Pub band classed as pro and so working ??

[aidanhallbass]

Hi all, I wondered if anyone could clarify for me whether playing pub gigs is currently allowed and is it actually classed as working ? My band has been offered a few gigs in a tier 2 (high risk) area so I would like to confirm that the household mixing doesn’t apply for musicians playing live music on stage.  we are not ‘pro’ musicians as such but do get the usual pub band fee.  
I can’t seem to find anything in black and white which covers this !  
thanks in advance ! 

[TwoTimesBass]

6 minutes ago, aidanhallbass said:

I can’t seem to find anything in black and white which covers this !

Hi Aidanhallbass,

You're not alone in this situation, and there are several threads on the site debating the ins and outs of the ever-changing scene at the moment.

Interpreting the guidelines is subjective and often contradictory, things that are definitely against bands playing in pubs include the paragraph below from the government Covid Secure advice for Pubs and Restaurants:

 

Prevent singing in groups of more than 6 (or one household); prevent dancing by customers (other than by the couple at a wedding or civil partnership); and ensure that no loud music is played, to minimise the need for customers to shout to communicate.

But breaching that means a fine for the license holder of the premises not the band. If you are non-professional (it's not defined anywhere) then the fabled Rule-of-Six applies to groups (including 'amateur music groups') indoors, but in your case under the new Tier 2 rules with no indoor social mixing allowed then I think no, you'd be in breach of the law just by being in the venue with your band setting up on stage.

I've not heard (someone correct me if they've had a different experience) of anyone being arrested or fined for playing a pub gig yet, most likely you'd be told to stop playing, pack up and move out. That said, with all the laws and rules we have in life, and especially at the moment, individual good sense and judgement should tell you if it's a good idea to gig. The fact you've asked the question here suggests it doesn't feel right and you or the band have doubts, you're unlikely to be caught or fined in reality, but it doesn't mean you should play the gig.

 

[la bam]

From what I've heard (whether it's currently true or not is a different matter) only venues that are SPECIFIC live music venues, that open only for live music and no other reason are allowed bands indoors. 

Even then they have to get special dispensation from the council to open and put events on. All events must be ticketed only and seated only and finish within set timescales.

[TwoTimesBass]

22 minutes ago, la bam said:

From what I've heard (whether it's currently true or not is a different matter) only venues that are SPECIFIC live music venues, that open only for live music and no other reason are allowed bands indoors. 

This is exactly the situation where the guidelines split between live music/performing arts venues and pubs. Covid secure, socially distanced gigs in venues that can demonstrate they are compliant (everything from temperature checks on entry and ticketing, to enhanced air flow) are allowed indoors at the moment to a capacity only limited by social distancing. On the other hand I played at a jam session in a pub on Sunday evening, five musicians all playing acoustic with no vocal amplification which I believe complied with the current rules in London. Minefield...

Of course if we move to Tier 2 rules then the jam night is off due to household mixing 😫

Edited October 14, 2020 by TwoTimesBass

[Maude]

There are several normal pubs, not music venues, in Plymouth with weekend warrior, not professional, cover bands playing every weekend at the moment. 

I work in Plymouth and keep getting asked when my bands will be playing again and I say we're not allowed, to which colleagues reel of all the bands that were playing at various pubs in the city last Saturday. None of these places are ticketed music venues, just your average pub that puts bands on at the weekend. 

I just don't know what the rules are. 

I thought we weren't allowed to, but if we're not how are they getting away with it? They advertise the the gigs on Facebook and the bands have videos of them playing in the pubs posted online so it's no secret. 

[jassthebass]

Even before COVID I've always thought that if you're reasonably regularly being paid for gigs then it's professional or at least semi-professional i.e. Takes a level of skill etc.

A jam around your mates house in higher tier areas is more than likely a no go.

[Beedster]

Frankly I would not be going anywhere an indoor gig at the moment, as musician or punter

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

6 minutes ago, Beedster said:

Frankly I would not be going anywhere an indoor gig at the moment, as musician or punter

Exactly. This is why the nation is getting its knickers in a twist. It doesn’t matter whether what you want to do fits whatever guidelines. COVID is on the up and we’re going into winter. Do your bit and do everything you can to limit unnecessary social interaction. I’m astonished why anyone would do otherwise.

[Beedster]

1 minute ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Exactly. This is why the nation is getting its knickers in a twist. It doesn’t matter whether what you want to do fits whatever guidelines. COVID is on the up and we’re going into winter. Do your bit and do everything you can to limit unnecessary social interaction. I’m astonished why anyone would do otherwise.

I totally agree, I was trying to explain the way the statistical modelling of disease works to a friend the other day, after she said, quote "As far as I'm concerned, if the government says six people can get together, so can fifteen, we're either in lockdown or we're not". I've spent most of my life trying to be socially minded, to do what's best for everyone, but at present my view with my family is 'look after number 1" because there are people out there who fail to realise that every time they ignore the guidelines they put themselves and, more importantly, therefore everyone they subsequently come in contact with, at risk, and I don't want my family to fall into that category. I had to take my youngest daughter to hospital in London last week, I was absolutely shocked by how many people ignore social distancing, mask wearing, number limits etc. And it's not just students, it was across the board. People who put playing gigs over safety should spend a few hours on a Covid ward, see that there are previously healthy people in their 20's, 30's etc on ventilators - some are there because they went to the pub by the way - and speak to the nurses who have to risk their lives treating them about their views on society's 'Oh but my case is an exception' response. 

The above in part a response to my anger that I was asked to play a 'discrete' gig recently by guys who should know better. 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

I know how you feel mate. Depressing isn’t it.

These idiots don’t need guidelines, they need common sense. It’s in short supply evidently.

[Beedster]

1 minute ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I know how you feel mate. Depressing isn’t it.

These idiots don’t need guidelines, they need common sense. It’s in short supply evidently.

The problem is that in a world that tells us that we can have what we want when we want it, common sense is nearly always inhibited by self interest. The stats argument I alluded to above came at the end of a conversation in which a whole lot of agency blaming had been used as justification to ignore the guidelines. I was trying to point out that if people followed the guidelines, the agencies would be effective; that you can't ignore the government's guidelines (15 is the new 6) and them blame the government when those guidelines appear not to have been effective   

[DaytonaRik]

1 hour ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Exactly. This is why the nation is getting its knickers in a twist. It doesn’t matter whether what you want to do fits whatever guidelines. COVID is on the up and we’re going into winter. Do your bit and do everything you can to limit unnecessary social interaction. I’m astonished why anyone would do otherwise.

This - in spades.  The issue seem to be that people are all too willing to find loopholes to avoid being responsible members of society, the "I'm alright" brigade.  It doesn't take much...be sensible, avoid unnecessary interaction, limit contact with others in as practical a way as you can.  Sadly, this currently means that amongst other things I can't play or watch gigs but, you know, that's a whole lot better than being one of the 0.4% (or approx 360,000) of our population for whom C-19 could prove to be fatal.

But back to the o/p's point - to me no, a pub band is not a professional band.  My reading of the guidelines would indicate that music and the arts covers seated (or standing) professional performances in appropriate ticketed venues - not 4 guys playing yet another godawful version of Wishing Well down the Dog and Duck!

Edited October 16, 2020 by DaytonaRik

[gapiro]

On 14/10/2020 at 23:28, TwoTimesBass said:

Prevent singing in groups of more than 6 (or one household); prevent dancing by customers (other than by the couple at a wedding or civil partnership); and ensure that no loud music is played, to minimise the need for customers to shout to communicate.

Just to elaborate the ensure loud music explicity has an exemption to bands. 

Quote

(1C) A person responsible for carrying on a business of a public house, café, restaurant or bar (including a bar in a hotel or members’ club) must, during the emergency period, ensure that no music is played on the premises which exceeds 85db(A) when measured at the source of the music.

(1D) Paragraph (1C) does not apply to any performance of live music.

(1E) In paragraph (1C), “db(A)” means A-weighted decibels.”.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1046/made

 

On the grounds of professionalism - well, tricky one.

Are you self assessing and declaring your income from music? If not, you're walking a dubious ledge between claiming to be a professional 

[Beedster]

25 minutes ago, DaytonaRik said:

But back to the o/p's point - to me no, a pub band is not a professional band.  My reading of the guidelines would indicate that music and the arts covers seated (or standing) professional performances in appropriate ticketed venues - not 4 guys playing yet another godawful version of Wishing Well down the Dog and Duck!

