Letters

Part 2 It is important that the House of Blues thrives. It is the only venue that allows both under-21 and over-21 to see music events. HoB has a superior sound system, and it is a great opportunity for local bands to open for nationally touring artists. But the overwhelming consensus of bands I have spoken to, is that they do not share the same enthusiasm for this business model that the industry knows as "pay to play." When House of Blues employees speak of these nights, they make it clear that these nights have nothing to do HoB itself, that they just rent out the room. But at some point I think the venue may want to reverse this trend. Even if it held its outside promoters to a more reasonable ceiling like $200 or $300, is what I'm hearing from bands. Not all venues use pay to play. Maybe HoB feels it needs to. I would hope that it reigns in the upfront money these promoters are demanding. These are only my personal opinions only. Edited out of the article was what one local promoter/music venue owner who has used such promoters had to say...that due to particularly unsavory recent experiences, the owner was cutting back on such promoters. Interesting to note the attorney didn't want some kind of retraction on the "these promoters don't promote anything" phrase. That would seem to me to be pretty hard hitting description. I guess his client had no problem with that. I would truly hope the House of Blues itself attempts to mend this situation by giving Red Wizard and There For Affair a show at some future date. They are good kids and do not deserve this stress simply because they stood up for what was right. And I may also suggest that if Breakthru Entertainment wants to do all this business down here, that you tell us who you are, what you are all about, and maybe not tell a band they have to pay $1,000, then cut it back to $750, then settle on $500 because the father saw through it. Hey, and maybe make some posters and flyers. These are all my own thoughts.
— June 27, 2012 9:09 p.m.

Letters

Both bands interviewed indicated that they signed an agreement wherein they had to pay to Breakthru Entertainment either $500 or $750. Call it what you want but this is a contractual agreement wherein the promoter provides a 30 minute slot, and in exchange the band must sell and turn in money for those tickets they took out on the night of that show, whether it be $500, $750 or $1,000. When Red Wizard was pulled from the bill, they were allowed to exchange the $10 for the ticket with the friends they sold them to and turn those tickets back in. BUT, for the tickets they couldn't retrieve, they had to pay the promoter for those tickets. So they did pay something and they didn't get to play. It came out of their pocket. Regarding There For Affair: "The band did agree to pre sale 50 tickets at $10.00 per ticket in order to ensure there are sufficient patrons to purchase food and beverages to cover overhead costs." Again, that says they are on the hook to come up with $500 on the night they are to play. You may not like the name Pay to Play. But that is the industry term. "Extortion" was deemed to be the wrong word. How about you send the musician who said the word a threatening letter. That word was a quote. Yes I spoke with "Mo" a couple of times. He requested that instead of answering questions over the phone, I send him a list of questions. Although he would not give me his last name he did provide his email, {[email protected]} and I was happy to cooperate with him on those terms. On May 9, 2012 at 12:59 pm I sent him an email with the following text: These questions are for an article in the San Diego Reader about the arrival of pay to play in San Diego. -Mo, are you involved with Breakthru Entertainment? -What other venues have you worked with? -Why is pay for play a good business model for bands and for music lovers? -Why is it a good thing for venues? -Mo, what is your last name and what do you do for the House of Blues? Are you a an independent promoter? I asked him the last question because when I asked him on the phone if he was with Breakthru or House of Blues he said "Both." That is not true. He is not with House of Blues. Not only did he not answer these questions by email, he then told me over the phone he would have nothing to say for this interview. Seems like you left this fact out Mr. Holt. In your letter you said "Mo" told how it wasn't pay to play. Really? Where the email response. He told me everything would be handled via email. It is interesting the attorney would not reveal "Mo's" last name in his letter. I guess Mr. Holt's social skills are so superior that he deals with everyone on a first name basis. Back at ya David dude! I also contacted House of Blues and they had no comment. They could and should clear this up in my personal opinion.
— June 27, 2012 9:08 p.m.

Dark Cloud

Speaking only for myself, there are 2 big take-aways from this. 1/ Bar owners now 86 someone for what that person writes on their own private Facebook page. 2/ When you experience defective doorman behavior you should contact the bar owner directly first and get satisfaction before you take the issue public. Bullies should never be tolerated. But there are better ways to deal with a problem like this. And maybe this last one. If the bar owner feels the need to eject someone over what they wrote on their private Facebook page, they should maybe wait until the end of the night (i.e. not during a fundraiser where the person in question was contributing to the cause). It is interesting to note from all the above comments that Kelly did not exhibit any "unglued" behavior the night she was ejected. Her expulsion was Facebook driven. You heard "Use a gun, go to jail," it's now "Post a bitch, get 86'ed."
— June 4, 2012 9:59 p.m.

