fight city hall!  new law stops chicago music--diy and independant, music and art shows.

05/08/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

It's shit like this that makes me consider leaving Chicago, as much as I love it here.

Thanks for posting this, Robin.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Yeah Seriously Deanna!

We have to have enough numbers to stop this! Its amazing that this has gotten so little press...they just pushed it through when no one was looking. Sure the anti-rave laws had the argument of safety and drug control....but stopping promoters and DIY groups from having shows in alternative spaces or even real venues like Empty Bottle?!

I must promote 12 nonprofit fundraiser benefits a year through independent services! Why would they wipe this out?!

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Do you think an Alderman knows what "DIY" stands for? Hmm.

The kids will be okay. Cities have been passing ordinances like this for years, simply to keep liability at bay in case something really bad happens. Or if they especially want to fuck with people. But, art spaces and basements will still thrive. Besides, what I've noticed in Chicago, it's burnout that kills spaces.

At least we don't have the anti-dancing law that New York City has.

05/08/2008 Jonathan C. says:

Not good, I have a lot of friends in the DIY music community, I'll spread the word on this...  That alderman is going to get some calls.

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Of course, this is someone who booked at a space that got shut down because it was zoned for retail instead of residential...

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Jeeze, Vaughn...a little dispirited?

Giving politicians the benefit of the doubt always works out for us..right?

05/08/2008 John "Ceci n'est pas une nickname" B. says:

Anti-dancing law? Is New York "Footloose"?

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Here's another link with the Chicago Music Commission's (the good guys) response to the new ordinance which could pass NEXT WEEK!

http://blogs.suntimes....

05/08/2008 Lori "Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est." L. says:

Whatever happened to Lori Singer?

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Yeah, I'm a little cynical. Mainly because I've seen this happen numerous times over the past decade, here and in other cities and nothing ever really comes from it. I think cities tend to overreact when it comes to underground events and impose some heavy handed rules. But I rarely ever see them enforced unless something really disastrous happens.

I Googled the ordinance you're talking about and it's totally fucked, though. Here it is in its entirety, with a preface from the head of the blues label, Alligator Records.
http://blogs.suntimes....

But, yes, fight away!

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

John, in order to come down on underground raves, New York imposed a "no dancing" law for clubs. That didn't really stop people from dancing, though!

But, reading more on the subject, this ordinance will really affect small venues if they enforce them. I thought Robin was mainly talking about already illegal DIY performances--which will always happen, whether the city likes it or not.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Little comes of it? What about the anti-rave law? Did you know house music was born in chicago...ever hear about that these days?

Things DO come through, and things DO happen because of it....maybe you arent hanging out in these alternative venues..but these restrictions are what make all artists move to brooklyn.

05/08/2008 Nina G. says:

This is a long-delayed reponse to the E-2 disaster in Chicago a few years ago, followed by the nightclub fire in Rhode Island.  It also was probably inspired by stories of various disasters happening at underground "rave" parties.  Probably over-reaching but I understand where they're coming from.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Yeah, some venues that will be affected by the ordinance, including, among many others,: Schuba's, Buddy Guy's Legends, the Vic Theater, the Riviera Theater, the Metro, The Hideout, Uncommon Ground, and Martyrs'.

To be clear...if this passes, you will need to be +21, have $300,000 insurance, and meet all of the new promoter license requirements to throw and promote shows at these venues.

Crazy.

05/08/2008 Brent "______/\_______\o/____" B. says:

"Did you know house music was born in chicago...ever hear about that these days? "

A pretty good number people know.  Few care, as evidenced by the number of clubs that actually play house music.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Doesnt matter Brent...its not really the issue.

Though I'm sure house music would've lasted had raves remained a big part of Chicago culture. I wasn't a rave kid, its not a matter of taste, its a matter of what legal action is appropriate for safety.

Yea, E2 and other bad promoters who executed dangerous parties to make money should be prohibited from that...but not be taking away chicago's music community and stopping small PR businesses. This city is about art, music, entrepreneurs, culture!

