Music Needs To Support Lower Drinking Age
COMMENTARY: The music industry should follow the lead of the consortium of major college and university presidents who this week called for the US to lower the legal drinking age to 18. They point to studies that show current restrictions actually encourage dangerous binge drinking among young adults. Only four countries (Ukraine, South Korea, Malaysia and the US) restrict drinking until 21.
Whatever the morale or scientific arguments for or against lowering the drinking age there is one indisputable fact: a lower drinking age would be good news for music and the music industry.
Before the age was raised to 21, circuits of clubs presenting live music…
flourished; not just in large cities but also in small towns. Bands
from Bangor to Butte were able to sustain themselves and hone their
craft by playing regionally 4 or 5 nights a week. College towns had
scenes of their own and official school events weren’t shunned for
private parties where alcohol is served illegally.
Alcohol abuse at any age is horrible. But I suspect that most of us
in the music industry have always thought it was hypocritical to tell
kids they could vote and fight in a war, but weren’t old enough to have
a drink. It’s time for both artists and the music industry came out in
vocal support of lowering the drinking age to 18. Some will call it
opportunistic or worse, but in our hearts we’ll also know we’re right. – Bruce Houghton
Bruce is absolutely right, beyond the fact that any rational human being with any real life experience knows our drinking age is absurd, the implications of lowering the drinking age to 18 is monumental to the entertainment industry as a whole. The RIAA needs to stop nickle & diming college kids for $2-3k in arbitration when their caught downloading the new Pussycat Dolls album and start making some significant income off a thriving live entertainment market & college markets (on & off campuses). As a promoter of concerts & clubs, I would be more than enthusiastic to bring in more live entertainment with the additional income brought in with 18+ year olds drinking legally.
Shit tax the shit out of them and donate to proceeds to Alcoholics Anonymous & Educational programs, whatever works.
Bruce let us know if you come across any ways me & others interested can help support a nationwide initiative like this.
Gopi
EastofLA.com
Decades ago there was a Jersey Shore circuit that spawned people like Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi. Bars had 3 or 4 stages and 5000 or more patrons each weekend. Then they dropped the drinking age from 21 to 18. Fights increased. Traffic accidents increased. The older patrons (21-25)stayed away. The police started to sit outside the clubs and stop people as they left the bars. And within a few years there was only a shell of that circuit left.
does gopi really think the RIAA is to blame for the drinking age being 21 ?
As a Canadian, I’ve always been astounded by the US attitude around alcohol. When I was 20, and a legal drinker for over a year in my province, I took a road trip through Washington state with my girlfriend who was 21 at the time. We picked up some groceries at a supermarket for a picnic and included a bottle of wine. Thinking nothing of it, I went to pay for the items at the checkout counter and was told I could not purchase the wine. We shrugged and my girlfriend produced her ID. The clerk then refused to sell her the bottle because “you’re just going to give it to him” as if a 20-year-old with a bottle of Shiraz would cause untold damage to Whatcom county. We laughed, said something to the effect of “Land of the Free, my ass” and while I loaded the car, my friend bought our wine at the next store over.
It’s high time the United States grew up.
@lostcause…
Of course I don’t think the RIAA is the cause of the drinking age being 21. I’m just saying as a representative organization of the “Recording Industry” I would assume they stand to benefit from an initiative like this & should advocate for it just as rigorously as they do chasing college kids around the country with lawyers.
Bruce,
While I absolutely agree with you on lowering the drinking age, I have to raise my eyebrow to why you think music has any correlation whatsoever to alcohol consumption. I guess its what we’ve all come to expect. Sure, both are done in social settings. But I think it is unfortunate that we have automatically associated music events with consuming alcohol. What about all the kids who just want to see a show, regardless of whether they are old enough or not to drink? Instead, we blindly learn that going to see a band means you go to have drinks as well, or you have to go to a place that serves alcohol. I understand your economic predictions, but why can’t there be alternatives? Your article has raised another important issue, why aren’t there more venues supporting all ages concerts – especially without promoting alcohol? Lowering the drinking age will still make younger kids realize that they have to go to a bar or other “adult establishment” to support some of their favorite bands.
Music is supposed to be enjoyed by everyone, and kids are especially eager to hear bands play. Maybe it’s time to stop automatically pairing these two social settings together and support music for being music, not something to drink to?
