When Are We gonna Get A Decent Jazz Club??!!

[alimcg]

I'd be happy just to eat cake.

[trumpetguy]

alimcg said:

I'd be happy just to eat cake.

as opposed to cack?(feels a bit like that when the money is handed out at the end of the night sometimes)

[mim]

I dunno about that 2 drink minimum. I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to see a weekend gig at bennetts, and although the price to see the band is reasonable, and I'm just poor, I do think having to buy 2 drinks on top of it would turn people like me off the idea...

[andrewh]

Is it the Bennett's Lane viewpoint, therefore, that (a) the club exists more or less as a favour to musicians - or to the coterie of musicians who regularly play there - who in turn should be grateful for the performance opportunity that it affords them; that (b) it is the fact that jazz is on every night that brings the punters in, rather than the band playing on a specific night; that (c) it is entirely appropriate that the musicians who perform at the club effectively subsidise the running of the club, as they are the only ones in the venture without the right to expect due reward for their services; and that (d) this state of affairs is entirely proper, not worthy of review, and not in any way exploitative of the creative scene that feeds it? That seems to be the official line currently being transmitted. If so, then at least the place is being 100 per cent honest about it.

[trumpetguy]

good post AndrewH.
I too would like to know Benett's lane's viewpoint.

[alimcg]

This may cause me to be heckled by some members here, but I don't know that this heat on Bennetts Lane is really justified. I'm no lackey, but it would seem that to place the blame squarely at their feet is to avoid the point that musicians have responsibility to negotiate. Don't let any venue dictate terms if you know that you'll make them money. If you don't have confidence in your own crowd pulling, then take what you can get. Bennetts Lane is a business, run by a businessman. In most businesses, he who takes the greatest financial risk stands to make the most when things go well. By playing at Bennetts no local musician stands to actually make a loss (unless perhaps your car uses a ridiculous amount of petrol). If its a bad night though, Michael does stand to make a loss. If you want good guaranteed money get on the corporate gig scene. Here the above business prinicple stands. By playing original music you put yourself at greater risk than a corporate muso or cover band player or pit band muso, but if things go well you stand to actually gain greater rewards than them. That's the pay-off. If you want to be your own boss, you gotta cop it.

[antboy]

no good complaining about it if you keep agreeing to play there! and more often than not I imagine it is the musicians asking to play there rather than the club asking the musicians to play there...
I used to go to bennetts often when it wasn't so expensive and they booked groups more to my liking, now apart from playing there (and pretty rarely) I've probably been there as an audience member no more than 15 times in the last ten years, it's not really my thing, that's fine...
but to keep complaining "When Are We gonna Get A Decent Jazz Club??!!" when everyone accepts to play there (with conditions that are not always great) is pretty strange...

[jeremy]

andrewh said:

Is it the Bennett's Lane viewpoint, therefore, that (a) the club exists more or less as a favour to musicians - or to the coterie of musicians who regularly play there - who in turn should be grateful for the performance opportunity that it affords them; that (b) it is the fact that jazz is on every night that brings the punters in, rather than the band playing on a specific night; that (c) it is entirely appropriate that the musicians who perform at the club effectively subsidise the running of the club, as they are the only ones in the venture without the right to expect due reward for their services; and that (d) this state of affairs is entirely proper, not worthy of review, and not in any way exploitative of the creative scene that feeds it? That seems to be the official line currently being transmitted. If so, then at least the place is being 100 per cent honest about it.

a) The club exists both as a money making business and as a way for musicians to play their own music. Should they be grateful? Not my call. I'm grateful I get to hear some fantastic music while doing my job. Would the state of play be better if the venue was dedicated solely to making money? I doubt it as then we would have gone down a Basement style of booking and not have jazz on 7 nights a week.

b+c) A combination of both. Someone asked if we ever surveyed out customers - we did for about 2 months asking mainly how they knew to come and why they came as a test of our advertising. The overwhelming response was "word of mouth" brought them to the venue. Sure, some bands/musicians draw their own crowd, others don't. This is one of the main reasons we have a door deal with a slight part of it going to the venue. If someone sits down and does the math they may notice that Sunday to Thursday doesn't see huge crowds turning up, maybe an average of 25-30. at $2 a head (or $1.50 for co-op nights) that's a massive amount of about $250-$300 made off the door for the majority of the week. Teh weekend subsides the rest of the week and in reality, we would probably be in a better position financially not to open Sunday through Wednesday and concentrate solely on nights that do make money.