I think it's simpler than that Rick. If you don't know whether or not your band is professional, it isn't

[Happy Jack]

This makes me uncomfortable, because the social comment in this thread is being driven by people whose posts generally I almost invariably agree with ... but here I'm parting company. 

So long as the discussion is being framed in terms of "do the right thing and nobody dies, do the wrong thing and all those deaths are your fault" then we'll get nowhere. That's trying to isolate and then exaggerate one aspect and one aspect only of this crisis.

People die. They die all the time, and in enormous numbers, of a very wide range of causes. We now have a new cause, Covid-19, and quite rightly we're taking it very seriously. But far more people still die of non-Covid causes, and the Covid-19 deaths are running (even with the new peak) at roughly 1.2 people a day per million of population.

Is that good? No, of course it''s not. Is that a catastrophe? No, of course it's not.

The dreadful situation six months ago largely comprised the accelerated death of people who were anyway close to death, through old age or pre-existing illness. What does 'largely' mean? The most widely quoted official stat that I've seen (do please correct me if I've got this wrong @Beedster, seriously) is that 91.1% of the Covid deaths in the Spring fell under this heading.

Is that good? No, of course it''s not. Is that a catastrophe? It may well have been for the many individuals affected, but only in the sense that every death is someone's personal tragedy. I'm nowhere near enough of a hypocrite to be shedding tears over the death from (basically) old age of complete strangers in Dorset or Dumfries.

Now take a look at the personal cost other than death to the 68 million people in the UK who haven't died of Covid-19, almost all of whom will end up (in due course) dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, etc. That's 68m lives disrupted and/or put on hold and/or stricken by debt and poverty and/or so many other things.

[Straw man argument] Ah, but you can't put a price on life, and all the money in the world doesn't justify one death. [/Straw man argument]

Does anyone actually believe that? Does anyone actually think this situation can go on for ever? Is anyone happy that we continue to borrow endlessly from our grandchildren to try to keep some people alive who would otherwise have died from natural causes?

I am NOT claiming that there's a simple answer to any of this, still less that somehow I am the only person on the planet - or even here on Basschat - who knows the answer.

What I AM saying is that sooner or later we will have to recognise that Covid-19 is out there in the general population, it's there for ever, it's highly unlikely that a completely effective vaccine will ever be found, and life must eventually return to some sort of normality.

I feel no guilt about the thosands who have died, any more than I feel guilt about those who die in road traffic accidents, even though I drive a car and am therefore part of the problem. I wear a mask where the law says I must, I limit my social interactions (though in truth that has had little effect on my life, what with being retired an' all), I am not a Covid-denier or a conspiracy theorist, in fact I am the very model of a modern socially-responsible bass player, but I am also sick of Project Fear, of the deceit and incompetence of those who govern the country, of the one-sided hysterical nonsense that passes for debate in this country. 

 

[DaytonaRik]

8 minutes ago, Beedster said:

I think it's simpler than that Rick. If you don't know whether or not your band is professional, it isn't

Not quite that simple though - our drummer is classed as a professional as music is (or was) his sole income either by playing (even just in multiple pub bands) and teaching.  So whilst we're not a professional band, we do have a professional band member.

Edited October 16, 2020 by DaytonaRik

[Beedster]

8 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

This makes me uncomfortable, because the social comment in this thread is being driven by people whose posts generally I almost invariably agree with ... but here I'm parting company. 

So long as the discussion is being framed in terms of "do the right thing and nobody dies, do the wrong thing and all those deaths are your fault" then we'll get nowhere. That's trying to isolate and then exaggerate one aspect and one aspect only of this crisis.

People die. They die all the time, and in enormous numbers, of a very wide range of causes. We now have a new cause, Covid-19, and quite rightly we're taking it very seriously. But far more people still die of non-Covid causes, and the Covid-19 deaths are running (even with the new peak) at roughly 1.2 people a day per million of population.

Is that good? No, of course it''s not. Is that a catastrophe? No, of course it's not.

