Scary Show in Sacramento

[The Chinese]

 

So zoning and safety laws are NOT for the common good? People should practice civil disobedience to abolish building codes?? Really? I know that's not where you intended your argument to go. But that's precisely where you placed it.

 

 

Well, the interwebz aren't great for a debate like this, too hard to clarify a statement.

 

I would keep my argument in the permitting for event purposes, and out of the Building code areas; i don't have any experience in that, other than the few I've applied for. And yes, it's easier to get a building permit, hehe

 

no not really.

 

I should clarify that I'm not telling people to do whatever you want, all the time. I am merely stating and responding to the concept that "All Underground event should be shut down & their promoters/Owners thrown in Jail" kind of vibe, and telling the OP that there are alternative to calling the Po-Po in on that particualr venue (which sound sketchy, but we don't have all the facts)

[The Chinese]

So how do you differ from those you're complaining enforce the laws differently for certain venues?

 

Good point, from that perspective, I'm not any different, but with one exception-

 

I am not in a position of authority or power.

 

So it often sucks to be me

[Craig Vecchione]

Good point, from that perspective, I'm not any different, but with one exception- I am not in a position of authority or power. So it often sucks to be me

 

 

So hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. You can't complain about subjective law enforcement while advocating subjective law compliance. Both you and the law enforcement people (cops, fire marshall, code enforcement officer) have *equal* responsibility as citizens of the US to follow the law.

 

This is part of the oath naturalized citizens must take. It's what ever American is subject to, and occasionally needs to be reminded of:

 

I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

 

Nothing in there about, "when I agree with them". That part is where being a participant in our government by voting or running for office to legally effect changes you desire, comes in.

 

And we don't always get what we want. That's the part that people today seem to totally forget.

[stix 518]

Are you freaking kidding me???? I can't believe I am reading this thread and any credence is being given to someone who knowingly goes out of his way TO BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SUIT HIM. Who made him an expert on safety; since when does making sure that there are ample BATHROOMS justify doing something WHOLLY ILLEGAL! Do it right. Rent a venue appropriate for the gig and don't try to skirt the law (prolly to save a few bucks). PLENTY of venues would LOVE to fill their place on a regular basis with what you describe. WHY is it necessary for you to go "underground" in order to accomplish what it is you want to accomplish? Drugs? Illegal. Alcohol? Illegal (without the license). Extended time to close? Illegal. Be real... it's all about THE MONEY and you know it. It costs far less to throw the kind of event you describe when you don't have the expenses THAT THE LEGIT PROMOTER HAS! Dude, your arguments completely fall by the wayside and you have absolutely no foundation in an argument if the FIRST thing you do in your business model is ILLEGAL. You can't get insurance, you can't get permitting, you can't get nothing and you CAN go to jail... PERIOD. You can rant, you can "rave", you can argue all you want about the creative process and make your artsy fartsy comments and any other circuitous argument but none of it, NONE OF IT, holds water when the basis of your argument IS ILLEGAL. Every single one of the rules and regulations you refer to are there for a reason because, as we know how our society works, rules and regulations aren't usually put into place UNTIL something bad happens! End of discussion.

 

Stix

[The Chinese]

ehh... nah. That's a bit too heavy handed of a comparison. But, i respect your decision to live the way you choose.

 

I choose a different path, that's all.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

ehh... nah. That's a bit too heavy handed of a comparison. But, i respect your decision to live the way you choose. I choose a different path, that's all.

 

 

What is too heavy handed?

[The Chinese]

 

Be real... it's all about THE MONEY and you know it. Stix

 

 

This. except you are thinking completely on teh other side of the fence, which is your right.

 

For example - Why do bars have to shut down at 2AM? Why was that law passed?

 

Why is alcohol Legal, when it is the 2nd most destructive Drug in the world, as demonstrated by this study:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html

 

So *if* you want to live in the framework of a bunch of nonsensical laws, then OK. But CraigV's argument is much more likely tohave an impact on my thought procss than what you posted here. From my Viewpoint, this view you expressed is the issue.

 

T

[1tribe]

Please tell me you really dont believe that what Rosa Parks did is no different than an hosting a rave party???

[The Chinese]

 

What is too heavy handed?

 

 

reference to the framework of the constitution. I don't mean your argument style, which I frankly very much appreciate. nice to have a reasoned debate, and I respect the discourse.

