| Title: | It's Really Not That Bad ... For Profiteers |
| Posted On: | 2007-11-07 02:51:58 |
It's really not that bad ..... For profiteers.
A Response to:
Title: It's really not that bad
Posted On: 2007-06-16 12:43:19
Posted By: » Le_D
>>Regular readers of this blog will remember that I believe the best is to go raving once every month, or even every 2 months.
>>I do believe that with good promotion and quality line ups, we can actually see attendance go up.
i don't really find that your line of reasoning makes very good sense. you think harder laws are desirable so that less parties are organized. and, you believe that if less parties happen, attendance will go up. but if attendance goes up, meaning, promoters are making more money, then potential profits are an incentive for more parties to be thrown ... not less. that's how the 'free' market works, which you seem to understand yourself in describing the boost in club events :
>Club events are also starting to happen more frequently. Parties that end at 3 have the advantage of selling alcohol [...]
and, uhm, i wonder, do people need *more* regulation to make decisions about how they live their lives? :
>>Less parties give people time to rest [...]
>>Parties that end at 3 have the advantage of selling alcohol, not risk the chance of being busted, and allow people to actually go on with their lives the day after.
it isn't really that "less parties GIVE people" more time to rest, or "ALLOW people to actually go on with their lives the day after". i mean, isn't that a bit naive, even? do you think party kids in general are going to ... have earlier bedtimes because one kind of partying no longer provides an environment for them? insomnia, drug-taking, just wanting to stay up, etc., are trends that have been around before raves, and exist for people outside of raves (people who go to clubs only probably don't always go home to bed because the bar closed at 3am), and i think that for many reasons, certains 'trends' have longevity. anyways, more importantly, i think people are fully capable of making decisions for themselves - and i really think we should take responsibility for that freedom.
>>Club events are also starting to happen more frequently.
>>This is how I see the immediate future of our scene. Club events on a regular basis, [...]
in regards to the so-called increase in club events, bars have been around for a very long time, and they continue to be open .. a lot of the time. i'm not quite sure how more club events is really an innovative concept... especially if, as you say, an increase in club events brings in more people because of 'the music'. it is in the best interest for bars, as businesses, to produce what is profitable.
speaking of for-profit venues, i would like to point out that you are right about legal venues costing more. you think this is positive because negatively affects the accessibility of who can afford to throw parties. but i ask you to consider the relationship between legal venues charging more for rental, and the regulation of the permits. regulating venues eliminates competition. what this reveals is a direct relationship between a law and profit motives. not only does this mean that the very same body that makes this law a reality stands to gain from it (eg., municipally-run venues are businesses too), it means that potentially, not only will things become more expensive, they may become totally exorbitant. so yeah, not only can less (and increasinly less and less and less) people legitimately organize events, but less people will be able to (or interested in) attending them.
oh, but wait - higher costs doesn't mean less people can come, per se, only that less of *certain* people can come. ie., people with lower incomes. is this what you were getting at when you were saying that the scene needed cleaning up? so, i don't get it.. is it, "all about the music", or is it about... having bigger events and bringing in more people? more affluent people, only?
>>Also, this can bring people who don't like staying up all night to the scene. After all, it's all about the music.
>>Big events are what makes the scene healthy.
>>Same music, but a more mature scene.
in your opinion, i guess. but it seems to be the case that because business consistently honors quantity over quality (consider 'clean' dollars vs. *more* dollars? 'healthy' dollars vs. more dollars? 'quality dollars vs. more dollars?), music does not and will not stay the 'same'. that isn't the consequence of prioritizing commercial appeal. and while it may not be the rule, generally mass appeal means quality goes down, not up. personally, i hate top 40s stations. not only because most of the music is boring and repetitive, but if i turn on a commercial radio station, i'm bombarded with advertisements, too. i mean - i'm all for, uh, 'bringing the music to the people', but somehow madonna's revelatory lyrics "music makes the bourgeoisie and the rebel come together", didn't really seem to move and shake the world in a profound and meaningful way. not necessarily more so than any other lyrics, independent or commercial. but it did/does make a bunch of cash.
>>Big events are what makes the scene healthy. These have a bigger budget, and can afford to be 100% legal.
fuck it. if profiteering is what determines the standards of what is 'health' in a so-called scene, i find that scene suspect. why wouldn't it? shopping malls are legal, and they have a big budget, too. places that make money are places that want me to spend money. i think that it is radically important to fight to retain public, non-commercial space. even if i were convinced that 'raves' (as we know them) would improve through creating, (or permitting through complacency), legislation to regulate them, i wouldn't agree or welcome more laws made for and in the interests of the powerful elite.
