Malcolm Boyce wrote:This kind of performance "window" or "radius" is nothing new, just new to the ECMA.
This is definitely a case of wanting "their cut". What's good for the ECMA, is good for the artists, is what the intent is. Obviously the "choice" of the artists has been hurting the event's well being and I would assume is the reason why it has come to this apparent change. People are probably already encouraged to perform at and patronize venues that are participants in the festival, financially or otherwise, but the lure of an easy gig on an open night is just too much for many.Christian LeBlanc wrote:...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.
This move isn't about banning all live performance during the event. This is to avoid things happening like an "ECMA" artist getting paid to be in town to perform (travel, lodging & expenses possibly covered in some form or fashion) and them playing at a venue thereby drawing audience from having to pay to attend the event itself to hear/see said artist. I have seen this happen during festivals and although it seems innocent enough, it can greatly impact the fiscal health of these kinds of events. Even if an artist isn't compensated monetarily for their appearances, the ECMA is responsible for a large percentage of the promotion that causes these audiences to be available during these weeks, and I don't think it is out of the question for them to look for ways to recoup and reinvest.Christian LeBlanc wrote:Also, what's to stop bands who aren't ECMA members from coming into town and playing offsite concerts during Music Week?
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Even if an artist isn't compensated monetarily for their appearances, the ECMA is responsible for a large percentage of the promotion that causes these audiences to be available during these weeks, and I don't think it is out of the question for them to look for ways to recoup and reinvest.
...and why are these artists attending ECMA week again?Mathieu Benoit wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:Even if an artist isn't compensated monetarily for their appearances, the ECMA is responsible for a large percentage of the promotion that causes these audiences to be available during these weeks, and I don't think it is out of the question for them to look for ways to recoup and reinvest.
Sounds like the old "We won't pay you, but think of the exposure." Except it's "We won't pay you, no one else can pay you, but think of the exposure."
Malcolm Boyce wrote:...and why are these artists attending ECMA week again?Mathieu Benoit wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:Even if an artist isn't compensated monetarily for their appearances, the ECMA is responsible for a large percentage of the promotion that causes these audiences to be available during these weeks, and I don't think it is out of the question for them to look for ways to recoup and reinvest.
Sounds like the old "We won't pay you, but think of the exposure." Except it's "We won't pay you, no one else can pay you, but think of the exposure."
Malcolm Boyce wrote:...and why are these artists attending ECMA week again?
Crimson Chameleon wrote:I've been attending these ECMA weeks for about a decade and from my experience the showcase artists and award nominees are not paid a large sum for their performances, are not paid at all for travel, food, or accommodations, and I would hardly classify this event as a festival. The performances are almost always limited to twenty or thirty minute sets. Personally, I don't see why anyone who is not an ECMA member would even want to attend these events each year.
This is a conference. The ECMA spends money bringing in delegates and music buyers from all over the North America and Europe and then allows its members to meet and network with these people in order to help further their goals and careers. My friends and I always view these conferences as sorta family reunions: we get to catch up with old musical buddies and see how everyone's past year has been going. Plus, we get to attend, occasionally, some very interesting conferences and seminars (they've been getting real good the last few years with legitimately helpful advice 'cause I can remember when they were just absolutely awful) and we get to network and meet some fairly important connections within the music industry. To me, that what this thing is all about. It's never been viewed as a big money making venture (at least not short term), and to be honest none of the bands I've been in have ever even thought of it as a great way to make new fans. It's always been about networking within the industry. Or as you put it Matt: a big circlejerk! ha ha!
Malcolm Boyce wrote:People who are unhappy with this move to avoid unsanctioned performances by "members" of the association probably have an unrealistic expectation of what the event is centered on.
I don't know... Are you really unhappy?Mathieu Benoit wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote:People who are unhappy with this move to avoid unsanctioned performances by "members" of the association probably have an unrealistic expectation of what the event is centered on.
Do you think that I have an unrealistic expectation of what the event is centered on?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests