The Exotics played with a new guitarist. Last time they played (the Tote) they indicated it may be their last show because the guitarist was leaving. But he's been replaced and the guy hit all the right notes so hopefully they'll play more often. I'm glad they made everyone raise their glasses and thank Phillipa for creating Cobra. I'm glad she was dancing on the bench at the time, unbeknownst the spotlight was going to be trained on her. I'm glad that fellow went on to her afterwards about how Cobra is the most wonderful place in the world. Was.
By the night's end James looked like he was on autopilot (but he often does) and Bruce was emotional. It was the best way to go out.
and yes, i paid a last visit to the Cobra toilet.
And the last song (cl
Will type more and load very blurry photos when my brain stops hurting and my eyes return. Must work now... Yesterday is legend.
Pics are bad, but there were lots of real photographers there so I'm not worried:
(Bruce's speech) 
(James watching Bruce's speech - yeah ok, I was more interested in participating in the moment than taking photos of it......). and here's the first of many photo's taken by Tim Chuma - of Joel (Hoss singer) crowd surfing AND keeping his beer afloat during the last song:
PS., don't get angry, don't get sad. turn your anger and sadness into protest. Some wordage and email addresses :
john.lenders@parliament.vic.gov.au
Budgeting for live music venues
Dear John,
The Australian government recognises the importance of live music and has ''initiatives aimed at increasing participation, access and growth of live performances in Australia (Australia Council 2007-09). This acknowledged importance of live music performances in Australia has led to further initiatives at state government level which aim to increase music attendance and accessibility within the states and territories.'' ( http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4172.0Feature%20Article12009)
Attendance at live music performances far outweigh those at other cultural institutions (opera, orchestras, ballet, libraries) according to the ABS. These other cultural institutions are heavily subsidised by the government. However small owner operated live music venues are businesses on the whole receive no financial assistance from the government. Indeed in Victoria they are being squeezed out of existence by onerous licensing requirements set by your government.
Given the importance of live music to the community, and given the near death of live music venues in Victoria due to your government's licensing requirements,* is your government prepared to commence the financial subsidisation of this industry?
If not, perhaps a distinction needs to be made in the legislation between small owner operated live music venues and nightclubs that play predominantly recorded music? A hands off approach might assist the financial viability of live music venues, which the Australian government recognises are important.
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
Insert name and address
justin.madden@parliament.vic.gov.au
Live music venues in Victoria
Dear Justin
The Australian government recognises the importance of live music and has ''initiatives aimed at increasing participation, access and growth of live performances in Australia (Australia Council 2007-09). This acknowledged importance of live music performances in Australia has led to further initiatives at state government level which aim to increase music attendance and accessibility within the states and territories. '' ( http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4172.0Feature%20Article12009)
Attendance at live music performances far outweigh those at other cultural institutions (opera, orchestras, ballet, libraries) according to the ABS. These other cultural institutions are heavily subsidised by the government. However small owner operated live music venues are businesses on the whole receive no financial assistance from the government. Indeed in Victoria they are being squeezed out of existence by onerous licensing requirements set by your government.
As a result, the performance of live music may go underground, and take place in unregistered unsafe location. For example, derelict warehouses or suburban homes. The potential for injury from fire, unsafe premises and irresponsible alcohol management is high in unregulated facilities. We have seen in the media recently stories of young adults falling through rooftops in warehouse parties and the like. This is a serious urban planning issue, increasing important as density rises. The night time economy is an important contributor to Melbourne, and it's potential will be negated by venues going underground. This has been recognised elsewhere and steps were taken by governments to prevent it happening.
Secondly, live music venues are 'placemaking' to coin an urban planning phrase. They contribute to the dynamism and identity of a location. Secondly, they provide a 'third place' (Oldenburg 1999) for networking between those in creative industries.
As such, what will your department do to ensure that responsibly managed live music venues are allowed to continue to operate as businesses?
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
insert name and address
peter.batchelor@parliament.vic.gov.au
“the Arts drive innovation” (Peter Garrett 27Oct09).
