25 February 2010 — SLAM
On Tuesday, like several thousand others, I attended the SLAM rally at Parliament House. I finished work too late to make it to the fun bit, but got to hear most of the speakers, and I'm glad I made it down.
As a musician in a couple of small independent bands, the closure of small-capacity venues would likely have an adverse affect of the number of gigs I could play in any given year. I haven't played many gigs in Melbourne recently however, so, unlike the closure of the Hopetoun in Sydney, I haven't lost any gigs because of the changes so far. On Tuesday we heard stories from those people who have already lost gigs, as well as stories from more famous musicians who have largely outgrown the sort of venues most likely to be affected, but still feel passionately about the importance of such places. However, while the fear of losing gigs was no doubt an important part of Tuesday’s rally, there were many other ideas people touched on.
People are fond of saying that laws that affect the cultural life of a community affect everyone in that community, and I'm not denying that. However, there are certainly many people in Melbourne who won't notice any changes to their lives due to these laws. Amongst the people who will likely be affected, there are two distinct groups: those who’ll be affected because of a loss of income or performance space; and those who’ll be affected by losing a place to attend as an audience member (though obviously many people do both).
It's easy to see that musicians and venue owners have a very strong interest in fighting these changes. Venue owners that are forced to pay for security guards at gigs attracting fewer than 50 people to the bar are going to find it hard to break even, and when you consider the financial burden on them - through the cost of P.A. equipment, sound techs, booking agents, etc. - it's hard to see why anyone would bother having bands play anywhere. Small venues are often run on very small profit margins, so the cost of two additional staff members each night is easily enough to tip them into running at an unsustainable loss. In this situation, venue owners have limited options: they can stop having live music, which would remove some of the security requirements; they can try to become a venue that books bigger-ticket bands that will draw bigger crowds and generate better income; they can close before 1 am; or they can close completely. In many cases, the last option is the only reasonable one. If you think of the Tote, the amount of money that it would take to convert the band room into a useable space to fill with enough drinkers to justify the rent would likely be prohibitive. Not to mention that a lot of the venue owners are more interested in running a music venue than a bar. It makes sense that people in their position should vigorously challenge the new laws, as their business' survival is at stake.
Musicians, too, will suffer if they lose places to play. Mid-to-large-sized venues are great if you can fill them, and are where bands need to play if they want to profit in any sense, but gigs at small venues are crucial, particularly for newer bands and local acts wanting to play more than once every few months. Bars like the Tote, the Birmingham and the Empress - among others - are famous for their month-long residencies, which many bands use to build sizeable audiences. The number of Melbourne bands you hear of getting popular after a building a fan base through a residency is surprisingly large, and it's a format that bigger venues simply can't offer. Also, if you're a new band, you simply won't be given a gig at a mid-sized venue, unless you're lucky enough to get put on as an opener for a more popular band. All of this mainly speaks to bands who play in the mainstream of rock and its relatives. If you're a jazz musician, smaller venues are even more important, because it's much less likely that you'll become popular enough to ever draw crowds large enough to warrant bigger clubs. On the other hand, most jazz clubs aren't likely to be affected by these laws, as they tend to not have liquor licenses that go past 1 am, (though saxophonist Andy Sugg pointed out at the rally, his residency at the Cape Live on Brunswick St. - which has gone on for several years now - has been cancelled, as the Cape Live doesn't operate as a music venue during the week anymore). Even musicians who are unlikely to be directly affected by the changes are still going to be against these changes, as they clearly feel like their community is being threatened. It probably isn't a stretch to say that most musicians in Melbourne would be opposed to the changes, and that the laws are not in their best interests.
Then, of course, are the people who have careers in the music industry that operates around performing artists. Venue bookers, concert promoters, sound technicians, band managers, and publicists all stand to lose income if fewer gigs get put on in Melbourne as a result of the laws. Again, no one in the music industry is helped by these laws, so it stands to reason that they're all going to be opposed.
