TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- exclusiveness
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

exclusiveness

*start rant*

Why is it djs are signed to exclusive contracts with promoters?

For example: armin is signed with future, just say company B want to bring him out but they cant. So if future decide armin doesnt come down for another 2 yrs then thats the way its going to be. Surely the clubbers are missing out here

promoters pay more money for exclusivity, hence make more money in the long run as other people arent booking said dj

Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by narcism *start rant* Why is it djs are signed to exclusive contracts with promoters? For example: armin is signed with future, just say company B want to bring him out but they cant. So if future decide armin doesnt come down for another 2 yrs then thats the way its going to be. Surely the clubbers are missing out here

Keep in mind Jolz, often a promoter takes a pretty big risk bringing out an act with little guarantee of success, espescially with up and coming artists.

If the promoter sees a lot of potential in an act they might be prepared to wear a loss on the first gig just to get them established with the Australian market but they then need that exclusivity to recoup the loss through future gigs.

Think about it this way - you bring out a dj for his first time and not enough came to the gig because it's his first time so you lose a lot of cash. Thing is, the dj kills it and people talk for a couple of weeks about how good he was.

Next thing you know a different promoter re-books him 6 months later based on the hype from his last gig and packs out he venue making heaps of cash.. you'd be a bit cheesed.

Thats a pretty simplified example but i hope you can see what i mean?

well said scotty... pretty much spot on!

were you thinking of garage bbq party with armin jolz?

Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by batemanscott Think about it this way - you bring out a dj for his first time and not enough came to the gig because it's his first time so you lose a lot of cash. Thing is, the dj kills it and people talk for a couple of weeks about how good he was. Next thing you know a different promoter re-books him 6 months later based on the hype from his last gig and packs out he venue making heaps of cash.. you'd be a bit cheesed. Thats a pretty simplified example but i hope you can see what i mean?

i understand this just think its wrong especially with all the up and coming parties for next year

quote:

Originally posted by walter78 were you thinking of garage bbq party with armin jolz?

yea and you're not invited

Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by narcism yea and you're not invited

heh. i'll get that $20 i owe u to u soon.

DJBASSMONGER will be exclusive with you if you're lonely jolz <3

Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by batemanscott Keep in mind Jolz, often a promoter takes a pretty big risk bringing out an act with little guarantee of success, espescially with up and coming artists. If the promoter sees a lot of potential in an act they might be prepared to wear a loss on the first gig just to get them established with the Australian market but they then need that exclusivity to recoup the loss through future gigs. Think about it this way - you bring out a dj for his first time and not enough came to the gig because it's his first time so you lose a lot of cash. Thing is, the dj kills it and people talk for a couple of weeks about how good he was. Next thing you know a different promoter re-books him 6 months later based on the hype from his last gig and packs out he venue making heaps of cash.. you'd be a bit cheesed. Thats a pretty simplified example but i hope you can see what i mean?

that all makes perfect sense, but as a big fan of the free market i still think its bollocks.

Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that all makes perfect sense, but as a big fan of the free market i still think its bollocks.

+1 especially if they dont tour that dj again

Yeah i can see why you feel that way but consider this - if promoters cant get some level of confidence in turning a profit through a couple of gigs then the artist may not get to come out at all

Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that all makes perfect sense, but as a big fan of the free market i still think its bollocks.

I have to get behind pkc on this. It all makes commercial sense of course but hey - fuck your commercial reality! (dont take this personal)
Music and the Arts are supposed to be free from the sentiment of orchestrated gain or the corruption is infesting the very nature of it. It is an all GIVE situation and if you get something back besides equalisation for your own expenses then it should be respect and experience and not $$$! Live Yes - Profit NO!

Its a business and i'd do the same thing.

They have monopolised most of the big guys and have become rich by doing so. In terms of only bringing them out once every 3 years, why would they do that when artists under exclusive contracts bring in the most money and are proven crowd pullers. It contradicts their business model.

Agencies such as Future want to hold great parties, but MJ and his crew have terrific business minds behind them.

The last thing they want to do is piss off their demographic and not allow a Dj to come to Australia.

Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by narcism *start rant* Why is it djs are signed to exclusive contracts with promoters?

Because they have no business acumen

Re: Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by TRANSPHERE I have to get behind pkc on this. It all makes commercial sense of course but hey - fuck your commercial reality! (dont take this personal) Music and the Arts are supposed to be free from the sentiment of orchestrated gain or the corruption is infesting the very nature of it. It is an all GIVE situation and if you get something back besides equalisation for your own expenses then it should be respect and experience and not $$$! Live Yes - Profit NO!

I agree however in many instances you don't break even and that's where this whole thing with exclusivity and 'corporate greed' (which in real life means common sense and sustainability) comes about.

Well, here's a practical example of what one could do...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...4&forumid=49&s=


Put it back into the people instead of into your own pocket and enjoy it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by TRANSPHERE I have to get behind pkc on this. It all makes commercial sense of course but hey - fuck your commercial reality! (dont take this personal) Music and the Arts are supposed to be free from the sentiment of orchestrated gain or the corruption is infesting the very nature of it. It is an all GIVE situation and if you get something back besides equalisation for your own expenses then it should be respect and experience and not $$$! Live Yes - Profit NO!

