Talk:City of Edinburgh Council seek to improve local music scene

Original Reporting Notes

• Attended the meeting, have also attended a couple of the local musicians's pressure group meetings. Have fairly poor-quality recordings for quotes, plus various scrawled notes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Meeting was planned to run 15:30 to 18:00 UTC.
• Held upstairs in Usher Hall's circle bar area.
• Four lead speakers opened, introducing themselves - overplayed Picture House closure (loss of 1K+ capacity venue) and need to replace that.
• Couple of people left in disgust at the larger venue and performer (Green Day, U2) focus of opening statements.
• Councillor Hart noted already spoke with people from Austin council (or whatever US equiv is); have offered to help/get involved.
• Once opened to floor became far more-heated discussion.
• Straight off the "sole complainer" was brought up as unreasonable, became a thematic emblem for the evening.
• Numerous examples of 'draconian' application of licensing guidelines cited (eg Rose street premises - noisiest street for night life in city being barred from amplified music)
• Broke into four smaller groups for discussion; that to feed back into full group meeting at end.
• Panellists wandered between groups during discussion.
• Very few licensees/publicans present; was highlighted they self-police to minimise risk of conflict with licensing board staff.
• Atmosphere was 'charged' (for want of a better description), people who make living playing in the city pretty angry and wanting to vent about 'zero tolerance' on noise.
• Were a number of examples of noise complaints given in discussion groups; generally of the nature: pub has live music 20+ years, new person moves in to neighbouring property and starts complaining; council licensing board takes single complainant's word without wider consultation, no use of noise measuring equipment before ordering premises cease use of amplification.

• Staff from licensing tried to claim they were enforcing the law, and were quickly corrected; local musicians see them as "jobsworths", giving examples such as complainants having to 'turn off their fridge' so the noise from a pub could be heard, and thus validate the complaint.
• Several people left in disgust early-on when there was an excessive focus on the loss of The Picture House (it's turning into a chain pub). The local musicians aren't interested in another 1K+ capacity venue if they lose all the places where 100-200 might turn up for a gig.
• Little to nothing taken from cited sources.
• Format was intro --> four breakout groups --> summary input from groups --> close.

• All groups came back mentioning the "single complainant issue"; this prompted/was followed by Councillor Hart's sundry commitments.

• Several of those present noted licensing board staff being visibly uncomfortable afterwards.

• Have run through crappy audio recordings from the event to refresh my memory.

• Noting my COI. I've attended a couple of meetings of local musician's pressure group which was set up a couple of months before this meeting. I'm quite sympathetic to their cause, because I like being able to nip into a pub where it isn't crappy canned music; I am also friends with a good number of folks who play on the local circuit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • Audio emailed, in three parts, to SCOOP. Unfortunately, is close to 3 hours. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, only two parts arrived. I'm inclined to proceed, though. --Pi zero (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 3040741 [Passed]

Revision 3040741 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Verification was difficult, due in part to the nature, and length, of the audio. One of the three audio files didn't come through. I thought long and hard about verification on some points in the article; in the end, the two points of greatest concern were the numbers of tickets and the month of the next meeting. I decided to remove the numbers (which dropped out without a ripple) and allow the month. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3040741 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Verification was difficult, due in part to the nature, and length, of the audio. One of the three audio files didn't come through. I thought long and hard about verification on some points in the article; in the end, the two points of greatest concern were the numbers of tickets and the month of the next meeting. I decided to remove the numbers (which dropped out without a ripple) and allow the month. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.