|
13 Jan 06 - 08:01 AM (#1647676) Subject: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: ET I see from todays Times that Jamie Cullen, Leading UK Jazz Piano and Singer, is to play an "unlicensed" concert to challenge the music licensing requirements of the 2003 Act. He hopes he will be prosecuted. I hope he can take the Human Rights issues. Fergal Sharkey has come out strongly in favour of the Act. What a surprise. Interesting also to note that Kim Howells of the Foreign Office, formerly Education and formerly Ministery of Fun (DCMS) authorised someone on the Sex Offenders register to work as a PE Teacher. This is the same Kim Howells who steered the music provisions from Parliament. Seems his judgement has not improved with experience? |
|
13 Jan 06 - 08:23 AM (#1647693) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Paco Rabanne An excellent stand by Mr Cullen. |
|
13 Jan 06 - 10:03 AM (#1647781) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: GUEST,Baz I hope they throw the bloody key away....... Only joking, more power to him for highlighting the problem and standing against it. |
|
13 Jan 06 - 10:16 AM (#1647801) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1981930,00.html |
|
13 Jan 06 - 10:26 AM (#1647822) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles http://www.entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14932-1983491,00.html The Times January 13, 2006 Star to defy live music law By Adam Sherwin, Media Reporter YOUNG musicians will be silenced by new licensing laws that could restrict the performance of live music, a leading star has cautioned. Jamie Cullum, the top-selling jazz artist, is planning to stage an "illegal" gig in protest at the legislation, which requires the owners of venues to pay for a music licence even for a pub performance by a pianist. Until the Licensing Act came into force last November, venue owners did not require an entertainment licence for performances by only one or two musicians in a bar. Under new rules landlords must obtain a licence, costing up to £1,000 for any live performance. The maximum penalty for anyone breaching the rules is a £20,000 fine and six months in prison. Mr Cullum, 26, told The Times: "I started out playing little duo gigs in pubs, clubs, bars and pizza restaurants. Many didn't have entertainment licences. If this law had been in force I would never have been able to come to London and get myself known. "I feel very strongly that removing the 'two-in-a-bar' rule will damage opportunities for young musicians and I want to make my voice heard. I want to stage an illegal gig at a venue playing 'two-in-a-bar'. They can arrest me if they want and I am willing to pay the fine." Ministers argue that the licensing changes will increase opportunities for young musicians. A Culture Department spokesman said: "The 'two-in-a-bar' rule was nonsensical. The White Stripes (rock duo) wouldn't need a licence, however many amplifiers they were plugged into, while a string quartet would. It encouraged promoters to put on just solo performers or duos." ENDS |
|
13 Jan 06 - 10:37 AM (#1647837) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Paco Rabanne In The Shambles first post here there is a link to The Times AND they are asking for responses to the article. Fire away, I have! |
|
13 Jan 06 - 10:39 AM (#1647839) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: GUEST,Baz " Ministers argue that the licensing changes will increase opportunities for young musicians. A Culture Department spokesman said: "The 'two-in-a-bar' rule was nonsensical. The White Stripes (rock duo) wouldn't need a licence, however many amplifiers they were plugged into, while a string quartet would. It encouraged promoters to put on just solo performers or duos." " What a stupid argument. If they really think that promoters and pub owners put duos on because they don't want to pay for a licence, how does making all music subject to a licence increase the amount of live music? They've just said that people DON'T LIKE PAYING FOR LICENCES! Grrrrr....... |
|
13 Jan 06 - 01:40 PM (#1647968) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles It seemed to be difficult (for me anyway) to find where contributions to the The Times online debate could be seen. I did find it and here it is. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1981930,00.html |
|
13 Jan 06 - 02:42 PM (#1648014) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Folkiedave The White Stripes (rock duo) wouldn't need a licence, however many amplifiers they were plugged into, while a string quartet would. It encouraged promoters to put on just solo performers or duos. The White Stripes plugging in amplifiers would be subject to noise regulations. Acoustic music (like a string quartet) is also subject to noise regulations - the difference is they rarely break them. Let's just remember this does not apply to Scotland - the world does not seem to have collapsed any more than it has in most other European countries. |
|
13 Jan 06 - 03:32 PM (#1648056) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Leadfingers I think we should all contact Jamie Cullen and ask him if he needs any assistance !! No point in an 'Unknown' challenging the powers that be on their own . but a 'Name' might just have some effect . |
|
13 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM (#1648076) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way (Cullum) From: Folkiedave I think his point is that he made hname as a solo artist. Under the old regulations he didn't need any permissions or licensing to play in pubs. Now he does. He was on the radio tonight. Errr.he might be an unknown to you..... And his name is Cullum on his own website!! http://www.jamiecullum.com/ |
|
13 Jan 06 - 07:17 PM (#1648228) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Richard Bridge And who is going to be liable for the fine? Go and read the Act! |