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

No, I've never heard house music was from Chicago. In fact, I have no idea what a "Chicago" is. There's no need to be condescending.

I'm just saying that this ordinance isn't going to stop 50 kids going into a basement and seeing a punk band in Roger's Park. True DIY has been going against these ordinances for decades.

Although, the required insurance numbers are definitely steep, which sucks for small venues trying to run a legit business, like the Bottle.

05/08/2008 John "Ceci n'est pas une nickname" B. says:

Actually, Vaughn, that's the problem I have with this ordinance. While it will do nothing to stop underground music, it will screw over legitimate venues. And people trying to work with them. That's reason enough to oppose it.

05/08/2008 D'Elited D. says:

It doesn't matter how many people call and sign petitions.

Daley will just send bulldozers through the middle of any event and say it's for the benefit of chicago's children.

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Yeah, I read the original post as attacking DIY, which I kind of see as apart from legitimate venues. And from wheeling and dealing in illegal spaces, I've seen the culture as a pretty resilient beast. Now that I've read the actual ordinance--or as much as I could, as it's long--it's pretty hefty.

05/08/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

[Yea, E2 and other bad promoters who executed dangerous parties to make money should be prohibited from that]

And I'm sure half of the things they did were probably illegal in the first place.  If this is the type of thing that the city council is attempting to prevent, legislating it to death isn't going to help.

If they do start cracking down on places like Schubas or the Empty Bottle, just imagine what they'd do, if they feel like it, to venues like Mr. City and Elastic.  Just thinking about it is making me so angry that I can't see straight.

Yeah, Vaughn, underground music scenes are going to exist no matter what...but it doesn't help that Chicago tries to project an image of getting off on its artists when really all the city is doing is cumming in their eyes.

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Haha, let me correct that. I read the original post as the City Council attacking DIY, not Robin.

05/08/2008 Jonathan C. says:

Deanna how very descriptive.  Not quite sure what the difference is.

zing!

I know, I'm lame.

05/08/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

It's all about perspective, Jonathan.

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Deanna, like I said, places like Mr. City and Elastic are going to be fine until the shows blow up into something bigger than they can handle. But, small venues have a lot to be scared about.

An anecdote or what I was talking about:

In order to quell rowdy frat parties, Harrisonburg, Virginia passed an ordinance preventing large groups of people to gather in areas without a permit and insurance. Some friends of mine decided to put on shows in their basement, doing about one a week. Cops came often, cops didn't care too much. That is, until a Swedish band called Refused decided to break up during their US tour and play their last show in that basement. Of course, hundreds of people from the East Coast showed up at the house and the show was shut down a few songs into the set. My friends got hauled in, heavily fined, and continued to do shows at other spaces without a hitch.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Yeah, but DIY culture, like it or not..actually holds events at the Bottle, and other legit venues that run a great small business.

And screw DIY, thats not the point.
If I want to promote a benefit concert for a friend who has cancer, for example....

05/08/2008 Jonathan C. says:

I know this affects my friends raising money for ChIRP (Chicago Indie Radio Project).  The have done quite a number of fundraisers at places like double door, and this may affect their effort a bit.

They have already responded on their web page:  http://chicagoindepend...

Well at least I will still have college radio on the internet and 9 FM...

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

The CHIRP article, in case no one wants to follow the link:

Back in 2000, the City of Chicago passed what has lovingly been referred to as the "anti rave ordinance", which essentially made it possible for property owners, promoters and DJs to be fined up to $10,000 for being involved in an unlicensed dance party.

Promoters were outraged, but wide spread enforcement was never really seen.

Last year, the City Council tried to push through an all new "promoters ordinance" that was delayed once music activists caught wind of it. Like most things, of course this wasn't the last we'd hear of it.

In his column at the Chicago Sun Times, Jim DeRogatis reports that the city is once again trying to crack down on what they term "underground" promoters. Problem is that they're making it virtually impossible for any legitimate promoters that aren't the size of Jam Productions or the folks behind Lollapalooza to put on shows across the city.

