The Future of the Concord Pavilion

I'm glad to see that the City has been able to negotiate a new management agreement for the Pavilion with Live Nation. The City Council will consider the agreement at their meeting next Tuesday (March 22).

It's unfortunate that the agreement is only for two years and that the changing realities of the music/concert business has yet again reduced what Live Nation is willing to pay the City for the management rights to the Pavilion. Fortunately the City was able to refinance most of the outstanding Pavilion expansion bonds in 2009 and thereby lower the City's annual payments. This agreement with Live Nation covers those payments and eliminates the need to use any General Fund dollars to subsidy the Pavilion over the next two years. I think the Council should approve the agreement.

Then we wait. We wait to see if the concert industry ever recovers. We wait to see if the entertainment industry's business model will ever favor a Pavilion sized venue.

Or we act. Long ago community activists, benefactors and music lovers started a Jazz Festival that grew and that effort resulted in the Concord Pavilion. Can't we begin an equally challenging effort to restore community support and pride for our Pavilion?

I know times have changed and the professionals tell us it won't work. But in 1996 many of those same professionals told us – incorrectly – that investing $19 million to expand the Pavilion would ensure its success. They were wrong. I think a new community effort, working collaboratively with Live Nation, may be the only chance we have to both protect our General Fund and enhance the long-term viability of the Concord Pavilion.

What do you think?

http://www.PulseOfConcord.com EdiBirsan

There is also the alternative:to plan an exit strategy to get the city government out of the business of supplying a venue that feeds into a virtual monopoly by Live Nation.

I agree with many of the comments here but there is an interesting approach problem- the professionals have been wrong so let us go with the amateurs. The industry has changed and the problems are that Live Nation has a strangle hold on the industry and we are playing into a monopoly.

Maybe we need to think outside of the entertainment industry and see if we could convert it over to say a university of theater and business campus with the site being used as a on going work for the school to run. We could also then shift the costs to the University. Considering the poor state of the school system it may be unrealistic now, but maybe down the road. The important thing is to start to get the City out of the site which I also understand has various land deed restrictions.

Hats go off to Peggy L. and the finance team that restructured the debt that allows the city to reduce its exposure. This big effort allowed the City to survive the reduced rate negotiated with Live Nation. This is the problem with a monopoly in that we are not strengthened to force a better deal we are simply struggling with what in the end they give us. Then again if they hadn’t we would be really hurting again.

So I agree to a call to action-but I think that we need to expand the scope of range of solutions to include an exit strategy as well as something outside the constraint of having to deal in an industry that is dominated by a company where we have little leverage to negotiate with strength.
http://profile.typepad.com/guybjerke Guy Bjerke

Thanks for the comment.

Looking for an exit strategy is always an option and one that has been explored before and should be explored again as the situation changes.

Live Nation can easily walk away from the Pavilion when their management agreement expires. The City cannot easily walk away from either the Pavilion or the debt. That’s why I suggest we work collaboratively with Live Nation to find a win-win. It’s not about trading the professionals for amateurs but explaining why the community has a stake in helping the Pavilion succeed in the future.
http://www.PulseOfConcord.com EdiBirsan

On the other side, considering that we are in a very weak negotiation position right now, the shorter two year deal may not be such a bad thing. This gives us an opportunity to develop some things, and certainly a community take over approach might be one of them. For example the talent that Florence W. and her contacts that made the Todos Santos tours/shows work may be applicable to the Pavilion. I do not know this industry but it is an idea.

Clearly though we both agree that we have to create something different than the same reliance on Live Nation.
Phil Hanavan

I don’t know what’s going on with the prices at the Pavilion right now. My favorite band Rush is going to be playing there this coming June. I’ve seen Rush there many of times over the years. I’ve always gotten the lawn seats for no more than $30 or so a person.

Well now the lawn seats for Rush’s upcoming concert this summer are $85 a person which is just outrageous. I don’t need to see them that bad.

I don’t know why the prices are so high now. Out of all the bands I’ve seen there over the last 21 yrs., I’ve never paid that much just for the lawn.

If they keep charging prices like that they definitely won’t see as much of a profit like they have in the past.
http://profile.typepad.com/guybjerke Guy Bjerke

I understand your frustration.

The music industry has changed dramatically over the past ten years. Acts/Bands used to make most of their money from record/cd sales and use tours or concerts to promote those sales = reasonable ticket prices. Now they make most of their money from their performances and hardly anything from the digital downloads = outrageous ticket prices.

The Pavilion also has an awkward size problem. Acts either want a really big venue so they can charge less for tickets (still too much) but make it on volume or a really small venue so they can justify charging more for tickets to their “intimate” concert. The Pavilion doesn’t really fit into either of those categories.

Live Nation is struggling with both of those issues.

I just hope something changes soon. High ticket prices and poor attendance at concerts both hurt the long-term viability of the Pavilion.
Phil Hanavan

I’m probably going to fork out the $85 and go just to support Rush. Plus they’re playing an entire album of theirs from 1981 which they’ve never done. Songs I’ve never seen them perform before in the past.

So far I haven’t really heard of many good bands playing at the Pavilion this coming summer.
A.J. Chippero

Actually it may be a good thing that the city of Concord only signed a two year agreement with Live Nation. There is a very strong alternative to Live Nation, that being Another Planet Entertainment. A.P.E. was formed in 2003 by Gregg Perloff, Bill Graham’s right hand man, who left Live Nation.

Since 1985, when Bill Graham opened the Shoreline, that venue has had first dibs on most quality acts. As a result the summer line ups at both the Greek Theater and the Concord Pavilion began to suffer. Live Nation now owns the Shoreline and the Shoreline is still getting preferential treatment over Concord. The only reason Rush played Concord this summer, was due to the fact that they played the Shoreline last summer and this leg of the tour was to hit areas they didn’t hit in 2010.

A.P.E. has taken over the booking at the Greek Theater and that venue has seen a roster of quality acts that it hadn’t seen since the early 80’s. It would be great if the city of Concord gave A.P.E. a chance to manage the Pavilion. I bet we would see an increased summer line up of quality acts. This summer was pretty bare bones in Concord.

There was a time when artists toured to promote their albums and the bulk of their money was made through album sales. Times have changed and now artists are making the bulk of their money through touring and music has become a vehicle to promote the live shows. The concert industry is still alive and kicking. The city of Concord would do itself a great service by considering A.P.E. when the 2 year extension with Live Nation is up.
http://profile.typepad.com/guybjerke Guy Bjerke

A.P.E. was asked if they were interested and declined. Perhaps they will change their mind in the future. It’s an issue that’s not easy to fix nor going away anytime soon. Thanks for commenting.