Blanket legislation hurts the fringe. The fringe is important to innovation.
Dear Peter,
Congratulations on your appointment as Arts Minister. Music performers and patrons of the Tote and other small live music venues may be typified as being ‘on the fringe’, and the maintenance of a ‘fringe’ is important to a healthily functioning society.
Stanley Cohen’s seminal 1972 study of ‘Mod and Rocker’ rebels in the United Kingdom during the 1960s - titled ‘Folk devils and moral panic’ may apply to the current Melbourne environment. It emphasised the role of broadcast media in the ‘moral panic’ that followed sensational reporting of a few incidents. The mods and rockers, who on the whole were harmless, bore the brunt of media sensationalism because their behaviours challenged social norms – they dressed differently, spoke differently, listened to different music etc. (Cohen 2002). Because they were outside the norm, they were labelled as deviants, rebels, outsiders, delinquents, subversives and the knee jerk reaction was to shut them down.
Hebdige (1979) refers to music subcultures. Instead of the term ‘subculture’, academics today describe ‘communities’ or ‘scenes’ (Hesmondhalgh 2005; Florida 2007). Straw (1991) distinguishes ‘communities’ as being stable in their composition, there is a very low degree of anonymity in them, therefore lower propensity to harm others. They are safe places. The Tote and other small live music venues are the ‘third place’ (Oldenburg 1999) where communities of creatives gather to listen to live music, share ideas and network. A lot of small entrepreneurial businesses start this way. As seen at the Tote, the change of some venue hours from 3am to 1am has harmed the ambience of the scene. It is between 1-3am, after the band has finished, that a lot of the informal networking takes place.
Some analysts associate subcultural deviance with criminal behaviour but this isn’t the case. Albert Cohen positively believes deviance may act as a safety valve within cultures, by “preventing the excessive accumulation of discontent” (Cohen 1966: 6-11). Florida (2007) too describes how tolerance of fringe niches is one of four critical factors in a healthy economy.
Freilich, (in Freilich, Raybeck, & Savishinsky 1991) believes Cohen’s theory of deviance ties closely to Merton’s (1957) theory of innovation, in which innovators reject mainstream behaviour but accept cultural goals. Similarly Cushman (1995: 91) suggests music provides an “active code of resistance and a template which [is] used for the formation of new forms of individual and collective identities.” Deviance, by challenging the dominant paradigm, appears to be a precondition of social change (whether as a creator or sign of change). That point is crucial, and is perhaps what Peter Garrett referred to in October. It is emphasised by US economist Marie Connolly (Connolly and Krueger 2005) and the United Nations Creative Economy report, which describe the niche music sector as a vital breeding ground for innovation in content industries. I hope you are able to obtain, read and understand the above references before replying to me.
A healthy society needs niche live music performance venues. The smaller, more niche, the better. These venues provide a platform for experimentation, and resultant cultural innovation. These are typically owner operated small businesses. They are completely different from the large nightclubs that primarily play recorded music for drinking and dancing. The central aim of small live music venues is … the performance of live music.
What is your colleague, the Minister for Urban Planning, doing to ensure the ongoing financial viability of such venues, that are closing because they can no longer afford the onerous licensing requirements that have been blanketed across all venues, regardless of venue type? Secondly, what steps are you taking to ensure the ongoing viability of grassroots, niche, experimental music in Victoria? Thirdly, what steps are you taking to avoid such venues becoming poker machine sheds? That will kill the creative scene, experimentation and consequent innovation. It will ruin Melbourne’s reputation for dynamic cultures, and consequently its standing as one of the world’s most liveable cities.
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
bob.cameron@parliament.vic.gov.au
Live music performance venues
Dear Bob
With reference to the recent prominence in the media of late night violence in the inner CBD, a knee jerk reaction has been to increase blanket regulation of entertainment venues. This means that grannies in country Victoria can’t hold a tea party in a church with a bit of piano playing for entertainment without the requirement of a licensed security guard. They are breaking the law. While this is laughable, it appears the law is being heavily mandated across Melbourne by the Liquor Licensing Commission.
