Adam Glasser

Adam Glasser Quintet feat Jason Yarde & Rob Luft Friday 11th November 2016 8.30pm - 11.00pm The Ivy House 40 Stuart Road, London SE15 3BE Tickets: ?13.00 Advance ( or on the door ?15.00) http://www.wegottickets.com/event/378980 Burning Contemporary Jazz & south african township songs from very top jazz musicians! Adam Glasser - harmonica & keyboard Jason Yarde - sax Rob Luft - guitar Steve Watts - bass Mike Pickering - drums Support from Esme Rothero Trio: Esme Rothero - vocals Ben Glasser - guitar Max Fraser - percussion

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it will have any bearing at all on > the future of live orchestral music, because in > concert halls - with specifically designed > acoustics and much closer proximity to the > audience - it would be blatantly obvious if the > orcehstra was miming to a pre-recorded track. I hope you are right - though this piece on the subject in the Daily Mail suggests that it was not a technical issue http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153716/London-2012-Olympics-London-Symphony-Orchestra-told-mime-opening-Games.html

... looking forward to comment ...

East Dulwich musicians - has anyone had experience of the apparent policy to ask musicians to perform for free at the Olympic Games? ( I have some official copies of LOCOG contracts if anyone is curious. Moderators am I allowed to post them here? I dont want this thread to be bumped). You may also have something to say about the the LSO recording in April music they are going to mime to at the Opening Ceremony... great if you have got the gig, ( ie 2 fees .. one for recording at Abbey Rd, one for miming on the day to your own performance) - but not so great for the tax payer or the future of live and composed music

The following should not be forgotten with regard to the new Harris Boys Academy: ??independent architects as well as the Southwark Review Design panel made the same criticisms of the size and quality of the building: having to accomodate so many pupils means it is too big for the miniscule site. I am not aware of any independent architect who is publically willing to discuss the details and endorse the design. ?? the vast majority of supporters of the school did not examine the architectural and building issues in detail and directly address the criticisms in public. Instead the implicit overwhelming argument was that the school must go ahead at all costs in its current form or else there would be no school at all. And that it would be absolutely disastrous if the school were not to go ahead for any reason. ??This last argument is a very difficult one to refute and it must be said that, now that the school is definitely going ahead, every effort should be made to support and not to sabotage the Harris Federation's sincere commitment to building a good school ??However, all those in local government and central government, especially those who supported the school, should keep an eye on the project and make sure that school really does live up to what its supporters claim it to be. I sincerely hope that those of us who have our doubts about it are proved wrong for the benefit of all those children who will be passing through its doors for years to come.

Dear All Forget about what I said about judicial review - why? The planning committee unanimously supported the application on 2nd July at the town hall and no one in office seriously objected to the proposal. One does not have to be a barrister to deduce that there is not much one can do now to overturn the proposal. And what would be achieved by that? There is also a lot to be said for trying to engage with Harris Federation and influencing their decisions as the project develops. That will be the acid test of whether they listen to the community... like London's new mayor, no matter how politically repugnant to some, they deserve to be given a chance to prove themselves before they lose their honeymoon credibility - Gordon Brown style. Those of us guerilla fighters in EDGE and EDEN need to lay down our arms or at least bury them somewhere ( not completely give them up like the IRA) and make sure that the Councillors and officials who voted this through are part the process which makes sure that Harris Federation evolve their ideas about what consultation with the community means. For starters: Could we please have a campaign for Harris Federation to build a local swimming pool for school and community use. The ideal choice would be to refurbish the one on Girls' Upper site. Especially desirable as Sports Academy which the Boys could also use rather than trek to Peckham Pulse or Goose Green where there are hardly any slots open for schools at the moment, let alone when the Boys School is full in 2013. It would also help persuade those of us who were and still are skeptical that Harris Federation can deliver their PE Curriculum and Sports Strategy based on the Boys' site, since at the moment... there is absolutely no swimming whatsoever for Harris Girls Academy East Dulwich.. and as I understand on good authority - no intention to provide that part of the curriculum which is a national requirement. Oh and by the way - I dont mind if they drop the Langbourne 2009 start and use the money for a pool instead. I think the temporary site thing is a bad idea - better to start the new school later. It would also take the pressure off having to open it in case it is not ready ( as these things always get delayed). Please continue this discussion on this thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,141476 - The Administrator

