So, it continues...

AlanRatcliffe

Jack Flash Jr wrote: Our gig at the Bell on 11th Aug cancelled for this reason ☹
Here's the full text of the letter from Alex:

Thanks! Can you PM me Alex's direct email addy please?

Nitebob

? Our two best exports..music (how long has it taken us to get there) and wine...not to be enjoyed together.... ???

AlanRatcliffe

Nitebob wrote: ? Our two best exports..music (how long has it taken us to get there) and wine...not to be enjoyed together.... ???

And the best of both gets exported. ☹

Keira-WitherKay

This is where a strong musicians union would lobby to keep musicians earning income , and it sounds like the venue is being reasonable with cut off times , but like we all know we as musicians have little clout ,

AlanRatcliffe

Keira WitherKay wrote: This is where a strong musicians union would lobby to keep musicians earning income

I say nothing... </manuel>

Keira-WitherKay

Well to many playing in a band is a hobby , but to me and many like me its our sole or should that be soul ? source of income , so events like this is troubling, despite living on the other side of the country , hope this matter can be resolved

strataxe

Sad.... very sad. This is the problem these days, the window can't be inbetween, it has to be closed or fully opened. I mean, really, this story sucks. Yes, I think you do get places that go totally overboard, then regulate it, tone it down... and everybody can live with it.
But...as soon as a DJ goes Here we go... switch them off. i DON'T have a problem with that. lol

chris77

So if the drunk plebs puking on the pavements are to blame and not the music, there might be good grounds for some sort of compromise to be reached with the community? Mind you, a disgruntled neighbour with a bug up his/her bazoo will probably complain about anything, but if the venue can appeal to the more sensible ones and do their best to keep the noise and disturbance under control, perhaps a deal can be made. Certainly hope so for the performers', the venue, the punters and just plain common sense's sake.

Jack-Flash-Jr

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
Jack Flash Jr wrote: Our gig at the Bell on 11th Aug cancelled for this reason ☹
Here's the full text of the letter from Alex:
Thanks! Can you PM me Alex's direct email addy please?

Check yer mail...

rossgun

Adrian Rogowski wrote:
Alan Ratcliffe wrote: I don't mind them clamping down on restaurants that open in residential areas with temporary licences and then start hosting loud music, but when they start targeting live music venues that have been there for much longer than most of the houses, let alone the complaining residents, it's too much. If you don't do your homework before you buy a house/build a retirement village next to a long established music venue, Caveat Emptor applies - you don't get to shut the venue down.
Well, I remember from studying Property Law, that actually the notion of "Caveat Emptor" does not apply if you purchasing a house in a noisy neighbourhood. The idea behind this is that everyone is entitled to privacy and peace of mind. And with constant 'noise' they arn't given that, and it has actually shown some type of psychological effect. The case I read was this couple who moved on Long Street (silly I know), and where complaining because one club or Broadway show that was operating at the time had a show that was going on every night for the past few years, and they knew this! Still, the Broadway show had to treat its venue with insane sound proofing, just to meet the requirements.

My point is, you can have a knit of a neighbour move into a suburb, where everyone else is happy with lets say a music venue, and he can single handedly cause some major annoyances to that venue.
Its called terrorism!

IceCreamMan

chris77 wrote: So if the drunk plebs puking on the pavements are to blame

hey,leave me out of this one

chris77

IceCreamMan wrote:
chris77 wrote: So if the drunk plebs puking on the pavements are to blame
hey,leave me out of this one

He-he, well I said puking, not p**sing..... ?

Nitebob

You know we are all looking at this from a musician/music lover's point of view. We are looking at it from the inside out. Imagine it the other way around, using my example of earlier. You check out this quaint little house in a small town, low crime, and only on set of traffic lights. On the day you go to look at the house, the wind is just right so you don't even know there is a chicken farm two blocks over. Suddenly you move in and realise you have to deal with this smell 80% of the time...on quiet nights, when the farmer goes to fuel the coal oven so the chickens don't die, there is such a hell of a racket....what would you do?

