Non-smoking performers have rights too
Joseph Aquilina writes: I am a singer performing around the UK. Most venues are smoking. I used to be a smoker and due to my singing I gave up. I noticed after quitting, my vocal range and flexibility improved. People pay to watch me perform; smokers and non-smokers come and watch me perform. Towards the end of the performances I have found that my voice deteriorates due to the smoke that is in the air. After the performances, I can barely speak. This however is not due to bad technique as I have had professional vocal training and do vocal exercises for up to two hours three or four times a week.
I know that people have a choice, and I have chosen to be a singer. Singing is more natural to the body than smoking and brings enjoyment to smokers and non-smokers. I think that out of respect for me and other performers like me, smokers should re-think this issue. A ban in live music venues I would welcome, as I am sure a lot of other performers would too. I know that this would affect your enjoyment of the evening. However it affects me giving you the best I can for your money.
I know that smokers have rights, but I as a performer have rights too. As much as the ban maddens you, smokers madden me when I perform. Maybe I should ask the audience not to smoke? But how many would put out their cigarette?
posted by Simon Clark @ 06:45
3 comments
3 Comments:
This is a forum for non-smokers and smokers alike. The issue here is in fact smoking is wanted in places of good times (pubs, clubs etc.) To me and many smokers, smoking equals a good time made better. To professionals and non alike who by their jobs have to work in smokey bars then they must take their business away if they can not stand the (supposed) risk to their health. As for the people like the singer whos voice is being damaged, then they should ask to sing in the (existing) non-smoking venues that are around - concert halls perhaps, either that or take up alexander technique.
The point is that smoking should not be banned in venues and attractions, roll up anyone?
p.s. husky voices are sometimes nice.
I'd like to respond to Mr. Aquila, who feels his singing is impaired by performing in smoky venues. Firstly, I sympathise as I am also a singer. I recommend he protect his vocal cords with warm herbal tea. Take an insulated mug on stage, and use one of several available teas containing slippery elm, etc, which are made specifically to soothe the throat. It really does help.
As for the wider issue of whether those who dislike smoke have a RIGHT to demand a smoke-free environment wherever they go - no, I don't believe they do, but neither do I believe I have the right to smoke anywhere and everywhere. I think it's pointless to argue about our 'rights,' as they cancel each other out. Instead we should be having a reasonable give-and-take about how to improve ventilation and accomodate both smokers and nonsmokers. Has Mr Aquila been to Ronnie Scotts lately? Their air-cleaning system is so good you can't tell that anyone's smoking, and I've spoken to several performers who've said they don't even notice any smoke. There are other venues, e.g. Pizza Express Jazz Club, where smoking is relegated to the bar area which is at the other end of the room from the stage; again, with decent ventilation the smoke is barely noticeable. Another solution is a nonsmoking performance space with a separate, smoke-friendly bar off to one side. I believe that solutions to this issue are evolving rapidly in the UK; however, that process is being cut short by the zero-tolerance, one-size-fits-all demands of the antismoking lobby. Even as things currently stand, though, I'd say that If Mr Aquila is indeed constantly forced to perform in extremely smoky venues he's unlucky, or perhaps he protests too much - I keep hearing about how smoke-haters are subjected to unbearable noxious clouds and wonder if the last time they were in a pub or club was the 1950s! (When, incidentally, Frank Siantra sounded pretty good smoking his way through whole shows). Anyway, even if Mr Aquila, or others (asthmatics for instance) are particularly smoke-sensitive, why should they dictate to everyone else? I'm allergic to dogs but I don't expect them to be banned everywhere. The fact is that when you go outside your own home you have to accept that other people are different to you, many situations are not ideal (traffic pollution, Anyone?!) and you have to be tolerant.
The problem is that the antismoking lobby is not interested in any compromise whatsoever, and is intent on turning smokers and nonsmokers into warring tribes. I've seen the effects of the smoking ban in New York and apart from huge loss of money and jobs, it creates a lot of bad vibes. Personally I'd rather deal with a too-smoky gig now and again than throw a large chunk of my audience out onto the street.
As for any concerns about whether the smoke is actually killing you, that's a whole other can of worms, but perhaps he'll take it from someone who's actually studied the issue in depth, that statistically, he has a higher chance of dying in a bicycle accident, from being left-handed and using right-handed things, or keeping a pet bird.
Best wishes (from a singer and smoker) to Mr Aquila for his musical carrer.
I'm also a performer; a singer and guitarist playing Irish music in pubs. What's important to me when I'm playing is that the audience are relaxed, letting their hair down, enjoying themselves. This means more to me than showing off my vocal-extensions: I see the performer's role more as entertainer than teacher.
And how would it feel if half the audience all went off for a fag outside, during the slower parts of your set?
If, doing a gig, I were forced to abstain by a non-smoking venue, I would soon find myself racing through the material at 100MPH; keen to get done and join the party outside. So that wouldn't be giving value, either.
Post a Comment
<< Home