Does it get worse than this? Static, one of our favourite city venues, has released a statement saying they’re to quit their live music programme. Hot on the heels of their noise in the city debate, and a fine performance by Brighton’s Fanfarlo last week, the gallery/performance space says that, following the ‘City Council’s recent Noise Abatement Notice and further restrictive conditions imposed on the 1st March 2012, Static has ceased all live music events at the venue.’


Read our editorial feature on Static’s live music closure, and why we’re angry about it – here

This is a sickening development, and – let’s not overstate this – a serious blow to the city’s resurgent music scene. Static was a grown-up, responsible, accessible and exciting venue: of the short that, increasingly, is in short supply around here.

Ladies and Gentlemen, a tipping point has been reached. Steve Munby and co, congratulations, you’ve just added to the city’s unemployment tally. Furthermore, as surely as if you’d have pulled the plug yourselves, you’ve killed off another shoot in our sorely needed renaissance.

Will the last light sleeping city centre resident please turn the light off?

For more on this, go here.

For information on new locations/info on Harvest Sun events, please visit:

21 Responses to “Static: No More Live Music”

  1. fifofum123

    Residents didn’t want the gallery to close, and recognise the cultural importance of Static. But Static is a gallery, and not bar or club, and as such, it does not have proper soundproofing. The roof is made out of plastic. Sad, but this was the real immediate issue here — not a bunch of unreasonable neighbours.

  2. fifo, a gallery is not defined a space solely for silent visual arts where people stand silently. The council should be supporting the likes of Static in helping to make the venue produce less outside noise but instead it puts money towards funding road closures for the queens jubilee and the drunken embarrassment that is Matthew Street Festival. It would be fine if the council made nothing of its ‘city of music’ tag but it does and should thusly support one of the only remaining independent arts spaces in the city rather than allowing vast swathes of the city to be bought up by developers with only their own pockets in mind.

  3. fifofum123

    Ellis, yes you are right: galleries are not just for slient visual arts where people stand around silently admiring paintings. They can even have live music and club nights too, provided that they provide proper soundproofing. I agree that the council has skewed priorities, and that Static contributes much more culturally than Matthew Street possibly could. Residents, however, can’t be blamed for the closure of their live music events.

  4. bornagainst

    To suggest ‘proper soundproofing’ is to suggest something largely impossible for any venue, even if money was no object.  To soundproof a venue which doesn’t already have thick brick walls, is basically to suggest they demolish the venue and start again. Honestly… Static would have cost £100,000’s to even attempt to soundproof.”TE suggests that owners should use the same process that Iliad have for the proposed Restaurant in Elysian recently, i.e. get an acoustic specialist to do a fine detailed report (paid for by the proposed tenant). On this report it has to specify what the aesthetics need to be and be inspected during works; at the end sign off the works confirming that it has been done to specification.”….as suggested in the Residents group minutes… is just the kiss of death for any new venue that isn’t bankrolled by vast wodges of money from somewhere.RIP Static.

  5. Surely inner city noise is part of inner city living? It’s hard enough trying to get people to gigs as it is without turning off the life support for one of the few respected venues left in Liverpool. Oh, and I lived between the Static and Hannah’s for a year and it was arguably Hannah’s and the Hardman Street 12-3am Club who were the bigger source of noise. Wise up.

  6. fifofum123

    ‘To soundproof a venue which doesn’t already have thick brick walls, is basically to suggest they demolish the venue and start again.’ Liverpool is a city full of Victorian housing stock – ie buildings with thick brick walls. But Static happens to be in a building made of corregated iron and plastic. It was short-sighted to think that this was never going to be a problem, regardless of the cultural kudos it provides.  True, residents have to expect noise if they live in the centre, but the degree of noise coming from Static was such that it made the foundations of my building shake and my furniture tremble. I did my research before living in the area, but Static is not listed as a club or bar. If it had been, I would not have moved into the flat. I can appreciate your frustration: the closure of Static’s live music appears to be symptom of wider problem of independent music venues struggling to survive in a climate of recessionary times and draconian measures enacted by the council. At the same time, however, residents should not be held to ransom by this broader debate. 

  7. Daniel

    Hi Peter, I read the article and as commented below it. I don’t feel it represented a different side of the argument, as there was broad consensus in the Static noise debate that consultation and respect between venue & resident were key. What has happened in Static’s case is that the resident/s making the complaints did not communicate with the venue, and the council failed to observe sensible process in forewarning Static of a complaint, or indeed then mediating before issue of a noise abatement notice. No venue has perfect soundproofing, not least Static, and that was also acknowledged in the Static debate. What I wanted to know from your article was which points raised by the dozen or so who spoke that you felt were unbalanced or even unfounded. I’ve lived in the Ropewalks area for approaching 20 years, and 300 feet from Static for 8 years, yet have never had any cause to complain, there are certainly worse cases of noise nuisance and nobody in that room, a month ago, felt that Static should lose its ability to host live music events, yet is has. What I find most fault with here, as a resident myself, is portrayal of this situation as venue vs resident, when only a very small & vocal minority of residents have any issue with noise per se, let alone with Static.

  8. Hi Daniel. I’m sorry, with “public ‘Noise Debate'” we did not mean the event at Static, but referred to unbalanced/ unfounded points within the general public conversation ongoing for weeks, if not months, prior. We also felt that the Static Noise Debate itself was a good opportunity for everyone to speak and generally created consensus and balance. And we could not agree more that it is a shame that some people portray a ‘venue v resident’ scenario, which – in our eyes – does not exist per se. Thanks, Peter

  9. Daniel

    Peter, do you perhaps feel there is a need for the residents association and its meetings to be better advertised? At the Static debate we talked about lack of apparent consultation, yet much of what there is regarding the late night economy in Ropewalks is taking place between as few as 4 residents, outnumbered 2 to 1 by representatives of LCC & Police. The Static debate was able to attract far greater numbers at short notice, would that kind of format not function more effectively as a democratic forum for these issues than meetings where only those with complaint attend in small numbers? The Ropewalks Facebook group has over 1200 followers, residents meetings could be advertised through that channel to encourage wider participation.

  10. Daniel

     @fifofum123 There’s a problem here “residents should not be held to ransom by this broader debate. ” 99% of residents (I live 300ft away) have no issue with noise, let alone Static, and yet are not included in what the council probably believes to be adequate public consultation, i.e. Ropewalks Residents Association meetings, which judging by the document below, are unadvertised, have single figure attendance, and represent only those with complaint. This surely cannot be taken as “residents” tacit endorsement for as damaging and divisive a policy as CIP. . 

  11. bitter

    Maybe the dwindling venues will force music promotion to become a more fragmented, open thing in Liverpool. Maybe places will spring up that didn’t seem fathomable initially and people will bother going to more diverse shows rather than attending the nights of about four promoters who always put things on in as many venues. Maybe not.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.