Don't get me wrong, I'll propably be the guy giving ICM a wedgie while he pukes ? on the pavement and I fully support ALL live muso's. I'm just saying there are two sides to this coin...please don't kick me off the forum ☹

vic

Nitebob wrote: You know we are all looking at this from a musician/music lover's point of view. We are looking at it from the inside out. Imagine it the other way around, using my example of earlier. You check out this quaint little house in a small town, low crime, and only on set of traffic lights. On the day you go to look at the house, the wind is just right so you don't even know there is a chicken farm two blocks over. Suddenly you move in and realise you have to deal with this smell 80% of the time...on quiet nights, when the farmer goes to fuel the coal oven so the chickens don't die, there is such a hell of a racket....what would you do?

Don't get me wrong, I'll propably be the guy giving ICM a wedgie while he pukes ? on the pavement and I fully support ALL live muso's. I'm just saying there are two sides to this coin...please don't kick me off the forum ☹

Nitebob is right ? Rowdiness is always bad...for business as well. Take as a real example.... rowdy neighbours next to a B&B.....bad for the B&B indeed.
However the Kalkbay clampdown is unfair practice IMHO. I have no doubt that a court will rule otherwise if the management can prove that they are being treated unfairly....and it will not be too hard to do . All they need is a good civil lawyer to fight their case.
In fact, that won't even be necessary. Management should write a letter of appeal to the local Council explaining the situation, detailing envisaged steps to be undertaken by them to deal with the "noise" levels and with the alleged rowdy behaviour of clients. I'm sure they'll be successful.

EDIT: Come to think of it....the Bell is probably only licenced (zoned) to sell liquor and food during specified hours.IOW's they may not have a license to provide "entertainment" of any kind. However this can be obtained via a special municipal process (with specific rules and regulations) which is an almost routine thing these days (in Stellenbosch anyway).

Ray

"For What it's Worth" wouldnt some protest action be in order here? I'm sure a few flyers etc. could whip up a bit of spirit. other wise it's just a mutter. Get the kids worked up. Or are we too civilized to do that sort of thing?

AlanRatcliffe

Ray wrote: "For What it's Worth" wouldnt some protest action be in order here? I'm sure a few flyers etc. could whip up a bit of spirit. other wise it's just a mutter. Get the kids worked up. Or are we too civilized to do that sort of thing?

I've made an offer of help in that direction, just waiting for a response.

Alex-B-Broadway

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
Ray wrote: "For What it's Worth" wouldnt some protest action be in order here? I'm sure a few flyers etc. could whip up a bit of spirit. other wise it's just a mutter. Get the kids worked up. Or are we too civilized to do that sort of thing?
I've made an offer of help in that direction, just waiting for a response.

I like this idea. I'm sure a campaign on Facebook / any willing blogs / Twitter, etc would be shared around quite a lot (especially among other muso's who are just as sick of this kind of thing).

Riaan-Combrink

Vic wrote: However the Kalkbay clampdown is unfair practice IMHO. I have no doubt that a court will rule otherwise if the management can prove that they are being treated unfairly....and it will not be too hard to do . All they need is a good civil lawyer to fight their case.
In fact, that won't even be necessary. Management should write a letter of appeal to the local Council explaining the situation, detailing envisaged steps to be undertaken by them to deal with the "noise" levels and with the alleged rowdy behaviour of clients. I'm sure they'll be successful.
EDIT: Come to think of it....the Bell is probably only licenced (zoned) to sell liquor and food during specified hours.IOW's they may not have a license to provide "entertainment" of any kind. However this can be obtained via a special municipal process (with specific rules and regulations) which is an almost routine thing these days (in Stellenbosch anyway).