Respectfully,
Solomon
Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments. I’d love see the RIAA follow Gopi’s lead and fight for a cause like this that would show younger consumers that the music industry is not so damn out of touch.
Solomon, you are right that there has been too much of a connection between booze and music. But it does provided needed revenue for clubs and more revenue can mean more music and perhaps lower ticket prices.
I really cannot possibly imagine a better way for the RIAA to pull off a brand resurrection than this. Pretty genius idea.
And, since the RIAA isn’t giving the lawsuit money to artists anyways, they should flip the money into this PR campaign.
It’s also good for whatever administration comes in 2009 — sure, our economy might be bleeding to death, your degrees AND your dollars might be worthless paper, but now you can go out to bars!
A good way to prevent a revolution for sure.
ok folks let’s review: RIAA stands for RECORDING Industry Assn. of America — they are not to blame or have any interest in this situation, they do not add DRM to iTunes (no one trashes Apple for that) , they did not invent Minimum Advertised Pricing (no one trashes any of the many other industries for that), and they did not cause your hemmoroid problem
Music industry executives should not have any meaningful influence over public policy, ever. Like the RIAA gives a shit about kids.
@Bestman333…
With the way these majors are renegotiating their contracts into 360 deals or something akin, the “Recording” Industry most certaintly has an invested interest in lowering the drinking age and seeing and seeing new capitol flow through entertainment industry. Not to mention the additional booking opportunites for promotional runs (at concert venues & club appearances).
As a promoter in Southern California, I know that venues & industry leading promoters alike are hurting with ticket sales as a result of the recession (& just blatant goughing if you ask me). This could help considerably.
Another problem is that these “new media” developed artist can be all the rage over the internet, but have no traction when the rubber meets the road and its time to sell tickets or albums. Why? I think some of the leading reasons are they haven’t toured or developed their live act, they haven’t developed a substantial fanbase in their own hometown markets (instead have millions of fans splattered across every corner of the earth) & they have very young internet savvy fanbases, that may just be more inclined to come out if they can have a legal drink or two while listening to their new favorite “Corona & Lime” single by Shwayze 😉 **factor in Merch sales as well**
@ Solomon…
I love the idea of All Age Venues & they should be an alternative, but quite simply promoters & venue owners love the idea of lowering the drinking age because for a small to midrange venue the alcohal is much more profitable. You can net about $100-$120 bucks off about 9-10 shots of Patron (1-375 ml bottle). Which is barely a round or two of drinks for a small group of concert goers…
I understand this is a pragmatic suggestion and given that this legislation has passed in country where I am coming from in recent years, for all it’s drawbacks, you couldn’t say live music and promoters have suffered for it.
but I gotta come in line with Solomon’s albeit idealistic standpoint. Especially with my background as a DJ and promoter on the dance music scene I’ve always found it unfortunate that as musicians, laws and authorities have forced us to be complicit in the endorsement of a dangerous and overpriced drug just to keep our scene alive.
I see nothing wrong with lowering the drinking age to 18. Are we all so naive to think no one drinks until they are 18? I remember when the drinking age was 18, and it seemed there was less drunk drivers on the road back then, than now. I can also remember when it was legal to drink a beer while driving…if you did get pulled over, nothing would be done to you unless your were over the limits.
I have always been for 18 to be the legal age to drink ..and for many of the reasons already stated. But what is a Fact is that DRIVING While Blind is the problem here.
So here goes my input: no one under 21 is allowed to DRIVE to or from a place that serves drinks. They could drink in bars, halls,at home,or even buy directly from stores and outlets,… ect…but,they could not use a motorized vehicle to commit the act (so to speak).
It’s drunk driving that kills and more poeple under 21 are more likely to be involved. The stats are there. So take the C-A-R outta the equation and everyone can be happy. Dig.
It could even be a boon to mass transit, car-pooling,Taxi industry and on.
In the recent months a few of us down in San Diego started a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization called Concert Cabs. The whole intention is to encourage people to see more live music while proactively combating drunk driving. There is a huge demand to use such service here, however when it comes to obtaining the necessary volunteers to make the program run, they simply are not there.
