TOPIC:

I am not on Facebook, where I gather this debate has had a more thorough airing, and I don't care deeply, but since you've asked for opinions, here goes. With apologies if I'm treading over old ground, and in the hope this forum livens up a bit, I'll avoid technical issues and try to focus on the big picture.

In the emailing yesterday, the chairman concludes his argument for allowing some digital music by reminding us that “vinyl only” is “not a policy, just tradition”.

Mike is right that “vinyl only” is not policy. But he's wrong to suggest that there is such a thing as “just tradition”. Tradition is powerful, and nearly always trumps policy, as this stalled argument illustrates. I want to argue that on this matter The Bell has somehow got itself into a position where tradition has become dogma that clashes with what the place really stands for.

So, what is Bell policy regarding DJs? I don't seem to be able to find a copy of the Share Offer, and don't think it's the Word of God anyway, but back in 2013 I e-mailed a Hat and Feather friend of mine about the offer. My e-mail pointed out two oddities in the document. One was an overall determination not to change anything, which I thought then, and still think now, is an odd position for Walcot, a region I've always thought of as open-minded and vaguely progressive.

(Interestingly, my friend replied to me “16 days to go and they only have 30%. Which is a shame…I think it does look like the money will not be raised.” He's now a professor, which just goes to show. So-called “experts”, eh?)

Anyway, the other peculiarity I spotted in the offer was “a commitment to vinyl through top DJs”. I thought it was a strangely specific insertion and speculated that it was the result of “intense-eyed lobbying” by particular interest groups. But whatever drove that commitment, you'll agree that it does not amount to “vinyl only”.

Similarly, in the Bell Music Policy (found in this forum's documentation section), we “affirm that a good and eclectic analogue DJ programme always has a place on the calendar”. That's not “vinyl only” either. It's “there'll always be plenty of vinyl”.

That music policy statement is excellent. It's passionate and responsible. It advocates flexibility and high standards. It underlines The Bell's place in the community as a “home for music and musicians”. It does have what you might call an “analogue bias”, preferring “root styles” and “original material and arrangements” but it's not dogmatic and there's no mention whatsoever of any “vinyl only” exclusion.

Nevertheless, we find ourselves in a position where our “tradition” (only vinyl) is a hardcore exclusionary version of our “policy” (make sure there's lots of vinyl). How did that happen? And why did we come down on the side of a ban, because that's what this is, rather than flexibility and openness?

I suspect that some intense-eyed lobbying did indeed play a part in getting us to this absurd position. I also suspect that there's a kind of inertia and small-c conservatism in the cooperative framework that makes change hard. But I really don't know. After all, I live in Ankara and only visit The Bell when I'm home. (I'll be in next week btw.) Whatever the reason, I would like to suggest that a better tradition is actually clearly expressed in the Music Policy Statement, which says, among other points:

• Be the best
• Be different
• Be varied
• Retain the capacity to do something out of the ordinary

Why are we banning any form of music at all? Is that really the place we want to be? Why are we putting ourselves in the position where Arborman (above) can call The Bell “snobbish” with some justification? Would we accept an exclusionary position like this on any other issue at all?

I suggest that we make sure there's always vinyl, but let in some digital DJs, make them welcome, and observe the sky not falling. Waive the rules, as the poster says.

Well said, spine -- I agree with your sentiments and fully support your final paragraph.

I too don't care strongly about the issue of vinyl vs. digital -- my Bell visits are mostly Sunday lunchtimes/afternoons or weekday evenings triggered equally by either a particular band or a meetup of a group travelling in from Thornbury/Bristol/Bradford on Avon/Melksham.

I don't want to 'ban' anyone or any genre from the pub, unless it is overly intrusive to others and/or spoils the viability of the Bell.

Simon .

yes Steve H and Jamie M that’s you, happily play digital music 90% of the time from the pooter or cd, but if someone wants to play music live then it’s gotta be vinyl only vinyl, absolute fascist attitude. Why Steve is it OK to play digital tunes 90% of the time until someone stands up to play tunes live when “ITS GOT TO BE VINYL”
I have loads of great tunes in the digital sphere which are not available on vinyl, so according to the Bell these are not worth listening to.

It would appear that the previous contributors have summed up the situation and views perfectly but I have to agree the argument does seem a little ridiculous when digital music is streamed through the pub day in day out....

All should be welcome to play what they want to yes vinyl is incredibly important and adds to the uniqueness of the Bell but having a vinyl only policy is now excluding other which isn't what the Bell is about

Well said to all those who have contributed

Clare

I think being vinyl only is ridiculous and snobbish. The science is fairly clear that the ears cannot distinguish any difference in quality above 24 bit. Playing almost any music produced in the last few decades on a record and claiming it sounds like a more accurate representation of what the artist produced in the studio when compared to a hi-def CD (or FLAC) is laughable given that the record itself will have been produced (except in a few very unusual cases) based on a 24 bit digital recording.