There's a major issue in this case no-one has touched on - one that will be a major obstacle to the Bell in any kind of fight (legal or administrative). I fully support the cause, and flagged this on Facebook, etc the very day it happened. So my support is on the right side. But where the Bell has IMO left their flanks open is in allowing the situation on these karaoke nights to get to the point it did. Ito the law and liquor licence conditions a venue is not allowed to continue serving alcohol to any visibly inebriated patron. Sounds like a contradiction in terms - but that is the law. Like it or not. And many venues stick to it strictly to avoid exactly this kind of debacle. I have spoken to people who were there on the night (and on some preceding karaokes), and it appears par for the course that okes stumble out of the venue, puke in the road, get into brawls, etc. Where was managment to ensure the barpersons don't serve these idiots after their 3rd six-pack?

So, although I fully support the principle of the issue, I think Bell management have to own up to this part of the problem, and put it right immediately. Many of their regualr patrons were not happy with the karaoke due to the crowd it was attracting - you can just read the Bell's Facebook page to get a feel that this was a problem waiting to happen.

I wish Alex and Co every success in their battle to keep the music alive - but they'll have to start running a tighter ship to do so.

vic

Riaan C wrote:
Vic wrote: However the Kalkbay clampdown is unfair practice IMHO. I have no doubt that a court will rule otherwise if the management can prove that they are being treated unfairly....and it will not be too hard to do . All they need is a good civil lawyer to fight their case.
In fact, that won't even be necessary. Management should write a letter of appeal to the local Council explaining the situation, detailing envisaged steps to be undertaken by them to deal with the "noise" levels and with the alleged rowdy behaviour of clients. I'm sure they'll be successful.
EDIT: Come to think of it....the Bell is probably only licenced (zoned) to sell liquor and food during specified hours.IOW's they may not have a license to provide "entertainment" of any kind. However this can be obtained via a special municipal process (with specific rules and regulations) which is an almost routine thing these days (in Stellenbosch anyway).
There's a major issue in this case no-one has touched on - one that will be a major obstacle to the Bell in any kind of fight (legal or administrative). I fully support the cause, and flagged this on Facebook, etc the very day it happened. So my support is on the right side. But where the Bell has IMO left their flanks open is in allowing the situation on these karaoke nights to get to the point it did. Ito the law and liquor licence conditions a venue is not allowed to continue serving alcohol to any visibly inebriated patron. Sounds like a contradiction in terms - but that is the law. Like it or not. And many venues stick to it strictly to avoid exactly this kind of debacle. I have spoken to people who were there on the night (and on some preceding karaokes), and it appears par for the course that okes stumble out of the venue, puke in the road, get into brawls, etc. Where was managment to ensure the barpersons don't serve these idiots after their 3rd six-pack?

So, although I fully support the principle of the issue, I think Bell management have to own up to this part of the problem, and put it right immediately. Many of their regualr patrons were not happy with the karaoke due to the crowd it was attracting - you can just read the Bell's Facebook page to get a feel that this was a problem waiting to happen.

I wish Alex and Co every success in their battle to keep the music alive - but they'll have to start running a tighter ship to do so.

+1
Seen in this context....petitions and flyers etc will not make a dent....Management should eat humble pie and correct the matters which led to the clamp down.

Bob-Dubery

I'm puzzled by lots of this. Firstly the Bell's stance seems to be a little disingenuous. They say they have proposed 4-5 hours live music a week with an agreed cut-off time. But they are also saying that live music is not the problem - that's it drunk yobs misbehaving after karaoke. So why don't they deal with the problem?

The police also puzzle me. They're entitled to deal with the problem on the basis of reported problems and noise levels, but I don't see that they can or should march into a club and start specifying what sorts of musical line ups can perform. That's an unusual position. They should engage the club on the matter of noise levels - which would give the Bell a chance to improve sound-proofing. The cops should also be working with the club to get rid of the yobs. Club and police working together doesn't seem to have occured to anybody, but surely it should have.

Do we have the whole story here?