November 30, 2006
Ticking Off the Velvet
You'd think we'd all have learned our lesson by now: if you say something even mildly embarrassing on the web, more people than your originally intended audience are eventually going to read it. Yet every week we find the wrong people saying the wrong things in the wrong places. This time, it's the Velvet Lounge, being perhaps a little over-zealous in policing its video policies.
In June, local musician Lauren Heckman posted to YouTube a one-minute, soundless video of a Rashad show at the Velvet. The quality is pretty poor, but like most YouTube items, it was simply a captured moment the videographer wanted to publicly remember. Over the weekend, though, Velvet Lounge representative Rob Curtis ran across the video and took, shall we say, mild exception to it, leaving the following in comments:
The Velvet Lounge has banned all amature [sic] photography and video after seeing this and other crappy videos. Get caught making one and you will be kicked out. Our stage is professional, well lit sounds fantastic and this kind of crap does us an injustice. Shame on whoever posted this garbage. We currently allow nothing less than a GL2 with no auxiliary [sic] lighting. If your camera cost you less than about two grand and you don't know what you are doing leave it at home.
Photo by flickr user furcafe.
This comment precipitated traded flames that spilled over from YouTube to Heckman's band's blog over on MySpace, where Curtis continued to angrily extol the Velvet's virtues:
Walk around with a video camera in most live music venues (not fucking coffee shops) and you will get kicked out... I don't get how you can even think you have the right to come into a venue and make it look like fucking shit and have the venue think it's a good idea...WE SPENT A SHITLOAD OF MONEY SO BANDS COULD LOOK AND SOUND REALLY GOOD.
Reached for comment, Curtis claims that while he felt his initial response on YouTube was a "bit" abrasive, he "didn't feel like [he] was posting a note that strong."
Of course, the issue of photography and video in clubs is bound to grow more and more contentious as so-called "amateur" equipment continues to move forward in quality and becomes more compact. The 9:30 Club, for instance, generally bans "pro" photo equipment from most shows, but the effective definition of that term seems to vary depending on the night and who is working the door. A great deal more leeway is granted now than back in the days when a disposable camera or a bad cassette recorder could get you kicked out of a club, and most places seem to grudgingly accept that some pictures and sound are going to make it into the outside world. Curtis explains that the Velvet's policy is no flash photography directed at the stage, and all video equipment must be run past club management. If amateur photogs want help setting up their cameras to take pictures properly at the club, someone at the club can help them turn off the flash and adjust the settings for low light picture taking, if the camera is capable.
But the policies and on-site enforcement issues seem beside the point here. Publicly belittling the originators of the photos and video clips that do make it out of the club, but that don't meet the club's preferred standards, doesn't really seem like the most effective option, either from a prevention or a PR standpoint. Particularly when a more tactful and private email might have been better received.
As for Heckman, she appears to have no intention of taking down the video, and told DCist that she would not be returning to the Velvet Lounge at any time in the future. Curtis holds firm to his conviction that his comments were fair, and maintains they were every bit as strong as he intended them. Judging from the comments in the thread, that position may not play well with the club's clientele.
|
Add Velvet Lounge to the list of venues I won't be seen at anymore.
What a pompous ass with nothing to be pompous about. The Velvet Lounge is a place that nobody gives a shit about. Just go see one show at that club and you'll realize why 99% of touring bands bypass it for places like dc9, red and black, warehouse next door and the lame-but-not-as-lame-as-velvet, black cat backstage.
The only thing the Velvet had going for it was a few years ago when people were openly dealing coke and smoking weed in the back hallway. Or, if you were cool enough, smoking weed with the owner in the back room. Preferably, when he was wearing a kilt over the top of wet suit along with a velvet smoking jacket. If that doesn't say classy I don't know what does.
Velvet = I'm amazed that it's still open.
Velvet = A lame place to see bands that aren't good enough yet to play better places in dc.
He complained because he thought the video would make the club look bad? Isn't that a Simpsons joke? I'm so popular, if you accuse me it will make the town look bad? Clubs have every right to band pro equipment, especially at the request of the band whose copyrighted material is being played for attendee enjoyment only, but in the era of video cell phones all other bets are off. I cannot see how he thought such a video would reflect on the club in the slightest, unless the poster felt necessary to badmouth the club.
as the old saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity..... unless it's a club owner with delusions of relevance...
The Velvet Lounge used to be my favorite coffee house in all of D.C., but after seeing their Men's room attendant spew such garbage about amature video footage, I doubt that I'll go back there. I'm probably not cool enough to be hanging out there, anyway.
Rob is just a guy that has his own set of priorities. His number one priority is good sound, and when he's working the sound board the sound at Velvet is the best you're gonna get in DC.
