dontdropbombs
Joined: July 03, 2007 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5
Re: Barkitechture
July 12, 2007 at 08:14 PM UTC
#
Hello folks,
I've never posted on this forum before, and don't know all of you regulars, I feel inclined to throw in my two cents on this issue, for whatever that's worth. I think this is a good conversation to be having right now on a highly relevant (not to mention very interesting) issue.
Although I don't know most of you, I'm a friend of snailhook and callat703 (and have collaborated with both of them musically), and since I'm a fan of the music that they both make, the environments in which my friends and I make music are of interest to me. All of us (show-goers, musicians, all of the above) are affected by the way in which venues conduct their business and operate on a day to day basis.
I wasn't at the Red and the Black on the night that the Barkitecture incident went down. I've heard the story from the points of view of the band and from the club, and honestly I think that the level of disrespect towards the band is pretty alarming. Beyond being treated badly from the get-go (apparently because of their age?), the bottom line is that there's no reason to ever push another person in the midst of a verbal arguement, period.
And okay, maybe this particular bouncer is just a macho jerk, whatever- most distasteful to me is the lack of an appropriate response on behalf of the club following the incident. This was a golden opportunity for the club to show that it cares about its patrons and the bands that they invite to play. They could have set a positive example by taking some sort of disciplinary action towards the bouncer in question. You know, just to say that pushing a young girl is not within their definition of acceptable behavior of the people they employ.
Instead, the message that I gather from the club is "we can treat you however we want, and don't dare defend yourself, because we will ban you." 25 bands banished from these three venues in about a year? I think it's fairly obvious who the common denominator is in all of this.
I have had pleasant experiences in the past playing at DC9 as well as H Street clubs, and have attended loads of great shows there (granted, most of them were booked & managed by people who are no longer involved). Obviously there are people who staff these places who care about music and work hard to create a comfortable atmosphere for people to enjoy hearing and playing music.
My personal concerns are more with the unnecesarily strict policy that excludes people under the age of 21, the silly 'door tally' system that is only really helpful to large-scale national acts and local bands (I've seen too many touring bands leave a crowded room with little more than $10 in their pockets to get them to their next destination), the apparent 'ban-happy' way of conducting business, and ultimately, the lack of concern for someone literally being pushed around by one staff member.
It's important to me that the live music experience is one that is comfortable, inclusive, and fair. A fundamental aspect of my being involved with music is the spirit of bands and venues working together to put on interesting/cool/enjoyable shows.
There are loads of venues in this area that are able to put on shows all the time without these freakishly frequent bannings- Galaxy Hut, Iota, Black Cat, 9:30, Velvet Lounge, Sangha, 611 Florida, and numerous other DIY and house venues.
Really, when was the last time you heard of anyone being banned from the Galaxy Hut? I doubt it happens very often. Why not? Perhaps it's because the Hut is just one example of a venue that is run by and for fans of music, and where community is just as important as anything else.
I have no interest in willingly walking into a situation where I could potentially be treated as if I don't belong there- like what happened to Barkitecture.
Music is sacred to me. I imagine that music is sacred to mostly everyone else on this forum as well.
Of course, these venues have the right to run their business in the way that they want to- more power to them. By the same merit, I have the right to make the choice to not be a part of it. My personal opinion is that patronizing these clubs basically amounts to acceptance of their ways of operating. Thanks, but no thanks. I am sure that they couldn't care less about whether or not my humble little band plays there. This isn't really my concern. My concern is in having a clear conscience about playing and hearing/seeing music in a way that I'm comfortable with.
snailhook
Joined: June 13, 2003 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 1608
Re: Barkitechture
July 12, 2007 at 09:07 PM UTC
#
callat703, if you say live nation has nothing to do with clear channel, i'm curious if this means that is has absolutely nothing to do with it, or is it a situation like "dick cheney does not currently work for halliburton"? is there any puppeteering going on, so to speak? any wizard of oz action?
regardless of whether live nation has any relation to clear channel, i know that the owners of the rock and roll hotel, politically, would have no problem dealing with clear channel, and that's what disturbs me. simply put, i am not on the same page as they are, and neither is a large portion of dc.
