From: "Phonopsia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "laura gavoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <313@hyperreal.org>
Subject: Re: [313]true conspiracy
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 19:42:21 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "laura gavoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [313]true conspiracy
> No one I think would contend that fact. No big corporations = no
cool-ass
> festivals and no one want s that. However, the people controlling the
> monies - the city of Detroit, Pop Culture Media/Carole Marvin and Ritual
> Prods/Amir Daiza are benefitting the VERY most from a P.R. perspective
as
> well as the multiple million(s) that I'm quite sure are stuffing the
city
> coffers to sponsor this event.
Yeah - that's defintely true. My point wasn't so much to applaud these
people unequivocally as to point out that at the moment, the sponsorship
doesn't seem to be running completely astray from the original intent.
> Moreover, for each and every sponsor, I can guarantee that Ms. Marvin is
> being broken off a %. Perhaps say, 10% of 1million over and above a
salary
> or contract that the city is paying her. The DEMF merchandise, DEMF
> documentary, etc. blahsay, blah is all going into Pop Culture's and the
> city's pockets.
Yes, and this would be true of whoever's organizing the festival, right?
I'm
pretty sure that's what you're saying below.
> In exchange, we get to receive chump change as performance fees, even
though
> we are the reason the money is coming in in the first place, and some
> additional notoriety. However, Ms. Marvin is now considered the
resident
> expert on our market and will be getting thtelion's share of any and
every
> thing that comes as a result of our efforts.
>
> Luck o' the draw, to be certain...but nonetheless without the talent
none
of
> this conversation would matter. Fact remains, being the resident expert
> means FAT LOOT which can and I'm sure will be diverted away from those
more
> deserving...myself included (ahem) as well as scores of other
> electronic/maniac biz peeps/artists.
Right. Her primary skill is that she, the city and Carl Craig actually made
it happen, right? I can see the analogy here to the music industry in
general, where a major label gets most of the money because they control
the
media and have a stranglehold on the distribution networks. It's a pretty
similar situation, but in this case the underground artists are the core of
the effort, rather than major labels engineering talent to appease. So if
the money paid back to the artists has not gone up as more sponsorship
money
comes in, I can see why that would be a source for concern.
> Please stand firm on this premise. Control is what is being sought
after
> and long-term it will affect our income(s) if not seriously REGULATED by
the
> dance community.
>
> I most definetly will not miss a wonderful weekend, but the local press
> ALREADY knows whassup and its time for the community--ESPECIALLY the
artists
> to give credit where credit is due--each and every time a microphone is
> shoved in there face or yet another journalist is weighing their every
word.
If I'm reading right, I'm hearing that you think the event should be
controlled by those that have been in the scene the longest, and who have
the strongest involvement with talent, have for a long time and work at it
every day. I think this is a great idea, but at the same time, who was it
that actually made the first event happen from a promotional perspective?
I'm actually asking - because what I've read tells me it was Carol Marvin's
efforts - and if that's not true, I want to be set straight.
> Understand that the machine ONLY knows Ms. Marvin as The Woman / The
Impetus
> behind this powerful movement and festival. How much do y'all think
she'll
> be garnering off of our efforts over the next coupla years??????????????
I can see how this is troubling, but in any event of any scale, it's
usually
the promoter who gets paid. The promoter determines what degree of risk is
acceptable, and size the event accordingly. They then accept the profits or
loss that come from the success/failure of that event. At a certain level,
I
fail to see how this is any different, if the FREEP story from last year is
relatively accurate about her funding most of the festival out of her own
pocket. She took the risks involved with throwing a festival of that size,
and now she's reaping the benefits. I assume there's no argument that she
should get *some* additional reimbursement based on the success of the
first
DEMF, it's just a matter of the degree to which she's opening it up to the
corporate world?
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but just because I want to make sure I
fully understand everything from someone who's as involved with it as you
are. I don't fully understand the innacuracies in what I'm getting through
the FREEP. You obviously have a lot more exposure to all of this than I do.
Ready to learn.
Tristan
----------
http://ampcast.com/phonopsia <- Music
http://phonopsia.tripod.com <- Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue & info
http://www.metatrackstudios.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <- email
<FrogboyMCI> <- AOL Instant Messenger
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