Additionally, if you can hear the difference in a busy pub with speakers not perfectly positioned, almost definitely not being in the 'sweet spot' for the speakers etc, then it is because the records are probably scratched, i.e. not a good thing.

Just to challenge a few other arguments made on the other side of the debate:
The arguments that the DJ's like playing vinyl - well great if thats what they like they can continue to play them, we're not stopping them we're simply saying you don't have to use vinyl if you don't want.

They're hip at the moment - Well if they weren't would the people on the other side that accept that as an argument against? I doubt it I believe they would say the Bell isn't about being hip...

Bell unique selling point mentioned in the share offering - Personally I don't remember this being in those documents but either way I very much doubt it's why people chose to invest.


In summary I couldn't agree more strongly with Mike.

OK. I got involved in this discussion because nobody seemed to be talking to the DJs themselves and at least I was, so I could pass it on. It’s always a good idea to talk to the people involved and affected. In this case, they’ll surely tell you what they think about whoever-it-was turning up with their whole mix on a memory stick. That’s not a DJ, that’s a radio programme… But I digress.

For my trouble I get called a snob, a moron, and a fascist. Great, thanks. So I thought I should at least say what I actually think myself.
Spoiler alert: I don’t disagree with myself.

To start with. we actually have quite a good bunch of DJs already, not perfect, but who is? To be honest I’m not in the pub on those nights much - I might catch a little of Friday night sometimes, or a bit of Bruno & Mick on Saturday afternoons - but people always do talk to me about what they like or don’t about the pub. There is a DJ topic that keeps coming up: I’ll get to that in a minute, but it isn’t people telling me they’re shit or that their night out is spoiled because they aren’t getting the up-to-the-minute shizzle from the most hip & happening DJs.

When we were taking this pub over, I had the feeling - perhaps shared - that a big part of our reason was that we were quite happy with the way the pub was and didn’t want someone coming in with “a better idea” that we weren’t convinced was in fact going to be better. And proceeding from that, that the people running The Bell were the people who knew how to run The Bell. Of course there were things that had been neglected, were wrong, that could be better, but by and large a lot of it was right, thanks very much. And, yes indeed, part of what was and is good about The Bell was being open to stuff, and nothing should be set in stone or aspic, but that there were things that we found comfortable and were quite happy with the way they were.

So, back to the DJ thing that people actually do talk about. Why do we even have DJs in the place to start with? We’re not a club, we’re a pub, not even a pre-club / pre-party joint like The Hat used to be on the weekend, or The Bell was a little in Backtomine days, but a place that people come to meet and talk, not to dance and shout. We like someone playing records in the corner of the room ‘cos that’s more interesting and responsive to our collective mood than the bar staff putting something on could be (they have other things to be doing), but we probably won’t remember more than 2 things they played all night, and maybe not even that. We might remember that the vibe was nice, or something, and we appreciate the hand of someone who likes music, likes The Bell, and knows what it should feel like. Sure, the end of the night is more dramatic than the beginning, but that’s a million miles away from Beachboy Blimp holding a field-full of ravers in the palm of his hand at midnight.

All I ever hear from customers about DJs is about the ones who don’t get that, who play too loud, keep edging the volume up so you can’t talk in the rest of the pub, who think they’re the main attraction. When that happens, there are complaints. Rarely a word when a night has gone well. And that is a compliment.

So. What am I saying?
I’m saying I like the DJs we have and the guests they select. If they want it to be all vinyl, I’m happy with that. I like them to be happy. They’re defiinitely not getting rich doing what they do. Maybe it’s not as good as it possibly could be - I wouldn’t claim that for what I do, either - but it’s firmly above average, with bags of character, individual to us - and i’m really not convinced that better is actually even available.

Sometimes these things are a delicate ecosystem, a balancing thing. it works for them that works for me and i’m happy to leave them to it. I’d also be happy if someone or several someones ran more dance parties in the back, playing whatever they liked on whatever they liked; and I’d be especially happy if someone ran a night that encouraged people who made electronic music at home to come and play it, whether they were improvising a live remix or had it all nailed down already. I was holding back on that one in favour of a crew member who had run nights like that elsewhere, but life’s taken them off in a different direction so there’s an opening there. Just make it an addition, not a subtraction from what we have already.

We have this little-ish thing that we do pretty well. It’s not all things to all people, but that one’s a pretty tall order - and trying to please everyone often ends up satisfying no-one. That way mediocrity lies.
Beware the bland-out.
Not because it’s not cool, but because it’s bad for business.
The character of The Bell is what keeps people coming rather than staying home, where the drink is cheaper (even if not so good) and they can have their ‘80s hits / classic rock / Club Scuzzo playlist on if they want. Let’s keep the little eccentricities while some people still value them. Whatever ‘harm’ they might cause is piffling, and hardly overbalances what it feels like to be part of a pub that insists on doing things its own way.