As DeRogatis writes, "If approved by the committee and the City Council, the law would require anyone promoting any event drawing more than 100 people to obtain a license -- even if they are working with a well-established and already licensed promoter."

Well, that would most definitely affect any group that is trying to do a fundraiser (including us here at CHIRP). Events like the annual CHIRP record fair, Renegade Craft Fair, and myriad other fund raisers for wholly worthwhile groups would be required to obain an additional $300,000 in commercial liability insurance or more (even if the venue is insured).

"As it now stands, the law would only allow venues with "fixed seating" -- that is to say, chairs that can't be removed -- to host one-time events by unlicensed promoters like our magazine or benefit in the example above. This requirement rules out the exact sort of clubs that would most benefit from these events, including venues such as the Empty Bottle, Buddy Guy's Legends and Metro."

So if this ordinance passes, don't expect to see any more events hosted by local magazines or not for profit groups at your favorite music venues.

Read the entire article here. Then call up your local alderman and give them a piece of your mind!

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

I was just chatting with a friend of mine who books shows at legitimate spaces. He said that last year's attempt at this ordinance was shot down because the wording was so broad, it affected the United Center. So they marched down to City Hall and raised a stink.

05/08/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

the next council meeting is on wednesday...you can help Chicago Music Committee protest by visiting their site:

http://chicago-music.org/

Thanks for reading more into it Vaughn...I guess i lost some clarity amidst all of the rage that something like this could happen!

05/08/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

No problem. It felt a little knee jerk to me, so I just got a little more informed. Just because I'm cynical about this stuff doesn't mean I'll write you off!

It's weird, my booking friends seem apathetic about it (they don't think it'll stick) and I've never heard of anyone at the Bottle mention it, but thanks for posting about it.

05/08/2008 Jonathan C. says:

My ChiRP friends were already a bit peturbed by it, but they are already politically motivated anyway...  Heck I should have read it on their website.  My DIY friends had not even heard of it.  My guess they wouldn't even be aware of it, unless someone told em or a venue shut em down.  Good to know about I think.

05/08/2008 Matthew S. says:

Just tweeked your letter and sent it off to the modern dance community! thanks so much Robin!

05/08/2008 MaryAnne "Suedes blue mohawk is up for debate as is his name" M. says:

Gene Schulter has been my alderman for years  & I have first hand experience of what a dick he is.

05/08/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

Oh yes, yet another nanny law designed to promote revenue via fine. I'm already getting my shit together for an overdue move to Portland. Chicago, as much as I have always loved it, started to suck about 5 years ago and has steadily declined since. More taxes, more laws, more cameras, more corruption. I'm planning on one last summer here and moving on to much greener pastures. They have laws that actually matter in Portland, like anti-sprawl and historical preservation. I don't mind paying taxes on that. Chicago has nothing but nuisance bans. See ya Dick Daley. We'll see who's paying those taxes in another 5 when this place finally rolls into a giant generic Disneyland. Oh, and you can shove my last three parking tickets up your ass, fine mayor.

05/09/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

Thread bump. Seriously, everyone needs to get really pissed off about this potential new law and bombard the alderman's office and mayor's office with letters and emails. This is going to screw up our scene here unbelievably so. A required promoter's license to hold a concert?! Ri-DIC-ulous. We'll end up with nothing but Jam Production shows and the like. This is nothing but a transparent money grab by the city.

05/09/2008 mary t. says:

Thanks Christine S, I'm sorry you're leaving! And I heartily agree: WRITE YOUR ALDERMAN! It works!   Gene Schulter is my alderman. We recently organised about eminent domain abuse in his ward and he finally got the message after we made it clear that we were going to make ourselves heard and he couldn't pretend that no one cared about the issue by holding meeetings that were not publicised etc.

05/09/2008 M A. says:

http://chapter4157.goo...

05/09/2008 Jennifer L. says:

I just want to make sure I understand this...

I've got quite a few friends who play in small bands, or are solo singer/songerwriters.  Does this mean that they can't put up flyers or even post Facebook events when they've got a show coming up?

