- Photograph by Sebastien Dehesdin
The news of the Live Music Act becoming law has been widely reported this week, as the piece of legislation affecting all music venues throughout the UK was put into action on 1 October.
One of the main points of discussion surrounding this event has been a change made to a regulation outlined in the Licensing Act of 2003, meaning that venues hosting live music being performed to less than 200 people will no longer require a license. Many campaigned for this change to take place, and have welcomed this amendment to legislation which was widely recognised as a huge hinderance to small venues. But is it all it’s cracked up to be?
Today, we present Andy’s article to you as he gives us his take on what the law means for small venues, whether or not the changes initiated by the Act will lead to positive consequences, and who needs to do what in order to help support the grass roots live music sector.
For more information about MusicTank and the live music industry lecture series to be presented by Andy Inglis in February 2013, send an email to the following address: email@example.com
Wanted: Nine Million, Affluent Gig-Goers
Just the other day The Live Music Act 2012 became law in England and Wales, which ushered in the deregulation of live performance in rooms of no more than 200 people capacity. I’ve followed its progress for some time, attended debates, and been invited to give my perspective on it.
I don’t claim to understand every word (it’s a piece of legislation and my mind doesn’t effortlessly wrap itself around legalese), but I know enough to risk writing about it on a public website. And I’d suggest I know more about running a small venue than most, if not all, of the architects and supporters of the bill…
I used to co-own a small venue. I know what it’s like at the coalface (and wrote frankly about it here). I know what it’s like to operate in an environment where – unlike almost all of our European neighbours – there is close to no financial state or industry support for our small venues (but plenty for opera, ballet, classical and our world-class arts centres such as the Southbank and the Barbican). These days I lecture in live music, manage and tour manage bands, consult for foreign bands who want to break the UK, and a bunch of other stuff that, in all honesty, should probably preclude my getting involved in this debate.
Moreover, my arguments against this new Act are now utterly redundant now that it’s law, whether it was my contention that, in fact, there wasn’t necessarily that much ‘red tape’ involved in getting an entertainment license, or that I can’t work out where – once we have a load of new rooms putting gigs on – we are going to find the people to populate them, and that latter point is the one I want to mull over here.
Jo Dipple is Chief Executive of UK Music, whose website defines its purpose as “the umbrella organisation which represents the collective interests of the UK’s commercial music industry – from artists, musicians, songwriters and composers, to record labels, music managers, music publishers, studio producers and music licensing organisations”.
It also has as one of its members the Live Music Group, which consists of eight industry bodies under an umbrella. I cannot find a website for them, though it seems that they meet every six weeks, presumably to talk about the big issues for the live industry, one of which, it seems, was the need to put every UK festival on a big map.
If they’ve made progress in other areas then they really should make it easier for us to see. They have important work to do.
Anyway, Jo says that the 2012 Act will mean “the staging of live music will be easier and cheaper for venues up and down the country. Venues with an audience of 200 and under will no longer require an entertainment license for the staging of live music. This means many more venues can now put on live performances without needing to apply for a separate license or bear any additional cost for this.”
UK Music commissioned a study to assess the potential effects of the introduction of the Act and – in a particularly clear and easy to read document - suggested the following, though I should point out that the figures are projections based on the reported intentions of new and existing venues:
- If every premises that said it would increase the number of shows as a result of the Act did so, after just one a year, there would be 33,400 more live shows
- If the 13,000 premises that currently don’t stage any live music went on to host the average number of shows per year there would be an additional 312,000 live music performances each year
- If they’re right, and England and Wales have to support another 312,000 live shows per year, and if we very conservatively say that there will be 30 people at these shows, that’s 9,360,000 people needed to populate them
I would therefore like to respectfully ask UK Music, The Musicians’ Union, the UK Live Music Group and the other supporters of the Act three questions:
- Where will these 13,000 new rooms and these 20,400 existing rooms the Bill’s proponents cite find 9 million people to populate their gigs?
- Where will those 9 million people find the money to pay to get in and buy a drink?
- What will the effect of this pilgrimage of 9 million people (who we can assume currently exist, and who already have places to go when they decide they can afford a night out) have on the existing venues who’re finding it hard to get enough people through the door as it is?
Now of course, some of these people will go to shows regularly so we don’t need to actually find 9 million extra people, but the people have to come from somewhere, so where they will come from if not, partly, from existing live venues?
Sorry, that’s four questions.
Now, it’s unlikely that all those premises who say they will start hosting live music, or increase the number of shows they currently offer, will do so to the extent that UK Music’s figures suggest is possible, but if there’s only a 10% increase, that’s still almost a million extra gig-goers.
If you were to read the press, or follow bodies such The Musicians’ Union, UK Music and others on social media platforms, you would assume that This Is A Good Thing.
And in some ways it is. Deregulation in this area is generally to be applauded. Schools and churches not having to jump through hoops to host live music is probably a good thing. A live music room appearing in a town where one did not exist is potentially a good thing. Good, creative promoters utilising previously-unused spaces to programme innovative music and other art is a good thing. And it is right that these positives should be highlighted.
But in some other ways it Is Not A Good Thing. And it is right that these should also be highlighted. But that is not happening. It’s pretty much been a one-way street of This Will Be Great, Let’s Have A Party At The Houses Of Parliament.
I might feel more relaxed about all of this back-slapping and glass-raising if, in my twenty-three years in this business, during which I’ve toured all over the UK, Europe and the US, live-music-hosting pub landlords had demonstrated an understanding of the economics of live music, and an appreciation for both the artists’ craft and the needs of their customers. But I’ve mostly seen them look upon bands as a way to get a few extra bodies through the door and a few extra quid in the till, often with the bands being paid nothing more than two cans of Red Stripe each. But that’s fair enough, no? We live in a capitalist society, venues come and go and there’s no point getting attached to inanimate objects. However, let’s not pretend that this is going to do anything to improve the production and customer service standards in a country with the world’s worst reputation among touring musicians.
If proponents of the Act did not foresee the potential downside for existing live venues, then that’s pretty worrying. If they did but chose to ignore them, then that’s pretty irresponsible, particularly when some of these organisations represent the interests of those who may be affected. The grass-roots industry needs funding. It needs hard cash. It needs support. It needs sponsors. It needs some of the aforementioned bodies to put money on the table to pay for new infrastructure and equipment.
I call upon The Musician’s Union, UK Music, UK Live Music Group, Audience Magazine, IQ Magazine, PRS For Music, CMU Daily, Music Week, MusicTank, The Live Music Forum and the rest of a long roll-call of industry bodies, media outlets and individuals who have the power to affect change, particularly those of them who fought long and hard for the Act to be made into law. I call upon them to start a dialogue, to commission a report into the potentially detrimental effects of the Live Music Act on our existing small venues who are already struggling in what is widely recognised as the worst economic climate in living memory.
I call upon them, for they have the power and I have none.
I call upon them to look at the damage the Act might do to our existing small venue circuit, and I urge the small venues who are worried to shout louder.
The only thing that would make me happier would be if the live music industry put their drinks down for a minute, came out from under their umbrellas, extended a hand toward our existing small venues and said; ‘We see that you are struggling and we recognise how vital you are to our industry. How can we help?’
Let me know if you need help finding their email addresses and phone numbers.
Fresh on the heels of the success of its 2012 Live Music Industry short courses in London, and delivered in partnership with Generator in Gateshead and the Welsh Music Foundation in Cardiff, MusicTank will once again be running an updated and refreshed Live Industry course in London, Feb 2013, written and tutored by Andy Inglis, MD 5000 and former co-founder of Luminaire (register your interest here firstname.lastname@example.org).