callat703
Joined: May 25, 2005 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 1710
Re: Barkitechture
July 12, 2007 at 09:16 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by snailhook:
callat703, if you say live nation has nothing to do with clear channel, i'm curious if this means that is has absolutely nothing to do with it, or is it a situation like "dick cheney does not currently work for halliburton"? is there any puppeteering going on, so to speak? any wizard of oz action?
regardless of whether live nation has any relation to clear channel, i know that the owners of the rock and roll hotel, politically, would have no problem dealing with clear channel, and that's what disturbs me. simply put, i am not on the same page as they are, and neither is a large portion of dc.
From my understanding, Live Nation is completely independent of Clear Channel. Anybody doing any business in radio is working with Clear Channel, so I know they work together in that respect. But as far as company ties go? Completely independent from everything that I know.
snailhook
Joined: June 13, 2003 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 1608
Re: Barkitechture
July 12, 2007 at 09:35 PM UTC
#
thanks.
jaguar
Joined: October 28, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 3869
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 03:00 AM UTC
#
Originally posted by callat703:
From my understanding, Live Nation is completely independent of Clear Channel. Anybody doing any business in radio is working with Clear Channel, so I know they work together in that respect. But as far as company ties go? Completely independent from everything that I know.
From my understanding, that's not quite accurate.
Please bare with me because I don't know the lingo and how all this exactly works so my explanation will be very weak.
From how I heard some lawyer/DJ explain it the day it happened, Clear Crap got into some kind of mess with the Feds and owning too much stuff, or something like that. They had to sell some things or break it all up somehow. That's when they appeared to sell off a lot of stock or whatever. The thing is, they still kept the control within the Mays family.
Essentially, if you look at one chain of links, it looks like it was broken off to a smaller or even a different company. But if you look at it from a different angle, the Mays family still control it all and yes I mean Live Nation. Maybe it's one of those blind trust things where they just place it in someone else's name. Either way, Live Nation is
still some sort of entity or is in some way connected to Clear Crap. They claim it isn't using the shorter chain angle but stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, it's all part of the same corporate family crap.
G, glad to have you here! Always great to have another one of our side of the DC area music scene around. :D
pela123
Joined: February 12, 2005 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 66
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 06:07 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by don't drop bombs:
[QB]
I wasn't at the Red and the Black on the night that the Barkitecture incident went down. I've heard the story from the points of view of the band and from the club, and honestly I think that the level of disrespect towards the band is pretty alarming. Beyond being treated badly from the get-go (apparently because of their age?), the bottom line is that there's no reason to ever push another person in the midst of a verbal arguement, period.
And okay, maybe this particular bouncer is just a macho jerk, whatever- most distasteful to me is the lack of an appropriate response on behalf of the club following the incident. This was a golden opportunity for the club to show that it cares about its patrons and the bands that they invite to play. They could have set a positive example by taking some sort of disciplinary action towards the bouncer in question. You know, just to say that pushing a young girl is not within their definition of acceptable behavior of the people they employ.
Instead, the message that I gather from the club is "we can treat you however we want, and don't dare defend yourself, because we will ban you." [QB]
You weren't there, so you don't know what happened, and the City Paper didn't do a good job of defining what happened. First of all there was no "bouncer" and no girl was "pushed". There had been trouble with underagers in bands trying to drink in the past, so the rules were outlined to barkitecture (hands have to be xed, don't drink, –nothing that extreme or out of the ordinary) This was followed by–that aside, we hope you have a good time and a great show. I thought they were a good band, and actually contacted snail cause I thought it was a shame that they couldn't really get the audience they deserved since the club is 21 and over. The problem came with the band's underage friends who tried to get in, and then caused a fuss when they weren't allowed. The Red and the Black has had some great bands who were under 21 or had under 21 members, all of whom behaved professionally and had a great time. There is no policy or attitude against anyone underage. However, the reality is, there will always be a few people who cause a scene and ruin things for everyone else (hence having to outline strict rules for people under 21). I agree that there is never any need to push in the case of the argument that occurred, but it needs to be remembered that it was the so-described "pacifist" band that threw a person through a glass window. That is something that is completely unacceptable by anyone, of any age. The reason that the calls went out to other venues warning of this situation was because no one wants to see something like this reoccur in any of the other music venues throughout town, or see people we know and care about get hurt.
callat703
Joined: May 25, 2005 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 1710
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 06:27 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by Jaguar:
From my understanding, that's not quite accurate.
