BOTH SIDES MUST SHIFT IN LIVE-MUSIC VENUE DEBATE
Sound clouds are gathering in the distance, threatening to cast smothering shadows over Edinburgh sandstone. Tenements tremble in anxious expectation of dins to come.
This is because, as you may already know, there is currently movement towards easing sound restrictions at live-music venues in Broughton and beyond (Breaking news, 28.2.16).
It’s not difficult to see a downside to these proposed changes.
The intention behind them is to help maintain vibrancy. This quality can be a splendid thing, especially if you can shut it out when you’ve had your fill. It does seem, however, that, in the proximity-to-godliness stakes, it has now superseded cleanliness.
In fact, when people start singing their hymns of praise to Broughton’s energy and effervescence, I now find myself thinking of Sartre: Hell is other people’s idea of vibrancy.
In any case, we need to look more carefully at the details of this mooted change. In particular, the ‘agent of change’ principle merits unpacking. What it seems to mean is that your ancient burgher would be entitled to complain, but that right would not be possessed by your ‘vexatious NIMBY’ (as one person put it in response to the article cited above).
Perhaps we should apply the principle to other areas, too. How would this work? Perhaps your street is full of poo and your waste collection hopeless. You call and complain, but to no avail:
Sorry sir, the shit and trash were in fact already here when you moved in. Perhaps you should have thought about that before you relocated?
This seemingly well-intentioned idea is a retrograde step; a small shift back towards old hierarchies. It has more than a faint whiff of the Victorian era.
I’m perplexed by how those in favour of this principle succumb to the kind of intolerant attitudes of which they accuse others. As another person suggested in response to last week’s article: If you choose to move to a street that already has premises that offer live music, you must tolerate it. Love the vibe or relocate.
In other words, if you don’t like it, tough. Rather harsh, I feel.
Arguments put forward for change are essentially utilitarian. One person’s noise disturbance matters less than the collective right to have fun. Alternatively, one person’s grievance is less important than a venue’s profitability. Any notion of what’s right is reduced to a calculation.
While a more sophisticated approach than we currently have is required, what we actually see here is simply the substitution of one blunt-instrument approach for another. The new one certainly masquerades as something fairer, but really isn’t.
It’s pretty obvious that a weaker ‘audible nuisance’ standard would make it very difficult for an aggrieved householder to get a fair hearing. Were that not the case, then there simply wouldn’t be any pressure for the change. More noise must be tolerated in the name of creativity.
Music and artistry should be encouraged, but to maintain that live music is being stifled by put-upon neighbours is, if perhaps not entirely wrong, certainly a little disingenuous.
The problem lies in the issue being lazily presented as a rigid dichotomy. Either the many get their music or the few get to enjoy their peace and quiet. A kind of zero-sum noise game.
Finding effective compromise
There is another way to look at it, but one that requires acceptance that the proposed changes are not the compromise they are presented as, just an industry-driven shift of priorities.
While the current inaudibility standard is perhaps unrealistic in old tenements, real compromise would entail venues making real, not perfunctory, efforts towards reducing sound leakage to an absolute minimum rather than seeking to dilute the complaint standard.
That would be more expensive, of course. Charge an entrance fee. After all, live music is important to so many, I’m sure they’d be happy to pay.
Compromise naturally works both ways, and it would also involve affected individuals being realistic and tolerating a little sound disturbance.
What a fair and reasonable approach does not entail is this watered-down standard that will give disturbed residents limited recourse and venues carte blanche.
Music may well be the art of the prophets that can calm the agitations of the soul, but that which enters uninvited often does the opposite.
Expect more agitation soon.—David Hill
[Photo 1 courtesy of Graham Robertson; Photo 2 Feliciano Guimares, Creative commons; Photo 3 nmaster64, Creative commons]
-----------
Got a view? Tell us at
spurtle@hotmail.co.uk and @theSpurtle and Facebook
-----------------------------------
Broughton Spurtle For the sake of argument, how about applying 'agent of change' principle to properties where amplified music used not to be performed/played?
Ian William Pettigrew Would be a tough one to prove.
Brian McNeil There was a, just-closed, Scottish Government consultation on planning - which is where Agent of Change was raised. I proposed the issue be dealt with on the basis of "could it be proved a venue hosted live/amplified music within the last decade?"
Music is Audible shared Broughton
Spurtle's photo Ah, tell me Neil, am I right that nothing sells ad-impressions like a bit of trolling?
Are they trolling?Broughton Spurtle Certainly not meaning to in any bullying, hectoring, brow-beating, ad-hominem sense of the term. Instead trying to air variety of opinions. Spurtle has no settled position on this at the moment.
