From Seb Scotney of JazzDev
seb@jazzdev.org.uk

The Licensing Act has created new business opportunities.

But not for jazz musicians. Licensing lawyers will do rather nicely out of the Act. The Beer and Pub Association have been closely involved in it and aren't complaining. Local authorities have a new revenue stream. Training companies accredited to run courses for license-holders have done well. And there's even one little earner wholly dependent on music: it's called a noise limiter. It cuts off the power supply to bands that play too loud. Some local authorities have imposed the fitting of one at venues as a condition for granting a music licence.

The path for young jazz musicians trying to develop their craft and to build confidence and musicianship through gigging has never been an easy one. But now the number of potential outlets for informal music has been restricted for the first time. And the Licensing Act has strewn the path of young musicians with new barriers, loaded it with new direct and indirect costs. As Jamie Cullum said when interviewed by Radio 4's Front Row in January: "I feel quite strongly about this, this whole thing because about 90% of my gigs over the last five years now don't exist. The ones where I played and learned and got experience, and earned money. And I've so many friends now who aren't signed to labels, who aren't, you know, earning big money or anything who have lost a lot of their gigs."

The rationale for ending the two-in-a-bar exemption went further than just helping people to quieten noisy neighbours. The DCMS justified it because live music when unregulated led to social disturbance. Thus the law got passed for live music, even with one or two players to become "regulated entertainment" permitted only once a venue is licensed.

There are some exemptions where live music can be performed unregulated. Yes, the Act specifically exempts : royal palaces, the backs of moving lorries, and morris dancing. And our law-makers in the mother of parliaments enact these clauses with century-old pomp, dignity and a seriousness which leaves no room for satire. And to complete the indignity for musicians, a TV screen, however wide and however loud, is not deemed in itself to be regulated entertainment in the same way as a living musician. The voices protesting have been consistent. But musicians do not work with the same publicity resources as an industrial lobby or a government. Furthermore, regrettably, it has suited the Musicians Union to sit within the confines of the DCMS's Live Music Forum. The Forum has functioned since its inception as part of the spin machine to demonstrate that the Act is good for Live Music, rather than to express an opinion of its own. The minutes of its meetings consistently lament a lack of robust statistics past or present to inform it. Thus the spirit of denial has reigned supreme: the Union at the time of writing this had not issued a single formal press release giving out its policy or opinion on Licensing or its response to developments for more than two years.

This has not stopped people speaking out as the Act has become law. A letter signed by Humphrey Lyttleton, Jamie Cullum and members of the Dankworth family, which we at JazzDev co-ordinated with lobbyist Hamish Birchall and which was published in the Guardian in August 2005 made the point loud and clear: "Spontaneous home grown live music has been the grassroots from which British musicians in many genres of music have achieved worldwide success. The opportunity to play in public regularly allows musicians to develop a high level of technical facility and professionalism. Live music which only exists as pre-licensed "regulated entertainment" will stifle the creativity of the next generation."

It will take more than a noise limiter to silence voices as loud and clear as this.

Return to the Discussion Forum Menu >>
Send us your thoughts or Forum Article >>