Do you earn a wage? Or do you work free?


This is their job, why shouldn't they profit like everyone else?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exclusiveness

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter Do you earn a wage? Or do you work free? This is their job, why shouldn't they profit like everyone else?

Easy Nutter, nobody is allowed to profit or make a living from anything or else they are greedy capitalist pigs.

I know some will argue that these people often spend years working on their music and often spend quite a lot of money on their gear to be able to do so but none of that matters... you should not be allowed to cover your costs for making dance music, playing dance music or running a dance music event - ever.

I think this thread is starting to loose its intellectual momentum!
Profit = Surplus
Covering your expenses = Making a living
Work for free? No such thing has been expected from anyone anywhere in this thread. However, if one can afford it and find the time to do voluntary work then why not?

If you go out and spend some of your hard earned resources to purchase materials and equipement which then ultimately assists you to bring asthetic values like music to the people and you are receiving monetary funds in return then it is only logical to consider these funds as compensation for the time and money you did spent to get into such situation in the first place. But all this is not known as 'making profit'.

The simple idea of making a profit has very profound consequences to a hell of a lot of people all over the world - think about that for a minute! The inspiration comes not from the individual within but from the example and the present models by the commercial establisment of how to do business and hence how to be successful.

Exactly there is where the misconception starts and it will take us a long time to reverse this into a more human system - the damage already done is literally irreversible.

That is why it seems to be insane to aim for profit even though it looks from the outside as if it is the most logical thing to do...

We are talking about the distinct perception of the individual in contrast to the deception of the masses by swarm instinct...

Lesson over - please forward your fees to my account asap so I can buy me finally that shit hot M3 coupe i've been saving up for since months now

you're such a hypocrite.

If your boss offered you a payrise will you turn it down "no thanks, I'm covering my costs at the moment, no need for more money".

If you get offered 2 jobs, exact same conditions, work, etc which one will you take? The higher paying one.

Are you honestly saying people shouldn't profit $1 from their job? Every year they should draw exactly equal costs/earnings?

Just like everyone else in the world, dj's, artists, musicians, doctors, nurses, teachers, garbagemen are allowed to maximise their earnings to a level which is viable for employer/employee.

To say anythign else is just being ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter you're such a hypocrite. If your boss offered you a payrise will you turn it down "no thanks, I'm covering my costs at the moment, no need for more money". If you get offered 2 jobs, exact same conditions, work, etc which one will you take? The higher paying one. Are you honestly saying people shouldn't profit $1 from their job? Every year they should draw exactly equal costs/earnings? Just like everyone else in the world, dj's, artists, musicians, doctors, nurses, teachers, garbagemen are allowed to maximise their earnings to a level which is viable for employer/employee. To say anythign else is just being ridiculous.

I think he's saying that people shouldn't use music as a career full stop - it should only be done for fun.

I disagree with that up to a point.

If you can make lots of money doing something you love, whether it's DJing or production, then great, go ahead, but on the other hand, sell-outs suck.

wow - what a load of crap.

There is a tremendous difference between greed/monopolisation and making a 'profit' in what you do and you need to be clear on that.

As an indiviual i am motivated by personal profit because it means I am able to see/do/own more of the things i want and means i am in a better position to give to those i believe deserve some of what i have earned.

Your comments are insulting because they suggest i should not be allowed to want anything other than a virtual pat on the back for my extra work and what i have sacrificed compared to those around me that do not work hard or give up anything - gosh that seems fair to me!

If you are in an environment where you (the consumer) are forced to use a particular product/service/company and it is the only one of it's kind then what you are saying is of relevance because it becomes a public service yet this is so rare that i struggle to think of anything in this category in Australia except certain new medicines (but even then they only have a patent for a couple of years before anyone can make it despite what the original company spent to develop it.)

If you are not forced to pay for something then you 'choose' to pay for it and this is where you as a consumer can assess whether or not what you are being asked to pay provides a level of value you are satisfied with; if it does not then you simply don't buy it, if many think the same way you do then the business performs poorly and they either make changes or cease to exist.

Greed and monopolisation are disgusting, you'll get no argument from me there but simply making profit is not in itself either of those things nor is it any cause of any of the problems in the world; what people want a profit for is.

Trance nutter makes a really good point - you don't simply ask your boss for rent and food money each week to get by, you ask him/her for money to eat out, go out, buy luxuries items, have money to see dj's, travel etc etc. Each and every week you collect a salary these items are part of your wages 'surplus' and are not simply 'making a living' which you say is the only acceptable outcome.

If all you ask is your expenses covered and you devote your time to the betterment of man kind or feeding the starving of the world then i am wrong and genuinely believe we as a society should cover your costs to do so but i am pretty sure this is not the case.

If certain promoters lose money on an act they dont ask you the clubber to pay them for their losses - they wear the loss because the idea of an exclusive contract is that they can do so because they believe they can recoup their losses through the next event, there really is nothing immoral or sinister to it because it's just common sense.

Greed's great, don't knock it until you try it!

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Greed's great, don't knock it until you try it!

hehe

look what you started jolz!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.