|
13 Jan 06 - 08:19 PM (#1648275) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles He does say that he is prepared to pay the fine but it would still be the owner or licensee of the premises that would have the prosecution against their name and of course it may not just only be a fine. So I can't really see it happening. Unless and perhaps he is going to stage the gig on his own property? |
|
14 Jan 06 - 06:32 AM (#1648481) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles The following from Hamish Birchall Following The Times' coverage, BBC R4's 'Front Row' interviewed Jamie Cullum yesterday about his protest against the new licensing laws, (see transcript below). It seems The Times misquoted Jamie, and his 'protest gig' now looks unlikely. Nonetheless, he remains outspoken in his opposition. Note that both the BBC and The Times were inaccurate about the '£1000 licence fee'. For a typical bar or restaurant, it would be knock-on costs that push the total bill to over £1000. However, as earlier BBC reports showed, total costs including live music permission were often in excess of £2,000. This came about because of lawyers' fees and the cost of architects' plans, not to mention implementing local authority licence conditions which can add thousands more. DCMS is up to its usual tricks, reportedly claiming that the new law is 'fairer'. Fairer to recorded and broadcast entertainment, yes. Jukeboxes and other sound systems already in situ were waved through on the nod, and big screen sport (or music) is exempt. But the unlicensed provision of one or two live musicians in a restaurant, even unamplified, is criminalised. DCMS also claim in a statement that 'a significant number of pubs have applied for the new entertainment licences'. What they didn't tell the BBC is: 1) Live music applications are not granted licences; 2) many such applications will fail, and many will be granted subject to expensive conditions (installing CCTV for example); 3) even where they are granted, only when the licence conditions are implemented will it be legal to have live music; 4) a very significant number of pubs have lost the automatic right to solo or duo gigs and will not have any live music permission on their new premises licence. Several musicians have contacted me in the last week with reports of more two-in-a-bar gigs lost as a direct result of the new licensing laws. I am preparing these for another circular shortly. ~ ~ ~ BBC Radio 4 Front Row - Friday 13 January 2006, 7.30pm approx - Jamie Cullum licensing protest Presenter, Kirsty Lang: Hello. The top-selling singer and pianist Jamie Cullum tells us why he's planning to stage an illegal gig. [Other programmed items are introduced before the pre-recorded interview with Jamie] Kirsty Lang: [Richard Ashcroft music plays].... Richard Ashcroft, and 'Keys to the world' is out on January 23rd on the Parlophone label and you can find details of Ashcroft's current tour by going to our website. Now he has spoken about how he likes playing small, intimate venues. Something which fellow singer Jamie Cullum warned today is under threat. The best-selling jazz musician says he's planning to stage an illegal gig in protest at the government's new licensing laws which means that all venues are gonna to have to pay £1000 to put live music on, even if it's only one man on a keyboard in a pub. Up until November, no licence was required if there was only one or two musicians playing. Well I spoke to Jamie Cullum on his way to a gig in Cardiff earlier today, and I asked him why he was making this stand. Jamie Cullum: 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 earnt 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. Kirsty Lang: So what you're saying is that er none of the places you played, the landlords wouldn't be prepared to pay a £1000 licence fee Jamie Cullum: Well the thing is... Kirsty Lang: to put a gig on... Jamie Cullum: ... a lot of people don't know how it works, because normally when you get something like jazz which is a kind of minority interest music, it's not normally the venues who decide to put music on. It's normally like a, a local enthusiast who goes along to a venue and says why don't you have a jazz night once a Thursday, I'll promote it, I'll put it on and, and all we'll need is this, and you know I'll get some more people down, I promise it'll work. And suddenly there's a thousand pounds to be paid, and you know the landlord certainly isn't going to do it and your average everyday promoter from Wiltshire or from wherever, or the outskirts of London, isn't gonna be able to afford that and, and therefore won't be doing it. Kirsty Lang: Do you have a, a date and a venue yet for your illegal gig? Jamie Lang: No, I mean the thing... I was slightly misquoted on that because of course it wouldn't be me who was arrested. You know it would be the venue who was in breach of that contract, but I was so annoyed when I realised that it was actually coming in that I, I just really think that er, you know I believe this law's been implemented because they were just trying to tie up all the loose ends with the licensing laws. These laws have always been a bit weird. Back in the day when I was doing duo gigs, you know if you had a third musician suddenly it was against the law. You could have the White Stripes in, you know because it was just two people. So it just hasn't been thought through, and it hasn't been thought through the impact it has on the everyday musician. Kirsty Lang: Well I mean, as you, as you say the previous law was nonsensical, according to the Culture Department. Actually, the point now is that the law, they say, will be fairer. Jamie Cullum: Well, it certainly kind of, put some kind of governmental kind of stamp on it... [phrase unclear] now there's kind of restrictions. But unfortunately now what it's just doing is driving live music out of your everyday average place. Kirsty Lang: Jamie Cullum. And we did talk to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport who look after these matters and they told us that a significant number of pubs have applied for the new entertainment licences. END of Jamie Cullum piece. |
