Karaoke

[Ivan Viehoff]

What I don't understand is the point of the law...

Is it a question of licensing - having a license for live music to be performed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is not about copyright licensing, nor is it specifically about music.

 

It has been true for a long time in England and Wales (and maybe Scotland, but the law is different there), that a venue whose main function is a performance venue, such as a theatre, cinema (that's a "movie theatre" in some English dialects), or concert hall, and also places such as a disco, needs to have the appropriate licence, in addition to planning permission (that's "zoning" in some English dialects). The point is that, in this way, it is inspected by Health and Safety, and the licence is issued if they comply with fire regulations, among other things. Often also the bureaucrats have the power to make other little insistences, (We want a shrubbery... a nice one, on two levels, with a little path up the middle...) which they consider are appropriate to the safe operation of the venue in question. Of course, fires and other disasters are especially dangerous in buildings containing large crowds (cf, recent Buenos Aires disco fire, Russian army spraying nerve gas into the building).

 

The idea of the recent legislation is to bring temporary performance venues into line with the generic performance venues, so that they have to be inspected, comply with fire regulations, and, of particular importance, pay an annual fee for the privilege.

 

As a choral singer, I occasionally perform in churches which are not regular performance venues. In these cases the vicar may turn up to offer a prayer, and the ticket price may be redefined as a collection with suggested contribution rates. In this way, it can be called an act of worship, which is exempt from these rules. Probably you don't programme Orff's "Catulli Carmina" in such venues.

 

When one considers that such pubs and churches may often contain just as many, indeed more, people when there isn't a "performance" as defined, you realise how completely barmy this legislation is.

[Alan Day]

Not only that Ivan but it cuts across what has been going on in pubs for centuries and that is the singing and playing of Folk Music .

The UK "culture" suffered a great loss with the introduction of Juke Boxes and Sing Songs as such died out overnight.This pub in Morecambe decided to try and revive the old times with dramatic success and was immediatly nipped in the bud.

Our culture ,what there is left of it, has had it ,unless we fight against these decisions.

Al

[Mark Evans]

Thank you Ivan. At least now when I deal with the bureaucrats in my life (for I work for DAS STATE) I shall see them as the Knights Who Say Knee! It will make it a little less painful. A pair of coconuts for horse hooves and I'll sing "Brave Sir Robin" .

 

Alan, I hope you will keep fighting. A little light in a dark room always makes the cockroaches scuttle for cover. Being of the same breed, bureaucrats can rarely take illumination either.

Edited March 4, 2005 by Mark Evans

[stuart estell]

Being of the same breed, bureaucrats can rarely take illumination either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure that nice Mr. Fawkes had a similar idea... maybe it's time for another go

[otsaku]

Maybe a squeeze-in or workshop outside of parliament would be the answer.

 

I'd fly over for that. Been too long since I last protested outside of westminster

[JimLucas]

What I don't understand is the point of the law...

Is it a question of licensing - having a license for live music to be performed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The question" is indeed having a license for live music to be "performed", the interpretation of which has been expanded by authorities to include anything even vaguely related to music, whether or not by prearrangement, whether or not it is appreciated by others present, and I'm told that in some cases landlords have been considered liable for spontaneous "musical" occurrences that they themselves have promptly terminated.

 

As for "the point", the rules' supporters claim that the "goal" is public safety and order. Unfortunately, the reality is quite the contrary. Both the current law and the proposed law ignore the size and behavior of any audience, potential or real. Their main purpose -- certainly their main effect -- appears to be to abolish any form of "entertainment" that isn't controlled by and profitable to the entertainment industry.

 

The current law restricts performance in an unlicensed venue to no more than two persons "performing". And I believe that's more than two at a time, not singly across an evening. (geoffwright's comment left me unsure about this.) But apparently increasing numbers of officials have interpreted audience members singing along -- even when told not to, and even in the absence of a formal "performer" -- as counting toward a "performance".