Please bare with me because I don't know the lingo and how all this exactly works so my explanation will be very weak.
From how I heard some lawyer/DJ explain it the day it happened, Clear Crap got into some kind of mess with the Feds and owning too much stuff, or something like that. They had to sell some things or break it all up somehow. That's when they appeared to sell off a lot of stock or whatever. The thing is, they still kept the control within the Mays family.
Essentially, if you look at one chain of links, it looks like it was broken off to a smaller or even a different company. But if you look at it from a different angle, the Mays family still control it all and yes I mean Live Nation. Maybe it's one of those blind trust things where they just place it in someone else's name. Either way, Live Nation is still some sort of entity or is in some way connected to Clear Crap. They claim it isn't using the shorter chain angle but stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, it's all part of the same corporate family crap.
G, glad to have you here! Always great to have another one of our side of the DC area music scene around. :D
After further review - the companies do share some members on their Boards of Directors, notably the Mays family that Jaguar points out. But they have different CEOs/CFOs, and to the best of my knowledge, do not have formal ties beyond those relationships. Both are publicly traded - Clear Channel is CCU, while Live Nation is LYV.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 06:33 PM UTC
#
As of yesterday, the Mays family holdings of Live Nation were:
Lowry Mays 5.423% of all outstanding shares
Mark Mays 0.315%
Randall Mays 0.242%
corinnemeier
Joined: July 13, 2007 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 1
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 11:19 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by snailhook:
also, i might be considered biased because i am friends with barkitecture and even collaborate with one of them musically. they are great kids who are very conscientious pacifists and activists.
immediately following the incident, i heard from both sides. i used to book at the red and the black, so i know how they operate inside and out. i don't know what truly happened since i wasn't there, but i heard both sides of the story. it is my belief that barkitecture were unfairly harassed and provoked into fighting.
this is just the tip of the iceberg and just a few of many reasons why dc9, the red and the black, and the rock and roll hotel should all die a slow, miserable death. dc needs venues, but not these. they are hard rock cafes and house of blues masquerading as independent clubs.
First of all, I am corinne meier, and not only was i there that fateful night, but i was the manager on duty. After reading all of this complete trash I invite anyone who has an issue or a question about that night to come and ask me. I will tell you how the singers girlfriend called me a crazy bitch after i asked her to leave, i will tell you about the singer then raising his fist to me and getting in my face and i will tell you what my friend looked like and how much blood there was after they threw him through the window.
second, scott, you are so off base it is ridiculous. you are bitter and angry that we stopped letting you book shows that made ZERO dollars. you have not a clue as to what you are talking about. You didnt seem to have any problems with the red and the black until we stopped letting you book shows. get over yourself and grow up. stop talking about shit that you dont know anything about. oh - and the barkitechture guys admitted to throwing my friend through the window, so you might want to look up the word pacifist in the dictionary. you want to spout lies and bitter feelings - come talk to me. i can talk all night.
vansmack
Joined: October 04, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 19725
Re: Barkitechture
July 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM UTC
#
[subtext]Grabs a High Life, leans back in the recliner…[/subtext]
Wow.
[wondering]What the hell is going on in DC these days that has everybody so riled up. It must be the weather….[/wondering]
dontdropbombs
Joined: July 03, 2007 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5
Re: Barkitechture
July 15, 2007 at 01:06 AM UTC
#
"You weren't there, so you don't know what happened, and the City Paper didn't do a good job of defining what happened. First of all there was no "bouncer" and no girl was "pushed"."
…nor was anyone apart from the band and club staffers, so when you get down to it it's really just the word of the club vs. the word of the band.