|
18 Jan 06 - 05:20 PM (#1651170) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: YorkshireYankee If only it was the musician who would be subject to arrest/fine... it would be so much easier to make a stand and show how ridiculous this policy is. There are a bunch of us here in Sheffield who would have already staged a "sing-in" type event by now, I'm sure -- I'd certainly be prepared to go to jail myself; it would be worth it for the media attention it would doubtless attract. But of course, it's one thing to do that if you suffer the consequences yourself -- and a far different matter if your actions cause a third party to be fined and/or arrested. |
|
18 Jan 06 - 06:08 PM (#1651189) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Folkiedave You are so right Vicky - we cannot civilly disobey because we are generally not the ones who suffer. However there may be ways around this. Performing in a public park might be a way of getting arrested. Dave |
|
19 Jan 06 - 08:50 PM (#1651845) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: YorkshireYankee My husband suggests we round up a small 'band' of performers (a few hundred should do it, although more would certainly be welcome!) to go perform live just outside, say DCMS (the Department of Culture, Media and Sport), (apparently demonstrations are banned within a certain distance of Westminster/Parliament, so that's probably not a practical choice of location) -- or maybe in front of Buckingham Palace, or in a Royal park, or just outside a major city's town hall? Presumably none of these places are licensed to have live gigs, and therefore the DCMS ministers, or the Royal family, or someone inconveniently embarrassing -- would be in violation of this asinine reg -- and subject to prosecution, fine, etc. Probably requires a bit more in the way of research to be sure, though (like, would everyone simply be arrested for trespassing or somesuch rather than violating licensing regs?) -- anybody out there know a bit more about such things? If I thought it could really work, I'd be there like a shot... |
|
20 Jan 06 - 06:40 PM (#1652332) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Folkiedave I am trying to think of ideas which are illegal/legal/illegal in rapid succession. E.G. two fiddle players in a pub with no-one else is legal (no audience) but once someone else comes in - illegal (audience) - then a pub full of players - legal,(no audience) - one stops playing - illegal (audience) sort of thing. In fact I have a letter to my MP (Hillsborough) on those lines. Yes it is daft - but so is the act, and so were the Japanese drummers so beloved of Kim Howells. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 06:02 AM (#1652664) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles E.G. two fiddle players in a pub with no-one else is legal (no audience) but once someone else comes in - illegal (audience) - then a pub full of players - legal,(no audience) - one stops playing - illegal (audience) sort of thing. Perhaps the best approach is not to focus on live music at all but on the other things that are now Regulated Entertainment and which directly affect many more people. For now the above senario is exactly the same - if the activity is darts or pool. These things can now be considered as licensable Regulated Entertainment - if they are for the purpose of entertaining an audience. So if any LA's licensing officers should seriously consider the simplistic act of there being others customers present and these forming an 'audience' when participatory social music making takes place in a pub - the same is equally now true for social games of dart and pool etc. Perhaps the best approach is to contact your LA's licensing dept and report all the cases where entertainment permission has not be obtained and where social games that could be considered as licensable Indoor Sports because some other customers may be watching, be entertained and thus form an audience? If these LAs should respond saying that they do not consider these events to be licensable Indoor Sports - as they are not for the purpose of an audience then you simply insist - through your local councillors that the same approach be taken with participatory social music making......Or vice-versa. No LA to my knowledge is making a case that social games of darts etc require Premises Licence entertainment permission or taking steps to prevent them without this (yet). However, I am pretty sure that if you asked your local licensing section if participatory social music making in a pub required entertainment permission - you would be advised that it would as it could be considered as Regulated Entertainment. As well it could but only if it were for the purpose of an audience as could darts and pool etc. This is my answer from the second-in-command of my local authority - Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. As I said at our meeting, it is important to emphasise that if musicians regularly congregate at a pub to play, this could constitute regulated entertainment and so the pub would be likely to apply for a licence to provide regulated entertainment as the Cove House Inn already has. This answer rather side-stepped the question that was asked about the possible re-start of a session at the New Star without a licence to provide regulated entertainment but which was not being asked for such a thing to enable for players of darts or in their skittle alley. The only reference in this letter to Indoor Sports was only to confirm that the council were adhering to section 5.15 of the statutory guidance to the Act (that I referred to). The letter clamed that the writer could not remember