 

I'm not sure of the current state of the proposed law, but as originally worded it would have required advance permits even for such things as church services and singing "Happy Birthday" at a backyard party. Protests have gotten some "exceptions" inserted (the Church of England still has some clout), but that's a bit like letting a mugger say, "OK, keep your father's watch; I'll only take your cash, credit cards (with PIN codes), and car." Sports or MTV on TV would be exempt, as would even constant playing of canned music, as long as it were interpreted as "background". Only live performances would require a license (though that would include a live DJ). But if some young man/woman were to creatively (though quietly) sing a marriage proposal to his/her partner in a restaurant or pub (possibly even out in the parking lot), the owner of the establishment could be subject to unspecified fines. Meanwhile, if I were to come to England on a performing tour, I would also be responsible for insuring that each of the places I performed had the proper license.

 

But back to the safety issue. As Ivan says:

When one considers that such pubs and churches may often contain just as many, indeed more, people when there isn't a "performance" as defined, you realise how completely barmy this legislation is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The authorities promoting the proposed law (and the current one, for that matter) are slying promoting the idea that safety issues are different for people hearing live music while they eat, drink, or just sit around, than when they do the same in the presence of canned music or no music... yet that there is no difference between a single unaccompanied, unamplified singer and a 12-piece multi-gigawatt heavy metal band, and that there are no additional issues of safety or public order when a pub is crowded with drunken football fans screaming at a big-screen TV and each other.

 

The idea of the recent legislation is to bring temporary performance venues into line with the generic performance venues, so that they have to be inspected, comply with fire regulations, and, of particular importance, pay an annual fee for the privilege.

That may be what the ministry propaganda claims, but my understanding of the proposed law is just the opposite... except for the paying part. It does not try to place a previously exempt set of establishments ("temporary" performance venues?) under uniform inspection, fire and safety licensing regulations, but rather to add yet a further inspection and license by the ministry of Culture, Media, and Sports (who are also going to take over licensing for alcohol?), with no guarantee that those doing the inspections or setting the fees will have any relevant training. Most of those newly covered by the proposed law are already subject to existing fire and safety laws pertinent to their normal business (or non-business), and will still have to satisfy a separate inspection and licensing requirement for that. (I can see it now: Some powerful local official wants to close down an establishment for personal reasons, so he directs the two inspectors to make incompatible demands on the establishment.)

 

Well, I'd better stop here, before I start suggesting parallels with various American political issues.

[Mark Evans]

Most likely be fun to read, but I confess spending time here in part to avoid thinking about Dubbya and his crowd o' buckaroos!

 

Passed a car yesterday with a cute bumper sticker: "Yee-Haw is not an acceptable foreign policy." Jee, ya' think?

[JimLucas]

Most likely be fun to read, but I confess spending time here in part to avoid thinking about Dubbya and his crowd o' buckaroos!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Careful, Mark. We like to keep this a peaceful place.

(Few enough of those left, these days.)

 

I deliberately avoid expressing my political, religious, etc. views here, because agreeing on an instrument does not insure agreement -- nor even tolerance -- in other matters. (Take piano accordions and singing, for example. )

[Mark Evans]

Right you are Jim.

[Helen]

Ah Jim Boy,

 

You do like to stir up trouble, dontya?

 

[Peter Brook]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments that others have expressed regarding pel or "2-in-a-bar" I don't think that Folk music will suffer in the long term, although there may in the short term be a huge amount of anger and frustration.

 

Us Brits tried for several centruries to stamp out the gaelic language and traditional irish music during our rule of Ireland, and both were banned for long periods. Irish music has survived rather well I think.

 

It will be horrible if English Folk music has to go underground to survive - but I'm sure it will survive.

 

I'm not sure if I have said this here before, but I live quite close to Finchcocks which has one of the largest collections of keyboard instuments (piano's in the main) in the world. I went to an evening recital there and the owner/curator produced a barrel organ manufactured in about 1800 (I think he claimed 1805). As he turned the handle the fantastic tune "Speed the plough" could be heard almost to a note as it might be played in a session or at an english dance! That made the whole evening for me and gave me a lot of hope that if we have kept true to tunes for 200 years we can carry on doing it .

[Helen]

Well, Peter,

 

Your reply was inspiring.

 

Thanks,

 

Helen