hils jago wrote:
Simply speaking once you are a quite good new act - and you will know when you are because bookers of new act/open spot gigs will be ringing you and not the other way round - then they will increasingly be sufficiently keen to have you (as you will be raising the overall quality of their gig which helps to build audiences which is nice for the other acts and helps the booker cover his/her costs) that they will often agree to not name you in listings if that is the condition you place on accepting the booking. That way you get the stage time but will lose the label of new act. Simple really.
I've had several people offer me such a deal and after a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that anybody who MCs anyone else and is happy to not be listed and therefore not have their labour publically acknowledged must be fucking retarded.
I dont want to MC anybody who doesn't want to be seen with me. They can take their smug relational aggression and huge ego somewhere else no matter how funny they are.
Why should I be on and off stage all night let alone doing the admin for someone who doesn't want to be seen with me? They've clearly go me marked down as social scum.
Whatever social advantage they think they are gaining by not being seen with me there must logically be an inverse social disadvantage to me by not being seen with them. Otherwise they wouldn't want this advantage? The more I think about it the more of a putrid scam it sounds.
Added to which without names to sell the club on it would quickly fall off the listings and lose money. It used to be Time Out listed everybody but those days are gone due to a plethora of underfunded nights. A paid act's name on the bill is in my view a form of transaction receipt to show to listing organisations that they should list us because we're making some kind of financial investment.
If people dont want to be paid or just want to drop down short notice it's not such a problem but the idea that some people have that they can be continually booked in, get a financial cut of the profits and not be listed is just bonkers.
It isn't as if they are TV names either. And even if they are shouldn't they have something better to do? So unlisted and unpaid once in a blue moon maybe. But unlisted and paid? I can understand people not wanting to be seen doing the gig but frankly that's not my problem, is it? It's theirs. Why should other people's problems become mine for free
.... how is that a good deal?
And what kind of act is it that needs to manipulate their public image in this way anyway? If you need to employ this level of sinister market manipulation then you're probably not that funny... I think. Either that or they're so paranoid they need to seek urgent medical attention.
Still "ideas travel upwards, manners downwards". (c) Bulwer-Lytton
I have an unsatisfactory penis but it is the least of my problems.