The law does not distinguish between small owner operated live music venues, and the large beer barns that play recorded music. Small owner operated live music venues are generally frequented by communities of people, they tend to know each other. Because there is a lower degree of anonymity there is less likelihood for violent, damaging behavior. Small live music venues tend to be safe places. Environmental Criminologist, Dr Paul Cozens would support this argument, and your may value his expertise on this issue. He has recently completed a study on contributing factors to late night violence in an entertainment zone. I encourage you or your department to contact him.
As a consequence, these small live music venues are being financially squeezed out of existence by the heavy handed financial requirements of Liquor Licensing, as exemplified by recent news of the Tote's closure. This means that the performance of live music may move to illegal underground venues that operate outside of regulation.
Can you or a representative from your department please explain to the Minister responsible for Liquor Licensing the consequences of policing illegal venues? This may include derelict warehouses or suburban homes. That is, they will be harder to identify and monitor; damage, injury and noise complaints may increase; and this may require even more late night police resources.
Is the Minister responsible for Urban Planning committed to enforcing measures that will result in greater pressure on an already stretched police force? Or should police resources be better spent fixing an existing problem, that is, the minimisation of existing late night violence near large CBD venues?
I look forward to your response
Kind regards
insert name and address
lordmayor@melbourne.vic.gov.au
Live music performance venues in Melbourne
Dear Robert,
I refer to the increasing media on late night violence near CBD entertainment venues in Melbourne.
It has been suggested that the offenders are blow-ins from the suburbs. Indeed Robert Doyle, perhaps in a moment of frustration, argued ''all Melbournians are heartily sick of these vicious cowards coming in and trying to take over our city, well we won't let them …. I think banning of people summarily from the city, moving them out of the city if they look like they are a danger or a problem … is a good solution.” ( http://www.theage.com.au/national/opposition-slams-street-policing-20090811-egzn.html) He called on police to stop troublemakers from the outer suburbs travelling to the city. How these areas are regulated is important, indeed entertainment zones attract tourism, generate local small businesses and help shape the identity and vibrancy of the place.
There are three key elements to this issue. Firstly young adults from the outer suburbs invest more when they go out for a night in town, they have higher time and transport costs. So when compared with an urban resident who simply walks locally to meet friends in a nearby local venue, those from the outer suburbs may arrive with an attitude of ‘I’m going to have a big night out’.
Secondly visitors to the CBD are outside of where they are known, ‘anonymous’, and so may feel more emboldened to commit acts that they wouldn’t consider in their local community where they’d be recognised.
Thirdly Melbourne City Councillor Ken Ong noted that on a night 70,000 to 80,000 people use public transport to enter the CBD but only 1,900 use the NightRider bus service to exit it. ( http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/24-hour-train-bid-to-cut-city-violence/ ) Suburbanites out for a big night on the town may not be able to return home due to: running out of funds; missing the last train or bus; missing their car pool; or finding a shortage of taxis. So they have little choice but to wait in long taxi queues or loiter in the CBD until the first train or bus commences. Given this situation perhaps it is understandable if they become frustrated.
There appears to be two key solutions to this issue, firstly it is not a solution to exclude people from the city, but instead to enable them to leave by increasing the availability of public transport between 1am and 5am on weekends. This is when most violence occurs. The drop off points for public transport are also important, commuters will not catch a Nightrider bus if the drop off point is still a long way from home, or isolated.
Secondly a solution may be to lower the ‘cost’ (in time, effort and dollars) of a night out by giving young adults a greater incentive to stay near home, by replicating the activities the city provides to them. The Melbourne 2030 strategy identified six activity centres (CADs) in Melbourne - Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood – that are slated for development to provide the same services as the CBD. CADs are ‘activity’ centres, not just ‘business’ centres. But how can the six outer suburban activity centres attract and retain young adults wanting a night out?
