Things looked bleak for the younger denizens of clubland in mid January, when it was reported that Boston’s entertainment-licensing board had instructed a handful of clubs, primarily on Lansdowne Street and in the Theater District, to stop admitting minors until club owners and police could agree on ways to curtail, in the Globe’s words, a “rash of violence” in and around them. But since January 26, when the board — the Mayor’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing (MOCAL) — directed each of the 50 or so Hub clubs that they were “hearby [sic] directed not to operate any underage admissions evenings . . . until further notice,” the reaction has been at fever pitch. On MySpace and message boards and iPetition.com, they rail and rage:

“We stand together infuriated. . . . We will not be treated like second hand citizens.”

“The more I think about this the more pissed off I get.”

“This hurts the music scene. . . . bands should move away.”

“Bring back 18+ shows. If we can vote, we can rock.”

“Wow. Boston sucks.”

Since issuing the directive, MOCAL director Patricia Malone’s office has been inundated with calls and e-mails from Hub music fans of all ages, all apoplectic about the new restrictions. It’s a healthy sign of civic participation in a place that too often simply swallows whatever City Hall feeds it. The problem, Malone insists, is that “so many people have misunderstood the policy.”

When we’re good and ready
Maybe so. But clubgoers were not comforted by a wan promise that “where possible,” underage DJ events might resume in the future. Nor were those who prefer DJs placated by an exception made for clubs hosting live music: the under-21 crowd can attend performances as long as the shows end at 11 pm, “after which the establishment must enforce a 21+ admission policy.” But even here, the directive stipulated that all licensees notify the board and the cops about 19-plus live shows two weeks in advance; that they file a plan specifying how they’ll keep booze out of the hands of minors; and that, “for any event where the proposed operational policy would vary from the above, a security plan and a detailed description of the admission policy and procedures must be included in the request.”

That last specification, Malone claims, is a meant as a catch-all provision for clubs wishing to extend underage admission past 11 pm. In that case, she maintains, “all you need to do is write me a letter” 14 days in advance, laying out the schedule for the next month and specifying which underage shows will be lasting until midnight, or 12:30 or 1 am. “Every single licensee that’s asked in the less than two weeks since I put the policy out, I’ve said no to nobody.”

Still, such requirements could easily deter club owners from holding 19-plus events. Arguably, they also favor bigger clubs, such as Avalon — whose concerts are usually over by 11, after which time it turns into a dance club — over a place like Great Scott or the Paradise, where shows run routinely past midnight. Why should one club have to suffocate in reams of paperwork when another can simply do business as usual?

And what about hybrid dance nights like Paper, which often alternate bands and DJs instead of having the latter follow the former? That event’s organizers have already moved across the river to Cambridge, from Bill’s Bar to the Middle East, in order to continue offering underage events. It’s not hard to see why Boston clubs fear losing business to Cantabrigian establishments. (Several calls to the Lyons Group, which operates most Lansdowne Street clubs, and the management of the Roxy, on Tremont Street, went unanswered.)

Even as Malone claims the restrictions on underage concerts are not as stringent as they may seem, she says that dance/DJ nights will be compelled to stay 21-plus until further notice. “I separated the concerts from dance clubs because it appeared to me that the main problems we have in the city are at dispersal times [at dance clubs] at 2 am, and not the dispersal from a concert at 11 pm or 12 am,” she says.

At any rate, she argues, “If it is an under-21 dance club, it’s only [allowed] one night a week anyway.” (This was the case before the directive.) Maybe so, I say, but to many kids, that one night a week is important. “Public safety takes priority in Boston,” she counters, “and I’m not going to compromise the city in putting something out [hastily] because everybody is saying that one night [without dancing] a week is killing them.”

“Killing” is perhaps too strong a word. But still, there’s a world of difference between one night and zero. When will the prohibition be lifted? And what steps will club owners need to take to make it happen? “As soon as I can collect my thoughts and have the time to write the policy [in conjunction with law enforcement],” Malone says. “I work as quickly as I can. I don’t anticipate that it’s going to be another four months before I formulate this. I would say probably by the end of the month we’ll have something. I could have something by the end of next week.”