The club is set up and run in a way that reflects his priorities. For example, it's a pain that there is no bar upstairs where the bands play, but to have one upstairs would necessitate the stage being smaller or mess with the acoustics in the already small room. So in this sense, Rob is willing to sacrifice liqour sales for the live sound.
Of course, Rob shouldn't have acted the way he did in this exchange from a PR standpoint, for his club's sake.
So, knowing Rob (just a little), I can understand why he got upset. Not justified, but he's just a little bit of an obsessed, weird guy.
Jeez! Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Who gives a rat's ass about any of this?
Sneaking video at Velvet Lounge is like stealing food from Dos Gringos. Either way, you really need to raise your standards.
Ahahahahaha. Curtis, please work on fixing the sound in Velvet Lounge, I can't hear anything in that clip and it's obviously your fault from your angry defensiveness.
I happen to like Velvet Lounge. I like some of the bands that regularly play there. And in general I like the people who work there and hang out there. (Although I miss Kingpin terribly, but that's another story.) That said, Mr. Curtis really makes himself look like a self-righteous prick, and he ain't doing his venue any favors, either.
A few of you give Rob Curtis way too much credit. He isn't the owner of the Velvet Lounge, not even close. Think of him as a barista who works evenings at that little coffee shop.
that said, at the end of the day all we're doing is running around in cirles. know what I'm saying?
I think the Velvet's response is over-the-top, but otherwise have nothing against them. In fact, I've found the Velvet to be among the more welcoming clubs for photography &, unlike my experience @ some other venues (e.g., 9:30) have never been challenged or yelled @ when I've showed up w/cameras, though I do use "pro" quality equipment. On the "pro" v. "amateur" equipment thing, it's funny that the Velvet seems to be taking the opposite tack from other clubs (again, e.g., 9:30) which will gladly let in anyone w/a point & shoot, disposable, or cellphone camera, but deny entry to someone w/a dSLR or Leica unless the band gives its OK (the Birchmere won't let you photograph even if you have the band's permission unless you're a "credentialed" journalist).
What are the chances that Rob will get fired over this incident? If I owned the club, it would be curb time.
anybody want to pay five bucks for a bottle of bud while getting treated like a jerk for free? then the Velvet Lounge is the place for you.
want to go for a nice time out, maybe catch a show? nope, not Velvet Lounge.
this place is a joke and has been for years.
If he's gonna say no flash photography, that's one thing (and the right thing.) But wow, what a crazy response in general. I mean, am I gonna need to show proof of the cost of my SLR before I enter the club next time.
At the end of the day, any of those clubs can create whatever policies they want. This is the first I've heard of not being allowed to shoot in Velvet Lounge; I've seen many people do it, with flashes and all that.
Of course, the funny thing: does anyone honestly think that one would attend/not-attend a performance at a small club based on a You Tube video? "Wow, I'd love to go see the Slimy Dickweeds on Wed at DC9, but that video on YouTube is not only blocky, but the sound is horrible. DC9 must suck!"
has something happenend to the velvet lounge in the past two years? 'cause that's how long it's been since i've been there.
is the stage no longer an attic at best?
if it's different, than my appologies VL, if not, shut yer pie hole.
you're not even a 2nd tier venue anymore. your lighting is bad, your door policy of asking what band you're there to see is the main reason i don't go to your shows. and your sound...well, that's in the hands of whomever is at your board.
but seriously, VL, don't cop that 'tude. it's unattractive.
here's the thing with rob--he doesn't give a shit about being cool for one second. he would much rather have a japanese gore-rock band play on a tuesday than have the same boring dc bands play every weekend. but you gotta pay the bills.
he is certainly a prick, but he whole-heartedly believes in the integrity of the bands that play there. popular or not, velvet gets some far-out national and international bands to play and it's due to rob's take-no-shit attitude. he may be delusional about the quality of his club (it's a dump), but at least he cares and takes vested interest (which you can't necessarily say about other local clubs).
Rob is probably the best sound guy in DC. If you play at Velvet and he's working, everything will sound great. I'd much rather play there than DC9.
I think Rob is a bit of a gear and electronics junkie and was just venting about the crappy equipment. It would serve his venue no purpose in banning certain types of cameras. Would that mean friends of the band couldn't bring a digital camera to snap photos of their friends onstage? Velvet will have a great reputation so long as he is doing sound there, cameras or no cameras. It also helps that DC9 has the shittiest sound guys on the east coast.
you can be a great sound guy and a nice guy. the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I've had a run in with this guy before... he has a SERIOUS chip on his shoulder. He gives the club a bad name. They should lose him. He is not that great of a soundguy, either.
He probably lives in Arlington, too.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha Virgina wouldent suprise me!
bad mouthing on the internet is fun.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha speelink is phun!
