internationalbs

The last couple of posts indicating that earlier shows DO work is what I was suggesting. I am not saying late night shows should not be allowed, or that there is NO market for them. All I am saying is that this regulatory imposition and potential crisis should prompt some venues to rethink the norm and consider whether there is an alternative.

As for the claim I must only go to arena shows, I can't remember the last one of those I went to (I've never seen the appeal of sitting/standing amongst thousands watching some rockstar go through some pantomine). I have indeed been the Old Bar and find it one of the more fun ''newer'' venues, reminiscent of the shows that the Public Bar in Nth Melb used to deliver.

The support band aspect is cetainly a weakness in my argument. Interestingly in London and NYC I've seen middle-of-the-bill headliners work well... i.e. those who do want to hang aorund can do so... a little like Pony has done in the past....

Theya re back again in for 2010 Brunswick Festival too (along with port Fairy and loads of other events). A live show well worth catching... you realise the guy is actually an Aussie (well born here... and was in some British NME band in the late 80s!)?

He is my rock God of choice at the moment...

dnzr, you don't read very well if you think i have anything to with marketing as a ''discipline''.

It astounds me how quickly you lot are willing to dismiss what is far from a supportive view for the regulators. I am NOT saying it is a good legislation or that the regulators are doing a smart thing. What I AM saying is that some venues should (and perhaps already are) see this as a chance to revisit a tradition (i.e. unnecessarily late shows) that may not actually be what ALL potential customers are after.

There is money to be made (and joy to be provided) in thinking outside the narrow (e.g. ''must be late at night'') box. The folks who launched ''Day on a Green'' were smart enough to go ''maybe folks would like to see acts who might otherwise play on bars/standup gigs in a more cosy/daytime environment'' and it worked. That doesn't mean night-time gigs then have to die. I'm just saying adversity can be a trigger for diversity.

But, feel to continue your ''the sky is falling'', ''we're going to hell in a handbasket'' kneejerk reactions (which is not that far removed from the hysteria about supposed increases in violence that has triggered this crackdown in the first place). Are you really that far removed from the talk-show callers and Herald Sun readers who jump at every news story as indicative of a world in crisis?

So, from what many of you are saying, is that you're not actually that fussed about seeing bands if they don't fit into you narrow 11pm-1am window of availability, and that the Tote was less about music and more about hanging out musos and looking cool...

No wonder they went broke then - they were trying to cater to a tiny, painful market.

Thankfully there still an Inpress full of other venues catering to genuine music fans and who think a little bit further outside this tiny box of yours...

But MissOz03, your concern about the lights coming on at 12.58am is surely only reflective of the fact that the headline act hit the stage at 11.30pm?

What I am suggesting is that a few venues might wanna think about innovating and having the headliners on earlier. Anyone whose lived in the UK usually has pretty fond memories of 8.30 and 9pm headliners followed by a good hour or so of drinking before closing (or kicking on to a late night club in places like Brighton, Manchester...

Where did this whole having stay up to the wee smalls to see acts come from anyway? Aren't we possibly just indulging musos who have the luxury of sleeping into 'til lunchtime?

I am saying that venues can either see this as the deathknell of what they do (which is what the Tote and Arthouse have done), or they can see it as something you adapt to. Sure, kicking back against the 'man' and all his 'rules' is very rock'n'roll, but the business reality is that institutional impositions and regulations can be sources of new ways of operating...

Someone asked me a good question in an email today... if staying up past 1am is such a big thrill and punters want it so much, why don't the venues just charge more for drinks after 1am so as to cover the newly imposed costs?

dnzr,

You are deluded if you think academics make any money out of blogging. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, I have been attending pub gigs in Melbourne for 20+ years and am well aware of the poor economics of hosting small bands. I have been reading this site on and off for a fair while, but hadn't felt like commenting til now (sorry if that offends you in some way, I'll make sure blabber about everything from now on).

I don't agree with the regulations being imposed, but I think there are elements worth screaming about (or more sensibly lobbying hard about) and others that are less so. The need for 3am licenses is not one of them. The security/bouncer requirements should be the focus of attention. I also suspect that element is easier for the police to take a ''don't ask, don't tell'' stance on than the opening hours aspect... but I'm happy to stand corrected.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the publicans here, and do think the regulators have gone overboard (especially with regard to bouncer requirements(, but the continued pursuit of 3am closing is pretty unnecessary.

Why not just adapt and have bands start earlier? Surely 9pm headliners works for most people (and in fact might attract bigger crowds among those of us who work and the crazy breeders).

I've blogged about this: Why Melbourne live music venues should embrace change