Post #100, or
The Jamie Cullum Jam
Chivas Regal is a brand of Scottish whisky. It creates trouble, even among the under-18s. It's a sponsor of an exclusive gig for the jazz-swinging young Brit, and accomplice to an extremely badly organized event.
In order to win invites, one had to enter one of the several contests organized by Streats, Life!, 8 Days,and others. Only the latter publication included the important and discriminatory information that you have to be 21 (if you're a female) and 25 (if you're a male) in order to sign up. Streats did not even include one's IC among the necessary information to be submitted. This would create unnecessary disappointment (for people young enough to actually enjoy the event for what it was) and extra paperwork/email-work (for themselves, needing to sort through submissions from contestants who did not even qualify).
Next point being, why the discrimination against males 21 to 24 years of age? Mr. Cullum would have the dubious honour of performing for an audience largely older than he. Wow. The max. age limit could be attributed to the fact that the concert is to be held at the Aquadisiac Bar at Indochine, clearly off-limits for youngsters (although why the ban held against 18 to 21 year-olds exists at all is questionable). Here's where I blame Chivas Regal. They don't wanna let in people not old enough to drink their ol' event-sponsoring whisky.
And if Universal Music isn't under the thumb of Chivas, would it be fair and plausible to not hold the event in a bar? Do they fear 12-year olds who will hurl underwear at Jamie and undermine Singapore's classy reputation? Or do they assume that 12-year-olds would express no interest whatsoever in Mr. Cullum's music? Considering the way Mr. Cullum is packaged (like a boyband member who enjoys drumming on the lid of his grand piano), this would seem hardly to be the case.
These are probably woolly personal arguments with an element of truth, but it seems a shame to leave out people who just want to hear a talented guy sing.