Malcolm Boyce wrote:This kind of performance "window" or "radius" is nothing new, just new to the ECMA.
The reason I don't like seeing it with the ECMA is that their own
website states that their mission is "to foster, develop, promote and celebrate East Coast music and its artists locally, regionally, nationally and internationally." Preventing musicians from playing a paying gig offsite to offset travel costs, while they're already paying annual membership fees, strikes me as counter to that intention of fostering and promoting East Coast artists regionally. And while I agree that romantic rhetoric has exaggerated the level of spontaneity, the ECMA weekend
does feel like something of a city-wide kitchen party, and dampening that atmosphere would be a real loss.
I'm sure there's an excellent counter-argument to be made, in that the ECMA would like money from offsite/non-sanctioned concerts to filter back into the organization and thus be used to promote its members...but I, personally, feel as though that choice should be given to the performers, not mandated. The issue seems important enough to me that it should have been voted on by its membership, not its board of directors. Also, what's to stop bands who aren't ECMA members from coming into town and playing offsite concerts during Music Week? Yes, I know that happens anyway (and I'm pretty ok with that, it adds to the atmosphere), but at least as things stood, ECMA members were allowed to
try and get a piece of that revenue.
Will enough people agree with me to the point that it tarnishes the goodwill of Music Week and jeopardizes its long-term sustainability? I doubt it. I sense a lot of grumbling right now, which will subside over time as people get used to the idea. But I don't know how long it will take for members to stop saying "these ECMA weekends used to be so much cooler," as they resentfully observe non-members taking advantage of the atmosphere and scoring primo gigs.