And since both parties involved have presented their versions of events, the rest of us who care about the various musical communities of this town are quite free to discuss it all and present our points of view, especially in light of this City Paper article.
A couple of points to clarify- I use the word 'bouncer' as a synonym for a person working for a club- perhaps this was an inadvertantly misleading terms on my part- so I'll use the word 'staffer'- although it should be said that I don't have any negative connotations with the word 'bouncer', or with any other word that describes a job that's intended to ensure the safety and comfort of people in a live music environment.
And the 'unecesarily strict policy that excludes anyone under the age of 21' was in reference to guests/friends of the bands, et cetera. Obviously I don't expect that a 21+ club will let in any random underaged person- the club would lose its license and face other serious consequences. My point is that there will be always be cases in which it's excessive to keep an 19 or 20 year old person from coming into a club- Britton's girlfriend, for example.
I agree with you on this- "the reality is, there will always be a few people who cause a scene and ruin things for everyone else"- I just don't see how that would apply to a handful of friends of a band. Obviously the band isn't going to come into a show wanting trouble, and so it would seem obvious that their personal friends would make an extra effort to wear their X's and behave.
According to your post, the trouble began when these friends in question caused a fuss about not being let in- well, I would have done the same thing. In my youth, I spent a lot of time going to see shows, but there were always ones that I couldn't see because of my age- the most memorable age-related misfortune I had was being unable to see Jerry Lee Lewis play at a biker bar on a Colorado interstate, three months shy of my twenty-first birthday.
Now that we're older and remain involved in music, do we not owe it to young people who are passionate about it- just as we all were in our teenage years- to make a bit of an effort to expose them to great live music?
So going back to this 'no girl was pushed' part, although no one can ever be certain of this one way or another (again, it's the word of the staffer(s) vs. the word of the band), I find it almost impossible to believe that a simple verbal altercation would possess Mr. Powell to throw the staffer through the window. It just doesn't make any sense. Perhaps I'm more inclined to believe his version of events because he's been to my house so many times and has never caused any kind of trouble- but that past precedent of character seems to be as good a reason as any. The staff's version of events seems to be that people were argueing, and then all of a sudden this kid went apeshit and wrecked house. It doesn't add up.
One would only hope that the recipients of the phone calls that went out around town would at least hear Barkitecture's side of the story, and that each would then make up his or her own mind as to whether or not to book the band in the future. I'm no booker, but I'd certainly have no qualms about booking them if I were.
And pela, I agree with you that they're a really good band- I've heard their new record and it's stunning.
By the way, I appreciate your post. Obviously you and I are not going to agree on a lot of what's being talked about here, but for what it's worth I think this is an important and healthy discussion to be having.
dontdropbombs
Joined: July 03, 2007 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5
Re: Barkitechture
July 15, 2007 at 01:09 AM UTC
#
Originally posted by Jaguar:
G, glad to have you here! Always great to have another one of our side of the DC area music scene around. :D
…and glad to be here. I didn't realize that you posted here too. Always good to hear your point of view.
pela123
Joined: February 12, 2005 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 66
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 05:05 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by don't drop bombs:
And the 'unecesarily strict policy that excludes anyone under the age of 21' was in reference to guests/friends of the bands, et cetera. Obviously I don't expect that a 21+ club will let in any random underaged person- the club would lose its license and face other serious consequences. My point is that there will be always be cases in which it's excessive to keep an 19 or 20 year old person from coming into a club- Britton's girlfriend, for example.
Obviously the band isn't going to come into a show wanting trouble, and so it would seem obvious that their personal friends would make an extra effort to wear their X's and behave.
The problem is, if you let one "special friend" of the band in, all of a sudden there is a list of ten people who are "friends" and want in. It's a 21 and over bar/club, they are under 21. One would think that friends of the band would make an extra effort to behave and listen to the rules in support of their friends, but there have been more times than I care to mention in several of the clubs that I have worked at, where exceptions have been made, and friends or band members themselves tried to drink or sneak alcohol in. "Friends of the band" are just as likely to cause the bar to lose its license as any other "random underage person". As I had said in my last post, the Red and the Black has hosted many bands with under 21 members who were there for the music, and have behaved professionally, but for every one of them, there is one batch that ruins it for the rest by trying to drink. If I won't go to jail or lose my job for my own friends, I most certainly won't for strangers.
