chicm wrote:I must have missed something about Tennant’s wiping out the music scene in Glasgow. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, as a few posters on various threads have mentioned it so something must have gone on, but I really have no recollection of their involvement to any degree in any of the venues where we played.
I've been involved in the licensed trade in Scotland for nearly 30 years now including managing venues in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Apart from a couple of years running a venue in London all my experience has been in Scottish pubs and venues. The Tennent's Live fiasco where the majority of the Scottish (not just Glasgow) music venues were artificially supported definately went on and that's why most of the old venues don't exist anymore.
Certainly in the mid-80's I had the misfortune to be involved with a smaller Tennent's venue in Glasgow and a lot of people don't seem to realise that a shedload of the smaller Tennent's pubs suffered as well as the local music scene.
The Tennent's Live sponsorship worked in two ways - the established bands suddenly found themselves back competing with new schoolboy bands as Tennent's suddenly started throwing money around and established venues were competing with new venues who had everything paid for them. Obviously these venues didn't care if the bands were known or unknown as they didn't have to try to make any money as everything was handed to them on a plate.
There were loads of these wee Tennent's venues all over Scotland and as soon as the Tennent's money ran out publicans were left with empty pubs as the original clientele were long gone and nobdy was willing to pay to see the wee local bands who had been playing there. Most of the venues (and a lot of the pubs) closed down for good.
chicm wrote:I am especially intrigued by rockchick’s comment that “all business and commercial sense went out the window and both the venues and the bands made no effort to get punters through the doors and more to the point didn't care as everyone was being paid anyway”
The easiest way to illustrate this Chic is to imagine that you have a business and you provide "Service X". You're good at providing your service and you're managing to make a healthy living at it while keeping your costs reasonable. Suddenly, Tennent's come along and start to provide "Service X" for free. They then tell the people that have previously been paying you to provide "Service X" that they will not only give them "Service X" for free but will pay for all promotion and advertising of "Service X".
Can you compete with that? No you can't.
It doesn't matter if your version of "Service X" is better as FREE is always more attractive.
Ask anyone involved in PA Hire how Tennent's Live affected them? Bottom line was unless you were Storm (in the Glagow area) or EFX (in the Edinburgh area) you were suddenly out of business. Both these companies made their money out of Tennents as they were contracted to provide
ALL PA Hire at all the Tennent's gigs in their own areas.
These companies weren't the best available at the time but with band mentality, do you think a young band (or even an established band) is going to pay to hire a better PA or use the FREE rig provided by Tennent's?
Even the better bands who had their own preferred PA and lighting companies didn't have a choice anymore and were forced to use the "in-house" rigs provided by Tennent's.
Same thing happened with the majority of the good (i.e. knowledgable) local promoters and venues - suddenly they were competing with promoters and venues who didn't have to try to get punters through the door as Tennent's were paying venues to take the bands, paying the bands to play to a handful of their pals, paying for PA & lights and paying all promotion & advertising. Sad fact is you can't compete with money and Tennent's were throwing it around.
chicm wrote:It’s our business how much it cost us and why we did it, but it’s also difficult to see how a vibrant music scene can really develop in Glasgow/Scotland if it has to be subsidised by the people who make the music!
Sadly, the scene can't develop without support of the punters. So what can be done? Do we go back to the same state of affairs by artificially subsidising gigs and paying bands who only bring a couple of their mates to see them?
There's always been this romantic notion from bands that they should be paid just for being a band. Unfortunately, the music scene at all levels is a business and unless anyone comes to see the band then the business can't make any money - this appears to be something that the bands can't grasp.
It doesn't matter to anyone how good you are if nobody comes to see you. I always think that a good lesson in economics for any type of business would be to attempt to promote a gig for an unknown local band. I've unfortunately been there too many times and these bands will always tell you that they have a huge local following and that your pub/venue will be packed. In reality you get the band's girlfriends and a couple of their mates (usually they want these people on a "guest-list" as well).
You'd think that these bands would realise that a handful of people cannot possibly cover the cost of PA, lights, advertising or even the bar and door staff? Sadly that's not the case and they then spend the rest of the time time telling everyone that the venue made a fortune from drink sales (why not Google how much profit a pubs keeps from each pint?) and paid them nothing. The reality is that the pub/venue has usually lost a substantial sum in providing a free rehearsal for the band.
You're only viable alternative is then to try and get the band to guarantee a minimum number of punters by selling a minimum amount of tickets. This is the point where the promoter/venue gets accused of making the band "pay to play". Possibly the fairest way to promote any local band is to agree on a percentage split (based on a minimum) of the door. This is the only way to ensure that the band know that the payment is based on their ability to attract punters. Unfortunately, even with this type of arrangement the promoter still gets the bands that don't bother.
Surely it's also obvious that everyone will profit if the band does actually attract a load of punters and that no genuine venue would have any problem in paying a fair fee to any band who fills their venue.
Venues and promoters are ripped off just as much (if not more so) as the poor wee bands who constantly bemoan their lack of payment. Do these wee bands think that most of the genuine promoters don't know which bands do well? Sadly, once a band is doing relatively well then they price themselves out of reach of any the local venues.
chicm wrote:It strikes me that from the tone of the anti-Zico posts, several guys on here think that they could do a better job in that venue. Mibbe they should get together and make it work rather than telling the new owner what he is doing wrong from the sidelines.
Probably if a few of the people had access to the amount of money that Zico's have spent then they could maybe have done better? There are certainly locals with the necessary experience of live music promotion but who just can't get access to the necessary funding to attempt it. Unfortunately, the initial funding is the sticking point.
I'm afraid the actual owner of Zico's has had no involvement with any of the actual gigs and he has been badly advised by others. The original gigs failed because of a lack of advertising (or indeed anything) from the actual promoter, Allan Cottam and a lot of the bands, Cloven Hoof being a good example, were not happy to be playing to an empty venue when the rest of their UK dates were packed. The manager of the venue also has no experience of music promotion and that doesn't help either.
Zico's have tried hard and I can appreciate their reluctance to put up any more money to develop their Rock nights. However, (and I do realise that it's a Catch 22 situation) nothing is going to change without trying to improve things. The PA and lack of staging and lights definately need to be addressed as nobody is going to turn out to see bands playing in the dark on top of a couple of old pallets.
The problem (again, already mentioned in numerous posts) is that there is no "regular" crowd. This isn't going to change when Zico's insist on playing dance music a split second after the bands finish just to drive any of the older punters out so that they can get the teenagers in.
The locals (Rock fans anyway) haven't exactly taken to Zico's but this is probably because of the conditions. I still think that another concerted effort from the management could develop a proper "Rock Night" if they were willing to get a proper Rock DJ and look at the production facilities (i.e. lights, stage, better PA). The old Heathery formula of Rock disco-band-Rock disco can still work as this keeps the punters in the venue after the band and lets them "socialise". This social aspect is what's lacking from all the Glasgow area venues and is what is necessary to cultivate a "regular" crowd.
I don't like to keep referring back to the Heathery but it was a great example of a local venue - everybody went there every week and it wasn't just depending on what band was playing. It was a social scene and everyone knew each other - that's why it worked. There was no great promoter working behind the scenes and there certainly was no great Rock DJ's either but the simple formula worked without fail right up until it closed and was turned into flats.
Lanarkshire, and especially Wishaw, has a long tradition of Rock music and surely there must be a way to establish a "regular" venue?
The Guvnor
), but it seems to me that anything they said back then such as the PMRC etc, they would have a bloody field day with the crap that gets excreted from the suits table scraps these days. We need a revival of party music and we need it soon!!
