[matilda] C90 gig space etc

[gavin at cyber-rights.net]

*(CC'd to c90 for their information)*


Okay, I was the matilda liason person involved in putting this gig 
on. First I'd like to respond to Trolly'd post, and then secondly, 
as I'm not going to make Monday's meeting, I have a couple of 
points about the discussion "should we have any more c90 events" 
proposed for that meeting.

Okay, so Trolly'd first:

There are some misconceptions here, perhaps owing to the simple 
fact that there weren't guitars involved in c90's event.

C90 DON'T DO PARTIES. Saturday was not a party, even though it was 
pretty busy. They are a gig collective. They put on ARTISTS who 
play GIGS comprised of sets of their own music, they don't just DJ 
themselves - this is done to fill in the gaps between artists 
(though they have come down and spun some records for free at the 
no borders benefit, and I've asked them to do so again for the no 
m11 expansion benefit).

They don't take any money for themselves and only try to cover the 
artists' gaurantee and the cost of the fliers. The artists on 
Saturday were CEEPHAX ACID CREW and VEX'D. This works just like the 
DIY punk and indie promoters we're also dealing with for gigs in 
the basement, only there aren't any guitars used, just laptops and 
drum machines.


>if people 
>charge its a
>finacial transaction...you've bought it...its owned by someone 
>who's traded it
>for money to u...it's CAPITALISM stoopid 

The gigs that will happen at MATILDA won't be free. DIY culture 
isn't necessarily free culture. It's not-for-profit culture. This 
might take the form of a free gig, or it might take the form of a 
gig that's not free, but is not turning a profit. For example, 
where the entry fee, just like at a DIY punk gig, is simply to 
cover costs. This is a different way of organising an oppositional 
culture to that described above by Trolly'd. Saying anything except 
free events are just "CAPTIALISM" and that to suggest otherwise is 
"stoopid" is a bit excessively black and white (not to mention 
rude, elitist and dogmatic), and actually excludes most of the 
oppositional culture we're all enthusiastic about, where you pay 
entry to cover the event's costs.

>we are very concerned about some of the bollox justifcations on 
>the list for
>these kind of events like:

Again, it's perhaps better to try and be civil on an email list, as 
well as in person. You're nice folks, let's not start just being 
rude and making fairly content-less sweeping statements, huh? If 
you're so keen on mutual aid, let's try starting with mutual 
respect.

Okay, so now the proposal "no more c90 events at matilda":

Like I said, I was the liason person from matilda helping with c90. 
There seems to have been a lot of talk about this, especially as 
it's reached the stage of a meeting proposal, but no one has 
discussed it with me personally to my face. I am disappointed about 
this.

>From my point of view, there were some problems with Saturday's 
gig. I think we could learn from these, though. The fault lies, 
centrally, with Matilda's organisation, not just with c90's. As 
I've said above, they're non-profit gig promoters just like the 
many others who have already appoached the gig collective and are 
already on the books to do shows with us.

These were what I thought were the problems, along with some 
constructive solutions that might be more useful to us than simply 
banning one promoter:

Okay, so one of the problems was that they were selling tickets in 
advance. We told them this would compromise our space, and that we 
weren't down with using ticket agents to promote our events (it's 
not DIY enough, it was suggested), so the tickets didn't go out. 
Fine. We should make these points clear beforehand in future.

Another problem was the door price. This was our fault. The door 
pricing was run just as I did it myself for the lost film fest. The 
price was even the same, and I was there on the door a lot of the 
time, too. No one complained then. However, after having agreed the 
event, some members of the collective decided we should demand that 
they change their pricing system to be donation only. This was 
unfair, and in fact broke some of matilda's stated principles on 
the wiki. We basically fucked them about. If you guys want ALL gigs 
at Matilda to have a set pricing policy that promoters must use, we 
need to agree it first, WITH the active involvement of the gig 
collective, and then apply it to any new booked events. Not just 
start messing around with people who've already started printing 
their flyers in a way that is a) unfair and b) inconsistent when 
you look at how we've put on events in the past. The way this was 
dealt with was decidedly undemocratic and non-consensual. It is us 
that failed to operate as a collective here, not c90 as promoters.

The other problem was security. Now I'm a bit pissed off about 
this, to be honest. I've felt with the door pricing issue that lots 
of people are asserting and arguing how to do things, without 
actually getting practically involved in improving the situation. 
As a result, I felt very dictated to by the collective as the 
matilda liason, rather than being constructively helped to develop 
a better way to do things. It was a very negative experience. Now I 
know that's a vague statement. It's not intended as an accusation 
at anyone, but intended to describe how I felt. Hopefully this'll 
be clearer as I describe how the security situation worked out on 
the night:

Only I and 0742 were in the building to help c90 set up. I expected 
4 other folks to arrive to do the bar at 9, which they did. 
However, until about at least 10.30 or 11pm, there were only the 
six of us matilda people in the building, and about 200 other 
folks. It was a bit overwhelming for me. Those four matilda folks 
had the bar held down (thank you!!), and I was caught between doing 
the door with c90 folks and running to get things or sort things 
out. At a previous event, c90 had been beaten up and had their 
moneybox stolen, so they had asked about our security. But all 
there was on the night was me and 0742. We've stated previously 
that we'd like to manage the security of our own building, but this 
was going to be tricky without some more people from matilda 
arriving and getting involved. Luckily, c90 had previously informed 
me that they had a big friend coming down to help them with 
security. This, according to our statements of the wiki, is fine 
with us as a way to do things. What I didn't know, perhaps through 
miscommunication, was that - feeling a bit personally vulnerable 
after being attacked at their last event - they had hired a 
professional bouncer. This obviously wasn't DIY. Someone else was 
now being paid, for profit, to facilitate part of our event. 
However, being on my own, and conscious about the security of the 
space, I decided not to turn him away. He was a nice guy, and I 
explained about the space and what to do in particular 
circumstances, and he was cool with it and went beyond what he was 
paid for in helping out to keep things running smoothly. He hung 
out at the door, and when we reached what c90, I and the bar folks 
decided was capacity (I ran round the building finding who I could 
to do a quick consensus decision), he managed a one in one out 
situation on the gate. So what we had here wasn't a problem with 
the bouncer as a person, or with his conduct, but an 'ideological' 
issue of managing out own space.

There still weren't any more matilda folks to help out at this 
point. Later on in the evening, though, about another eight or so 
folks from matilda arrived. I don't think anyone got too involved 
with the event, though I'm sure they kept an eye out and did a bit 
of cleaning up and so on, as we all do at these things. Certainly 
they were all inside and didn't feel they needed to be on the door 
or helping with/taking over responsibility for security at the 
front gate. 

However, I do feel we should be able to manage our own security. To 
do this, we need more people to attend and facilitate an event. If 
we made it a requirement of putting on an event that we have more 
than one matilda liason, or at least some backup who will 
definitely attend to help do the door, this would be possible. I 
propose that we alter our 'guide to putting on an event' to this 
end. Then if this happens again, I could have sent the bouncer 
home. I think this is best treated as a learning experience. As it 
was, I was grateful he was there.

I know this has been a long post. Thanks for bearing with me. In 
conclusion, I'd like to propose that this 'to c90 or not c90' 
discussion happen not at Monday's meeting, but the week after 
(there's no c90 event planned in between, it's not urgent), when I 
can be there. As I was the liason person who has had contact with 
c90 and represented matilda to them, it would be more consensual, 
and more informed, as a discussion if I was there. No one has 
spoken to me about these issues face to face, so I'd welcome the 
opportunity for people to do so, and would feel a bit more included 
and respected as a member of the collective if we did this.

love,

Gavin
x



On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 04:24:48 -0700 trollyd at burngreave.net wrote:
>hi all
>
>sorry to come late on the discussions about this we've been away 
>and 
>the traffic on the list means we missed the actual time when 
>people were talkin
>about it...
>
>from trollyd/tra point of view
>
>you all know that we have been part of the sheffield party/protest 

>scene for
>quite a while now...we have always operated on simple 
>principles...we generate
>free power=free music for U...we see parties as small glimses of a 

>self
>organised heaven...they are political acts...we always have 
>politcal stuff at
>our freeparties...you may have noticed us wearing masks which is 
>our way of
>saying that we are opposed to the 'superstar DJ' culture...we 
>never charge for
>stuff...except benefits... 
>
>we dont expect all soundsystems/bands to run this way but clearly 
>people make
>choices about the way they opperate
>
>we have been involved with matilda and we done that cos we like 
>the emerging
>diy/anti corporate ethic which bring us to the discussion about 
>the C90
>event...we have no personal issues with these guys they do their 
>own shit and
>thats cool... but is it the same as 'our(matilda) shit?...the same 

>issue came
>up at the post G8 gig with Riddimtion who as far as we remember 
>weren't really
>involved with the G8 actons
>
>now guys... these people may be cool and good at their shit but is 

>this the
>only
>criteria for people doing stuff at matilda?
>
>as far as charging and numbers of a £1000 being banded about... 
>its all
>bullshit...we are very clear we DON'T charge right... if people 
>charge its a
>finacial transaction...you've bought it...its owned by someone 
>who's traded it
>for money to u...it's CAPITALISM stoopid 
>
>so on certain nights matilda stops being a massive alternative 
>doodah and
>becomes an 'underground' leadmill where only people with money can 

>be cool
>
>we are very concerned about some of the bollox justifcations on 
>the list for
>these kind of events like:
>
>..'that for so long was the only so called real music here in 
>sheffield'
>thanx ww3 for the vote of confidence
>
>we are too old and wise to waste time on building the careers of 
>local 'stars'
>we're in this for the duration not for the £cash$
>
>so what next...more 'cool' paid nights inviting scrutiny from plod 

>and not so
>happy local club owners... or taking ourself outside of their 
>market place and
>relcaiming enjoyment for US
>
>stuff and stuff
>muke and munki trollyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>matilda mailing list
>matilda at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda



Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net