While city officials might have good intentions with its proposed promoter’s ordinance, they simply haven’t thought about the street-level, real-time effects of this ordinance. The ordinance might be designed to protect patrons in nightclubs from a worst case scenario, but would more likely be a kick in the stomach to those that make Chicago a vibrant cultural center, adding costly red tape.  And we’ve been hearing from many of them over the last two days (which you can view after the jump in this post).
 
The licensing and insurance fees might seem a reasonable cost to a start-up full time business, but most promoters don’t promote full time, and many don’t do it for the money. This isn’t like going into real estate. They do it for the love of music, the social scene and the opportunity to be creative curators, bringing artists, DJs, musicians, and performers together in our city. Creating this barrier to entry for the amateur and once-a-month promoter would have a detrimental effect on the city’s lively nightlife. In effect, it will leave nightlife and music promoting to those that are full-time businesspersons rather than those that are part-time creative entrepreneurs. Does that sound like fun?

Technically, the issues the city is concerned with - overcrowded clubs, security, loitering patrons - are all covered by existing laws on capacity, venue operation licensing, public nuisance and loitering. In general, licensed venues are selling the alcohol, collecting most of the cover charge and maintaining security—not promoters. Ultimately, the venue or club has the option of terminating or continuing a relationship with a promoter. Many of such relationships are already contractual.

The greatest weakness of this proposal and the ultimate reason why it should not pass is that it fails to define the event promoter adequately. One has to wonder, who is a promoter? Is a promoter the DJ passing out flyers for his set at a corner bar? Wouldn’t this law make every local music enthusiast sending out e-mail flyers for a show with a cover, a promoter? And therefore subject to the same licensing? I don’t see why it wouldn’t. If the city can’t properly define the promoter it is seeking to regulate, then it simply hasn’t done its homework.

In a previous post, we published comments from two local club promoters, who were upset about the city’s efforts to establish more stringent licensing requirements for local promoters, which many have said would decimate the live music scene. But as more of a critical mass reaction forms around this ordinance, we’ve started hearing from people in other arts scenes around the city. Here’s what they’re saying about this ordinance:

Mark Geary, producer of The Lincoln Lodge, a local showcase for some of the best up-and-coming stand-up comics:

I guess there is an advantage to comedy flying below the radar in this town because they seemed to be solely focused on the music scene despite the fact that they’ll both be hit the same….I don’t make money off of The Lodge…We’ve always gone at what we do with the ethos that if the local community and its elected leaders want us here and believe we are providing a valuable service by enriching the local arts landscape then we are happy to stay. If at any point obstacles and laws are thrown up that prevent us from continuing to provide that service we will take that as a vote of no confidence and gladly shut up shop and take our circus elsewhere. We do not want to impose ourselves in a place we are not wanted.

Gabe Levinson, who has put on several film-related events, including a memorable showing of work by animators Jon Kricfalusi and Bill Plympton:

The shows that I produce and promote, the whole purpose of my company, Feather Goes Here, is to bring in unique shows that are exclusive to Chicago. My main focus is to support independent animation, but I am also developing a program called Something To Read, which will support independent booksellers, readers, and writers in Chicago.

"They" claim that this new law will get rid of the "fly-by-night" promoters, whatever that means. I’m not concerned with "fly-by-night", I am concerned about preserving the exciting Chicago nightlife that you know and love and support, much of which comes to you by way of independent promoters. Many of us cannot afford to stick around with a law like this, its just ridiculous. My shows have been independently produced and promoted; I can assure you that I do not make a living off of these shows. I pay my bills by working six to seven days a week for low hourly wage and no benefits and I’m fine with that because it gives me a flexible schedule to work on the next greatest show for Chicago. I do these shows because I love it, I love the challenge and more than anything I love seeing you all come out to the shows and take just as much joy and entertainment away from it as I do.

If this ordinance is the real deal, Chicago nightlife as you know it will change irrevocably.

Local jazz/improv trumpeter Jaimie Branch, who programs the Protest Heaven jazz series at Heaven Gallery:

I am in the process of collecting my thoughts…but off the bat, it seems like the internationally respected, world class free jazz scene is potentially screwed.  And that’s just plain dumb. It seems like a reaction to the "Great White" fiasco in Rhode Island to some extent.  Which, was a huge travesty, but it’s so not the same. The music is supported by the musicians.  Not fancy promoters with fancy bank accounts.

Angie Mead, publicist with Right-On Productions, whose clients include Chicago ork-pop band Head of Femur and Bottom Lounge:

I’ve read the ordinance. There are multiple flaws in what it proposes, but here’s what it means to the concert-goer:

What the average Chicago live music fan may fail to realize is smaller venues (under 500 capacity) depend in part on independent promoters to bring live music to their venues.

If this ordinance passes as it’s written now, smaller music venues below 500 capacity would lose out on shows hosted by independent promoters, which could mean these venues would need to depend more on larger promoters whose primary interest is promoting mainstream acts. Mainstream artists expect big money for their performances which translates into concertgoers paying higher ticket prices.

If anyone thinks independent promoters are making fist-fulls of cash, they’re dead wrong. Most are involved to simply support the independent music scene, the profit they see doesn’t pay the rent, [and] most hold day jobs to support themselves. For these people to fork out potentially thousands of dollars a year to obtain a promoter permit is not financially feasible. In most cases, the money just isn’t there.

If this ordinance passes, we can all say good-bye to the independent promoter, which means saying goodbye to a large chuck of diversity in the Chicago live music scene.

Steve Heisler, Brent DiCrescenzo, Areif Sless Kitain and Hank Sartin provided additional reporting for this post.