Southwark Planners are recommending approval for the proposed Boys' Academy on Peckham Rye. This key decision is due this Wed 2nd July at a special Planning Meeting open to the Public. Many of us involved in the campaign for a new school are against the proposal in its current form and are a seriously considering instituting a Judicial Review if it is passed, so bad is the building that they are proposing. At every level there has been an absence indeed terror of open Public Debate and Consultation.Many of the Councillors I have spoken to in favour of the proposal show absolutely no sign that they have properly studied the details of the Planning Application. There has been massive political pressure to push this through at any cost. Here are the key flaws in the proposal: ? The disastrous previous application was withdrawn (Aug 2007) according to the Harris Federation so that the community could be consulted. Consultation was a sham because the fundamental issue of the size of the school was specifically off-limits. ?? the size of the school is a fundamental planning consideration. It affects and seriously compromises the school's internal and external environments. The size was unilaterally increased and the 6th Form split over both sites by the Harris Project Steering Group in Jan 2007 without any consultation. (This in itself is vulnerable to legal challenge because it is a substantial change to the Expression of Interest put in to the Goverment and negotiated with the community). ?? there is a serious shortfall in external play space and a total lack of outdoor sports facilities. Harris say that local alternatives "could" be used. That is insufficient. Sports facilities are essential so the application should not be approved without binding agreements in that regard. Further, there is no assessment of the disruption to the the school timetable caused by the logistics of transporting 950 pupils to these locations, all of which are at least 15 min away. Each PE lesson will take 30min out of the school day. How will this school produce fit and healthy students when they are offered second class sporting opportunity and only 100 out of 950 will be able to park their bikes here? ? considering the extreme dependence on off-site facilities, there is no credible explanation of how buses, coaches, staff cars and all service deliveries will function on the single entrance to the school off the main road. This differs completely from the model on which the plan was based - the Harris Girls' Upper Site, which has its own car park, separate service road for deliveries and which has ample off street parking on a comparatively quiet road ?? the internal school environment is compromised. The fancifully named "Agora" is nothing more than deep and narrow lightwell. It is a soul-less place. Squeezing 3 rows of classrooms into a single enclosure means that the middle of the building is deprived of natural light and ventilation. It is because of this, and not the noise on Peckham Rye, that mechanical ventilation is required - added to that is the noise from the playground designed for 450 pupils at a time, which will be in constant use due to the need to stagger recreation times. ?? It is obvious that Harris is intent on shoe-horning the wrong school on to this site. Tight sites are not unique but they are the exception and not the rule. Exceptional constraints demand exceptional responses. This third rate design fails dismally to meet the challenge. Twice the Southwark Review Design Panel has outlined its fundamental failings in terms of its urban design and school design. ? Harris Federation has failed to listen to the community. Its architects have failed to listen to the Design Panel. Between them, they intend to foist an oversized school into a poorly designed building that will deny its students the uplifting environment they deserve and that will raise two metaphorical fingers to the well-loved surroundings of Peckham Rye for generations to come. ?? This is the right site for a much-needed school. This is the wrong school for this site. Anyone with an interest in these issues is asked to turn up at the Southwark Town Hall this Wednesay 2nd July 6.30pm. The Planning Committee should stand firm against the intense political pressure of past months and reject this fundametally flawed application. Adam Glasser

950 pupils? We still need the evidence that this is feasible. Southwark's comprehensive study - Waverley Lower School Site ? Feasibility Study published in 2004 had the following to say about school size: The Lower School occupies a site area of approximately 1.85 acres. Based on the recommendations of BB82 (revised), the total site area (including buildings and external areas but excluding playing fields) for the following size of school would be required: 3 Form Entry (450 pupils) ? 1.95 acres 3 form entry with 90 sixth form pupils (540) ? 2.45 acres 4 form entry (600 pupils) ? 2.78 acres 4 form entry with 120 sixth form pupils (720 pupils ) ? 4 acres Recent reviews of school needs in inner city areas have recognised the difficulties of achieving the minimum site areas recommended in BB82. The exemplar designs should help address this issue. It is nevertheless apparent by the shortfall between the recommended requirements and the site area available that to provide a new secondary school on the existing site will require a high quality, imaginative and sensitive design. Already by the above standards, the site was too small for the recommended numbers.... ! Personally I would like to see Harris provide us with several other models of schools of this size in this kind of area on this kind of footprint, before they persuade anyone that 950 pupils is feasible. I would also like to hear from someone working in a school of this size on this footprint who says that .. it works! All this quite apart from the fact that they propose to have the same number of boys on this site ( 1.85 acres) as the upper site - which is 3 times the size. Why should not the boys enjoy equal space to the girls?