The dreadful situation six months ago largely comprised the accelerated death of people who were anyway close to death, through old age or pre-existing illness. What does 'largely' mean? The most widely quoted official stat that I've seen (do please correct me if I've got this wrong @Beedster, seriously) is that 91.1% of the Covid deaths in the Spring fell under this heading.

Is that good? No, of course it''s not. Is that a catastrophe? It may well have been for the many individuals affected, but only in the sense that every death is someone's personal tragedy. I'm nowhere near enough of a hypocrite to be shedding tears over the death from (basically) old age of complete strangers in Dorset or Dumfries.

Now take a look at the personal cost other than death to the 68 million people in the UK who haven't died of Covid-19, almost all of whom will end up (in due course) dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, dementia, etc. That's 68m lives disrupted and/or put on hold and/or stricken by debt and poverty and/or so many other things.

[Straw man argument] Ah, but you can't put a price on life, and all the money in the world doesn't justify one death. [/Straw man argument]

Does anyone actually believe that? Does anyone actually think this situation can go on for ever? Is anyone happy that we continue to borrow endlessly from our grandchildren to try to keep some people alive who would otherwise have died from natural causes?

I am NOT claiming that there's a simple answer to any of this, still less that somehow I am the only person on the planet - or even here on Basschat - who knows the answer.

What I AM saying is that sooner or later we will have to recognise that Covid-19 is out there in the general population, it's there for ever, it's highly unlikely that a completely effective vaccine will ever be found, and life must eventually return to some sort of normality.

I feel no guilt about the thosands who have died, any more than I feel guilt about those who die in road traffic accidents, even though I drive a car and am therefore part of the problem. I wear a mask where the law says I must, I limit my social interactions (though in truth that has had little effect on my life, what with being retired an' all), I am not a Covid-denier or a conspiracy theorist, in fact I am the very model of a modern socially-responsible bass player, but I am also sick of Project Fear, of the deceit and incompetence of those who govern the country, of the one-sided hysterical nonsense that passes for debate in this country. 

 

Yes but Jack, that is all well and good and I agree with the sentiment, but the OP is suggesting several pub gigs in a high risk area, and there are lots of data that indicate it's exactly these types of events that are the a main problem, that is one infected person in the same room for a few hours with several uninfected people. Right here right now things are only going to get worse economically if everyone feels that it's OK to ignore the moderate steps the agencies are taking. 

 

EDIT

And quite a few very informed scientists agree completely with all of your points, they're not mavericks or outliers, they are major players. The problem is that it would be a brave government now, that is after all of the messaging and sacrifices, simply said sod it, let's just accept it's here to stay. In part, this is because there is still real fear that we haven't seen anything like the worst of it, the 'second wave' was more the effect of the relaxation of restrictions and kids going back to school/university than the anticipated seasonal increase that is expected soon. There is also the reality that the NHS have a legal and ethical responsibility to treat ill people, and do so in terms of urgency. A simple look at the data around delayed treatments for cancer and many other serious illness, which are to a degree alluded to in what you said, can be seen differently; every one who ends up on a ventilator or in IC probably stops a person with another disease receiving treatment, potentially fatally. I just don't think it can all be waved away with 'we'll just have to learn to live with it'. It's quite likely that the only way we will is via a vaccine, and that is still apparently a long way off.  

Edited October 16, 2020 by Beedster

[Beedster]

3 minutes ago, DaytonaRik said:

Not quite that simple though - our drummer is classed as a professional as music is (or was) his sole income either by playing (even just in multiple pub bands) and teaching.  So whilst we're not a professional band, we do have a professional band member.

Ha ha, fair enough mate

[Beedster]

Jack, re the 91% quote, it's an emotive one and banded about as if it were based on hard data. Mass infections take the weakest first, and often those people are weak because they already have a serious illness. In this case Covid arguably accelerated the effects of flu, pneumonia, sepsis etc in many people who were already ill. But it's about exposure as well as vulnerability, the weak had low exposure but were vulnerable, but many doctors, nurses, carers and allied health professionals died as well, they weren't vulnerable but had high exposure; they also weren't well protected. Protection is two way, stop the virus others might have getting to me, and stop a virus I might have getting to others.