They may look to facilitate the development of entertainment management zones within each of the CADs. These are specially zoned areas for late night venues and are policed and have public transport ( http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/safety-push-rejected/)
While that may be a longer term aspiration, a more urgent emphasis should be placed on encouraging businesses that provide night-time entertainment activities for young adults within the outer suburbs. If suitable venues were closer to home, young adults may prefer a local night out to the hassle of a CBD commute. If a few choose to stay local, a few more will be enticed to stay and it will grow exponentially. This has flow on effects, for example it may stimulate local businesses (restaurants, local transport, venues, tourism etc.).
Finally, and in the short term most crucially, the knee jerk reaction to blame venues, and increase licensing requirements, and heavy handed enforcement of such requirements is sending the wrong types of venues out of business. One small live music venue, the Tote, has suffered a licensing cost increase up to 300% in recent months, and hours of operation cut to 1am. As a result it has now closed. This is damaging the reputation of Melbourne as a vibrant, tolerant and dynamic community.
Do you agree with me that the issue of late night violence is more one of transport and the absence of entertainment options in the outer suburbs than one of small live music venues inciting violent behaviour? If so, what steps might be taken to address in the short term the issue of late night public transport between the CBD and outer suburbs, and longer term to develop ‘mixed use’ entertainment zones in the CADs? Would promoting such steps alleviate the pressure on small live music venues? Do you recognise that the consequences of heavy handed blanket liquor licensing enforcement across all venue types is that they will no longer be able to operate and close? They venues are safe, they are innocent and going out of business. The absence of small live music venues from Melbourne will damage the reputation it enjoys as one of the world’s most liveable cities.
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
insert name and address
greg.barber@parliament.vic.gov.au
Live music performance venues in Melbourne
Dear Greg
One of the foundations of a healthy community is safe local places for social interaction and sensible drinking laws.
The current Victorian liquor licensing practices do not make sense. They apply the same blanket categorization to small owner operated live music venues as ‘booze barns’, because both are open until 3am and so are deemed ‘high risk’. The high risk category appears to be based on the premise the venue sells high alcohol volumes or receives poker machine revenues. This has two consequences: (a) it forces small owner operator responsible businesses - without high alcohol/pokie revenues - to close; (b) encourages the development of large, anonymous high volume booze barns (or ‘drinking sheds’ as Charles Landry calls them); and (c) destroys opportunities for the cultivation of original local content and creative artistic expression. Blanket regulations will destroy venues whose primary purpose is to offer niche, experimental live music performances.
The Tote is not sited in the cluster of ‘high risk’ venues near King st. There have been no recorded incidents of violence at the Tote. It operates on lean profit margins, because it’s primary aim is not to sell booze, but to encourage live music performance to emerging artists, and it provides other social, community building and creative activities. It has no poker machines. I’ve seen senior citizens attend gigs there, photographer Tim Chuma can provide photos of recent activities there, including face painting for kids and community bbq’s. Yes someone has wielded a knife at the Tote, but it was to cut up the sausages and slice the BBQ buns. The only scuffles I've seen have been when someone falls over in the moshpit, but people also fall over playing tennis and footy...
The Tote is a safe place, with a community of regulars. It is responsibly managed. It is not high risk. To put small live music venues into the high risk category is regulatory laziness. And to enforce the regulations without consideration of the differences is damaging. 17 people have lost their jobs because the Tote closes next week.
I believe the Tote owner Bruce Milne should be repaid the thousands of dollars spent on legal fees to explain this obvious point to the Liquor Licensing Commission (to date without success). Secondly, an audit of practices should be undertaken to explore how such a major discrepancy (booze barns vs. small owner operated live music venues) could be overlooked, and heavily enforced. Bruce Milne would be an obvious person to advise on such an audit from a venue owner's perspective, although he won’t own a venue after next week.
The Australian Greens believe that: 1. creative artistic expression and cultural experience are fundamental aspects of social wellbeing. 2. access to diverse, innovative artistic and cultural experiences should available to all Australians. 3. Australian artistic expression and culture should be protected and promoted. 4. creative artists play an essential role in Australian social life and should be fostered and supported.
The Australian Greens want Australian arts and culture to maintain its unique character and diverse nature through support and promotion of local content and the development of local projects for all forms of art and culture.
