[matilda] C90 gig space etc

Benjamin Major complexitybenjamin at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 10 11:20:55 BST 2005

There was a small number of Matilda people at the C-90 event who worked 
tirelessly throughout the night and helped the night run smoothly. You know 
who you are- well done to you. The gig itself was really good (only saw the 
very beginning and very end of Ceephax's set- but the crowd really was 
buzzing at the end- I think it must have been a good show), the ex-bike shed 
and film room and been given a great 70's makeover by M, and the door seemed 
to work effectively (though as Gav suggests it is preferable if we can 
manage our own nights rather then get the bouncer in in future, though he 
did a perfectly good job as it stood).

Gav, I will assist in future in liasing with C-90 in future to make sure 
that we can keep having this kind of music present at Matilda. I shall also 
oppose any proposals to not have any more of their events here.

But one of the most memorable events had to be the fact that it took a 
search party of three Matilda people to find 2 light switches at the end of 
the night. That is how well we know our building! Yeah, that was a good 
night, all in all.

>From: <gavin at cyber-rights.net>
>To: <matilda at lists.aktivix.org>, <trollyd at burngreave.net>
>CC: info at c90.org
>Subject: Re: [matilda] C90 gig space etc
>Date: Sun,  9 Oct 2005 15:02:16 -0700
>*(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
>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
> >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.
>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
>matilda mailing list
>matilda at lists.aktivix.org

More information about the matilda mailing list