I suppose what I can't figure out is that in the case of Camellia Lounge, why would they stop the music when they didn't seem to really be paying for it anyway? I always thought it was a door gig. The band took whatever came in from the door, plus tips. I never found it to be lucrative; even when the place was packed, it wasn't a huge money maker for musicians. Still, it was a place to play where the booking didn't seem to be locked up for a handful of regulars. My question is, now, without music, do the new owners think that anybody will go there for dinner? I don't know, maybe the music drove more people away than it brought in? I would be curious to see where they are at in a few months. Maybe they will come crawling back to us, "please come back, it's dead without the music!"
One thing that drummer Sam Foulger pointed out on the positive side is that:
It's good to remember that half the venues we're talking about didn't have live music five years ago (some of them weren't even open yet). Ordinary, but determined, people made them into performance spaces. There will be more if we make them.
This is why I'm expressing my frustration, but only so that I can get it out of my system and move on. There are still places to play and still places that could have more playing. We still need to get people to come out to shows more, and support the scene so that the venues we still have continue to thrive. I'm for hitting the streets to find some new places. Even if we have to rent a space, or have a concert at PSU, or have it in my backyard, or even in my tiny living room, I'll keep trying to find places to play.