Thanks Facist Pigs!

Bands play in our private clubs.

How do you get new fans who arent members to see bands in those clubs?

What about those under 21?

The way our private clubs are set you gotta be 21 to get in. But if you have a working model, Im all ears, we gotta act pretty quick.

Were having a HUGE outdoor thing in a small town this weekend, Im thinking this is more our style, at least during the "winter"

The bummer is all the bartenders and such are out of jobs for sure...itll just be me and the promoter now really...we can get byob liscence for these but no liscence to sell :(
 
Actually thats happening in many many places

First of all, as once industrial areas have been rezoned for chic "urban" housing, the new neighbors WHO KNEW VERY WELL WHAT WAS ALREADY LEGALLY IN THE AREA, decide to make noise ordinances to shut down first the music, then any outdoor talking then the parking lots

Second thing that happens are people who gfo to the bar to talk, get annoyed that there is a band playing next to them and lobby for new noise laws

Fascist pigs never stop, till the world is exactly how they want it, for them alone and dont care for the rights or desires of others

Get over it man! The world changes. You either change with it or you become extinct. Millions of people have lost jobs when industries have been forced to change or when they just changed because of pressure from ordinary people. Just think how many carriage builders and buggy whip manufacturers went tits up when the automobile came along.

If you were a decent businessman you would have an idea to make money off of the new changes instead of sitting on an internet forum whining about it. Perhaps it is time for you to think about getting into something else.
 
people shoot each other, get over it

some guys like to plug 3 year old girls in the brown eye, get over it

bulls get castrated with no anesthetic get over it

boy the world would sure be a nicer place if people just got over things huh?
 
people shoot each other, get over it

some guys like to plug 3 year old girls in the brown eye, get over it

bulls get castrated with no anesthetic get over it

boy the world would sure be a nicer place if people just got over things huh?

You take yourself a little too serious don't you think? You can't smoke in a bar and people are tired of listening to your crappy music played really loud and you somehow equate yourself to a three year old girl getting anally raped? You really need to get some perspective on this.
 
I figured it would take you fascists a bit longer to start fighting thoughtcrime, but here you are already, telling me what to think
 
I figured it would take you fascists a bit longer to start fighting thoughtcrime, but here you are already, telling me what to think

I'm not telling you what to think. I am telling you that it is a fallacy to equate your little problem with the rape of three year old girls.

I also think it is funny that you whine about how not being able to do what you want adversely affects your life and yet, what you want to do adversely affects the lives of others. Why should I have to listen to loud crappy music coming from a bar just because I live within four blocks of it?

I love loud music as long as it is MY music. I assume that others are the same so I play my music loud in private, in my home. I do not inflict it upon others and I do not want theirs inflicted upon me.

By the way, I am not a fascist, I am an anarchist.
 
So clause, you claim to show I am ignorant about the music business yet you PROVE you are utterly clueless in that area

If we had a music business trivial pursuit I would cut you down like a clown. This is the deep end. Stick to the kiddy pool.

I KNOW what Im talking about, you may doubt me in other areas but this one is mine. You are WAY out of your league

Bring it on

Who are you, since you are "somewhat popular" here?

Why are you so intent on bringing skin color into this?

Could you use proper English, so I can understand you?

Employees have no rights? Everything is up to the employer?
 
How prevalent are non-smoking bars in the US? Around where I live (in the UK), I don't know of any non-smoking pubs (although they'll all have to be from 2nd April next year). There are a few with non-smoking areas in pubs, but as these tend not to be separate rooms, the smoke still gets everywhere.

I ask this, as there seem to be a number of posts suggesting that people who don't like the smoky bars go to non-smoking establishments. I assume from this that these places are fairly common in the US?
 
pipelineaudio

This is you?

thats three times from you now, you got me beat by one

Yes. Why are you so intent on bringing skin color into this?

Dont play stupid

All I am saying is that you could improve your written English.

Strawmen have big balls?

You need to look up the meaning of strawman. I am asking if employees have no rights. If everything is up to the employer?

Just because you can't read, doesn't mean the response was incoherent. You're being disingenuously obtuse again. Anyone with any knowledge of popular music knows that Grunge was one of the most influential movements of the previous century, with far-reaching effects not only musically, but also in fashion and marketting. It's importance is rivaled only by Punk.

