From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #904 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Thursday, October 21 1999 Volume 03 : Number 904 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Bowery Ballroom [sperschke@my-deja.com] Re: 18/21+ shows [lawrence solomon ] Re: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #902 ["Cameron Ross" ] Fw: Fw: Fake ID's, Club hours, etc. ["Kathleen Cain" ] Portland Show [Kristy Thompson ] Re: Bowery Ballroom [tmbgirl@juno.com] 18/21+ shows [ap003f@mail1 (Adrianne)] Re: #1 song in Texas.. mp3c ["eggbird" ] Re: Collingswood Show [llesi@aol.com (Llesi)] under/over 21 shows [Kristy Thompson ] Re: Fake ID needed : ) [Joe Navratil ] Re: Fw: Fake ID's, Club hours, etc. [srm9988n@aol.comicrelief (Lori at fr] Re: 18/21+ shows [lawrence solomon ] Re: Fake ID needed : ) [lawrence solomon ] Re; Collingswood show [Amanda Wilson ] Re: OT: Arrogant Worms [hugrod@home.com (Hugo Rodrigues)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:52:36 GMT From: sperschke@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Bowery Ballroom In article <19991020233710.02923.00000393@ng-fz1.aol.com>, serra44@aol.com (Jill Friedman) wrote: > The age restrictions on their shows seem practically ARBITRARY! I've had several run-in's with the management at the Bowery Ballroom (same idiots who run the Mercury Lounge, by the way) about this. At the Merc in November '97, they flatly refused entry to the venue for anyone under 21. We wanted to bring Ken, then 16, but they refused. Didn't seem to matter to them that his parents would be there with him, and responsible for his behavior. I begged and pleaded, even tried getting Jude to help, to no avail. We went without him. Then, last year, they played at the Bowery, and when I called the box office, I got the same spiel - absolutely NO ONE under 18, blah blah blah. So, we planned to go without him (again). In desparation, on the day of the show, Ken himself called up, and got a different story. If he was with parents (and they could PROVE they were his parents), it was okay. So, we gathered up 85 forms of identification and headed to the show. Guess what? They never even looked at him. We paid for our tix, Jan and I got our hands stamped so we could buy drinks if we wanted, and that was it. So, Jill, if you can get your parents to take you, you're fine. If not, maybe you can find some "adoptive" parents. Hope to see you there - don't give up! Scott Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:57:24 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: 18/21+ shows ok, I'm going to try this again, and hope Windows lets me post it this time... Vika Zafrin wrote: > >And I hate to think that they're age bigots and schedule 21+ shows for the > >sake of excluding people. That would just be outright mean. Discrimination > >does not respect anyone, *especially* those who become "privileged." > > Did you ever maybe stop to think that, if the club thinks a 21+ show > will bring in more money, then maybe Fruvous would get a bigger paycheck > at the end of the night? My statement about age bigotry was not in response to the idea of them doing 21+ shows in general. It was to the idea that they'd specifically ask a venue to have a 21+ show for the "benefit" of the older fans who didn't want to have to "put up with" the younger audience. And I just can't see them doing that. > Do NOT go accusing Fruvous of "age bigotry," to use your own words. > That's just Foot In Mouth and unkind and un-thought-through. FRUVOUS? > Age bigots??? Have you ever SEEN them in (and after!!) a concert?? I'm not accusing them - rather the opposite. I'm saying that I can't see them as being that way, since it just wouldn't make sense. I think I left out a few keystrokes, though. Like the word "would." "I would hate to think of them....." - -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Früvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:19:17 GMT From: "Cameron Ross" Subject: Re: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #902 > Kids shows up fairly regularly, the last time I'm aware of it > is in either Detroit or Chicago. And yeah, I think it's time for > new, more current verses. Pino-CHET still doesn't rhyme with "Mike Harris." Well it does almost rhyme with what Mike Harris is.... ;P - Life101 - "Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding" -They Might Be Giants -=( http://www.mental.nu/~life101 | ICQ#: 39307347 )=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:14:38 GMT From: Ellen Subject: Re: Fake ID needed : ) A few random points to make... I don't want to get heavily into this debate either, because there's a lot of room for hypocrisy and preaching, neither of which I want any part of. First, *applause* Vika; I think your views on the attitude toward alcohol in the US are spot on. I would so love to see a more European attitude here, but I don't guess it's going to happen anytime