If people keep passing on Covid through breaking guidelines in areas where there is high risk, a percentage of even the previously healthy, let alone vulnerable, will end up in hospital, denying treatment to others with less serious illness and prompting further tightening of guidelines. This is the reality at present. In the old model, go to the pub, have a few too many, end up in A&E for the night for whatever reason (fight, passing out, falling over). In the new model, go to the pub, ignore guidelines, end up in IC for two weeks.  

 

It's why at this point, until we know more, distancing and masks are so critical. Sorry for going on, I'm going back to work now

  

Edited October 16, 2020 by Beedster

[BassBunny]

2 pubs in Leigh area got raided by the Police a few weeks back as they had bands on. Told to stop immediately and they would be shut down if they do it again.

@Beedster, @Happy Jack a well thought out and interesting debate. I spent a large proportion of my working career in a statistics environment and know full well that you make numbers tell any story you like.

I only look at the numbers NHS or ONS produce and they tell a completely different story to Government and the Media. The "scientific" approach is still using Neil Ferguson's modelling, ( I know he resigned from SAGE, but is still involved ), and this has proven to be spectacularly wrong on 5 previous occasions. We know far more about this virus than we did in March and need to change our approach, in my opinion.

Factor in that seasonal flu deaths are now going to be included in the figures and there appears to be no way out of this mess currently.

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, BassBunny said:

I only look at the numbers NHS or ONS produce and they tell a completely different story to Government and the Media. The "scientific" approach is still using Neil Ferguson's modelling, ( I know he resigned from SAGE, but is still involved ), and this has proven to be spectacularly wrong on 5 previous occasions. We know far more about this virus than we did in March and need to change our approach, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with the statistical analysis of data is that the outcome is nearly always a function of who's running the numbers in the first place! Good post mate, interested in knowing your thoughts on the data and where we are/should be going?

[Happy Jack]

11 minutes ago, BassBunny said:

 

@Beedster, @Happy Jack a well thought out and interesting debate. I spent a large proportion of my working career in a statistics environment and know full well that you make numbers tell any story you like.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Beedster said:

The biggest problem with the statistical analysis of data is that the outcome is nearly always a function of who's running the numbers in the first place! Good post mate, interested in knowing your thoughts on the data and where we are/should be going?

 

After a career spent dealing with solely financial statistics, nothing scientific or medical, I find one of the most appalling aspects of all this is that government policy is based almost entirely on stats that are known to be (at best) massively incomplete and (at worst) totally misleading.

I play in two 3-piece bands, so that's five musicians in total. I know for a fact that all five of us contracted Covid-19 in the back-end of March following packed pub gigs just before the Lockdown. So that's 100%.

I also know for a fact that not one of us is captured in the official stats for those who have had Covid-19. So that's 0%.

That is a tiny, tiny sample size and does NOT automatically apply to 68 million people, but it rather raises a doubt in my mind when I read that 5% or 10% of the population have had Covid-19 so the measures we are taking are designed to protect the 90% or 95% who haven't yet had it. In purely scientific terms, I reckon that's complete and utter bollocks. 

What if the split is 50/50? Would the current measures still make sense?

What if the split is 90/10 in favour of people having had (or been exposed to) Covid-19? Would the current measures still make sense then?

Without this single, fundamental piece of information, everything we are being told is frankly a lie.

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Happy Jack

[Beedster]

Just now, Happy Jack said:

 

 

After a career spent dealing with solely financial statistics, nothing scientific or medical, I find one of the most appalling aspects of all this is that government policy is based almost entirely on stats that are known to be (at best) massively incomplete and (at worst) totally misleading.

I play in two 3-piece bands, so that's five musicians in total. I know for a fact that all five of us contracted Covid-19 in the back-end of March following packed pub gigs just before the Lockdown. So that's 100%.

I also know for a fact that not one of us is captured in the official stats for those who have had Covid-19. So that's 0%.

That is a tiny, tiny sample size and does NOT automatically to 68 million people, but it rather raises a doubt in my mind when I read that 5% or 10% of the population have had Covid-19 so the measures we are taking are designed to protect the 90% or 95% who haven't yet had it. In purely scientific terms, I reckon that's complete and utter bollocks. 

What if the split is 50/50? Would the current measures still make sense?