 

T

[The Chinese]

Please tell me you really dont believe that what Rosa Parks did is no different than an hosting a rave party???

 

I made that clarification in the post i made it in. Of course not!

 

and who said anytign about hosting a Rave? I don't ever host a Rave party, ever.

 

[Craig Vecchione]

 

reference to the framework of the constitution. I don't mean your argument style, which I frankly very much appreciate. nice to have a reasoned debate, and I respect the discourse. T

 

 

I didn't reference the framework of the Constitution. I referenced the oath of citizenship. We all have the same responsibility to abide the laws of this country. If that's too much, you seriously should consider another place to live, or find a way to change how we do things here, assuming you have popular support.

 

But until you effect such change, your obligation is to abide your laws.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

This. except you are thinking completely on teh other side of the fence, which is your right. For example - Why do bars have to shut down at 2AM? Why was that law passed? Why is alcohol Legal, when it is the 2nd most destructive Drug in the world, as demonstrated by this study: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html So *if* you want to live in the framework of a bunch of nonsensical laws, then OK. But CraigV's argument is much more likely tohave an impact on my thought procss than what you posted here. From my Viewpoint, this view you expressed is the issue. T

 

 

 

All bars don't shut at 2am. Last call laws vary by state, and by local law within states. Some have no restriction. Generally, the "why" is to keep noisey drunken fools off the streets while sober fools try to sleep.

[The Chinese]

 

find a way to change how we do things here, assuming you have popular support

 

 

Isn't that what I'm doing? I'm using my first amendment right to advocate change. I may not be suceeding in this crowd though... hehe

 

but that's OK.

 

T

[The Chinese]

 

All bars don't shut at 2am. Last call laws vary by state, and by local law within states. Some have no restriction. Generally, the "why" is to keep noisey drunken fools off the streets while sober fools try to sleep.

 

 

OK, but then they put a whole bunch of impaired people on the road, all at the same time... Which is worse? Id' say having a bunch of Drunks on the road is much worse for society than whether people get woke up, no?

[Craig Vecchione]

 

OK, but then they put a whole bunch of impaired people on the road, all at the same time... Which is worse? Id' say having a bunch of Drunks on the road is much worse for society than whether people get woke up, no?

 

 

You're confusing the issue. If people are driving drunk, what time they leave a bar is of little consequence. They're already stupid, and breaking the law.

 

As I wrote, the concept was to try to at least have a few hours of peace and quiet from drunks walking home. Back in the day, it also allowed the bar owner some down time without being pressured by unreasonable drunks to stay open "for jjjsust one moar".

 

And again, the law is by no means universal. There are plenty of places that have much later times, or allow bars to stay open 24 hours. It's a great example of the law following public desire or need.

[mrcpro]

OK here's three scenarios.

 

1. A teenage band finds an out of the way place to play and spreads the word around. The event is not legal in any way. They ask for a donation at the door. There's probably going to be booze and pot (not provided by the band - just smuggled in).

 

I've done it myself, and so has one of my kids. My only advice to my son as he was heading out the door was "Just don't get caught."

 

2. A middle age man hires a band, sets up a bar that bound to be serving minors, and charges a cover at the door - all at his daytime business location without any license whatsoever. The location of the event is well known for violence at unregulated venues.

 

That sounds like the original topic at hand, and I'm absolutely not for something like that. I didn't know the specifics yesterday.

 

3. A bunch of has-beens try to cash in on their former glory by running a slipshod tour for the pure purpose of making as much money as possible. These guys had once been on top and knew better, but went ahead and took unnecessary risks when it came to audience safety anyway.

 

That's the Station Fire disaster. I don't even have to comment on that one.

[soul-x]

I really empathize both sides of this. And that's the reason I don't involve myself in the underground scene and their disregard for law (and possibly safety), but I don't interfere with them doing their thing.

 

Let's face it: the safe, legal, and responsible thing to do would have been to take the acts off the stage and shut down Woodstock. But then, if that were the case, none of us would probably be here now on this forum discussing better ways to amplify rock music.

[The Chinese]

 

I really empathize both sides of this. And that's the reason I don't involve myself in the underground scene and their disregard for law (and possibly safety), but I don't interfere with them doing their thing. Let's face it: the safe, legal, and responsible thing to do would have been to take the acts off the stage and shut down Woodstock. But then, if that were the case, none of us would probably be here now on this forum discussing better ways to amplify rock music.

