
Quote from stopforme on Apr. 16, 2003 at 12:43 AM

the slow bar isnt that poorly designed. it just gets full. i guess the features are too big to play there, but they are pretty stringent about the 21+ rule so maybe that would help...
I think it's poorly designed, too. It's basically two separate stores that have been combined into one. The wall in the middle (behind the bar) really limits the number of people that could enjoy a show there. I think it's great for small, intimate shows, but I don't think it'd be much fun with a normal Features-sized crowd.
I've heard lots of people say they're strict about the age limits. However, when I went a couple of weeks ago to see Seth Timbs play, there was
no one at the door. (However, that's the only time I've been there so I can't say whether or not that's normal.)

Quote from HaveSomeSoma on Apr. 16, 2003 at 7:45 AM

it's the perfect size and layout. the raised stage, the floor below that, and then the elevated section behind that all make it easier for the most amount of people to see.
But the Exit/In has all of that, too. It also has more space and (in my opinion) better sound. So why should BSC be considered a "better" venue?
How are we judgind the venues, anyway? Is it based on technical merits (i.e. lighting, sound system, size) or is it "I have the most fun at the Boro, therefore it's the best venue for the Features"? I'm a bit confused.
grass stains, airplanes, anything and everything