Music is just about as important to the city of Portland as beer and raincoats. Enter a bar, restaurant, or club in the city any day or hour of the week, and you’re bound to either find a band playing live or hear music being projected from some kind of device.
Being over the age of 21 allows a person to take advantage of this to the fullest, as a musical smorgasbord of opportunities awaits this large group of Portlanders. Those unfortunate enough to not be able to buy a drink legally have to settle for the amusement offered at just a few select venues that have declared themselves 18+ or all-ages.
This fact splits the music-loving population of the city, bringing heated debate to the table, time and again. I’ve always been on the fence with this issue, because I easily remember what it was like to be 18 and not able to get into what I felt was a killer show that should be open to people of any age. But at the same time, I also recall feeling resentment towards shows that people younger than me could get into.
Recently I got to experience a club in Minneapolis that held 18+ nights, and it quickly reminded me why those age limitations are so important. Over the course of a couple hours I was forced to bear witness to the youngsters grotesquely bumping and grinding with one another in such a way I was convinced someone was going to come out of it pregnant. But that didn’t bother me so much as the fact that none of them seemed to be paying any attention to the music at all—they were all so concerned with hooking up with someone that night that they probably didn’t even know there was music playing.
I was happy to return to Portland a few days later and attend a show that was only open to those 21 and older. As I looked around, though, I started noticing things that made me wonder if allowing younger fans in to all shows would be all that bad . . . .
Pro: Provides another avenue of entertainment for youth.
Con: Exposes them to drinking and drugs, and encourages them to partake. Also, forces the venue to separate their establishment into two areas; one where alcohol is served, and one that has to be monitored closely, to ensure that minors aren’t drinking and breaking the law.
Pro: Brings more money and profit to the venue.
Con: But at what cost? To me, it seems a lot of money would need to be invested in protecting the minors that would be there. Keeping liquor off-limits from kids is easier said than done, and too easily a venue could end up with a handful of fines if alcohol ends up being served to people under the legal age.
Pro: Allows youth to be exposed to music of every kind, broadening their knowledge and giving them better material to base their tastes on.
Con: Deters of-age fans from attending shows because they don’t want to deal with the hassle of frequent security checks and insolent teenagers.
Pro: Broadens the fan-base for, and increases the profits of, a band.
Con: Potentially exposes musicians to a disrespectful audience.
And that last Con is my number-one reason I support age restrictions at venues. Too often I’ve seen underage crowd members at a show caring more about talking to their friends, tweeting about what’s going on, making a scene, or hooking up than actually listening to the music and giving their attention to the band. I do recognize the benefits of all-ages shows, but I also care more about the hard-working musician and how all of this affects them. I would give more thought to the plight of the underage fan, but I am happily not one of them anymore. As I once learned, things aren’t always that accessible for youth. That’s why you make the best of what you’ve got, go to what shows you can, and patiently wait for the ripe old age of 21 to fall upon you.