April 11, 2008
The drink nazi’s tighten their grip, for what?
What does preventing a musician from drinking an alcoholic beverage on stage solve? What danger is such a ordinance protecting the fragile rock and roll fan’s soul from? It’s sickly ironic is it that the musicians are the ones bringing people into bars to listen to them, and yet they aren’t allowed to imbibe on the physical stage located within the bar while performing. A drink set down on the stage by anyone in violation of the clearly posted signs on the monitors will be quickly snatched up by security to avoid the appearance of an infraction.
Clearly the fun police have been regulating liquor establishments/entertainment venues more closely and have now required more of the mid-size venues (at least on Capitol Hill recently) to adhere to these draconian rules they’ve been hassling some of the smaller bars with for years now. While I applaud a proactive police presence in regard to regulating and protecting patron’s safety within clubs, what does this rule accomplish?
I really want to know.
Digg This!
Delicious
April 14th, 2008 22:39
You know my thoughts on this. I’m required to keep the alcohol off stage as we’ve been written up before, but personally, I don’t care if a band drinks while playing. That said, the only good to come of any additional heat around town re: onstage drinking is that I won’t get the blank looks or a “Really?” when I tell a band not to drink on stage, nor will I have to remind them a second time. Laws suck.
April 18th, 2008 02:04
drinking everyhwere should be outlawed, especially onstage.
April 18th, 2008 10:40
I gotta say I was a little taken back when “crew” poo-pooed the lead singer from the Shackletons the other night for getting his swerve on stageside. I’ve never seen that before. I had always thought of the stage as sort of a sovereign nation. Bands drink, smoke, get naked, and do whatever the hell makes them bands on stage. I mean it’s part of the performance we “paid” to see right? Can you imagine Tom Waits on stage without whiskey or butts. Please. The Fun Police blow.
April 19th, 2008 13:34
One of things this rule accomplishes is allowing underage musicians to perform on the stage. Of course we’d all prefer to drink onstage and allow underage performers - but under our prudish states rules - if 18-20 year olds can be on stage, liquor can’t be. Actually that is supposed to be backstage too! Obviously it should be more liberal - but I’d not like to see good young musicians kept off the stage just so old bad ones can get sloshed there.
April 19th, 2008 16:52
Fair enough. It being a separate area where underagers are allowed to be for performance reasons means that it probably should have a special status, along with the backstage area, with regard to alcohol consumption. Whether or not I agree with the age of choice being 21 is an argument for a different time. But should that special status exist if no underagers are expected to be? In other words: if everyone is over 21, why should the stage be dry?
October 21st, 2008 21:28
[...] Weekly explains why artists aren’t allowed to drink onstage [sots], but there’s still no good explanation of why the police are increasingly enforcing an [...]