Are you listening?

On the face of it, live music in the UK is flourishing.

The vast number of festivals held during 2007 reflects this, with festival website e-festivals.co.uk listing 131 events for this month alone. Meanwhile, tickets for even medium-sized indie acts sell out within minutes.

All would appear to be well in gig land. But scratch the surface and a different story emerges.

This month's report from the Live Music Forum (LMF), set up by the government to assess the effects of the Licensing Act, revealed that some small events, including ones in pubs, have been cancelled or had unnecessary restrictions placed on them due to the legislation.

Prior to the Act, government ministers promised an "explosion" in live music - but this has not emerged, the report claims.

"The promotion of live music is not one of the objectives of the Licensing Act and we view with some scepticism any belief that the Act will in itself lead to a growth in live music," it says.

Overall, the 91-page report concluded that the Act had had a "neutral" effect on the live music scene. But stories like the ones opposite (see case study) show that not everything is rosy in the garden of guitars.

The blame for this has been laid at the doors of a minority of local councils and their interpretation of the Act.

Again, the LMF was keen to highlight that most councils have acted sensibly in their approach. However some local authorities, the report says, have been "over-zealous" in their approach. Sound familiar?

Pubs and other small venues have been forced to cancel gigs after being put off by the red tape involved with staging an event.

Former Undertones frontman Feargal Sharkey, chairman of the LMF, freely admits that a small number of councils have been out of line.

"It was left to councils' discretion, and unfortunately there were a small minority that did not exercise that discretion particularly well," he explains. He even offers one example in which a council banned all live music in June, July and August. "Most just got on with it," he says. "But others went about it in a totally different fashion."

And in some ways it's hard to understand their approach. According to Sharkey one council reported twice as many complaints about burglar alarms as noise from live music.

The good news for pubs is that the forum has made a series of recommendations, two of which should encourage licensees to host more live music.

One is that acoustic, or unamplified music, should be made exempt from the Act. Sharkey says: "We can't find any evidence that someone playing acoustic music in a pub or restaurant is going to lead to disorder."

The forum has also called for the government to define "incidental music", which is not done in the original Act. It said that this should be applicable when the music is "not the primary reason for attending an event" or "the musical activity attracts less than 100 people".

The revised guidance issued last month highlighted that there was no definition in the Act, and whether music was "incidental" should be judged on a "case-by-case basis" by the courts.

Much of the over-zealous approach by councils mirrors the problems that were first faced by pubs when the Licensing Act came in. It seems that some councils have been inclined to err on the side of caution.

However, local authority co-ordinating body LACORS has pointed to vagueness in the legislation as the reason for the local authorities' approach.

Chairman of LACORS, Cllr Geoffrey Theobald, said: "Where problems have arisen, the report quite clearly says they are a direct result of council officers having to make difficult judgments based on less than clear legislation and guidance. If the new licensing regime is to realise its full potential, the government must make sure these grey areas are removed."

For some, the report will be a case of "we told you so".

Opposition to the Act and its supposed stifling of live music has been significant. Since its inception two petitions have been drawn up; the latest attracted nearly 80,000 signatures and reached number three in the list of petitions to the Prime Minister.

So what do campaigners make of the LMF's feedback to the government?

Hamish Birchall, a live music campaigner who has been critical of the Act, admits that the report is at the very least "thorough". "The forum has been pretty exhaustive in seeking out evidence, but you would expect that with the resources it has," he says.

"There is justification for legislation if it gives local people a chance to do something if they have issues. But the question is how low you set that point. That hurdle was far too low."

Despite the report, Birchall remains unconvinced that the government will follow through with the recommendations.

"I'm not confident that the exemptions on small venues and acoustic music will be implemented. I would be very surprised if the government acts on this. It will reflect too badly on them and will be a retreat from its position on crime and disorder."

It is too early for any indications from the government.

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokeswoman told The Publican: "We will look at the report and issue a response in due course."

In the meantime, licensees will continue to have to rely on a commonsense approach from their council if they want to vary their licence.

But pubs can take some heart from Sharkey's parting comments on the matter.

"The music industry is one of the UK's most successful," he says. "But that £6bn industry is based on little gigs, because that's where every musician learns their trade.

"If we do not do something about it we are potentially damaging the foundations of one of our most successful industries."

Let's hope that newly-appointed licensing minister Gerry Sutcliffe is listening.

The two-in-a-bar rule​

Prior to the Licensing Act, pubs were not required to have a public entertainment licence for two or fewer performers. Many pubs took advantage of this rule and were unhappy that it was scrapped as part of the new legislation.

But the DCMS claimed the rule "restricted what entertainment was provided and acted as a disincentive to more diverse forms of music".

Case study : The Harrison, London​

The Harrison, in London's King's Cross, is one example of a pub that has been affected by the new regime. Prior to the Act, licensee Paul Michelmore employed the two-in-a-bar rule to host small gigs.

But even after the legislation came into place, he carried on hosting a popular Sunday afternoon folk event because, according to him, "no-one at Camden Council could define the rules to me".

"I kept writing, asking for someone to let me know," he says.

In April he was forced to stop after the council sent someone to his premises to check on him.

Last week he was finally granted a licence for live music for Sundays from 10am to 4pm, on the condition that there is no percussion and no brass and he consults a sound specialist. Paul says he has spent £2,500 on legal fees and would have been a "lamb to the slaughter" if he had not had a solicitor representing him at the licensing hearing.

A spokeswoman for Camden Council said it ran an awareness programme before and during the transition to the Licensing Act.

With regards to the Harrison Arms she added:"A letter of complaint was received from a local resident. Licensing enforcement officers visited the Harrison Arms and witnessed live music being provided, in breach of the licensed activities.

"A follow-up letter was sent to the owner advising of the complaint and that officers had witnessed the provision of unlicensed activities."