Re: NEA (was sxsw criticisms)
. But when all is said and done, it's the music that matters. And that is not the message these mega-festivals send to the bands. The bands are sent a very different message. I thought that NEA came off pretty well, which totally shocked the hell out of me. Up until the event started, I was complaining loudly how unorganized it was. I couldn't get anyone on the phone. It was nearly impossible to find out essential information like show, load-in, and sound check times. I recently read an interview with the director of NEA. It appears that he only took over the event in September. The previous director and event coordinator quit over the summer. Now, I've planned big events. Five months is not nearly enough time to prepare for something like NEA. I can't believe he even pulled it off. The event went very smoothly. Bands started on time. Sound checks and the like seemed to go smoothly. Great networking opportunities. All the bands that I spoke to said that they had very positive experience. Sponsor presence was subdued. NEA really seemed to be about the bands and the music. marie np: Hadacol
Re: NEA (was sxsw criticisms)
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, marie arsenault wrote: all the bands I spoke to said that they had very positive experiences. Sponsor presence was subdued. NEA really seemed to be about the bands and the music. I have to agree. NEA was a good experience. As Marie mentioned, the sound/mix people were professional, the sets started and finished on time, the shows (that I know of and played) were very well attended, and there was not a lingering corporate cloud. It was fun. I didn't schmooze much, and the night I played I hadn't heard of anyone but maybe Josh Rouse and possibly one other act, but none-the-less the quality of the music seemed good, and from a music watching and playing standpoint I thought it was pulled off rather well. oh well . . . -jim