I don't expect the musicians to subsidise the club anymore than the musicians expect to be subsidised because they don't draw a crowd. Should they even get a gig if they can't get people to come and see them? They should expect due reward for their services, but who should be paying that reward, the venue or the punters? The venue provides a space for the performers to perform in, the punters are the ones there to enjoy the fruits of the performers labour. Maybe the performers should just hire the venue much like they would hire a piano or a sound guy? Performers have done it in the past - some have made a lot more than if they were doing a door deal, some have lost money. It all comes down to how much confidence the performer has in drawing a crowd.

d) Is it above review? - no. Is it above review by people who have no stake in the venture? - yes. I'm a big fan of Risk vs. Reward. No risk, no reward. Hence me continuing to ask what venues people run that they can justify the questioning. Is it exploitative of the creativity that feeds it - in a sense, yes, it is. If the venue wasn't there as a framework for people to perform in - where would they perform? Unfortunately without infrastructure our society wouldn't work, a venue is part of that infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.

As for the official line - I'm not the owner of the venue, and as such, I'm not the bottom line. I just work there. I doubt you will find Michael ever reading these forums as the last time he did so was the last round of "Bennett's Bashing™"

Thankyou Alimcg, I have no idea who you are, but you've said exactly what I said earlier. It's not the venue's job to negotiate deals to a point where performers get better pay, it's the musicians job. You'll get more respect from Michael presenting a valid and rational argument for being paid better than if you just turn up and say "gimme more cash"

[andrewh]

Jeremy - thanks for the reply, and for the time taken to respond. I do feel like I understand the place better now.

[oj]

I agree with the comments made by AJ and Jeremy on this debate.

I've noticed over the years that several musicians who play at Bennetts leave their friends name at the door so they can get in for free.

I wonder why.

Aren't their friends willing to pay to hear the music?

Or is it because the musicians can't or won't put a value on their music?

Another thing, why can't a musician hire out Bennetts Lane themselves, pay for the advertising, and accept the risk?

I've noticed that the musicians who win jazz prizes and/or Government funding tend to use the money to make a recording or to go overseas and study or play. Funny that they never hire out a venue and accept the financial risk.

[alimcg]

As Art Blakey used to say: "If your friends won't pay to see you play, who will?"

[alison]

Jeremy, you are awesome...
I'm just going to say thanks to Bennetts Lane and everyone who works there. Don't know what my career would be like in this country without this club!

[glean]

oj said:

I agree with the comments made by AJ and Jeremy on this debate.

I've noticed over the years that several musicians who play at Bennetts leave their friends name at the door so they can get in for free.

I wonder why.

Aren't their friends willing to pay to hear the music?

Or is it because the musicians can't or won't put a value on their music?

Another thing, why can't a musician hire out Bennetts Lane themselves, pay for the advertising, and accept the risk?

I've noticed that the musicians who win jazz prizes and/or Government funding tend to use the money to make a recording or to go overseas and study or play. Funny that they never hire out a venue and accept the financial risk.

and the last gig AJ paid to get into was?...

[mats]

I do remember at one point the staff at Bennetts Lane were seriously considering a limit as to how much band members could make on a door deal. They felt that $150 was to be the maximum, I don't think this idea lasted too long. At least I hope it didn't.

[jeremy]

mats said:

I do remember at one point the staff at Bennetts Lane were seriously considering a limit as to how much band members could make on a door deal. They felt that $150 was to be the maximum, I don't think this idea lasted too long. At least I hope it didn't.

I'm not sure who told you that but it was never discussed by anyone who actually has a say in it.