Music is the heartbeat of culture. It shows people how to bind together in harmony and to move as one to a common rhythm. It’s as old as the first Homo sapiens, and no one I know hates every kind of music without reason. Every person appreciates music in some way.
Most San Diego concert venues have learned to cater to this love of music that invariably runs through every human being, allowing people of all ages to attend concerts and appreciate the tunes. However, some music venues are slow to catch the beat and still refuse to allow those too young to drink alcohol to partake in this music appreciation phenomenon. Forbidding people younger than 21 to attend a concert is similar to telling a child his or her ears are worthless lumps of flesh attached to their heads and are good for nothing. Music is a gift to culture by talented artists and isn’t something to be hidden away behind cigar smoke in a basement bar.
Age-appropriate material is the name of the song these days. Just because it can be sung, doesn’t mean it should be readily available to impressionable youngsters who still have a thing or two to learn about life—myself included. That’s why many venues allow younger music lovers to attend concerts with someone who is older then 18, 21 or 25. This allows younger audiences to enjoy the music and still have someone to turn to if it promotes negative emotions or confusion about the world they live in.
One reason why concert venues might set age limits on live performances is that music isn’t rated on a set scale the way movies and TV programs are. A small sticker on the jacket of a CD emblazoned with “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” is currently the only way to determine if music released by an artist is unfit for the younger crowd. The sticker isn’t even mandatory for the music deemed worthy of its presence; the sticker placement is a voluntary note by record companies to better inform their customers of their music purchase.
If a concert venue decides to host an artist, it’s at that venue’s discretion whether or not to allow minors in.
Bars are an exception, though, because even if a bar wanted to include minors on the guest list, it wouldn’t be an option because of the drinking age limit. It also can’t be said that bars shouldn’t have concerts, because music is helpful for bringing in those patrons who aren’t interested in an old-fashioned pool game. At other venues featuring both live music and alcohol, customized wristbands, which show the age of the wearer, are always an option. These can heighten security, reduce line wait time and even boost sales for alcohol and concert merchandise. Bars don’t have this option, so the music there is off limits to those under the age of 21.
However, age limits at concerts that don’t differentiate between adults with a mind of their own, and the 6-year-olds who still need parental permission to enjoy certain tunes, are restricting people’s ability to appreciate music, specifically people who can make their own decisions. Last week, I tried to buy tickets for a jazz concert and was denied because the writing on my California driver’s license still reads vertically. As if what was considered scandalous in the Roaring ‘20s could make my 20-year-old ears bleed. I can drive, smoke, enlist for military service, vote and gamble. Yet I, as someone younger than 21, cannot enjoy a live performance of music. I’m offended that a part of American cultural history is denied to me because I can’t see it being performed live. I demand freedom of music and freedom to listen to the live performance of what may eventually be called a part of history.
—Staff columnist Kiersten Ridgel is a journalism junior