soon. As someone once said, "I'm glad my parents showed me the rat poison and explained what would happen if I ate it, instead of hiding it and hoping I wouldn't find it." In article <380DCFB2.94510BA6@fruhead.com>, zaph@fruhead.com wrote: > If the venues truly cared about the audience of a given band, they'd > make some provision for everyone who wanted to get in to do so. No matter how many times you say this, you don't mean "the audience" of a band, you mean, "a specific subset of the audience." Because the rest of the audience is pretty satisfied. And let's be realistic; a club's first priority is being able to stay open. They do the best they can with the laws they have to work around. Pleasing everyone is not a feasible option; pleasing as many people as they can while still making a profit is the option that keeps the club in business. > having a cover charge for those who are underage (which I'm sure, > assuming it were reasonable, most people would be willing to pay if But we're talking about shows where you've already shelled out anywhere from $10 to $25 on a ticket. And do you mean to tell me that if the club charged another $10 for underagers to get in, you wouldn't still be calling that discrimination? I doubt it. Either way, shows would become prohibitively expensive pretty quickly. > I think it could probably be arranged somehow. Especially if it's just > for one show - even if they come out a little bit in the red or break > even for *one* show but turn a profit on all the others, they still > come out ahead. It's a nice idea, but not very practical. If they did it for *one* show for Fruvous, why shouldn't they also do it next week-- for *one* show-- for TMBG? and the week after, for Matchbox 20? and the week after, for Motorhead? and three months later, for the next Fruvous show? Do you see that it can't just be one show? It would have to be "one" show for every band whose audience demanded it. > likewise, if someone does get caught, and the club takes action (i.e. > kicking them out) are they not covered? what about disclaimers? put > up a sign that says "we cannot be responsible for underage drinking" > and if someone *does* do something stupid while drunk and underage, the > club is not responsible. and so on. If someone drinks and drives, the club is responsible. Even if the person had a foolproof fake ID. Even if the club posts a disclaimer every two feet. That person gets pulled over, or gets in an accident; when the police ask, "who served you alcohol?" and they answer, the club is BUSTED. Period. peace, ellen *************************************** Requesting some enlightmentment... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:40:31 GMT From: "Kathleen Cain" Subject: Fw: Fw: Fake ID's, Club hours, etc. >Spake "Kathleen Cain" : > >>I was also pointing out that this quick change occurs >>around the age of 20/21. Usually. NOT always. > >*nod* Though that may have less to do with the calendar age of a person >than with where they are in their life at the moment. At the age you >referenced, many people (at least, in the U.S.) graduate from college, >or are close to it. Holy life change. THANK YOU, VIKA! :) Finally, someone understands what I mean. > >Hope you're not scared off the newsgroup yet, Kathleen. :) Not yet. Controversy can be good. At least its not boring! > > Kathleen (Age is just a number) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:39:46 GMT From: "andi andrzejewski" Subject: 18/21+ Adrienne wrote: Also, I think the band is aware of this. Why else would they have an all ages show AND a 21+ show in the SAME VENUE back to back (as was the case in Buffalo a few years ago)? I feel they are actually showing respect to their older viewers by doing this. How is this respect,please? BTW,if you go to the 21+ shows in Buffalo you will see several underagers there as some of us call ahead and make arrangements with the venue to bring them. The folks at the Tralf are very familiar with Fruvous and their fans and really try to make going to their venue as pleasant as possible . To whomever started this thread (Kat,i think?) my best advice is call ahead and if necessary adopt a "fru-parent" (many of us who are over will adoopt a "fru-kid" for an evening ,best way to do this is to ask someone that you think might pass as a foster parent---- age -wise at least ,it won't work too well if you tell a security guard that you're best friend is your guardian)hope that helps andi Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:02:35 GMT From: Kristy Thompson Subject: Portland Show I haven't been able to wrap my brain around this entirely too wonderful show enough to write coherently about it. Really it was heaven on earth! The guys were in top form and the audience (all ages just for the record) couldn't have been happier! Set list: Half as Much Horseshoes You Can't Be Too Careful If Only You Knew Sad Girl I Love My Boss You Will Go To the Moon My Poor Generation Minnie Jocky Full of Bourbon No No Raja Michigan Militia Present Tense Tureen Johnny Saucep'n I Will Hold On King Of Spain Green Eggs and Ham Splatter Splatter Dancing Queen Encore One My Baby Loves a Bunch of Authors Get In The Car Encore Two The Gulf War Song The improvs were fabulous (A song about the self-proclaimed "Fruvous Slut" in the audience, among others) and Murray singing Cher's "Believe" was a bit surreal... I'm hoping someone else can jump in here and put into words just how incredible the show was but I figured the set list was a start... ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Kristy Thompson Portland, OR kristy@fruhead.com ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:09:21 GMT From: tmbgirl@juno.com Subject: Re: Bowery Ballroom >hey, me too! And Lordy, was *that* a horrible day, >with the exception of the >hour or so the lads were on stage... ;-) ohhhh NO!!! don't go there! Can i remind you all that on November 10th, 1998 I got on a plane at DIA (that's denver) to fly into La Guardia by noon and be at the gig that evening. My god it was the femmes and the frulads in one show!!! Our plane ended up crash landing in a huge parking lot in Milwaukee - the airline got me to Chicago that evening - luckily my sister was living there at the time so i had a place to stay but i missed the show entirely and lost all of my money that i'd spent on the airplane tickets :*( More sob story - when i went out to LA to see 'em in january of '99, i asked the lads if i could get some extra stamps for all my trouble and their answer was "ask us again at frucon" UGH! of course i couldn't make it to frucon and so was screwed out of that deal too :( "take it easy, JOrdaN" http://www2.netcom.com/~arnot/joda/bootlegs.html http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palladium/3404/frustuff.html ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1999 14:25:11 GMT From: ap003f@mail1 (Adrianne) Subject: 18/21+ shows Maybe they don't *request* a venue to be 21+ over, but rather, don't *exclude* those that are... All I know is that for some reason, they DO play at venues where they will have mature audiences only, and the show takes on a different, more relaxed tone. I am aware that the band enjoys interacting with those of all ages, I have seen them, and they are extremely good with young fans. What I am refering to is the overall mood of a show. when you don't have to worry about offending someone with less than clean language, or proper topics, it is a nice change. I mean, in an all ages show, they have kids from age 2 to adults who will understand the content of their banter, and detect any slips of language, and they need to be careful. When they play to all adults, there isn't as much of an issue. Also, at some shows where the language does get questionable, and there are teens there, the focus can turn to "cool, they swore" rather than what they were speaking about. they would rather get laughs about what they are saying rather than giggles at how they said it... again, just my opinion. Adrianne - -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:51:59 +0200 From: "eggbird" Subject: Re: #1 song in Texas.. mp3c spammer. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1999 17:26:34 GMT From: llesi@aol.com (Llesi) Subject: Re: Collingswood Show >There are a >lot of venues that Fruvous has been playing for a couple of years already >that have superior sound, assigned seats, and good sight lines. But >they're small. And ticket prices are not $25. One example is the >Ramshead in Annapolis; it seats about 250. I know tix were $16 last >year; I don't remember how much they were this year Well, the Ramshead is not exactly your average place--what a fabulously dignified venue!! I wish I lived close enough to go there all the time (and/or that Fruvous would play there on a weekend instead of a weeknight so us workign folks could actually go!). Jessica B. (yes, that's how my >brain works). The Birchmere in Alexandria is similar, but a little >bigger and seats are first come, first served. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:47:14 GMT From: Kristy Thompson Subject: under/over 21 shows At the risk of getting flamed when I'm relatively new to the list I wanted to chime in and agree with some of the over 21 people that PREFER the over 21 shows. I fall into that category and not because I don't like people under 21 and not because I need to drink alcohol at every show and not because I think the shows (Fruvous or otherwise) are better. Maybe I just prefer to party with those around my own age. A parallel example. I love Disney movies. Always have. But if you want to go see one and you choose to go on a Saturday at, say, one in the afternoon the audience will be full of screaming toddlers and talking children that doesn't make for the audience you have grown used to now that you are older. So I choose a later showing, perhaps on a school night when