Waaaah! Waaaah! It's all that evil venue's fault. They've to near-bankrupt themselves soundproofing, then finish their suicide attempt by trying to recoup costs charging an entry fee.
Time, methinks, for a few landlords to put David Hill in his place, and tell the tales of "sole complainants".
Ian William Pettigrew Mr Hill -- Have you carried out any research before you composed and submitted this drivel? Spoken to the bar managers and staff, the musicians, even attended a live music event? How about finding out for yourself just how "audible" the music is from any complainant's residence especially when compared to other sounds that go with the territory?
Thought not...
Music is Audible Drums are rarely amplified. Considering one complaint we know of was over an electric ukelele, the author of this piece should perhaps familiarise themselves with the issue? Aim before firing?
Brian McNeil Excuse me? "Both sides must compromise"? I'm sorry Mr Hill, but the pro-music side have already compromised massively. You'd know that if you'd attended the numerous meetings on the issue.
I was on the Music is Audible working group, and a great deal of work went into reaching a compromise which was felt fair.
Besides, conflating Agent of Change with the proposed changes to licensing policy is idiotic. The former requires action in Holyrood to amend the law, the latter is close to bringing Edinburgh in line with the rest of the UK; where if there is an "inaudible" clause in alcohol licenses, it does not apply until 10pm or later.
NewTownCleanStreets @NTCleanStreets
@theSpurtle what nasty, aggressive, threatening & PERSONAL attacks on the author of this piece in the comments. Appalling.
Trying to compare live music to shit and refuse in your street is a serious insult. Every strongly-worded response to your piece was earned. Not one was a threat, or a personal attack. It was the content of your article which was taken to task. Do not involve yourself in political issues whilst ignorant of the background; it is asking for a serious schooling.
Given the obsession with rubbish and dog shit in the streets, resorting to using your "NewTownCleanStreets" twitter account is a rather transparent way to whine about the free education you've been provided with.
Unlike the 'last caller' who reacted without reading the Spurtle's impartial report on the meeting at the Usher Hall, twitter gives less opportunity to rewrite history after other sites have duplicated the content.
Nor am I conflating The Spurtle with NewTownCleanStreets. Instead, I deduce this is a twitter account operated by the author of the opinion piece you published. It's hardly a deductive stretch, given the author conflating music with dog shit and rubbish in the street.
If the sarcasm inherent in referring to "Free Education" is lost upon you, then I apologise that the joke fell flat. The author of the opinion piece conflated Agent of Change with the proposed changes to licensing policy. The two are completely separate. Agent of Change would protect existing music venues; it would also protect residents from new music venues being set up with inadequate soundproofing. Agent of Change requires implemented at Scottish Government level; it is currently also being looked at in Westminster for England and Wales. One local authority south of the border attempted to put it into their policies, and was promptly beaten in court by the developers whose project they rejected. As I say, it is also to the benefit of residents who do not want noisy new premises next door.
Now, I do not hold out much hope for reasoned debate from those who act as NIMBYs, then express outrage when labelled as such. One of the immediate responses to your initial, well-balanced, article was composed having only read the headline. That is an all-too-common failing of people on social media; I can testify to such being commonplace since I manage a Facebook page with over 100,000 followers. 'Reach', 'Likes', and Comments do not tie in with actual readership figures for shared articles.
It was not Mr Hill's reading of your initial article I was referring to. It was the woman who, by dint of argument, it was established risked an off-license next door having live music I was referring to. She subsequently went on to complain about being able to hear the off-license refrigerators during the night. When faced with that sort of ridiculous whingeing - and there is no other polite word to describe such, coming from someone who has chosen to live in a city - the cluelessness exhibited gets the disdain it merits.
Over three thousand signed the petition (https://www.change.org/.../city-of-edinburgh-council.../c) calling for the "inaudible" clause to be struck from CEC's policy. I wrote the petition text, and have learned more than I care to know subsequently. However, it was Sam Roberts of The Phoenix Bar, Edinburghput up the petition. Their problem was with a really persistent complainant who didn't even live above or next to the venue. If it wasn't the live music, it was the pub's hand driers - a bit like the "tl;dr, but I'll whinge anyway" commenter who was annoyed by the shop next door's fridges.
The whole thing got lots of press coverage, and the sole complainants refused to talk to the press. There have even been gigs in Rose Street pubs shut down. If moving into Rose Street and expecting a quiet Friday night isn't the very definition of insanity, I don't know what is.
In the space of a year there are 50-60 complaints about amplified live music. The figure isn't higher because licensees live in fear of their livelihood being taken away if they host live music. Yet they could host eleven pipers piping, and twelve drummers drumming, and the idiotic "inaudible" clause would not apply since no amplification would be required.