Is the Irish Music Industry unethical/immoral to independent artists? (2 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

Its population concentration thats the issue - what proportion of that 6 million would have to travel more than 2-3hrs to see a gig in dublin?

LEAVE GARETH ALONE

 

[JohnnyRaz]

LEAVE GARETH ALONE

sorry - should have probably said

'what proportion of that 6 million would have to travle 2-3 hours to see a bunch of indie wetlegs indulge themselves in dublin'

 

[MilanPan!c]

LEAVE GARETH ALONE

I assume Gareth Brookes is the English equivalent?

 

[Lili Marlene]

I assume Gareth Brookes is the English equivalent?

what on earth are you talking about?

 

[MilanPan!c]

what on earth are you talking about?

His name is GARTH not GARETH.

 

[Lili Marlene]

His name is GARTH not GARETH.

Yeah that's what I said, Gareth Brooks.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Yeah that's what I said, Gareth Brooks.

Err

 

[Space]

I did say island and I did exaggerate. The point stands and trying to argue against the point with semantics really doesn't hold much water. Maybe we could argue about how much water it holds but sure that'd be pointless too.

If our little country was part of mainland Europe or had a population similar to the UK mainland we'd have things easier. Still be people complaining though.

 

[nooleen]

jesus don't mention water

 

[hermie]

It's soooooo true! Part of Ireland's biggest problem is it's size. You can't really make a career as a musician just here. Well. Very very very very few people can. And most of those have no success when they try and leave the island.

Except that it isn't. Another common misconception. Glasgow and Baltimore have populations only marginally bigger than Dublin. Portland and Calgary are actually smaller.

Major cities like London, New York and Paris tend to produce innane, poseury, shouting-the-loudest-to-be-heard nonsense most of the time.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Except that it isn't. Another common misconception. Glasgow and Baltimore have populations only marginally bigger than Dublin. Portland and Calgary are actually smaller.

Major cities like London, New York and Paris tend to produce innane, poseury, shouting-the-loudest-to-be-heard nonsense most of the time.

I suppose someone from Portland isn't stuck only playing Portland and the immediate surrounding area though.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Except that it isn't. Another common misconception. Glasgow and Baltimore have populations only marginally bigger than Dublin. Portland and Calgary are actually smaller.

Major cities like London, New York and Paris tend to produce innane, poseury, shouting-the-loudest-to-be-heard nonsense most of the time.

Calgary?!

It's rare you hear people wanting Dublin's music scene to be as good as Calgary's.

As for Portland, it's on the West coast of the US, a few hours drive from one of the largest media conflagrations in the world. And it's in the same country.

Hardly comparing like for like.

Portland is like Manchester, not Dublin.

 

[hermie]

I'd say that the suggestion that Whelans should be shut down because it doesn't always pay bands is absurd and if it did shut it would be a loss for the scene.

Casually saying places like that deserve to shit unless they do the so-called "ethical" thing is ridiculous.

It's also a great example as it has an endless stream of live bands, many of them playing to empty rooms.

There's no tax credit or law that can make it financially feasible for them to pay dozens of extra people a week.

I'm sorry I have to return to this post just because there are so many things wrong with it.

First off nobody suggested shutting Whelan's down, there you go again with the straw man.

The other thing is that Whelan's actually does pay to play already. A fellow Thumpeder put that in place if I recall. So your argument of 'they don't do it now and are not likely to anytime soon' is rather nonsensical.

Lastly Whelan's is packed every night of the fucking week almost exclusively putting on original music bands.

I understand that other places which host live music can't all be like this established, capital city venue but that's another discussion altogether.

 

[east hastings]

I'm suggesting we shut down Whelans, fuck 'em

 

[MilanPan!c]

I'm sorry I have to return to this post just because there are so many things wrong with it.

First off nobody suggested shutting Whelan's down, there you go again with the straw man.

The other thing is that Whelan's actually does pay to play already. A fellow Thumpeder put that in place if I recall. So your argument of 'they don't do it now and are not likely to anytime soon' is rather nonsensical.

Lastly Whelan's is packed every night of the fucking week almost exclusively putting on original music bands.

I understand that other places which host live music can't all be like this established, capital city venue but that's another discussion altogether.

Whelans is far from packed every night of every week. Far from it. I've stood in empty upstairs rooms many a night.

I know Whelans does pay to play. They are far from transparent about it and frequently do a shit job collecting money at the door. They also don't share proceeds from the bar. So.

And Ann Post did suggest shutting down venues that don't pay bands. That would include Whelans. When questioned about it directly, AP doubled down on that sentiment.

So it's not a strawman; you simply didn't do a good job of reading the thread.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Cover artists get paid when nobody shows up.