the audience will be more like what I've come to enjoy. Now I'm NOT comparing teens and 20 year olds to screaming toddlers! It's just an example. The difference is that I have a choice in the case of a movie and not usually in concerts when bands stop at one venue when passing through any given town. That brings us back to business and what the clubs choose to be. Over 21 are catering to preferences noted in their clientele... I think any cut-off that is set to judge maturity or 'adulthood' is gonna be arbitrary because people are so different. However I firmly believe there should be a cut-off!!! Society has had this one in place for a very long time and from what I've seen it works relatively well. Now I also had to wait my turn. I can't begin to list the shows I didn't get to see. Clubs decide where their market is in their city and choose what type of club to be and what type of shows to play. It's all about preference. Would we criticize a club that plays country instead of folk because they think more people in a given town will come? In this case its a choice between over and underage shows. And it's also our luck or misfortune as to what we have available in our town. I understand we can't be that objective when discussing Fruvous though...a band we all feel passionately about. I for one will attend any show they are at no matter where it's playing and I do understand the frustration of those who do not yet have the freedom to do so. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Kristy Thompson Portland, OR kristy@fruhead.com ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:48:14 +0000 From: Joe Navratil Subject: Re: Fake ID needed : ) Ellen wrote: > > If someone drinks and drives, the club is responsible. Even if the > person had a foolproof fake ID. Even if the club posts a disclaimer every > two feet. That person gets pulled over, or gets in an accident; when the > police ask, "who served you alcohol?" and they answer, the club is > BUSTED. Period. > Along these lines... I live in a fairly liberal community. Anyone who's familiar with Ann Arbor knows that on any given day, there're going to be people out protesting on the Diag or in front of the Union. We had people here staging hunger strikes to get Nike to release the addresses and phone numbers of their third-world factories (it worked, but let's not discuss the causality. I have my doubts :-) ). Etc, etc. In any case. Back in '92 (I think -- I should've saved the articles, but I didn't think it would ever be relevant to me), a fairly popular bar/restaurant on campus, Dominick's, served alcohol to a minor. Now, let me be clear about this: when it went to court, it was determined that Dominick's didn't serve the minor, Dominick's served his 22-year-old friend, and his 22-year-old friend then gave the glass of sangria to the minor. An off-duty police officer who happened to be at the restaurant noticed, ticketed the minor for posession, and ticketed the friend AND THE CLUB for providing. Dominick's fought this in court. For seven years. And the end result, handed down a month or so ago, was that they ended up having to pay the fine, with interest, and were shut down for two weeks instead of permanently (which is what would have happened if they just accepted the ticket initially). Now, complain all you want about who should be blamed in this situation, but the fact of the matter is the restaurant got blamed by the legal system. And this isn't an isolated case, either. Every bar that serves alcohol can be held liable for every person who drinks at that bar, regardless of how that person obtained the alcohol or how many hands it passed through to get to them. -Joe, who has decided to post sparingly on individual points rather than a forty-page all-encompassing post on the subject of age-restricted shows :-) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1999 17:31:54 GMT From: srm9988n@aol.comicrelief (Lori at fruhead dot com) Subject: Re: Fw: Fake ID's, Club hours, etc. Kathleen said: >Sarah said: > >>that has got to be the stupidest and, well, the most... ludicrous remark >i've >>ever read in a thread of this topic > > >I originated that statement and I don't appreciate either your personal >attack on my opinion nor your taking my comment out of context. pot, meet kettle. ;) Kathleen, Sarah quoted a passage of your initial message, which you chose to delete for this message: > >Of course it sounds arbitrary to you. You are still too young to understand > >the difference a year or even a few months can make to a person's maturity > >and sense of responsibility. which DOES sound like a chiding, personal attack on Lawrence as an immature underager (neither of which he is). She did not call you stupid or ludicrous; she took offense at your statement (as you did at hers) and called it as she saw it. As you also said: I was >speaking generally about how people grow up. It doesn't happen at a certain >age, but can