Sure.

Let's just forget all about r&b, country, folk, the British Invasion in the mid 60's, Flower Power/Youth Rebellion, heavy rock, art rock, etc. And not a word about jazz.

Sure.
 
If most people don't smoke I have no problem with their governments legislating against smoking. -Acuity

That's a fun sentence. Let's try some others.

If most people aren't gay, I have no problem with their governments legislating against homosexuality.

If most people aren't black, I have no problem with their governments legislating against african-americanism.

Man, that IS fun.
 
So you arent worried about the waitstaff but you are worried for the dictators that can chose whther to show up at the bar or not, with no economic loss to them?

This is hypocrisy of the highest order

but indeed, dont worry about the waitstaff, they are a HELL of a lot more pissed about this ban than I am

Yeah, yeah, worse than Hitler. Because some whiny bar staff think it's the end of the world that they can't get as much profit out of customers not breathing in clouds of carcinogenic smoke. It's so sad that you don't think you can make another buck off that. Of course, some people would think the point of a bar was the damn drinks, but that's not even been mentioned in this thread. Apparently your business's priorities are 1) engulf the patrons in clouds of deadly smoke, 2) play music, 3) complain about the government.

I thought people were supposed to bitch about things to a sympathetic bartender, not the bartender rants and rants and rants. You really think it's just a smoking ban that's costing you business? It sounds to me like alcohol ain't the only depressant at your bar! People don't go out for the smoking, they go out to have a good time. Are you making that easy, or even possible for them?
 
If most people don't smoke I have no problem with their governments legislating against smoking. -Acuity

That's a fun sentence. Let's try some others.

If most people aren't gay, I have no problem with their governments legislating against homosexuality.

If most people aren't black, I have no problem with their governments legislating against african-americanism.

Man, that IS fun.
While I'm not too comfortable with Acuity's argument here, your analogies fail. That is, unless being gay or african-american is something you choose to do, that is completly voluntary, and affects the air-quality around you while you're being african-american or gay.

"Excuse me, could you please not be of african descent while my kids are in the room?"

"If you have to be gay right now, maybe you could take it outside?"

"Yeah, I'm always a little Moroccan after sex. It relaxes me."

- All quotes are Mr. Hypothetic
 
How prevalent are non-smoking bars in the US? Around where I live (in the UK), I don't know of any non-smoking pubs (although they'll all have to be from 2nd April next year). There are a few with non-smoking areas in pubs, but as these tend not to be separate rooms, the smoke still gets everywhere.
I thought that all Wetherspoons pubs where non smoking, not that I would recommend going to one of those…
 
Sure.

Let's just forget all about r&b, country, folk, the British Invasion in the mid 60's, Flower Power/Youth Rebellion, heavy rock, art rock, etc. And not a word about jazz.

Sure.

We were talking about the 90's

That "blip" as you referred to it changed EVERYTHING both in and related to, the music business in so many ways.

By the mid 80's there was a HUGE underground of bands, and subcultures related to those bands, in North America, Europe and Japan who were selling tons of album, and cultural merchandise, without any radio, and without direct involvement from large record companies. Yet these records showed up in stores all over the world. Their clothes and trinkets were being sold all over the world. Even whole networks of reciprocating club circuits were lucrative without any major's help.

Radio stations and record companies, who's real jobs are to sell listeners to advertisers realized they were missing a HUGE chunk of potential income. To a lot of people, even MTV was for the background at parties, and when you drove home you popped in a cassette of the bands you really liked, whether or not they were majors.

The whole entertainment industry, first in a little trickle, but then as a flood had decided this couldnt go on, they needed those listeners, those consumers. Its hard not to be cynical here, but they brought out what some considered undergound, and which seemed underground enough to be "legit" (this would be paralleled in RAP later in the mid 90's). The most famously probably being Nirvana. A whole theme was put out that independants were taking over the mainstream, that big money had gone away and radio was playing the underground, and it was enough to pull enough people in to truly shut off and kill all but the most die hard subcultures. Each subculture was given its own radio station in most markets. It divided people up, making advertising easier, but in a way brought them all together, into the light where the money could see them.

