The Live Music Forum
Bulletins From Hamish Birchall
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Live music & licensing - expect more spin
With a general election due in May, the government's licensing and live music
spin machine is changing up a gear. Both the Musicians' Union (MU) and the Live
Music Forum (LMF) seem happy to tag along. Recently both bodies have made dubious
claims, no doubt unintentionally, in support of either the MORI live music survey,
or the new licensing regime.
Taken at face value, musicians might conclude from these claims that gigs are
thriving, and the new laws can only make things better. But as in other areas
of government news control, necessary caveats have been omitted.
For example, Feargal Sharkey, chair of the LMF, writes in the current issue
of 'M' (the MCPS-Performing Rights Society magazine):
'Whilst it's pleasing that 47% of the venues we surveyed put on some kind of
live music, the flipside is that 53% don't. However after we told them that
the new Licensing Act should make it easier and generally, cheaper to put on
live music and then asked them if they would now change their minds - a third
said they would.'
The survey found that the licensees who knew most about the new laws were most
likely to say they would not consider having live music. 35% of MORI interviewees
said they would be certain NOT to consider having live music after having the
changes explained. An additional 30% were negative. In other words, more than
two thirds were negative. (See MORI live music survey QN9 and p21).
John Smith, General Secretary of the MU, writing in the current issue of Musician
(p23) says that the MORI survey showed '... approximately 1.7 million gigs were
staged in the UK's 150,000 pubs, restaurants, clubs and student unions in 2003'.
Smith, Sharkey and ministers have used this 1.7 million figure to suggest that
live gigs are respectively: 'live and kicking', 'still the lifeblood of the
music industry', and 'flourishing'.
In fact, the MORI data shows 850,000 was their best estimate for live gigs in
pubs, restaurants and hotels for the 12 months leading up to the survey. The
1.7 million figure was an estimate for ALL venue categories, not a sub-section
as implied above. There were seven venue categories, including members clubs
and associations (i.e. political clubs), church and community halls and hotels.
Many of the club and student union gigs will have been closed to the general
public. Scotland was excluded from the survey. The Department for Culture, Media
and Sport (DCMS) has also since conceded in correspondence that it could not
rule out the possibility that venues whose main business was live music had
been included. If this is the case, gig averages would have been distorted upwards.
There is also a possibility that some karaoke and DJs were included as 'live
music', particularly in pubs.
On the Licensing Act, Sharkey claims: 'Later this year the outdated "two
in a bar rule" will be ushered off the stage and replaced by a simpler
and fairer licensing system which combines alcohol and entertainment.' [Article
cited above].
He adds: 'The new licensing laws won't require pubs, bars, hotels or restaurants
to pay an additional fee when they apply to put on live music...'
These claims are misleading. For existing bars, pubs etc, the 'two for the price
of one' offer (i.e. alcohol AND music for one fee) only runs till November this
year. After then, if these venues have not obtained a live music authorisation
- which will be required for many 'two in a bar' gigs' - they will have to pay
an additional licence fee for it later, not to mention running the gauntlet
of complex forms, possible public hearings and costly licence conditions. Only
new venues will have the option to seek a dual permission for one licence fee
when applying for their 'premises licence'.
Sharkey continues: '... the form they use to convert their existing alcohol
licence provides a simple "tick box" system, making it easier for
applicants to "opt in" for staging live music, however many performers
are involved'.
Just because you start by ticking a box it doesn't follow that the new forms
are simple. As licensees have discovered, the new application forms are much
more complex in terms of the information required. Local authorities are looking
much more closely at the type of music being proposed. Indeed, this complexity
has already been cited as one cause of the delay in licence conversion applications:
'Local councils are increasingly worried that pubs and clubs will not have completed
their new applications in time to comply with the act. Only a handful have completed
the forms in a number of London boroughs, for example, and the Local Government
Association is warning that some landlords could end up being prosecuted. All
establishments must apply for their fresh licence by 6 August. Those who continue
to trade without one will be breaking the law. Part of the problem is the complexity
of the forms, but there is evidence of landlords waiting to see what their rivals
are doing.' ['Police fear chaos over pub hours', Jamie Doward, social affairs
editor, Observer ,p3, Sunday March 20, 2005]
As for Sharkey's claim that the new regime is 'fairer', this is manifestly false.
Without any rational justification, the new regime ensnares many more live music
events than before, including 'two in a bar' gigs, and private gigs raising
money for charity. Licensees may now face criminal prosecution for hosting solo
unamplified musicians unless licensed, while any amount of broadcast music or
football delivered via big screens and powerful amplifiers is exempt.
Hamish Birchall