Music Licensing Act
A Contra View
by Joanna Phillips
|
...loud aggressive music can bring out aggressive feelings and make listeners bad tempered and behave badly...
|
'I have to say that I am in full agreement with the controversial Music Licensing Act, and appreciate the opportunity of expressing my views for consideration by those who think otherwise.
Others must surely share my views when the facts relating to ‘modern’ music are taken into consideration.
Modern music is often a noise and offensive to the ears of those who enjoy music from previous generations. When walking on a pavement (sidewalk in the USA) one can hear the loud bass thump from a youngster's car before the vehicle itself is in sight. On stage, some so called bands, generate amplified noise under the heading of music as players (I refuse to call them musicians’) blast it out thinking that the louder they play the better they sound.
But apart from the ear splitting volume, why is it so important to control music, or to be more precise, restrict music in the UK by having to have a licence to play it?
The answer is because music can control the emotions in many situations. It can set the scene for a film or play by making the audience feel happy or sad. In a supermarket the right kind of music can influence sales by making the shopper feel relaxed and in a spending mood. Music on parade grounds can be stirring and help servicemen to march with pride. At keyboard concerts the selection of music depends on the player – but more often than not, it makes the audience contented with a sense of well-being.
On the other hand, loud aggressive music can bring out aggressive feelings and make listeners bad tempered and behave badly – apart from creating headaches. It is a medical fact that an excessive bass sound can cause nausea and sickness.
I often wonder if this type of music contributes to the behaviour of the mindless hooligans who roam our streets these days.
Klaus Wunderlich, the German electronic organist who died ten years ago after earning twelve gold discs, was once asked what kind of music he enjoyed. His answer was: “all music – as long as it is not aggressive.” Klaus was known
for his soothing music and if more motorists played his CD's in their cars there would be less road rage.
Brian Sharp, the English electronic organist who became well known for his orchestral arrangements referred to aggressive music as ‘head banger music.’
What then is good music? The answer is subjective and depends on the listener. As for me, good music has to have a melody – and if lingers in my mind or if I can hum it after listening to it, then it’s worth hearing again.
It can be argued that those who play loud aggressive music have a lower intelligence compared to those who play in, say, a conducted orchestra and are capable of sight-reading the music they play. The laws in a caring society must therefore cater for the idiots who make a noise and call it music.
When ear splitting music is heard, no matter what how good or bad it is, there is cause for concern on a heath and safety note. It is a fact that many rock group players have a hearing loss at an early age, with the probability of severe deafness later in life. The Government would do everyone a favour if they made a law to ensure that amplifiers of music played in enclosed spaces have a decibel limiter fitted so that the power is cut off after five seconds if it exceeds a reasonable level. Music can be played so loud that it borders of the threshold of pain – and this must be avoided. As we all know, the volume of music varies to express the feelings of the creator and the five-second delay should cater for the peaks that may occur from time to time. A master volume control would cater for sensitive audiences - say in a retirement home.
Even when playing music in your own home you should have considerations for your neighbours. If you like music loud, then wear headphones – bearing in mind that it is now possible to get cordless ones. One can have the freedom of listening to music without affecting others in a home environment.
I have to admit that the existing law for licensing music needs revising when one considers that it is, at present, illegal for schools to charge parents for admission for music concerts unless they first apply for a license – even if the admission charge is to benefit the school. However, when it comes to music being played in other public places the type of music to be played should be considered. Maybe the time has come when it is not the venue that should be licensed but those who play music. It would not be too difficult to categorise music if the whole concept is given sufficient thought.
Putting music in different classes, categories or bands would make the choice of music easier to make when buying recordings for use in public places. And let’s be fair, this thought is not all too distant from the classes of music we hear today: Jazz, dance, symphonic - and so on.
The main thing is to give loud aggressive music its own special rating so that every reasonable minded person can avoid it. Perhaps it could be considered that this type of music would demand the highest license fee.
The laws in this country (UK) are based on the actions of a reasonable man (or so they should be) – I think that music and its volume should be reasonable too – and I doubt if anyone can argue about that.'
Click here to send us your views and comments
Quick Link: Keep Live Music
Direct Link: June Clark's website for another viewpoint.
26.8.07
|