05/09/2008 Dane "I'm still Jenny from the block" K. says:

it's all about money in this city.  the city is greedy.  Daley is greedy.

raise your hand if you find this appalling.  now keep your hand up if you were in support of the CTA tax hike or the transfer tax hike, put your hand down if not.  those with their hands up: shut the f'ck up.

05/09/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

Okay, now that I'm not severely sleep deprived and I've actually skimmed through the ordinance, did anyone else see this part, or are some of you pissing and moaning like I was yesterday?

[4-157-020 License-When required-Exclusions.
(A) No person shall engage in the business of event promoter without first having obtained an event promoter license under this chapter.
(B) The following persons are not event promoters within the meaning of this chapter:
(1) any print or broadcast media who are paid for page space or broadcast time to advertise an amusement or event but exercise no other financial or operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(2) any off-premises ticket seller who sells admission tickets to an amusement or event in advance of such amusement or event but exercises no other financial or operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(3) any performer who is paid for his performance at an amusement or event but exercises no other financial or non-performance-related operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(4) any agent of an athlete or performer who is compensated for negotiating his client's contract to perform at an amusement or event but exercises no other financial or operational responsibility in connection therewith;
(5) any licensee under Chapter 4-156 of this code, to the extent that the licensee personally plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such licensed business;
(6) any full-time employee of a licensee under Chapter 4-156 or under this chapter, to the extent that the employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such employment;
(7) the City of Chicago or its sister agencies;
(8) any employee of the City of Chicago or its sister agencies, to the extent that the employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such employment;
(9) any not-for-profit corporation, to the extent that the not-for-profit corporation personally plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event on its own behalf;
(10) any bona fide member or employee of a not-for-profit corporation, to the extent that such member or employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such membership or employment on behalf of the not-for-profit corporation; and
(11) any person who exclusively promotes amusements or events at establishments or venues meeting all of the following requirements: (1) the owner or operator of the establishment or venue at which the promoted amusement or event is presented holds a valid public place of amusement license or valid performing arts venue license issued under Chapter 4-156 of this code, and (2) the establishment or venue at which the promoted event is presented (i) has fixed seating only and all patrons attending any promoted amusement or event at such establishment or
venue are seated in such fixed seats; or (ii) has a fixed seating capacity of 500 or more persons.]

05/09/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

Subsection (B) is the important part.

05/09/2008 Dane "I'm still Jenny from the block" K. says:

nice of them to exclude themselves from their own ordinance

05/09/2008 Deanna "nary" M. says:

I know, I thought that was pretty funny.

05/09/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

[I've got quite a few friends who play in small bands, or are solo singer/songerwriters.  Does this mean that they can't put up flyers or even post Facebook events when they've got a show coming up?]

Well, they can't put up flyers anyways. That ordinance passed awhile ago, fining the band for flyers put on city property.

No, this affects independent promoters, mostly. One question is: is this going to affect house promoters?

If this passes, what are ways to get around it? Put in an application for a non-profit company to put on shows? Are promoters going to be bankrolled into a club's payroll?

05/09/2008 Dane "I'm still Jenny from the block" K. says:

the non-profit seems like an easy work around really

05/09/2008 Dane "I'm still Jenny from the block" K. says:

or become a city employee...

"(8) any employee of the City of Chicago or its sister agencies, to the extent that the employee plans, prepares or executes an amusement or event in the course of such employment;" ...

the way I read that, "in the course of such employment" doesn't explicitly mean it has to be related to such employment, just "during" ... sounds like a good opportunity for city employees to make some money now!

05/09/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

You know, there are probably some independent promoters who already took up a nonprofit status. Especially any related to community activism or community radio.

Back in college, we set up a "service organization" basically as an excuse to use student activities money to set up basement shows.

05/09/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

Thanks for posting that Deanna. It's requirement 2 under #11 of the proposed ordinance that I am very concerned about. It basically states that clubs that do not have fixed seating must pay a hefty professional promoter license fee to have shows. Not only that but patrons MUST sit in their seat. What is this? Fucking Catholic school? Everyone hates fixed seating - club owners and goers alike for a lot of reasons. If you want to sit, you shouldn't be at a goddamn punk / rock show.