I had a lot of interest from people under 21 who wanted to get involved. In general, the under 21 crowd was more interested and enthusiastic about the whole concept of Concert Cabs and a free ride home from a show and a $5 ride to the show. 95% of venues in San Diego that are worth catching a show at are 21+. For the 3 years I lived in SD before I was 21, I would see the pages of the Reader and City Beat filled with awesome shows I couldn’t go to. San Diego has a major segregation between 21+ and those who are not privileged to taste the sweet suds.
Lowering the drinking age has always been something I believe should happen. But it wasn’t until my experience with Concert Cabs that I felt first hand the positive impact lowering the drinking age could have on our communities and economy.
Until there are programs and systems in place to deal with the massive wave of binge drinking that would most likely take place for the few years following such law passing, the drinking age wil never be lowered in the US.
I’m not sure which way to go on this… Having kids who are in or near their teens I have some real concerns. Regarding the economics…what’s the difference of increased income vs. the likelihood of increased security costs and increased insurance liability, etc. Are there increased social repercussions (teen pregnancy, higher alcoholism rates, etc)? I’m not sure putting faith in bad habits is a good way to go. Maybe if we allow smoking back in bars and restaurants more people will come (Just an argument here). Or the fact that we tax cigarettes to support education… doesn’t that reward or encourage smoking? It certainly doesn’t vilify it and at the very least sends a mixed message. So if we can make more $$ off 18 year old drinkers who cares what the long term affect is. On the other hand I’m all for personal responsibility…if you can’t handle it..don’t do it. I guess for me it’s not a black and white easy answer.
I absolutely think the legal drinking age should be dropped to 18. I mean, as a practical matter, everybody knows these college kids are drinking anyway.
I don’t even see where the debate is. It’s the height of hypocrisy to expect someone to fight and die in wars for a country that won’t even allow them to buy a beer.
And as for the music industry, with profits shrinking like they are, we should be all over ANYTHING that expands our market share. Allowing 18 year olds into clubs again to drink would definitely do that.
Plus, The Ukraine, South Korea, and Malaysia? These are the only countries that maintain the legal drinking age of 21? That should be argument enough for us to make the change.
All this boils down to is RESPONSIBILITY! The question should be: “Are teenagers responsible enough to handling alcohol consumption?”
It has been my experience that 21 year old COLLEGE students are usually not responsible enough to handle drinking (e.g. one of the greatest producers EVER, Dr. Dre, just lost his 22 yr old son this week to alcohol poisoning)! So WHY THE HELL would the music business support a lower drinking age? What….so club owners and liquor companies can benefit monetarily?!?
I’ve been in this business a long time and have contributed to millions of records being sold by top artists, so I consider myself to be the “music business” professional who’s being asked to support a lower drinking age! I would NEVER support it, becuase I NEVER ONCE saw a situation where I felt that an 18 yr old could handle liquor! 18 year olds go to WAR because they’re TRAINED soldiers! Nobody can TRAIN someone how to maintain their composure after 7 vodka shots!
“Nobody can train someone how to maintain their composure after 7 vodka shots!”
No, but a society can train its young adults to know that after 4 vodka shots it’s time to switch to water.
The reason that binge drinking is such a problem in America is precisely because of the hypocritical drinking age ban. There’s a very well researched book on this topic called ‘The Devil’s Picnic’ by Taras Grescoe. In it he uses the example of Norway, a state where liquor is heavily controlled and heavily taxed. The result is that social drinking, at any age, doesn’t occur, because it’s such an ordeal to get a bottle of booze. Instead, on the occasions when people do drink, they go dangerously overboard. These are the habits that we are teaching our young adults.
If teenagers were taught about alcohol by having a glass of wine or a beer with their parents over dinner – rather than a mikey of peach schnapps at a frat party – they would grow into much healthier and responsible consumers.
This is a ridiculous idea. I agree with those that say that most 18 year olds have no idea what “responsible drinking” is. Although such a law would let younger kids into 21 and over establishments to see bands, how would more music/ticket sales compensate for more consumer injuries and deaths from drinking and driving post-show? Personally I’m tired of getting kicked around by young kids moshing and crowd surfing at concerts; I can only imagine what those kids will be like drunk.
The RIAA should have no involvement with this whatsoever; and I hope the american public has enough common sense to keep the legal drinking age at 21.
Excellent Blog every one can get lots of information for any topics from this blog nice work keep it up.
I find this information very useful. Great work! We study this article on the regular basis :-). And we recommend this to every body.