The group that I'm particularly interested in are the fans and patrons of the affected bars. What do these people feel like they're losing because of these laws? For many people, the Tote was their local, and that's an important factor in many people's lives. Live music was a large part of why so many people chose to call the Tote their local, as opposed to other bars along the same road, though there were other factors as well, related to those ineffable qualities that create a good atmosphere. On top of that, many music fans prefer going to gigs at bars, as opposed to larger, specialised music venues. There are several reasons for this. Generally it's significantly cheaper to see a band at a bar, as the door charge is lower – or even non-existent – and the drinks are often much cheaper too. Bars also afford a group of friends the opportunity to see a gig without making it the central feature of their night out. If you go to a gig at the forum, you really only go to hear the music. If, on the other hand, you see a gig at the Tote, you can hang out at the bar, or go outside and have a smoke, plus chat between sets (as well as during the sets if you really want to). You can hear a few tunes, catch up with your friends and have a drink, without feeling like you need to give all of your attention to the music. For a musician, this could be seen as slightly dispiriting, but it's actually a very good thing. When you're starting out, it can be nice to know that people in the audience can have a good time regardless of whether or not you play a good set. You're only a small part of their evening, so you don't have quite the same pressure on you as you do when you're headlining a 300 capacity venue. At the same time, there's something special about catching a rising band at the point in their careers just before they get big. Many music fans who regularly attend bar gigs will have a memory of the time they saw some band playing to 10 people one night of a residency, only to come back the next week to see them play to the same room, now packed to the brim. Hearing bands at that moment is exciting, and they're often fondly remembered as the band's best gigs, both by the audiences and the musicians themselves. Special moments happen in all sorts of music venues, but there's something unique about the kind of thing that can happen in small bars, and music fans are rightly worried of losing the opportunity to hear them.
If we look at the way that these liquor licenses have been imposed, you can infer a particular set of premises, which would go something like this:
• Alcohol causes violence.
• The later a venue stays open the more likely it is to create an environment that is conducive to people getting violent.
• Venues with live music are more likely to have violent incidents than those without.
• Increased security is an effective way of curbing violence in venues.
The most contentious of these premises, and the reason for the protests resides in the third point, that somehow venues that host live music are immediately considered to be "high risk", and therefore require more security.
From the rally, these were the points that SLAM used to counter those premises:
• "High Risk" venues are important to the community and should be protected.
• Increased security is unnecessary, and therefore place an unfair financial burden on venue owners.
• Small venues can't profit if they comply with the new security requirements.
• Live music has no correlation with violence.
• Music promotes behaviour that is in opposition to violence, that, as was quoted (not particularly accurately) at the rally "Music hath charms to soothe a savage breast".
It was this last claim that made me uncomfortable, and that seemed to be a case of overreaching. It's in the interests of SLAM to deny all of the claims made by the government in relation to alcohol-related violence, and, largely, I think that they're correct to challenge them. However, everyone listens to music. To suggest that violent people won’t listen to music and, in some cases, use music as a way of psyching themselves up, is absurd. This isn’t because any music is immoral, but because it’s amoral. Music is like food, or like air. Its importance in the fabric of people’s lives is why so many are protesting these laws, but it also means that it’s ridiculous to suggest that it only ever calms violent people down.
Another issue I had with the speeches at the rally is that I never heard anyone mention the factor that opening hours play. Most of the extra cost imposed by the new regulations are for venues that open later than 1:00 am. For instance, in regards to security cameras, the Liquor Control Reform Regulations Regulatory Impact Statement (pdf) states,
The Director of Liquor Licensing has the power, under the Liquor Control Reform Act, to impose conditions on liquor licences. The Director routinely imposes a condition requiring the installation of security cameras on premises that:
• trade after 1 am and have live or amplified music.
While I can understand that it may not be possible for these places to make a profit without staying open past 1 am, this issue wasn’t really dealt with at all. However, these are minor issues, and really only examples of people at a rally not choosing to talk about both sides of the issue quite as evenly as they could. This is to be expected. It was a rally, not a debate, and it wasn’t there to air opinions of the opposing side. The government has already done that, largely by instituting these laws in the first place.
Of course, people at SLAM didn’t need to make any claims about music being anti-violent, it only needed to quote from the very report that led to these laws: the Liquor Control Reform Regulations Regulatory Impact Statement. This report specifically mentions live-music venues as being examples of venues for which they don’t have much data:
In relation to other venue types, particularly those offering live and recorded music, limitations in the data (missing or incomplete data) prevented drawing any firm conclusions about whether they represent a risk factor.
In fact, many of the implied premises of the laws can be challenged simply by looking at the Impact Statement. While live-music venues are being forced to provide security staff now (though I can’t, unfortunately, find the licensing section that mentions this requirement), the impact statement notes that
higher frequency of aggressive acts at licensed premises has been linked with the following staffing and management practices:
• Aggressive security staff.
It’s clear that the suggestion that live-music venues are somehow more susceptible to violent acts is not backed up by any data, and therefore the new regulations that are being imposed are entirely inappropriate. Near the end of the rally, it was announced that the SLAM organisers had reached an accord with the State Government. You can read this here (pdf). It certainly seems to suggest that this issue may be resolved in a way that should be much better than the regulations currently active but, unfortunately, this will be all too late for some much-loved venues.