Places like the Empty Bottle and Double Door will be totally fucked. Ronny's Garage? OVER. General admission? OVER.  The Mutiny? OVER.

Clear Channel and Jam productions will rule everything. Our ticket prices and "service fees"will increase exponentially with no competition. Currently Subteranean and Beat Kitchen both use the same professional promoter instead of recruiting talent for themselves. So does Schubas. Ever since they all went to that about a year or two ago, the number of interesting shows has declined BADLY. Not much I want to see, not much variety and their tix have gone up.

That will be our new music scene. Homogenized. Expensive. Bland. Safe. Bullshit. Boring. Rise up people! This must be fought!! Last year when they tried to pass this ordinance there was a sizable protest outside city hall. Now I'm just encountering apathy. Scary!!!

(11) any person who exclusively promotes amusements or events at establishments or venues meeting all of the following requirements: (1) the owner or operator of the establishment or venue at which the promoted amusement or event is presented holds a valid public place of amusement license or valid performing arts venue license issued under Chapter 4-156 of this code, and (2) the establishment or venue at which the promoted event is presented (i) has fixed seating only and all patrons attending any promoted amusement or event at such establishment or
venue are seated in such fixed seats; or (ii) has a fixed seating capacity of 500 or more persons.]

05/09/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

P.S. It really chaps my ass that they give a pass to ticket brokers / legal scalpers. Those are the dirtbags we should be banning like just about every other damn state does. Just a thought.

05/11/2008 Jenny B. says:

As a purely practical matter, this will shut down or drive out small-time performers who do their own promotions. Either that or they will be operating illegally.

1. They cannot afford to pay $500 even once, let alone per venue. Some small artists play in dozens of venues around the city while doing their own promotions. Dozens x $500 = finished.
2. They cannot afford to pay the projected $300-$700 per year (the City Council's Efrat Stein's number, not mine) for liability insurance.
3. Enforcing this law will be expensive, erratic, and altogether impractical. Which police are going to be cruising nightclubs looking at promoters' licenses?
4. Even operating illegally will be difficult because venue owners are also criminalized by using unlicensed promoters. Read the ordinance (on Jim DeRogatis' blog or at the City Council's website).
5. Anyone under 21 is legislated out. This is the time of life when talent flowers. Young musicians and comedians will have to leave the city limits to perform.
6. And, regarding leaving the city limits, just driving across town is becoming terribly expensive. People with four or five musical instruments can't just hop on the train, either.
7. Any law experts reading this? How is this not a First Amendment violation?

People who can should come to the City Council meeting. It's on Wednesday, May 14th, at 10 AM, at 121 N. LaSalle, 2nd Floor. Make a small sign you can wave inside (or, if you can't get in, outside) the building.

Please, also, call your alderman. Here's how to find out who your alderman is: http://www.chicitycler...

05/11/2008 Theresa "The Local Tourist" C. says:

For almost two years I've been featuring local bands on my website each week, and I've been amazed at the depth and breadth of talent in this city. All of the venues these bands play at are endangered because of this ordinance.

Chicago Acoustic Underground and I have started a petition website. In addition to sending your Alderman Robin's letter, please leave a comment to be included in this petition.  http://savechicagocult...

05/11/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

There is also a fantastic well laid out letter to build upon at http://chicago-music.o...

And more links to other articles written are there. At least the press is involved now..we just need more presence at the council meeting and more letters! Don't settle for this money flow scheme..we deserve better!

05/12/2008 Mik "I Dreamt About You Last Night" W. says:

As someone who's "retired" from this scene, here's my boorish opinion; Venues want to make money and stay open. One relevant way to protect themselves for the long run is to request all promoters to have their own liability insurance. I think it's a very reasonable request in this litigious society. Just because you're young and artistic doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself, your art and those who attend the event. If a wedding is planned at the same venue, why should they have insurance and not the artists? Theresa, you're incorrect, the venues are not endangered by the insurance angle, rather by mandating an age restriction that is quite unenforceable!