any further specific enquiry about pub games but that I was free to contact them for further clarification. Which I intend to do.... There is no real danger that asking for all your local pubs to have entertainment permisssion to enable darts and pool because your local authority somply is not going to do this, whatever the words of the law say. But by taking this approach and obtaining maximum publicity for it- it could result in the words in Schedule 1 of the Act being changed by the Secretary of State. For the irony is that there are no saving words or specific exemptions for pool and darts in the words of the act. Unlike the exemptions for incidental live music, non-amplified music for Morris dancing and the restrictions that can be placed on non-amplified live music in small premises, which do appear in the words of the Act. The only saving words for social games of pool and darts etc appear in the Act's Guidance. Many licensing officers have seemed to think that their role under the old legislation was to make life difficult for live music. It was not to make life difficult for darts and pool. So despite major changes in the words and scope of licensing legislation - they seem intent to carry on just as before. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM (#1653241) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Dave'sWife Young Jamie is doing quite well for himself. He could easily rent out some ramshackle pub and then invite all his record label pals for an illegal gig and as proprietor, hold his hands out for the shackles. Would be great free publicity. (His record company here in the USA spends a fortune promoting him BTW) I say go for it Jamie boy. (BTW - I haven't been able to get on the Mudcat for WEEKS! Combo of personal illness, death in the family and other crazy crap. Hey ho fellow 'catters.) |
|
22 Jan 06 - 07:20 AM (#1653344) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: ET I would like to know what is really behind the music provisions of the licensing act. I read the debates and the passion that Howells put into it - who was driving him? Why did he, with the aid of his flock of sheep, override such reasonable amendments as if the consequences of admitting they were wrong would have been rioting in the streets. I note Howells is the named minister who allowed sex offenders into schools. Did he have the same passion? I read with incredulity his comments that the Irish fantasied about traditional music, and how he, Howells, hated folk music. I sugeest all musicians challenge prosepctive councillors at the next local elections and any politicians they can get near to, as to why HM Government considered it necessary to "encourage" live music by requiring a licence under pain of heavy penalty for not having the same. I think most would be taken aback and would have no explanation but the Ministry of Fun seems competely impervious to these protests. The DCMS acts as if it were a creation of Soviet Russia. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 08:02 AM (#1653358) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles I do share that opinion of the Act's entertainment provisions and the words of Schedule 1 need to changed by the Secretary of State as soon as possible and pressure needs to be applied to that end. However these provision are now past to our local authorities to enforce. It is my firm belief that where there is a will there is still a way under this legislation for LAs to hold policies that could still enable much live music that is needlessly threatened. It is up to us to ensure that our LAs do find such a will. A will demonstrated by Sheffield City Council when they enabled without entertainment permission, what was in effect a regular participatory pub session just prior to Christmas, by considering it exempt - rather ingeniously as the provision of entertainment for the purposes of a religious meeeting or service. Unless there is evidence to the contrary. You may like me consider this move by Sheffield City Council to be a little questionable but the point is that (where there is the will to do so) such interpretations can be made under this legislation will stand unless or until someone mounts a legal challenge to it. It could well be a good idea to mount a legal challenge to this - on the grounds of potential discrimination under human rights legislation. The exemption for music that is for the purposes of, or purposes incidental to, a religious meeting or service would seem to discriminate against secular music in secular venues or at events that could not be described as 'religious meetings'. Why should carol singing in bars be treated differently to secular singing in bars? The Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Parliamentary committee which scrutinises all new legislation, considered the religious venue exemption back in 2003, commenting: 'The Government announced on 3 February 2003 that there would be exemptions from the need to obtain a licence for places of religious worship where secular entertainment takes place. This apparently random exemption for places of religious worship might tend to undermine the argument for the rationality of the blanket licensing scheme as a whole, and could engage other human rights issues by appearing to discriminate against occupiers and users of non-religious premises.' ['Scrutiny of Bills: Further Progress Report', Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, HL Paper 50, HC 397, 10 February 2003, para 18, p10] Of course, the Act's exemption for entertainment at places of religious worship covers not only entertainment at places of religious worship, but entertainment at any other place if it is for the purposes of, or purposes incidental to, a religious meeting or service. In other words, the scope for potential discrimination is far wider than first considered by the JCHR. It may therefore be possible for secular singers