The campaign against the school is not just NIMBY. Some facts about objections to the proposed school: 1 - Southwark Council did a very detailed Feasibility Study on the school in 2004 ( as a result of EDEN campaign for a new school). You can look on the Southwark website for more details. The conclusion of this report was for a 'small boys school' of about 450 pupils. 2 - Neither the Harris Federation nor any of the supporters of the school have produced the factual calculation which says that this site of 1.85acres can sustain a school of 950 pupils - the same number they are proposing for the Upper Site on Homestall Rd. This Upper Site ( where the Girls School is now located) is 5.96acres - nearly three times the size of the Lower Site. How is this fair to the boys? 3 - The Original Expression of Interest which called for a Federated Joint Academy placed a mixed 6th on the larger Upper Site. In the recent plans presented to local parents, the 6th Form is now split between the Upper and Lower site, adding yet more pressure on the confined space to the Lower Site. When and why did Harris suddenly decide, without consulting local residents or parents, to load more pupils on the Lower Site? 4 - Design of the new building: many lay people and local architects were confused and skeptical of the new design when it was presented to the public for the first time 5th June. Since then the design has been criticised in all aspects by the Southwark Review Panel and this is the conclusion of their report: "In conclusion, the Panel sees very little merit in the scheme and expresses alarm at the number of missed opportunities it represents. If demolition and replacement of the existing building is pursued, it is reasonable to expect design excellence from the new proposal.". 5 - On the Harris Plans ( see the EDGE website referred to above) submitted to the Council, the surveyors have written off the old building with without gain access to the inside of the building for a proper survey. They have simply photographed the building from the outside and concluded that it is not worth keeping, even though the fire damage is much less serious than appears. This building deserves to be considered before it is pulled down in favour of by all accounts a badly designed new building. Absolutely no one independent has spoken up publically in favour of the proposed new design for the school. * * * Local parents have been asking for comprehensive answers to these questions before supporting the new school. These really need to be fully addressed by Harris and anyone supporting the new school before it can be given the go ahead.

Regarding the Planning Application which went in last Friday 22nd to Southwark, we need the following issues discussed: The original Expression of Interest in March 2006 called for two federated academies with 750 pupils on each site ( ie 750 boys on Lower Site on Peckham Rye and 750 Girls on Upper Site on Homestall Rd) + a 6th Form on the Upper Site. It also pointed out the the lower site was 1.85 hectares and the upper site 5.96 Yet by the time the Planning Application went in, the proposal had changed to a 6th Form now split on two sites. We need Harris and the architects to explain how this will work - before when the 6th Form was planned to be only on the larger site, it was still a tight squeeze, and possible unfair to the boys to cram so many on the smaller site, while the girls enjoyed much more spacious surroundings. The current situation which adds half the 6th form to the Lower Site places even more pressure on a small area. We really need more information from Harris and Southwark about how this Planning Application will work

There has been a long running history of planning applications for the land behind 55-77 Friern Rd SE 22 1) [06-AP-1946] to develop into houses and/or flats by, I believe, the Gardner Partnership 2) [07 AP 0-156] MYN Properties to develop considerably 67 Friern Rd which is directly connected to the land of the first project. As a local resident I have objected several times to repeated applications on the grounds that Southwark Planners ought to thinking in usage terms of community gardens, creches, community centres etc for this kind of small parcel of backland, rather than giving free reign to commercial developers whose sole objective is to develop the land and sell for the highest possible profit. The nature of this particular development, crammed into a minimum of space, right next to residential houses is completely different in nature to more reasonable pieces of land nearby where much needed new housing and flats have been built. In my conversations with the two (!) different planning officers responsible for this development - yes that's right.. there are two completely different planning officers responsible for these applications virtually next door to each other, I have been told that "each application is considered on its own merits entirely". Whereas it seems common sense that in such a small area, a planning decision needs to be taken with an overall perspective on the road, its residents and the intended development. I have repeatedly asked that a Planning Policy should take in the entire development and relate it to the needs of the area but been told that Southwark's policy is strictly to see each application on its own terms. My request to those reading is that if anyone feels motivated to influence curent policy and object to this kind of back land development they might write to [email protected]