Dark Cloud

You are right. I was assuming. Every fundraiser I ever heard about or have been connected with collected money at the door which all went to the cause. Usually there is a representative of the benefactor doing the collecting. What is the point of doing a fundraiser when there is no request for money at the door? That was an assumption that should not have been made by me. The guy needed money, so lets do a fundraiser for him but were not collecting any funds. WTF? Sounds like Ruby Room got a good deal that night. They got a packed house and a nice bar. But no money from the door for the poor guy. I wonder if any money from the bar went to their "fundraiser." That is a question that should have been asked. If I had of known there was no cover, I would have asked Mr. Cute that question. I mean, what kind of fundraiser is this? I don't know that Kelly put any more or less time into the effort than the other fine artists who donated their talent and time.
— June 1, 2012 1:10 p.m.

Dark Cloud

Kelly contacted the Reader. That's why this article happened. Don't really understand all the drama. No one said anything negative about all the goodwill put out by the artists and the Ruby Room. The main point of this, in my view, is that a venue would kick someone out over what that person wrote on their own Facebook page. It also should be noted that no one seems to be defending the behavior of the bouncer. It seems like Kelly had a valid complaint. It could be argued that Kelly should have contacted the Ruby Room directly about the bouncer. It could also be argued that it was in really bad form that Kelly was asked to leave a fundraiser that she contributed to and worked for. What is this about being a "troublemaker." She got tossed out because of what she wrote about a defective bouncer on her Facebook page. Yet she still brought paying co-workers who paid to get in to support the cause. She donated her time and talent to the cause. Kelly didn't mind being asked to Ruby Room. She only thought it could have waited until after the fundraiser for her longtime friend.
— May 31, 2012 1:16 p.m.

Mom-and-Pop Radio

Mr. Hughes did know all that and he did in fact point that out in our interview. As happens in interviews, you don't use all the information/notes you take. There was a lot of stuff Hughes said that didn't get in the article. So what is your point? If this is a DJ at a competing station who is frustrated because you have to run those laughable Mexican PSA's, I feel your pain. I would be unhappy too if I knew I had to work somewhere that had these mandatory audience repellants that you must run four times an hour. Back in the day these commercials would promote Mexican tourism at Puerta Vallarta and Mazatlan. Now they are political ads for an election we can't vote in. Not very local is it? And how independent can you be when you have to air commercials the government tells you to run. If that is independent I'm Benito Mussolini.
— May 3, 2012 1:19 p.m.

Take a Hikey, Mikey

Bryan...we agree to disagree. 91X maybe should not have done what they did. But I also maintain that Mikey was out of line in his response. The fact is, there is a family (including an autistic child) involved and that should be everyone's primary concern. I still stand by everything I wrote. I will say some of the stuff Mikey did seemed hypocritical. But let's all know that Mikey has a huge following, he should one day reconnect with following, and that there are probably immediate concerns more important that what flunky bloggers have to say. Because I am one of those flunkies, I am signing off now. Talk amongst yourselves.
— March 18, 2012 9:25 p.m.

Take a Hikey, Mikey

Alright 28 hours. whatever. Sorry you are having trouble understanding. Let's try it again. One station went all talk for 28 hours. They other one was all music. Get it? Some people really love Mikey. Others not so much. Mikey fans liked this 28 straight hours of Mikey. For them it was heaven. For the everyone else, it was radio hell. Those Mikey fans (and there were many) are not going to abandon their radio hero because the music station happens to be playing more music during this time. I probably would not have done that if I was in charge at 91X. But nevertheless, they did. Anyway, the point is, how can someone be so good by staging this fundraiser, and then turn around and sound like Linda Blair on the Exorcist, projectile vomiting and all, because the other station stopped playing commercials. It wasn't good PR for 91X, but Mikey's response was way over the top. Mr. Capone does not beat up kids with autism, Mikey, and Capone told me he got no apology. I can not believe you would defend Mikey for making these personal slurs on the air. It is not OK. And as I said, Scott Kaplan got fired from XX 1090 for much less. But this is all academic, since Jackson said Esparza was not let go for anything he said on the air.
— March 18, 2012 5:48 p.m.

Take a Hikey, Mikey

Bryan - Yes I heard the rant. Someone sent me the audio files, Believe, they were passed around to a number of people. It was outrageous. First, 91X played music for 2 days with no commercials while 94/9 went all talk. Those are two separate things. Some people want talk, some people want music. You see this as a competition. I say apples and oranges. I don't think that by another station not playing commercials it will turn a Mikey fan into a non Mikey fan. He did have lots of followers. H also had lots of detractors. But it were his fans who would stay with him for 48 hours during the Mikeython. So you are saying that someone who decides to not play commercials should be shot? Wow dude, I hope you aren't psycho. Please don't shoot anybody. I am sure Mr. Esparza was truly trying to do a good thing with this fundraiser. It just seems so bizarre that someone who is trying to do such a good thing could turn around and be such a monster. Man he is one complex dude. And what do you mean that Capone is lucky that he didn't let the UT know about what Capone did. Dude, MIKEY'S RANT WENT OUT OVER THE AIR. Everyone knew about this.
— March 18, 2012 1:17 p.m.

Take a Hikey, Mikey

Webmaster: the blogger who logged in as dan_millican and used Dan's phone number is not Dan Millican who does exist. And that is his real number. Please remove those posts.
— March 16, 2012 3:30 p.m.