...wherein we listen to what Lawrence's movers and shakers are moving and shaking. to.
- Gang of Four, "Entertainment!"
- A Certain Ratio , "Early"
- Moving Units, "Moving Units"
- The Rapture, "Echoes"
- Led Zeppelin, "Houses of the Holy"
Top email to lawrence.com
To: email@example.com Subject: Article of Promoters Date: November 20, 2003 11:11 AM
Richard Gintowt's recent article on promoters lacked substance when it had the potential to explore real issues. After reading both the print and "un-cut" on-line version, I was still left questions. Most importantly, whey did Richard Gintowt write the article? Does Gintowt still work for Brett Mosiman/Pipeline Productions as a local booker? Isn't this a conflict of interest? It seems that it is judging by Gintowt's profile of Brett Misoman. Mosiman may have done many things for the Lawrence music scene (aided immensley for years by Jacki Becker) but Mosiman's comments made me wince and Gintowt's choice not to question them was worse. Mosiman's self-assessment that "the one thing he does better than anyone else" was to "treat people fairly" should have been questioned. Any local musician willing to speak up will tell you the Bottleneck has not treated local bands fairly- its reputation is well known. Even if a show is sold out, local bands opening rarely get paid more than $50. When Terry Taylor said he "really wants to get back in with the local bands" I believe he is speaking of trying to repair the reputation Mosiman earned over the years. In addition, almost all of Mosiman's comments about the corporate "big bullies" are things that other promoters have said about him for years.
Gintowt acknowleged that he did not speak with all promoters, but surely the Repay Lounge where bands are almost always paid well and patrons never pay more than $2 or $3 to get in merits more than one sentence. Did Gintowt attempt to speak with Jeff Fortier, long-time local booker who now works for Clear Channel? It would have been interesting to have his viewpoint, or to know if he chose not to comment. The article had the potential to address reas issues and Gintowt let it go.
Finally, the Checkers article had a nice layout in print- surely the cover article desrves the same attention if not more.
Your faithful reader,
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Article of Promoters Date: November 24, 2003 1:11 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful email on this story. We'll be the first to admit that the story was not our best. With more print space and time, the scope and depth of most every article could be improved.
Still, we feel the story was worth printing, and informative for many readers (we did get quite a bit of positive response to it). Without delving into certain issues between various promoters- and running the risk of getting personal and gossipy, muckraker-style- we think the article did shed light on the challenges of being a promoter in Lawrence, at least for those readers that enjoy the music in town, but know little or nothing about who makes it possible.
It is regrettable that more of the promoters in town were not given a voice in the story, but hopefully we can give them the coverage they deserve in future articles. So you know, we did make numerous calls to several other promoters in town (including Fortier) who either declined to be interviewed, or did not call back. Also, Gintowt hasn't worked for pipeline for several months now, but it was our oversight not to tell readers that he had in the past.
Incidentally, we addresse some of you other concerns in this article on the Replay earlier this year: http://lawrence.com/news/arts/story/117509.
In any case, we're sincerely glad you count yourself a faithful reader. We'd appreciate any futher comments you have about lawrence.com, including story suggestions and the like.