What do we need small venues who don't pay artists for? I'd rather have less venues paying ethically than many venues paying nobody. You seem to be hell bent on defending the present model by just saying 'its like that so i'll defend it'. Why not defend yourself, or your band mates? You seem to agree its unethical and immoral yet want to defend it, or explain it to people who have more experience of the same thing than you do. Why?

When I questioned this here:

Ask them again I just missed them.

As for your suggestion that a certain number of people are going to see gigs, no matter who playing, ergo less venues means larger crowds, it's seriously stupid.

By that logic if there was only one venue in Ireland it would be sold out every single night, no matter who was playing.

Who knows - maybe you believe that.

The truth is, most nights in most music venues, the crowd is people that chose to go see a band at that venue.

If that band wasn't playing the majority of punters wouldn't be there.

In fact, on a Tuesday night, when many venues aren't open, the venues that are are pretty typically empty.

So no, closing all the venues you think are unethical won't make the venues you happen to like wildly more popular; choice and options aren't destroying the live music scene.

Ann Post doubled down and said:

How about the logic that dublin grew at an exponential and unchecked rate for a very long period time and a lot of what was built at that time was based on sustainability that only related to the amount of cash that was floating about, and to consider a sort of music 2.0 environment of good sustainable venues then 'less' [venues] would probably be first on the list. The lads talking about DIY on this thread know a LOT about sustainable music.

See thread for questions I asked...

So yes, at least one person has said that venues should be closed if they aren't up to their personal ethical standards. In this person's case, Whelans would be on the chopping block.

 

[ann post]

selective quoting of ann posts quotes

Look dude. You've missed the point. You can quote me all you like but you are building a point out the bits you like and ignoring the bits you don't like. Did I 'double down'? No, I just realized that you can't absorb information that you don't agree with. I tried a softer line, it didn't work. I gave up on you.

I'm not sure i want to make a point in this post other than that - simply for the fear that you'll write a paragraph in response. You refused to read over my earlier posts. If you are going to respond to one question, with another essay, make it this one.

Why not defend yourself, or your band mates? You seem to agree its unethical and immoral yet want to defend it, or explain it to people who have more experience of the same thing than you do. Why?

 

[MilanPan!c]

Look dude. You've missed the point. You can quote me all you like but you are building a point out the bits you like and ignoring the bits you don't like. Did I 'double down'? No, I just realized that you can't absorb information that you don't agree with. I tried a softer line, it didn't work. I gave up on you.

I'm not sure i want to make a point in this post other than that - simply for the fear that you'll write a paragraph in response. You refused to read over my earlier posts. If you are going to respond to one question, with another essay, make it this one.

You assume you're making a convincing argument and I'm only not being convinced because I'm not paying close enough attention. The fact is I can closely read every word you've written - again - and still think your making zero sense and pitching ridiculous solutions to nonexistent "ethical" problems.

 

[washingcattle]

I think you don't understand the relationship between art and money. Since the birth of art as a commodity, artists have had to earn a living. The idea that artists deserve money without anyone buying their art is ridiculous and not "moral". It might be nice. But it's not a moral issue.

Bands, like artists, that are better at PR, have easier lives. Even in communist countries, being good at self-promotion makes you more successful.

Success is seen, by the vast majority of people, as a sign of quality. That's not always right or fair, but it's true.

Museums are full of popular artists. The radio is full of popular artists - so are most music blogs.

Every single aspect of every single art "genre" is controlled by money, almost everywhere.

Writing? Yep.
Art? Yep.
Music? Yep.
Theatre? Yep.

And on and on.

This is not a moral issue; this is reality.

Most musicians I actually know in real life in multiple countries either know about PR, or wish they did. They want people to hear their music. And they would happily pay for PR if they could afford it. Their heroes do. The labels their favourite bands are on, do. They'd do it to if they could.

People that engage with the music INDUSTRY don't think that it's a moral problem to want to be successful. It's not either.

In 2014 a band is a small business. Many, many small business owners forgo pay for ages, sometimes years. They do it willfully to try and make a sustainable business. That's what a band is. Yes, it's art, but it's also commerce. Necessasarily. In fact many many many musicians are closer to artisans than fine artists.

You should consider that before you judge people and the industry for not living up to your moral standards.

I think you don't understand the fact that if you play a gig anywhere you should be paid simple as that and everything else in that post is so patronising it borders on offensive so I'm going to completely ignore you from now on.

 

[MilanPan!c]

I think you don't understand the fact that if you play a gig anywhere you should be paid simple as that and everything else in that post is so patronising it borders on offensive so I'm going to completely ignore you from now on.

You shouldn't. That's not a fact. So. Ignore me all you want, but simply saying something is a fact isn't gonna get you paid, as very few people would agree with that fact. And almost no venues would. And no new laws are going to be passed to make this "fact" a reality. And no sizeable number of musicians will boycott gigs or venues that don't pay.

So, I guess this is good bye... ah well..