happen quickly. This is what I meant. That wasn't what I read it to say either. And just to clarify, I haven't been a teenager in a teenager's lifespan, so I don't think it's just the young'uns being quick to get defensive here. ;) I'm sorry if you >misunderstood me. I was also pointing out that this quick change occurs >around the age of 20/21. Usually. NOT always. Again, what I read was a categorical "you're too young to understand." Not many, or most, but -- you kids on the newsgroup, and specifically 23-yo Lawrence. Who, at any age, *wouldn't* find that attitude offensive? But now that Kathleen's clarified, let's move past the injured feelings, shall we? Sarah? :) > While I'm sure you believe that you are mature, clubs can't make >decisions on an individual basis. That's utterly true. But why 17-yo's, or 20-yo's, who want to have a night out and see a band are arbitrarily considered less mature than 28-yo's (for whom the focus may not even be a night out seeing the band, but a night out drinking themselves under the table, disrupting the set with insatiable cries for King of Spain, and battery-throwing, but that's a whole 'nother issue) -- that's a fallacy accepted by our society mainly for regulatory purposes. There is no exam to prove maturity, therefore the law arbitrarily sets "adulthood" standards at certain ages, regardless of the *actual* ability or maturity of the person seeking the legal permission to do something. If an older immature person does that thing, fine; if a younger, highly mature person does it, they've broken the law, and anyone who has aided them also has broken the law. How utterly stupid. And that's what this whole squabble, and the side discussions of who is responsible for the legal state of affairs and how it might be most effectively addressed, is about. Just because people have achieved a certain chronological age does not make them responsible citizens, drinkers, or club patrons. And just because they haven't reached that age doesn't make them "immature" and less worthy of attending shows. But the legal reality comes nowhere close to approaching that truth. While parents continue to fight to protect >their children from what they believe to be evil (rightly or wrongly), we >will continue to have a drinking age. Of 21 -- when one can marry at 16, enter the armed services and die or kill for one's country at 18 ... I know, it's a tired argument. But what's the logic there? There is none, face it. It's an arbitrary standard, and anything that arbitrary is intrinsically unfair and needs remedying. How to remedy it -- now *that*'s the $64 billion question that comes up everytime there's a run of shows at age-restricted venues. Because the underage Fruheads are highly aware that maturity has *nothing* to do with why they're excluded from these shows. >Kathleen (New to here, but finding it interesting at least.) Well *that*'s good. Stick around. We haven't started talking about candy yet. :) - -- Lori ***************** Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes. ~~ Maggie Kuhn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:09:05 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: 18/21+ shows Adrianne wrote: > > Maybe they don't *request* a venue to be 21+ over, but rather, don't > *exclude* those that are... All I know is that for some reason, they DO play > at venues where they will have mature audiences only, and the show takes on > a different, more relaxed tone. No, but the reasoning for not excluding those that are has nothing to do with them wanting to exclude the younger audience. Because, again, I'd find it very difficult to believe that they would want to exclude anyone from their shows deliberately. But they take the 21+ shows because in a lot of cases that is all they can get. Pittsburgh has exactly 2 venues where Fruvous can play. Both are 21+. (technically, although both often make exceptions) Your original statement indicated that you think they had scheduled both an all ages and a 21+ show specifically so they could have one show where the younger crowd was excluded. It seemed that you were extending your own views of what makes a show better onto what Fruvous believe make a show better. And I'm not sure those ideas are the same. - -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Früvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:25:12 -0400 From: lawrence solomon Subject: Re: Fake ID needed : ) Ellen wrote: > No matter how many times you say this, you don't mean "the audience" of a > band, you mean, "a specific subset of the audience." Because the rest of > the audience is pretty satisfied. And let's be realistic; a club's first > priority is being able to stay open. They do the best they can with the > laws they have to work around. Pleasing everyone is not a feasible > option; pleasing as many people as they can while still making a profit > is the option that keeps the club in business. But pleasing everyone