 

 

Ha! Great Point! hehe I'll have to keep that in my arsenal!

 

T

[trevcda]

I'd like to throw something relevant into the mix for discussion:

 

Do the people that attend these events really have any reasonable expectation of safety standards being enforced or of any legal recourse in the event of mishaps? If I go to a kegger in the woods, I'm pretty much on my own. If I go to a "musical extravganza" in an abandoned wharehouse in an idustrial park- pretty much the same situation. With no venue license, no alcohol licence, probably not even a dog licencse in the area at some point you as the attendee need to open your eyes to what is or isn't going on around you. I'm not going to sue the bear just because I was dumb enough to walk into its cave. Just adding to the discussion

 

For the record, I'm in the dotted "T"s and crossed "I"s camp. I like it all in order before anything occurs.

[The Chinese]

 

OK here's three scenarios. 1. A teenage band finds an out of the way place to play and spreads the word around. The event is not legal in any way. They ask for a donation at the door. There's probably going to be booze and pot ( not provided by the band - just smuggled in). I've done it myself, and so has one of my kids. My only advice to my son as he was heading out the door was "Just don't get caught." 2. A middle age man hires a band, sets up a bar that bound to be serving minors, and charges a cover at the door - all at his daytime business location without any license whatsoever. The location of the event is well known for violence at unregulated venues. That sounds like the original topic at hand, and I'm absolutely not for something like that. I didn't know the specifics yesterday. 3. A bunch of has-beens try to cash in on their former glory by running a slipshod tour for the pure purpose of making as much money as possible. These guys had once been on top and knew better, but went ahead and took unnecessary risks when it came to audience safety anyway. That's the Station Fire disaster. I don't even have to comment on that one.

 

 

No. 4- a Group of people get together and decide to throw an event with the music & decor they want to have, after being refused at every major venue in town, for lack of funds, lack of vision, whatever. They find a warehouse that is a safe structure, lots of power, and out of the way. They bring in some speakers, some turntables, so some cool decoration, invite their artist friends, pillows, cloth. a Grip friend brings a whole bunch of Fire Retardant treatment, because they don't want to have anything catch fire, another friend call his friend, who is EX-PD to handle security in case anyone or anything gets out of hand. The message is sent viral, without any overt advertising, to keep the crowd under control, and to make sure that Frat boys & Yahoo's don't come.

 

Then they have a safe party, sell some booze, but mostly water & gatorade, then make pancakes in the morning for everyone still left standing/ sobering up.

 

Friends leave, having thrown the best party of their lives, and happy they broke even.

 

That's the very first event I ever attended in the underground.

[mrcpro]

I'd be OK with that. To me - just like life - this is not a black and white issue, but varying degrees of gray.

 

I get the feeling that practically this whole forum would shut down all our scenarios though.

[The Chinese]

Well that's kind of my point -

 

Look, the Station fire occurred WITH the City of West Warwick creating laws & codes... that was NOT an underground event... so I wonder why it gets talked about so much in a conversation about underground events?

 

the bottom line is that safety is human first issue, and always will be. Laws don't really protect you as much as people do.

 

Todd A.

[soul-x]

BTW, I want to formally nominate SubsShakeHouses as the guy most likely to spur a serious discussion and/or flamewar on this live sound forum.

[kmart]

You want to end this discussion?

 

Present to us the credentials you obviously have that make you an expert on what's safe, on what's secure, on what's within code or not, please.

Until that time, you are out of your element, sir.

 

Like I said above, you can hope and dream and wish for a safe and secure event until the end of time. And not one person here has questioned that it was your intent to throw a safe/secure event.

 

But the cold hard reality that you seem unwilling to accept is that you're not qualified to make the call on what's safe/secure enough, and that's why there are professionals whose sole job is to be expert on those matters and decide it for you.

 

You seem to be hung up on the GOOD events and positive associations you have with underground events that went off without a hitch, but you can't do that and at the same time ignore the very real possibility that any one of them could have gone very, very BAD, and the ones that continue to happen stand that same chance.

[kmart]

 

Well that's kind of my point - Look, the Station fire occurred WITH the City of West Warwick creating laws & codes... that was NOT an underground event... so I wonder why it gets talked about so much in a conversation about underground events?

 

 

Because both the Station nightclub and the vast majority of underground events have one thing in common for sure:

 

People who think they know better than the existing law/codes and/or those who feel those laws/codes don't apply to them.

 

And here endeth the lesson.