in non-religious venues reasonably to argue that this exemption amounts to arbitrary and wholly unjustified discrimination against their right to manifest '...religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance' under Article 9 of the European Convention. This in addition to the by now well rehearsed arguments that the Act unjustifiably restricts the right to freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly (Article 11). Is there anyone - (preferably qualified for full legal aid) - willing to take this one up with Sheffield City Council? |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:33 PM (#1653565) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: GUEST,Ritchie I can't always fathom the rights and wrongs of legislation. What is happening in the rest of Europe? What do they do in France, Belgium, Germany? for goodness sake if it's not happening in Scotland! Why oh why do we allow this type of thing? unless of course we just sit back and think "well it doesn't affect me" Well does it? or more to the point, will it? I've just bought an ukelele and went to a pub last thursday where other 'ukeleleans' practise with their 'weapons of mass distraction'. As we did 'our practise',a couple of people in the 'audience'(ie those with out weapons)not only requested a song, but actually sang along so 'what's the score' with that? Gargoyle, do you fancy standing for Parliament? |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:38 PM (#1653574) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Pete_Standing I seem to remember concerns about musicians trying out instruments in a music shop could breach the regulations. I can't find the thread in question. Shambles, from what you say above, is it possible that churches could hold secular concerts without infringing the laws? What about the singing of carols in a public place that is not part of a "service"? I know a minister who is involved in folk music. If he was to lead a session in a pub by opening and closing with a prayer, would that constitute a religious service and therefore make the session exempt from the law? |
|
22 Jan 06 - 03:30 PM (#1653699) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: The Shambles Let take a case of high street where next to one another you had a church a pub and cafe (not serving alcohol or opening late) and all wanted to stage the same live musical performer in a commercial concert. The church would NOT need to apply or pay for a Premises Licence, entertanment permission or the annual inspection charge. The pub would need to apply and pay for a Premises Licence, entertainment permission and the annual inspection charge and a personal licence to sell alcohol. The cafe would need to apply and pay for a Premises Licence and the annual inspection charge - just to obtain the entertainment permission. The other questions can only really be answered by asking your local licensing authority. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 03:35 PM (#1653702) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: YorkshireYankee Hello, YY's husband here. Perhaps we need a folk musician's multi-denominational (including atheist and agnostic) prayer for the protection of traditions and traditional rights against idiot politicians. A libation to Ninkasi, goddess of beer, might be a nice addition, or to a patron saint of brewers and/or singers and musicians. I'm sure there is one. Invoking St. George (or David, depending on where you live) also makes it more risky to the politicians if the fight should happen during silly season and get dragged into the public domain. YY suggested a prayer based on "May God bless and keep the Tsar... Far away from us!" (Fiddler on the roof). Any person of the many denominations (including atheist and agnostic) would be qualified to say it, and including it in a session "could" render the session a religious gathering. (Whereas a randomly selected prayer having nothing to do with music and/or pubs probably would not). Add that "could" to the other doubts of - "could" infringe our right to self expression - "could" infringe our right to freedom of assembly - "could" be a licensable entertainment, but then again... - "could" be a participatory recreation (e.g. darts, pool, sewing circle) with no audience or a purely coincidental audience. That's enough "coulds" to make any lawyer's wallet start to drool. Anyone who has to justify spending public money on sorting this rubbish out might start thinking that the easier and more career-enhancing option is to kick it into the long grass and ignore the heck out of it for enough years that what we do becomes "custom and practice" in the interpretation of the regulations. Here is a good question. I was in hospital near Christmas a few years ago and a brass band came onto the ward to play for us. Would they need a licence for that now? The patients and staff are kind of a captive audience, so might not count, but the visiting families should constitute an audience of the public. Maybe they were a religious gathering because some of what they played was church music, though they also played White Christmas and similar. How much religious music do you need to be a religious gathering? How can you say how much without being discriminatory on grounds of religion? The session we are going to tonight always has a gospel or shapenote song or two. Maybe its already a religious gathering. Yorkshire Englishman YY's other half |
|
23 Jan 06 - 09:51 AM (#1654141) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: Snuffy Should have done it yesterday (Jan 22). St Vincent is one of the patron saints of drunkards (they need two. The other is St Martin, who famously said "fie" to his man, who had well drunken). And it's not very often St Vincent's day does fall on a Sunday, is it? |
|
25 Jan 06 - 05:53 PM (#1655632) Subject: RE: Jamie Cullen leads the way From: YorkshireYankee refresh... |