In a way, I would be okay if this passed. The arts and music scene would again go underground in Chicago and foster a whole new generation of musicians and relevant artists.

05/12/2008 Nina G. says:

Nick Digilio did a "rant" on this during his WGN Radio show last night. He wants a "posse" to show up at the hearings and present a petition.

05/12/2008 Patrick B. says:

http://www.chicitycler...

In case you don't know who your alderman is, you can find their info on the link above.  

And here's a related link.

05/12/2008 Patrick B. says:

http://savechicagocult...

05/12/2008 P R. says:

Being in a local band just starting out, we depend on venues that are small and do not qualify for 500+ capacity. My thoughts are to look outside of the city to jump start this band if there's nothing to look forward to here. Our first few years of shows depend on small venues to get the word out. Basement shows anyone? The police will be very busy trying to bust underage drinking in uncontrolled environments such as the inevitable "basement show" thus further stretching the capacity of the Chicago police force. Once the potential for setting up an artistic platform without hassle ceases to exist in Chicago, look out suburbs, we're coming to you! The local shows won't stop by any means. There will be much more illegal venue set ups (warehouses, squats) and much more police action to be had on the street level. Kinda like when the Fireside Bowl closed down. The house shows grew and the basement kegs ran empty, only to be restocked.

05/12/2008 rachel s. says:

Please make sure you email your personal stories to your local alderman, especially if you live in a ward and support the local venues this would affect. It makes a difference, and the rep at my alderman's said they had already received several emails and calls. Feel free to PM me if you would like to see what I sent.

Cheers,

rachel s.

my projects/bands include:
Post Honeymoon (playing May 30, Empty Bottle)
Bang! Bang!
New Black

05/13/2008 Courtney "interviewing roommates is worse than blind dating" B. says:

Looks like they're not voting tomorrow, after all:

http://chicagoist.com/...

05/13/2008 Niki "Miss N" C. says:

I have already written notes to city hall, signed the petition, encouraged others to do so as well, & called my Alderwoman.

I've got a plan to stick it to The Man!

05/13/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

There's a nice update on the Chicagoist blog, via Timeout Chicago:

UPDATE: Our favorite quote thus far? The one TOC obtained from Bradford Thacker of the the city's department of cultural affairs, "Please spread the word the Promoters Ordinance has been pulled from City Council until further research. I guess a lot of musicians in clubs etc. responded quickly."

05/13/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

WE WERE HEARD!- ORDINANCE PULLED (for now)

Alderman Schulter has taken the vote off the agenda for tomorrows meeting.....with no word on when the vote will take place. Hopefully this is a signal that the committee will open up negotiations and communication with our music community until a vote is made!

THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR WRITING IN!

PLEASE PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG- CHANCES ARE, WE'LL NEED TO WRITE IN AGAIN AS THE OLYMPICS BID GETS CLOSER AND THEY TRY AND PASS THIS AGAIN!

http://www.timeout.com...

05/13/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Here's the alderman who helped shape the ordinance explaining it:
http://www.wbez.org/Co...

05/13/2008 Courtney "interviewing roommates is worse than blind dating" B. says:

That's weird... my link was supposed to go to that Chicagoist/TOC quote.  They must have changed it.

05/13/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

Even city hall found this to be bullshit :  http://www.suntimes.co... It's really disappointing that so few people gave a good shit about this. 65 posts. Pathetic. Apparently it's much more enticing to discuss sex with ugly people pretending to be hot. Dumbed down beyond belief these days. Maybe it always was. UG. Anyway, it's tabled back to the committee, which is what happened last year.

Since there's so much more apathy to spread around than working brain cells these days, it'll pass eventually. Coming soon to a venue near you: no music, required seating if there's a guitar on premises unless someone shelled out $$$ to a soul sucking insurance company and frog marched down to city hall for a promoter's license. Have fun, kids.

