Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kristianjohnsen" data-source="post: 84453" data-attributes="member: 441">Re: Competition: fair/unfairWell actually...Helge (apart from also running a freelance audio service) freelances for a public funding program that installs audio and lighting gear at concert venues.&nbsp; The gear is paid for by tax dollars (well, Kroner, actually).&nbsp; The mission statement of the funding program, called MUO, is to &quot;allow smaller venues to host shows they would otherwise not have been able to host through commercial funding only&quot;.As a small-town sound co I will sometimes see venues be awarded a &quot;free&quot; system they would otherwise have had to rent through a commercial enterprise like mine.&nbsp; So, the example you posted to Per isn&#039;t all that way off the truth, actually.Now, how do I personally allow myself to come to terms with this?1).&nbsp; Venues are now able to host shows they otherwise could not host in my area.&nbsp; This allows for more musical interest in my area and I believe there might be a &quot;snowball effect&quot; with regards to this.2).&nbsp; Someone has to staff these venues.3).&nbsp; Sometimes the venues will host shows they are not quite equipped to handle and will require an addition from somewhere.4).&nbsp; Sometimes small-town sound companies will get lucky and be awarded one of the contracts for the sale of the gear in a new venue.Now, one could make the argument that &quot;if the venues weren&#039;t awarded funds for &quot;free&quot; gear, they would have to apply for funds to rent systems from the local sound co&#039;s&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; True.&nbsp; But so is Per&#039;s statement that overall, the system may be cheaper for the tax payer, and I sure as heck am one of those, so...Edit:&nbsp; Now, if one of these venues started to run around operating like a sound co....that&#039;s where I would draw the line.&nbsp; Which you rightfully have!!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kristianjohnsen, post: 84453, member: 441"] Re: Competition: fair/unfair Well actually... Helge (apart from also running a freelance audio service) freelances for a public funding program that installs audio and lighting gear at concert venues. The gear is paid for by tax dollars (well, Kroner, actually). The mission statement of the funding program, called MUO, is to "allow smaller venues to host shows they would otherwise not have been able to host through commercial funding only". As a small-town sound co I will sometimes see venues be awarded a "free" system they would otherwise have had to rent through a commercial enterprise like mine. So, the example you posted to Per isn't all that way off the truth, actually. Now, how do I personally allow myself to come to terms with this? 1). Venues are now able to host shows they otherwise could not host in my area. This allows for more musical interest in my area and I believe there might be a "snowball effect" with regards to this. 2). Someone has to staff these venues. 3). Sometimes the venues will host shows they are not quite equipped to handle and will require an addition from somewhere. 4). Sometimes small-town sound companies will get lucky and be awarded one of the contracts for the sale of the gear in a new venue. Now, one could make the argument that "if the venues weren't awarded funds for "free" gear, they would have to apply for funds to rent systems from the local sound co's". True. But so is Per's statement that overall, the system may be cheaper for the tax payer, and I sure as heck am one of those, so... Edit: Now, if one of these venues started to run around operating like a sound co....that's where I would draw the line. Which you rightfully have!! [/QUOTE]

Verification