I was the person who initially turned Britton's girlfriend away, and I politely explained to her the policy of the club and why she could not come in. She demanded to speak to the manager who told her the same thing. She was asked politely to leave and became angry and verbally abusive towards the staff. She then also tried to re-enter the club with another friend who was also under 21. Had this been a case where the band showed up from California and had a under 21 friend who was touring with them, an exception might have been made. But this was a band from Arlington, they were playing an all ages show the next day, it was hardly like this was the only time these friends were going to get a chance to see them. We all understand the frustrations of being under 21 and not getting to see a show that we'd like to see, but again, Barkitecture were performing an all ages show the next day which their friends could have attended. There was no reason to start arguing with the bar over a policy that is pretty standard.
pela123
Joined: February 12, 2005 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 66
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 05:09 PM UTC
#
Also, the band was playing when much of this drama was going on, so I wouldn't count on their "word", as they were not first hand observers of the initial interaction that we had with their friends. Though they were the ones responsible for the violent act of throwing someone through a glass window.
Rhett Miller
Joined: November 15, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 17762
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 05:27 PM UTC
#
My new band name…
Jerry Lee Lewis at a biker bar on a Colorado interstate
hijinksandsue
Joined: February 10, 2005 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 50
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 06:02 PM UTC
#
I read this article and have been following this thread with particular interest … since I know, sadly, first-hand how hard it is for local underage bands to secure any kind of consistent club gigs, especially as more and more clubs that used to be all-ages have shifted to 21-and-over (gazes sadly at Galaxy Hut).
Having served as basically the "point person" for such a band, I understand both sides of it pretty well, I think. I understand the club's end of things for legal reasons, since I guess the alcohol bureau has been cracking down bigtime and will keep a closer eye on a venue if they know the band members are barely (or not) legal.
On the very rare occasion that the band has been allowed to play at a 21+ (or even 18+) venue, they have made it VERY clear on their website or e-mails that said show is limited to ONLY their "legal" fans and friends … they don't want to get the reputation of being "problem children." It's hard enough to get gigs as it is.
And I don't think there has been a behavior issue to date, either by the band members themselves or their fans/friends, but on the other hand I suspect there are some 21+ clubs where they might otherwise have been able to secure bookings and have not been able to do so because of the age issue.
That said, having the opportunity to play all-ages clubs like 9:30 and Black Cat have more than made up for it … quality vs. quantity, I guess (but hey, both would be nice).
Interestingly enough, this reporter had contacted the band a few weeks ago to set up an interview which never actually came to pass. I'm guessing now in retrospect it would have been related to this article.
Doctor Doom
Joined: April 23, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 3745
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 09:48 PM UTC
#
it's pretty inexcusable to throw someone through a window, even if someone was supposedly shoved. Regardless of whose version of events you accept, that is an objective fact that stands out for me. Throwing a person through a window is not an acceptable reaction to any kind of scenario. It can and should get you jail time, not just banned from a club.
elj
Joined: October 09, 2003 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5970
Re: Barkitechture
July 16, 2007 at 09:50 PM UTC
#
Originally posted by pela123:
Also, the band was playing when much of this drama was going on, so I wouldn't count on their "word", as they were not first hand observers of the initial interaction that we had with their friends. Though they were the ones responsible for the violent act of throwing someone through a glass window.
Ding.
People seem to want to jump all over the venue owners and clearly they have some douche-ish tendancies, but these really seems like stupid ass kids. Stupid ass kids tried to sneak into a club they were already thrown out of. When the bouncer/staff member escorted them out (no doubt, in my mind, with a "friendly" hand on the back of the shoulders) the stupid girl freaked out and overreacted and said she was pushed. Then more stupid kids reacted by throwing a bouncer threw a window.
Perhaps this club shouldn't have blacklisted 25 bands, but they certainly should have blacklisted this one.