As a successful Greens Parliamentarian, do you support this current liquor licensing practice? Can you advise on how local communities may voice their concern that ‘booze barn’ licensing requirements threaten local live music venues? The consequences of venue closures will be that the live music scene will be forced underground and be unregulated. Any advice and help will be appreciated
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
insert name and address
Richard.Wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au
The night time economy in your electorate
Dear Richard
“the Arts drive innovation” (Peter Garrett 27Oct09). Blanket legislation hurts the fringe. The fringe is important to innovation.
Dear Lynne,
Music performers and patrons of the Tote and other small live music venues may be typified as being ‘on the fringe’, and the maintenance of a ‘fringe’ is important to a healthily functioning society.
Stanley Cohen’s seminal 1972 study of ‘Mod and Rocker’ rebels in the United Kingdom during the 1960s - titled ‘Folk devils and moral panic’ may apply to the current Melbourne environment. It emphasised the role of broadcast media in the ‘moral panic’ that followed sensational reporting of a few incidents. The mods and rockers, who on the whole were harmless, bore the brunt of media sensationalism because their behaviours challenged social norms – they dressed differently, spoke differently, listened to different music etc. (Cohen 2002). Because they were outside the norm, they were labelled as deviants, rebels, outsiders, delinquents, subversives and the knee jerk reaction was to shut them down.
Hebdige (1979) refers to music subcultures. Instead of the term ‘subculture’, academics today describe ‘communities’ or ‘scenes’ (Hesmondhalgh 2005; Florida 2007). Straw (1991) distinguishes ‘communities’ as being stable in their composition, there is a very low degree of anonymity in them, therefore lower propensity to harm others. They are safe places. The Tote and other small live music venues are the ‘third place’ (Oldenburg 1999) where communities of creatives gather to listen to live music, share ideas and network. A lot of small entrepreneurial businesses start this way. As seen at the Tote, the change of some venue hours from 3am to 1am has harmed the ambience of the scene. It is between 1-3am, after the band has finished, that a lot of the informal networking takes place.
Some analysts associate subcultural deviance with criminal behaviour but this isn’t the case. Albert Cohen positively believes deviance may act as a safety valve within cultures, by “preventing the excessive accumulation of discontent” (Cohen 1966: 6-11). Florida (2007) too describes how tolerance of fringe niches is one of four critical factors in a healthy economy.
Freilich, (in Freilich, Raybeck, & Savishinsky 1991) believes Cohen’s theory of deviance ties closely to Merton’s (1957) theory of innovation, in which innovators reject mainstream behaviour but accept cultural goals. Similarly Cushman (1995: 91) suggests music provides an “active code of resistance and a template which [is] used for the formation of new forms of individual and collective identities.” Deviance, by challenging the dominant paradigm, appears to be a precondition of social change (whether as a creator or sign of change). That point is crucial, and is perhaps what Peter Garrett referred to in October. It is emphasised by US economist Marie Connolly (Connolly and Krueger 2005) and the United Nations Creative Economy report, which describe the niche music sector as a vital breeding ground for innovation in content industries. I hope you are able to obtain, read and understand the above references before replying to me.
A healthy society needs niche live music performance venues. The smaller, more niche, the better. These venues provide a platform for experimentation, and resultant cultural innovation. These are typically owner operated small businesses. They are completely different from the large nightclubs that primarily play recorded music for drinking and dancing. The central aim of small live music venues is … the performance of live music.
What is your colleague, the Minister for Urban Planning, doing to ensure the ongoing financial viability of such venues, that are closing because they can no longer afford the onerous licensing requirements that have been blanketed across all venues, regardless of venue type? Secondly, what steps are you taking to ensure the ongoing viability of grassroots, niche, experimental music in Victoria? Thirdly, what steps are you taking to avoid such venues becoming poker machine sheds? That will kill the creative scene, experimentation and consequent innovation. It will ruin Melbourne’s reputation for dynamic cultures, and consequently its standing as one of the world’s most liveable cities.
I look forward to your reply
Kind regards
insert name and address
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment