Illinois Attorney General Investigating C3 Regarding Lollapalooza Contracts

C3 sucks hard.

FYI:

a. Johnrambo used The Sword as an example of a band who is playing ACL Fest but turning down Austin shows due to this clause.

b. The Chronicle reported today: "Moreover, a source close to the matter tells OTR that that particular clause has been waived for all local acts."

Which is it?

"that particular clause has been waived for all local acts"

C3 waives the local acts because the income from those shows are too small to worry about. The local bands that sell 150 $7 tickets are not a concern to C3's multi-million dollar operation. C3's priority is the show that sells 2000 $35 tickets and brings in 5 figures of bar profits.

From a business standpoint, limiting competition and limiting free enterprise is bad for business in the overall economy. C3 limiting competition benefits C3 at the expense of the overall music economy.

There are people that won't agree with the free enterprise economic theory. No matter what facts you show, some will argue that communism makes more sense than free enterprise. Some will argue the mafia using corruption to gain power creates better business opportunities. Some will argue that monopolies controlling an industry is the best path.

You may wanna argue that C3 using it's power to force out competition for 9 months is good economic policy. It comes down to differing views on economic theory. Most people in our country agree that free enterprise is the best, which is why there are anti-trust laws.

The 6 month contract clause is anti-competitive because it blocks bands playing anywhere but C3 venues as early as March and April. Bands commonly tour through Texas in April & May. The contract clause is anti-competitive because C3 uses it to keep the competition from getting these bands in April & May. Recent examples are LCD Soundsystem in May and Yeasayer in April. In previous years C3 locked up sold-out gigs in April & May for ACL festival acts like Wilco, Manu Chao, and Ghostland.

True, C3 doesn't enforce the clause on Alejandro Escovedo, but they aren't worried about his gig at the Continental that only sells 100 $8 tickets. C3 enforces it in April and May on the big money acts that sell thousands of $35 tickets and bring in tens of thousands in liquor sales.

It also makes a poor experience for the music consumer, which makes it bad for the music scene. As someone else noted, Stubbs is not the ideal venue for a sold-out show. But if C3 has the big acts locked up for 9 months a year, it is hard for a competitor to establish themselves and provide a better concert experience in a better concert venue. Better concert venues bring in more music fans, which means bands get a larger audience. When more music fans show up, the local beer distributors make more money, neighboring bars and food vendors benefit from increased preshow/postshow crowds. Fair Competition truly makes an enviroment where both bands and consumers and businesses win.

I'm with whoooo. 2 or 3 months before the show seems reasonable but 6 months does not. Unless C3 can concretely demonstrate that 6 months is necessary then I'm afraid they're going to lose.

So that's why my favorite touring bands don't appear for 9 months in Texas - C3 keeps them from playing in Texas for 9 months.

It's reasonable to keep a band from playing a competing gig for 2 or 3 months around the festival, but 9 months is outrageous and hurts our music scene.

How does it hurt our music scene? For the vast majority of bands that play ACL Fest (which is when these clauses are invoked), they're not rolling through Austin every 3 months because -- guess what? -- Austin isn't close to where they live, where they make most of their money, and/or want to be multiple times a year.

And, for the bands that do play ACL Fest and want to play again, it's clearly not enforced provided the band is in communication with C3 (see: the example of Alejandro Escovedo in the Austin360 article about this a few days ago). How many times have a band like Drive By Truckers, Wilco, or Centro-Matic played ACL and then played in Austin within a few months? Maybe they would have been back sooner, but that seems doubtful because any real legit touring band understands how to not burn out their fanbase in a given city or region.

This really seems like a non-issue, because other than the couple weeks before/after a festival, most bands on a tour aren't going to be passing through the same city repeatedly unless they are retarded and don't understand how to use Google Maps.

Wattage,

If it's such a "non-issue," then why have it in a contract? Why not make it a request as opposed to something that Charles Attal can drag someone into court over? By your logic, C3 shouldn't even have this clause in the contract because no band of intelligence would return to play Austin around the time of their ACL appearance.

Here's how this clause hurts musicians. Say, Charles Attal went out of character and booked a youthful, up-and-coming band that was starting to generate buzz. The band's management is likely also "young" (i.e. inexperienced) and jumps at the chance to get their rising stars on the AT&T stage in Zilker park. Contracts are signed and hands are shaken. Then two weeks later, Vans calls the manager up and offers a slot on the Warped tour. "Sure, my boys can do that with plenty of time to finish up before their big ACL debut."

Uh-oh. When C3 sees the Warped Tour band listings, the gold lawyer phone is picked up to have a threatening letter dispatched to the youthful band manager. You see, the Vans Warped Tour has dates in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, which all would violate the ACL radius clause. The band would have to drop out of the Warped Tour because logistics are too problematic (expensive) to skip those three dates but remain on the overall tour.

Wattage, I'm really surprised at how much of a C3 apologist you are. Here, your post argues both sides of an issue. Very odd.

Seth

I don't dispute that what you just described could happen, but I dispute that it has happened. Anecdotal evidence (ie, the Alejandro Escovedo situation) favors C3 in that they haven't used this clause to cripple bands' careers, earning potential, etc.

As for being a "C3 apologist", sure, I suppose I am an "apologist" if you mean "guy who doesn't really think C3 is quite as evil as the satanic offspring of BP and Halliburton".

I, like Wes below, don't really think the 6 month window is necessary (or defensible) and think 3 months might be pushing the limit. But do I think it's hurting our music scene -- as the original commenter stated and to which I was directly replying -- no, not at all and I disagree with that sentiment 100%. I don't believe this clause in the contracts hurts the Austin or Chicago music scenes one single bit.

Anecdotal evidence is great for establishing any misconception or urban legend in the public consciousness. When it comes to real, contractual business, comments like those by Alejandro Escovedo demonstrate the power of selective enforcement. Charles Attal seems like the good guy because he didn't hold Escovedo's feet to the fire of the contract he signed. The point then, is why have the clause in a written contract?

Here's why. When push comes to shove with an artist of more commercial significance than Alejandro Escovedo, the clause gets underlined and faxed from a lawyer's office to the band's booking agent.

Here's also why. Let's say someone got off their ass and decided to organize a music festival in another Texas city. A clause like this certainly limits the available artists that promoter could choose to book. It also pressures that promoter to schedule the event in the spring so that it would be outside the nine-month blackout period restricted by the C3 Radius clause. This benefits C3 because it's less likely people would choose to go to the competing event instead of ACL.

I'm not saying C3 and Charles Attal are horribly evil people. That was your straw man. I'm just pointing out the organization isn't all "that's cool, bro. wouldn't want to interfere with an artist making a living." Just because one guy goes on record kissing Charles Attal's ass in print doesn't mean other people aren't getting threatened with court action by a juggernaut of lawyers huger than a typical musician can afford.

Seth

fair enough on all your points. like i said above, i don't think this is hurting the Austin music scene -- and I also should clarify that I have no problem with any level of the justice department investigating if this clause is in fact illegal, etc.

nonetheless, the point of having the clause in contracts is purposefully to protect C3's investment in whatever festivals/shows they have already booked. per your example, if someone sets up a competing festival in San Antonio that literally takes the same exact lineup that C3 already invested time into arranging... and just dumps it in San Antonio with the days flipped (ie, "Hey Friday ACL Fest Bands! You can play San Antonio on Saturday!"), I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for C3 to want to protect themselves.

on the other hand, if that same scenario happened 3 months before or after ACL -- ie, on the fringe of what everyone hear seems to think is "reasonable" -- I don't think it'd be a problem for C3 and that's why we haven't heard of C3 stopping ACL Fest bands from playing Austin a few months before/after.

in the end, I think the clause -- with a large time frame of 3 months on either side -- protects C3 and could certainly be abused in the manner you describe, but since it hasn't stopped a lot of ACL Fest bands from playing in Austin consistently, it can't actually be causing those in the industry widespread grief.

"we haven't heard of C3 stopping ACL Fest bands from playing Austin a few months before/after"

C3 does allow ACL Fest bands to play. But only because they are getting paid as promoters. They book shows at Stubbs, La Zona Rosa, The Parish, Emo's, etc. If an ACL act wants to play Austin in April or May, C3 uses their contract clause to capture that business and squash any competition.

oops: here, not hear.

Wattage,

OK, so this doesn't "hurt" the music scene according to you. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that as "hurt" can be a subjective term to apply here but I think you certainly have to admit that the clause limits the music scene here. And how does that do the music scene any good?? It doesn't. Oh wait, but we get to see The Eagles!! AWESOME!!?? WTF? Who gives a shit about whatever crappy ACL bands Frat boy Attal is booking for that cookie-cutter festival. Save your money as tickets for the FunFunFun Fest go on say just days away. I have no idea who's headling but I can GUARANTEE that the band will be a hell of a lot more exciting than The Eagles or ANY other band playing the ACL fest.

Yours,

JR.

Wattage,

Angry?? Who said I was angry?? Nope, just commenting on a post on the Austinist. Wrong assumption on your part. As far as for how it limits the music scene I thought it would be obvious but to you it doesn't seem to be so I'll be happy to clarify. I'm good like that. If a band signs on to play ACL then they are LIMITED to playing Austin outside of C3's time parameters. For instance, the local band The Sword is playing ACL this year and has had to turn down shows offered to them in Austin since they signed onto playing ACL because it falls into the no performance parameters. The Sword's fault for signing onto ACL?, sure. However, the gigs would have been at local venues where Sword fans would have been able to see the band for a much cheaper price and in a more intimate venue.

Also, just because I don't want to see the bands at ACL doesn't mean I don't think their fans should be able to see them. I'm not a music snob that thinks my favorite bands are best and no one else's should be allowed to perform. Wrong assumption again on your part. You've got to remember that my argument is AGAINST the clause in C3's contract.

You are correct that FFF fest and ACL are completely different experiences. I'm in agreement with you on that one which I why I like FFF fest so much better than ACL. However, I realize I'm not forced to attend(and I don't) the ACL festival but when I give up my right to attend ACL doesn't mean I give up my right to criticize bullshit about it either. And just because someone criticizes something doesn't mean their angry. You seem to not understand that. You're completely free to disagree with me and that is welcomed but you seem to be arguing points that I haven't made.

See you at FFF fest!

JR.

Rambo- How does it "limit" the music scene here? where are all the bands that haven't been able to play Austin as many times as they've liked because of this clause? it's not even being investigated in Texas.

Clearly it's not affecting your music scene in Austin, because you've got no love for any of the bands playing ACL Fest. If you don't like any of the bands booked by C3 for ACL Fest, you should be ecstatic that there's a clause that may prevent them from returning for 9 months!

(Oh, and I've attended every single FFF Fest and every single ACL Fest. Different experiences completely, but no one forces you or anyone else to attend any festival you don't want to attend. So why all the anger in that regard?)

Wattage,

I really don't want to dogpile on you here. I think you've made some good points, and I wish more people would post to support them.

It's a fallacy to ask, "where are all the bands that haven't been able to play Austin as many times as they've liked because of this clause?" Go back and re-read what you've typed. Exactly. Where are they? They aren't in Austin, so how would we know the extent to which music fans have been affected by this clause? Maybe they've been affected because Elvis Costello didn't play a cozy gig at La Zona Rosa a couple of years back. Maybe we could have seen the Pixies in a non-festival setting before this year. Ben Kweller lives in Austin, but never plays here other than at ACL. And so on..

On the flipside, maybe there are many acts who refuse to perform at ACL because of the limitations placed on them by the Radius clause. I haven't seen ZZ Top or Willie Nelson listed as an ACL headliner. Perhaps it's because they want to play other shows in Texas within that 9 month window. Could it be possible that Austin music fans are impacted because successful Texas musicians won't play at ACL?

You can't really defend a monopolistic practice by asking how it's stifled competition. It's impossible to say what creativity failed to flourish in an environment where the sun was blocked from the ground.