pissface

Media Watch would have a minor-level field day with the headline of the article - it implies that Rosie Beaton is the author of the comment about the stoner Tool guys.

The Internet: breathing air into futile philosophical debates since 1996.

The natural reaction to such an announcement is cynicism. But isn't it a positive development that a major political party even thinks of attracting the votes of the local music community?

Surely after years of policy proposals that are focused on constraining liberties to the point of suffocation, making illegal activities even more illegal and generally treating the voting population like a homogenous bunch of Herald Sun/A Current Affair/Today Tonight drones, it's pleasing to see a government - albeit a government that's been wearing the brown corduroy trousers whenever it's cast its mind to the inner-city electorates - realising that the local music community does warrant attention and investment.

The code of practice matter is interesting, and something to keep a close eye on - it's got all the hallmarks of a Neville Chamberlain-style 'peace in our time' announcement to placate concerns over first amenity and related issues, without necessarily addressing the issue at a substantive (regulatory) level. But it's a start, and without a start you're still nowhere.

I suspect (without knowing too much of the superannuation issue in great detail) that a musicians' superannuation fund would require a private (or potentially public, though that's probably not feasible, legally or politically) body to invest funds based on subscriptions/contributions from members, with those funds available to be drawn upon by musicians in the future. The State government could make a capital/annual contribution to such a fund (like employers are required to for superannuation purposes), but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what the government could do. I'm not aware of anything in the current (federal) superannuation rules that would prohibit such a scheme being established.

No matter how beautifully crafted your songs are, if you can’t balance a budget or explain the short- and long-term benefits of your activity, you won’t get any money.

Exactly.

I heard Tina Arena sing Everybody Hurts once, and I almost cried - it was so painful I was almost compelled to cry.

I'd still like a return to the days when licensed venues had to serve a meal on Sundays - an obligation that could be discharged by means of a platter of marginally edible slices of processed meat.

They are a public body no? This is tax money? The have to answer publicly.

MV is receiving seed funding from the Government, but it's not a public body, in the sense of having a statutory basis.

Therefore it's not accountable (to Parliament, which - as much as it seems incongruous to many - represents the taxpaying populace) in the same way a statutory authority is.

MV is just like other community-based organisations that receive government funding - in theory, it's responsible to its 'community'.

Good choice.

The press conference was attended by Victorian Premier John Brumby, who emphasised the need to be tough on alcohol related violence while listening to concerns from the live music industry.

Good to see Johnny's staying on message, and endeavouring to placate everyone in the entire equation.

The beer was always shit at The Tote anyways... This is GOOD news!

Disagree strongly. Cooper's Pale (thanks Richie) and Mountain Goat in the front bar.

That's the most lateral, and truly bizarre, assessment of the Tote/licensing issue so far. 1000 points for originality, minus 999 for a complete absence of logical argument.

I would have thought the IPA's natural position would have been to support a dilution in licensing obligations. Has the IPA decided to embrace red tape when its use is to strangle a constituency the IPA sees no value in.

Oh, and there was never any direct connection between Wren's Tote and The Ivanhoe - gambling wasn't part of pub culture in those days (so a notable true crime historian once told me). Betting has traditionally been a tightly regulated profession - as Block infers, bookies in pubs were about as much of an institution as unsolicited violence.