05/14/2008 Jonathan C. says:

I guess here is a website to check if you wanna keep up with this, so that it doesn't resurface.

http://savechicagocult...

05/14/2008 Vaughn "nary2" C. says:

Oh, it'll resurface. Like I've been saying before, the opportunity to regulate these events never goes away. And, even if these things do pass, people will assemble illegally like they still do now in code-violating spaces in Pilsen, or someone's "house party" in Rogers Park, or--like we once did back in the day--in a 24-hour Post Office. Someone made a good example above about when the Fireside Bowl stopped doing shows, the number of house shows spiked because of the lack of an all-ages venue.

Ideally, the city would invest more in code-regulation tactics and fines on venues rather than an upfront fee on promoters to get the results that they want. But lazy bureaucracy seems to dictate that one. Even more ideal is to have someone from the music community become involved with City Council--it's pretty obvious that this isn't malicious intention, but one of sheer ignorance. I've had promoter friends in other cities dabble in politics with great results.

05/14/2008 Dane "I'm still Jenny from the block" K. says:

so in other news...  

the city council is going to vote whether or not to overturn the foie gras ban...

http://www.chicagotrib...  ...voting is TODAY.

05/14/2008 Matt "I put the at in Matt" L. says:

Christine, once Vaughn told us it would be ok, I stopped reading this thread. But I don't go to concerts at any venues smaller than The Metro anyway.

05/14/2008 Jennifer L. says:

Thank god, Dane....legislation needs to stay the hell away from toast points!

05/15/2008 Luke S. says:

http://blogs.suntimes....

Interesting little article.

05/16/2008 Christine "I'll Show You Mine" S. says:

"Christine, once Vaughn told us it would be ok, I stopped reading this thread. "

I have a bad habit of thinking for myself. I tend to project that bad habit on to other people. I'm all apologies.

"But I don't go to concerts at any venues smaller than The Metro anyway."

Take five parts lame, three parts apathy. Mix well.

05/16/2008 Robin "ELITE EVENT LOSER" W. says:

Here is the press release from Alderman Schulter  on the matter:

Dear 47th Ward Residents,


I would like to take this opportunity to inform neighborhood residents about the Independent Promoter's Ordinance that was originally introduced last summer by Mayor Daley and the Department of Business Affairs. Upon introduction to the City Council, this ordinance was sent to the Committee on License and Consumer Protection. As Chair of that Committee, it is extremely important to me that we move cautiously in drafting legislation that creates new licensee categories.  I have held the ordinance for nearly a year to ensure that the concerns of Chicago's music and entertainment industry are examined through both public hearings and extensive meetings with diverse group of promoters, musicians, and venue owners.

Though the ordinance did pass my Committee on May 7, 2008, I felt that there were still unanswered questions and issues that should be considered. For that reason, I decided to hold the Mayor's ordinance again and not present it to the full Council.  Chicago offers incredible opportunities for musicians and fans from a wide range of musical styles. In my view, licensing promoters should serve to foster their creativity in creating unique events while ensuring that event attendees are protected. However, I want to ensure that the ordinance as it is finally passed does not place an undue burden on local musicians, young people breaking in to the music industry, or established venue owners. My committee will continue to work on these issues and will not present this legislation to the full City Council until a consensus between all of the parties involved has been has been achieved.

Best Wishes,
Gene Schulter

05/18/2008 Mark R. says:

Hello Everyone!  Thanks for all the good comments and discussion, hopefully this window of opportunity that we have right now will allow us to influence some positive changes in the ordinance as it is drafted.

  http://chicago-music.o...

We'd really appreciate your contributions through a new form on the CMC website that is meant to collect input from the community, specifically about this promoter ordinance.

If possible, please be as articulate as you can and keep the comments focused regarding the actual draft ordinance (PDF available from our site) even to the point of being a line-by-line argument.

What we need now is no more overgeneralizations, instead real concise arguments and supporting evidence to back up thej statements.

Thanks for your help,
Mark Roth
on behalf of The Board of Directors of the Chicago Music Commission
www.Chicago-Music.org