This came in my email today, and I've seen it floating around the net in a few spots.
I thought it was an interesting read, and might spur some different discussion on DW.
Click the link for the full letter
But here’s where the club owner doesn’t get it. The crowd is following the band, not the venue. The next night you will have to start all over again. And the people that were starting to follow your venue are now turned off because you just made them listen to a bad band. The goal should be to build a fan base of the venue. To get people that will trust that you will have good music in there every night. Instead, you’ve soiled your reputation for a quick fix.
If you asked a club owner, ”who is your target demographic?” I doubt they would answer ”the band’s friends and family.” But yet clubs operate likeit is.
Back in San Francisco, I saw this. Venues that did play-to-play or otherwise made it difficult for the bands went out of business, because after a while, the club booked bands that were willing to play rather than had any actual quality and people just stopped going. Then a new club poped up that built a business based on consistently having quality bands every weekend and developed a built in crowd. In Los Angeles, it's certainly different because there are so many bands that venues always have the upper hand because the supply of bands far out weighs the demand for live music. I don't see how the situation could be turned around as long as there are always those young bands who will do anything for some exposure.