Advertising companies like Clear Channel started buying up venues and radio stations, with the eventual result that if you wanted to play ANYWHERE you had to follow their rules.

It occured to a lot of people, "why bother hoping to find entertainment that sells by scouting entertainers off the streets, why not *grow our own, from a pool we already have and control?"

And the Nickelodeon to MTV express was born. It was an easy bet to take an already familiar child actor, and as the kids who watch them were growing up, move the actors in as bands. This led to the now familiar requirement to be VERY young in order to "get signed" and the need for video more than songs, talent, or even fans from shows (no kidding here).

Of course the guys who had originally given all the market to the above board business couldnt be too happy about all this, as they were already "old". The alleged independant, alleged "screw the system" meme had grown and was believed full force. Except for a handpicked few, they wouldnt be getting giant chunks of record company money for recording and promotion so many had to get creative.

The Seattle and "alternative scenes " in general had to pretend that what they were doing was "organic", "not overproduced", "live", and other silly words that were mostly lies, but were what they were trying to sell. Recording technology had to catch up with the speed of album releases, and the general lack of money with such a huge explosion in the numbers of bands.

The Seattle "blip" got a LOT of very smart people, VERY involved into Digital Signal Processing, analog to digital conversion, and data storage.

The quality standards of recordings had to be DRASTICALLY lowered to make these recordings possible, while the bang for the buck of the equipment, and the overall quality of "hobby" equipment had to JUMP a giant technical gap...the two met somewhere in the middle.

This was the birth of the situation we have today, known as "good enough", as in "I guess thatll have to do". There needed to be a piece of technology to embody "good enough" and that was the Alesis ADAT. This was the first truly cheap digital multitrack recorder. While it was a horrible sounding, unreliable piece of total crap, it sounded WAY better than anything in its price range should, and created the "project studio" revolution along with some other names like Mackie. All of a sudden you had a HUGE number of "studios" and a gigantic glut of bands who had finished albums, ready to sell that were "good enough"

This created a backlash by other "indies" who wanted "real", "organic" "live" types of sound. Here was the beginnings of the Chicago "analog scene" (not so big back then, but really today the only survivor today and doing well), but in a far more noticeable fashion, the Tempe scene. Here was a "return to 2 inch analog" (as if the big studios had ever left the professional formats) but by new and up and coming producers and engineers. If you were trying to sell yourself as indy, and "real", Tempe was the place to be.

Both of these competing scenes led to a huge arms race in technology. A lot of the nifty features you see in your consumer products today. BBE on your car stereo, affordable home surround, 3d audio, ambience processing, and yes the miniaturization of analog to digital circuits and digital to analog circuits in your ipod.

Before these "blips" the quality of the devices we ooh and ahh over today would have been for the most part, unacceptable, but now we consider the sound of an mp3 "good" and thats how it happened.

Now in the 00's all this "indy" stuff has faded away, without any real resurgence in a lucrative underground (though certain styles are doing reasonably well, like a new type of "harmonic death metal" and a steadily growing hardcore punk market). Now we reap the child actors of kids shows as they become the bands of today. And of course you see the "promote from within" being carried on by the "reality TV" shows as well.

Those little "blips" created the entire situation for how entertainment is sold today. Look at the trend of symphony orchestras playing with "alternative bands" that hasnt happened in any real way since WAY back to Deep Purple, but noone is surprised when metallica goes on with some symphony now. A whole new world.

For better or for worse that little blip has had a huge effect on entertainment
 
I'll ask the same question again that I asked back at the beginning:
How many of their population are such addicted smokers that their absence will bankrupt a bar?
Wanna have a shot at an answer?

Here's a radical thought: Maybe a smoking ban had SFA to do with these bars in Tempe and Mesa being forced to close down. Maybe they just didn't give the patrons value-for-money, so they went elsewhere...with their money.
 
How prevalent are non-smoking bars in the US? Around where I live (in the UK), I don't know of any non-smoking pubs (although they'll all have to be from 2nd April next year). There are a few with non-smoking areas in pubs, but as these tend not to be separate rooms, the smoke still gets everywhere.

