EDM (stands for “Electronic Dance Music”, which makes about as much sense as calling anything with a guitar in it GDM, but the media gods have spoken…) is the hair metal of the electronic music kingdom. Some of it’s sublime, but it can quickly go over-the-top. It’s meant to. Be that as it may…it shouldn’t be restricted by the government. Yet, that is what the local government in Chicago (ironically, the birthplace of “house” music, EDM’s cool older brother) did in reinstating the Congress Theater’s liquor license and having the owners agree to a new set of terms that says that they “shall not allow any EDM shows/events at the premises.” (and here)
OK. The City of Chicago defines EDM as such:
“…music created by a DJ or multiple DJs primarily using specialized equipment and software instead of traditional instruments…. And an EDM performance shall be defined as a performance of Electronic Dance Music or any performance by a DJ or multiple DJs featured the playing of prerecorded music. Performers that incorporate electronic beats or prerecorded music in their acts shall be allowed, provided those performers either sing vocals or play an instrument(s) (or do both) during their performance.”
Anyways, this is a problem on First Amendment grounds. It is a content-based restriction on speech (as opposed to content-neutral), so there is a higher standard that needs to be met if the restriction on speech is to be justified. If the restriction can’t meet that standard, the restriction violates the First Amendment.
The apparent justification would be drug overdoses and other major party fouls. These occurrences should be reduced, anyway that we can, but legally it’s problematic to single out one genre of music for restriction in order to accomplish that goal. Rock concerts have had drug overdoses and major party fouls for years, yet this restriction would not apply to rock musicians.
It restricts the method by which music is performed, stating that performers who “incorporate electronic beats or prerecorded beats” need to “either sing vocals or play an instrument”. That’s kind of a crazy restriction – it means that the government would like to force musicians to play certain instruments or sing. Under this definition, a good deal of 1970s funk and jazz instrumental versions would be out, as would dub reggae or Brian Eno. Could the performers rap vocals or ululate?
It also provides that music can’t come from a DJ. What about DJing 60s soul on 45s? Would that be OK? Not under this definition.
We don’t know, and that is what makes the restriction problematic, from a legal standpoint. You might not like EDM or other kinds of electronic music, but that’s a completely different question than whether or not the constitution will support state restrictions on playing certain kinds of music. What’s most clear to me is that the people who wrote this law are unfamiliar with the development of music over the last forty years, and are trying to impose their ill-informed views with the power of the state. I am also guessing they didn’t run the agreement by an attorney. Not a recipe for success.
So, it’s a vague law and it would be hard to enforce and it would be hard to comply with. We want our laws to be predictable, and if they are not they are more vulnerable to successful legal challenge. If we are trying to address drug overdoses, there are likely more neatly targeted (or, in legal parlance, “narrowly tailored”) ways of doing so. Ultimately, the whole thing is pretty legally indefensible and I would not be surprised if the agreement is stricken or rewritten.
I don’t live in Chicago – although I did for a few years in the eighties when my father was a “quiet storm DJ” – but I think this has importance outside of Chicago because every now and then I get wind of similar proposals being floated elsewhere in our nation, and if they follow logic similar to the logic above, they are ripe for challenge and should be challenged – even if you don’t personally like the music being restricted.