What if the split is 90/10 in favour of people having had (or been exposed to) Covid-19? Would the current measures still make sense then?

Without this single, fundamental piece of information, everything we are being told is frankly a lie.

 

So, a government is having to rely on poor analysis of incomplete data. Not the first or last time that's going to happen! What solution do you propose Jack?

[Happy Jack]

As I said earlier, I don't have THE ANSWER. What I do have is recognition that nobody dares have a sensible, grown-up discussion about this so long as any suggestion that current policy is not the right answer leads to being pilloried in the media, and on social media. Such as Basschat.

"Poor analysis of incomplete data"? At present, there is no mention in the mainstream media that the data are incomplete, because that would undermine public confidence that Boris Johnson is a heroic leader and world-reknowned expert in the field of epidemiology. Any serious challenge to the nonsense that we are fed daily is stifled.

In truth, it is all very reminiscent of the official suppression of any genuine research into whether or not recreational drugs are dangerous and, if so, which ones. So long as we all focus on the WAR ON DRUGS and write hysterical articles about crack cocaine, nobody will mention that the most widespread and dangerous recreational drug in Western Civilisation is in fact alcohol, and that nicotine is (and always has been) massively more dangerous than THC.

Irrelevant to the Covid-19 argument, do you think? I disagree. That particular piece of very deliberate distraction and misguidance has been a constant feature of government policy for decades now. It has been really very effective, and I have genuine concerns that the Covid-19 issue will take the same path.

 

[Beedster]

7 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

As I said earlier, I don't have THE ANSWER. What I do have is recognition that nobody dares have a sensible, grown-up discussion about this so long as any suggestion that current policy is not the right answer leads to being pilloried in the media, and on social media. Such as Basschat.

"Poor analysis of incomplete data"? At present, there is no mention in the mainstream media that the data are incomplete, because that would undermine public confidence that Boris Johnson is a heroic leader and world-reknowned expert in the field of epidemiology. Any serious challenge to the nonsense that we are fed daily is stifled.

In truth, it is all very reminiscent of the official suppression of any genuine research into whether or not recreational drugs are dangerous and, if so, which ones. So long as we all focus on the WAR ON DRUGS and write hysterical articles about crack cocaine, nobody will mention that the most widespread and dangerous recreational drug in Western Civilisation is in fact alcohol, and that nicotine is (and always has been) massively more dangerous than THC.

Irrelevant to the Covid-19 argument, do you think? I disagree. That particular piece of very deliberate distraction and misguidance has been a constant feature of government policy for decades now. It has been really very effective, and I have genuine concerns that the Covid-19 issue will take the same path.

 

The most dangerous drug I believe is still technically Aspirin!

Points taken, but there are always arguments the other way, for example THC effects the brain extremely quickly compared to the effects of nicotine, especially in adolescence, which is where it is most problematic and is associated with serious problems as little as 10 years later in some people. As you suggest, data can be a double edged sword, it depends what question you're trying to answer by using it 

Jack, speak to any decent consultant and they'll tell you that medicine is not an exact science by a long shot even with diseases we have known about for years (BTW more people still die daily from AIDS than Covid). You mentioned that you have spent a lifetime analysing financial data, lucky you, I've spent a lifetime analysing data on humans. First lesson I learned in my PhD, all data relating to humans are an approximation at best, completely lacking in value at worst. Nothing you have said is wrong, and this is the problem, but none of it gives us a chance of moving away from Covid. As a scientist, I have to conduct a controlled experiment to test a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported, we move to a more refined stage of the experiment and get closer to solving the problem. If however the controls are breached, it's back to square 1. In my view, the government are doing the same, they are running different controlled experiments to see what works and what doesn't (a process that absolutely DEFINES the history of medicine by the way, with the exception of the pure chance discoveries), but the controls are being breached so often that they cannot get a handle on what does and doesn't work, and square 1 is lockdown in this case. They have made a major error however; if I want to study a certain population, I need to either control it or know how to motivate/encourage it to do what I want. The government got it wrong, and on both counts. It's possible that this factor alone explains why the UK and USA have had things so badly given the resources (time, money and expertise) we had at our disposal to deal with it. 

Nothing you have said is wrong mate, I just think you're looking in the wrong places to apportion blame, or at least all of it.