must be feasible - if two venues in the same city are open and one has an age restriction and the other doesn't, there must be something the second one did so it didn't have the age restriction. Therefore, the first one can do something similar to also be all-ages. Take this situation: Venue A opens and is 21+. They sell out show after show after show. Meanwhile, the underage fans of these bands are being shut out and are getting annoyed at never being able to see the bands they like. Venue B opens two blocks away and is all-ages. The underage fans of these bands contact the management of the bands and say "Hey, a new place just opened up and it's all-ages, which means we could all go to your shows, too, *and* you don't have to worry about losing your audience because this place is the same size as the other one and you've been consistently selling out there." So they book a show at Venue B. It sells out and there are dozens of people still wanting tickets. So they schedule a second show. It also sells out. Suddenly bands stop playing at Venue A, because they've found a better place to play where they can do better and where their fans are happier. How can Venue A compete? They can lift the age restriction. > But we're talking about shows where you've already shelled out anywhere > from $10 to $25 on a ticket. And do you mean to tell me that if the club > charged another $10 for underagers to get in, you wouldn't still be > calling that discrimination? I doubt it. Either way, shows would become > prohibitively expensive pretty quickly. I would still call it discrimination, but in a way, it's not as bad. At least they get to see the show. It's not the best solution, but it's better than excluding them entirely. It's like the way insurance companies discriminate by charging way more for those of us under 25 for car insurance. > It's a nice idea, but not very practical. If they did it for *one* show > for Fruvous, why shouldn't they also do it next week-- for *one* show-- > for TMBG? and the week after, for Matchbox 20? and the week after, for > Motorhead? and three months later, for the next Fruvous show? Do you > see that it can't just be one show? It would have to be "one" show for > every band whose audience demanded it. A lot of venues solve this "problem" by having multiple events, especially on weekends. They'll have an early show with a band, and then open the place up for 21 and over only from 11-3 or something. > If someone drinks and drives, the club is responsible. Even if the > person had a foolproof fake ID. Even if the club posts a disclaimer every > two feet. That person gets pulled over, or gets in an accident; when the > police ask, "who served you alcohol?" and they answer, the club is > BUSTED. Period. that's absurd. I know it's the current practice, but it's still absurd. but I'm talking about the case where someone goes into the club, has no over 21 ID, and someone else gets a drink at the bar and brings it to that person. how can the club reasonably be held responsible for that if they're making the effort to ensure that it doesn't happen and that if it does, the people responsible get booted? - -- lawrence solomon * http://www.fruhead.com/users/zaph * zaph@fruhead.com "You knew it was true, when I held you, there were no secrets. I believed it." -Moxy Früvous, _I Will Hold On_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:42:59 -0400 From: Amanda Wilson Subject: Re; Collingswood show Gingee wrote: **Apparently this is the price range that the Philadelphia/WXPN market will bear. My front row tix for 11/19 at the Keswick (PA suburb of Philly) were $25.00, and seats beyond the first few rows are $22.50 and it is almost sold out.** I don't have a problem with the $22.50; I do have a problem with the *venue* charging an exhorbitant $4.00 per ticket "service" fee. This is not OK. I wrote a letter to the Keswick protesting this policy. We're customers, the venue is providing a commodity; this does not mean it's right for them to gouge us. - --Amanda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:56:35 GMT From: hugrod@home.com (Hugo Rodrigues) Subject: Re: OT: Arrogant Worms In article <940508841.18347.1.nnrp-04.c1ed70d4@news.demon.co.uk>, "Phil Miles" wrote: >2) Does anyone know of any other net sources of worms info? http://www.arrogant-worms.com New album just out too, "Dirt." o/~ She'll sing a song in English / then she'll sing en Francais / Both the songs will suck o/~ -- "Celine Dion" "Maybe the suburbs are just far too antiseptic / Give me some splatter splatter messing up this place!" - -- Moxy Fruvous, "Splatter Splatter" *MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO* Hugo Rodrigues Hugs on the Undernet / 49272270 ICQ Journalism Student http://members.home.net/hugrod/ Forever Fruvous!!! *MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO* ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #904 ********************************************