From everything I've seen over the years Rob is great to bands that show up on time, at least make an attempt to bring some people to the show and play well. I've played there with synth-goth bands, metal bands, acoustic acts, jangle alt stuff and everything in between, never heard him be a dick to anybody, and have seen him do his absolute best to make them all sound as good as he can. He's been totally supportive of local music from the day I met him.
As far as the video stuff, I don't care enough to have an opinion.
If nothing else the Velvet is a local club, owned by locals, that supports a wide swath of local music and gives them a good sized stage with good sound to play on and doesn't have nineteen TV's blaring away on the wall in the band room. That's not a bad thing at all, in my opinion.
Back to the bloody mary........
hmm. so fur, we can still enter with DSLRs or other "pro" equipment? If so, that's cool with me.. though I'm not sure I would expect not to get hassled regardless at the door.
neil: I've never even been questioned @ the Velvet even when I had my cameras out in the open (BTW, I don't think they do a bag check so there's always that option). Then again, I've never been there to shoot acts big enough to care about being photographed (not that any acts like that would necessarily come to the Velvet, anyway). This Rob guy's rant raises separate issues (more like the Birchmere's venue-centric policy, which is independent of what the artists care about), but if he's as much of a gearhead as people say, then he should be able to recognize pro gear (if he's even working the door).
why hasn't velvet been condemned yet?
good question
i believe it's because the fire marshall hasn't made a surprise inspection......
the place is a death trap....
if you ever see great white on the bill, stay far far away!
Piece o shit.
Rob is tops in my book. for the critics of the door policy, they ask what band you're there to see because that's how the bands get paid. It's also a good way to find out what bands are drawing crowds for booking future shows
Hello everyone, well, my friend brought this DCist article to my attention and I would like to leave a brief comment in support of Rob Curtis and his professional ethics. Rob and his staff at Velvet Lounge have worked really really hard over the past 8 years to bring DC a unique venue where semi-professional to professional bands and performers can play and adhere to certain industry standards that true music professionals are certain to appreciate. There is no other club in DC with the pound for pound punch that the sound system has at Velvet. I know this first hand as i worked there as an apprentice sound person for about a year. Rob really cares a bunch about music and delievering the best sound possible to the audience. His convictions in keeping a "clean house" and having standards for video recording should be applauded, not chided. These are all professional standards that set Velvet appart from all other DC clubs. Unfortunately, we all know that DC is a town known for it's lack of "scene". and that MOST bands in dc are totally unprofessional and even some of these bands that do become popular are just into playing gigs around dc so that they can get wasted at shows, act too cool for school, and dress in their finest hipster clothes bought from Pop or some other pret a porter DC fashion outlet...so to these bands and critics of the Velvet Lounge and Rob Curtis, i say a heart felt... FUCK YOU. Who needs you anyway? Rob and the Velvet are here to stay, and if any real, professional band that has musical ability wants serious sound reinforcement, GO and see Rob. And give him a fucking break, he's the tallest mutha fucka I know! That's gotta make him somewhat odd!
That being said, i invite all of you to come and see my band, called SON OF GROMMIT, TONIGHT at the infamous Velvet Lounge! And we'll show you what a, real, pro outfit from DC can sound like on a great sound system. All you poser bands take notice.....you are warned.......
www.myspace.com/sonofgrommit
I suppose I'm condtradicting myself when I elaborate more on this comment, but who cares dude? You suck, and I hope all your professional asshole friends came to see your lame ass band play, at a lame ass venue. Very professional to say "FUCK YOU" to everyone, and spell every other word wrong, and for your buddy Rob to do the same. Have fun you wench.
Man what a bunch of negative jerks.
I remembered seeing a comment about Rob in a previous DCist article so I found it. It was in the interview portion of the Deleted Scenes article. I guess Matt is one of the band members.
"What are your favorite local venues to play in?
Matt: Velvet Lounge has the best sound guy in the city."
Maybe Matt doesn't know what he is talking about but I doubt it.
I bet there are a lot more nice things people have said about him out there.
Anyway it's if he makes the rules regarding bands and audience members for that club then let him. And if you don't like it you should go elsewhere. This pathetic taring and feathering is just bizarre. He is trying to make good decisions to keep the musicians comfortable and preserve the image that will be presented on the Internet forever. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
As for Ian who wrote this yellow piece of crap, you are a troll not a journalist. At best you are a negative blogger who seems to enjoy trashing people for meaningless petty reasons that benefit no one. Unless it was meant to benefit someone. Was it?
What a bunch of sad junior high bullies are here. The fool who wrote comment #36 above is a perfect example.
So let the accusations of typographical inferiority commence. After all, people who don't take the time to use their spell check aren't fully human, right?