bookings...

I really don't see the problem..... I might be missing something though...

Well how are you supposed to get a following if you can't get a place to play.  Your logic makes no sense.  The Ottobar seems to let unknown local bands open for national acts all the time.  That is part of what makes it a good venue.  The play to play venues tend to be places that I never attend shows. And if you pay to play it is just going to be your family and friends at the show so it isn't going to help you gain new fans. 

I think the pay to play model ideally is suppose to work when it's a high profile headliner. Then it defeats the purpose for the local band to actually have people buying tickets to see them, and more about just being some ticket broker for the venue? You're hustling tickets to anyone that you know would attend the show anyway, but to get the tickets through you.

No thanks!