Richard

I think I agree in part.

The saving in para 1(6) applies so that if a person merely
(a) chooses music; or
(b) determines the way in which HE performs or plays; or
(c) provides any facilities for HIS performance

then doing that thing does not make him "concerned in the management or organisation".

However, where we part company is that if that saving does not apply, eg if a person tells another player how to play, or lends another player an instrument, it seems to me that that person is not to be treated as "concerned in the management" etc.

Obviously then the entertainment, even if not for the public or in a members club, becomes regulated entertainment if that person is also paid (Para 4).

So who now commits an offence?

See S 136 (1) - any person carrying on a licensable activity without a licence commits an offence. By S 1(1) a "licensable activity" includes the provision of regualted entertainment, and our hypothetical person clearly does that.

Is he then, saved by S.136 (2)?   Well, is "his only invovlement" that he "performs live music"? We know the answer to that. He is, for the reasons above, "concerned in the management" (certainly if the event is private but regulated). So he commits an offence - if the event is private but regulated.

Could he possibly be guilty if the event were private but regulated, but not commit an offence if it were public or in a member's club?. That would be hte sort of constructional anomaly the courts would surely find anathema.

I therefore adhere to my original construction of the provisions, subject to the exact location (to which you point) in that construction, of the workd "ONLY".