I ask this, as there seem to be a number of posts suggesting that people who don't like the smoky bars go to non-smoking establishments. I assume from this that these places are fairly common in the US?

It's interesting that you should ask that, Mashuna. I'm a Chicago native, and I can say that I don't remember there being any smoke-free bars. I always felt like, if there was so much public interest in banning smoking in bars, wouldn't someone open one up? Were bar owners just afraid to go against tradition? Or is there really as much demand for it as was assumed? Or are the people bitching the most about smoking in bars the ones least likely to frequent them?

I don't really know. I just always thought that, with the politicians patting themselves on the back about banning smoking and "listening to the people", it was odd that no one in the bar business had gone that route themselves. Now we have laws in some cities that forbid any business from making this decision on their own. That's what bothers me. It should be up to the business owner. The employers and customers can choose accordingly.

Just because there are no other options (i.e. non-smoking bars) doesn't make the government's intrusion justifiable.
 
I would say the timing was rather suspect then, and also some very strange timing for the ghetto phoenix bars to really start raking in the money

I dont think the failure of tempe due to the smoking ban would even be debated by anyone around here, including those who wanted the smoking ban

Remember, in this election a lot of the rhetoric was that this vote would "level the playing field" and "get our business back"

You have to realize that those who were already under bans, such as Prescott, whos food service/entertainment situation had become dire, tempe, mesa and scottsdale were all allowed to vote on these propositions

THAT I think was quite unfair
 
As a libertarian, I'm somewhat torn on the issue of smoking and smoking bans. I'm firmly opposed to any restriction of behaviour that doesn't harm anyone else non-consentually. It's not the government's business to take care of us like some overweening nanny, to "protect us from ourselves".

Sure it is. In a democracy, the government's job is whatever "the people" decide it is.

If you don't like it, vote differently.

I'm a little confused by this iea of "non-consentually" as libertarians seem to use it, though.

As you may know, I work for a university.

In the past several years, I've seen a number of policy changes implemented. We've eliminated terminal sabbaticals, adjusted teaching loads (upwards), adjusted patent royalties (downward), and shifted a lot of operatinal funding into some very ill-advised capital improvements that are seriously cutting into my ability to deliver coursework and to perform research.

None of those changes were in any meaningful sense "consentual"; I was handed a memo or a copy of a directive and had it explained that those were the new rules of operation. My only choice, as it were, were the classic two : take it, or leave it. And, of course, universities are not common; "leaving it" would probably involve finding a new school in a new city, selling my current house, uprooting the family, etc. Not a very practical option.

I also just got a letter from my bank, "adjusting" the ATM fee schedule and the fees on my credit card (upward.) Not much "consent" involved there -- I suppose I could change banks, but that's about my only option.

Oh, and my retirement planner is dropping two funds from its listing. Without bothering to ask me if I minded. I could move my money elsewhere, I suppose -- but again, that's not "consentual" in any significant way.

Basically, anyone with whom I want to deal seems to be under the impression that they can dictate terms to me, and my only choice is to "consent" and leave. But in business, that counts as "consentual." And I did know -- it says so, right in the contract -- that the business might decide to change the rules in midstream.

But how is that different from government policies?

You bought property in the town of Springfield. You opened a bar -- probably incorporated under state law, and almost certainly got a liquor licence from the Springfield authorities. You knew when you did this that you were going to be subject to state and local laws, which might change.

Now the city of Springfield wants you not to allow smoking in your place of business, and you think that it might change your business conditions for the worse. Well, no one asked me whether increasing my teaching load by 50% would change my business conditions for the worse. You're being offered exactly the same choice that I face on a nearly weekly basis. Either put up with the demands of authority, or shut down and leave. Just as I can sell my house and take a job elsewhere, so you can sell your bar and open a new one elsewhere.

Why is that option "consentual" when it's offered to me, but not when it's offered to you?

If anything, it's closer to consentual when it's offered to you. You at least have input into the goverment. You can vote, attend city council meetings, run for office. You may not always win what you vote for -- but that's part of the price that you knew you might have to pay when you moved into Springfield.
 

Back
Top Bottom