If you’re a regular reader of this column, it’s very likely you’ve seen the clip of new Chief Administrative Officer (and former Councilmember) Joe Giarrusso discussing, in the context of the current budget crisis, the $240,000 the Cantrell administration spent on Mardi Gras activities last year, highlighting in particular the approximately $15,000 spent on DJs at Gallier Hall. Instead of hiring DJs, he said, as a cost-saving measure the Moreno administration would be asking for volunteer “guests” to DJ the events or curate Spotify playlists. The media, always hungry for a Cantrell budget scandal, picked up on the comments and, without further research or context, fed a narrative that compensation for DJs was an example of wasteful or frivolous spending. Headlines like “Helena Moreno is spending less at Gallier Hall. She’s also looking for free DJs” added fuel to the fire, framing the story in a way that made it look like a deliberate undercutting of the Musician Pay Ordinance which was championed by Moreno and passed unanimously by the City Council last year. Community pushback, led largely by prominent local DJs, was significant, and three days after the story first hit, Mayor Moreno—to her credit—issued an apology, reiterating her commitment to fair pay for musicians and pledging to use private donations to ensure all DJs performing at Gallier Hall would be fully compensated. While the core issue is readily apparent—fair payment and respect for DJs as skilled professionals—both the initial pushback and eventual resolution help to highlight additional aspects that may be instructive whenever the next controversy arises.
In 2024, we collaborated with then Councilmember Moreno’s office to develop and pass the Musician Pay Ordinance, which had two key goals. The first—establishing the set pay rate of a minimum of $200 per musician per hour at City funded events—is well known and was widely reported. The second—and arguably more wide-reaching—is for the City to leverage its “soft power” and lead by example, encouraging outside promoters at large events (like, say, Mardi Gras) to match this rate as a minimum. By publicly announcing the replacement of paid DJs with volunteer guests during one of the most high-profile events of the year, the City fundamentally undercut this goal. Making matters worse, Michael Hecht, president & CEO of GNO, Inc.—the region’s economic development agency and home of METRONOME, a high-profile music start-up incubator—quickly jumped in and offered his DJ services for “a drink an hour.” Hecht, who makes well north of a half-million dollars a year at GNO, Inc., certainly wouldn’t work for drinks at his day job. He needs to follow the Mayor’s lead, apologize, and reiterate his—and GNO, Inc.’s—commitment to fair pay for musicians. GNO, Inc. also needs to use their considerable influence to push outside promoters to match City wages, just as the ordinance intends.
Despite the impact his comments made, it is fairly clear when re-watching the video clip in context that CAO Giarrusso did not intend to make an announcement of a policy shift regarding musician pay, nor to intentionally undercut the year-and-a-half-old ordinance. Rather, he was using the idea of “volunteer DJs” as an example of creative cost-cutting measures—but the implications of doing so simply weren’t fully thought out. Beyond the inherent problem and disrespect created by singling out the payment of professional DJs as an example of government waste (and replacing them with Spotify, a business notoriously unfriendly to musicians), this showcases the need to treat decisions that impact cultural practices and businesses with the same level of importance and vetting as they would receive in other government sectors. Imagine that public transportation funding was being cut and, instead of reducing bus routes, they replaced professional drivers with community volunteers. That would be ridiculous, right? Exactly.
The media, too, needs to shoulder some of the blame. Initial coverage leaned heavily into sensation, treating the story primarily as anti-Cantrell clickbait and failing to add any additional context. How did 2024’s Mardi Gras spending compare to previous years? What were the other $225,000 in expenses? How much does an average DJ charge during Mardi Gras, and what services are they expected to perform? None of these questions were posed in the first, mostly widely distributed, stories. Instead, we got headlines like “Cantrell Blew $15,000 on Mardi Gras DJ Sets” from WWL Radio, further devaluing the skill and professionalism of DJs and sowing more division. Sadly, many mainstream news outlets continue to engage culture only on a surface level, ignoring the serious economic and policy implications that decisions can have (but shout out to alternative outlets like The Lens, Veritè, Gambit, and of course ANTIGRAVITY, as well as reporters including Charisse Gibson and Ben Myers for taking cultural reporting seriously). The less we say about political influencers the better.
Ultimately, the entire controversy lasted only about 72 hours—a refreshingly brief period in a city where some issues remain unresolved after decades. This can be attributed to both the strong pushback from an empowered and united cultural community and a new mayoral administration that understood and was responsive to the criticism. We are under no illusions that there won’t be other points of controversy in the future, but hopefully the lessons learned here can lead to equally swift resolutions. Maybe we can aim for 48 hours next time.
This space is provided to MaCCNO as a community service and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or editorial policies of ANTIGRAVITY.
