Another example of the whiny nanny-state in action

By J. DeVoy

In 1990, the world was a different place.  Gas was cheap, mini-vans were coming into vogue, and Iraq was a country where our dealings were mostly sub rosa arrangements between Donald Rumsfeld, the CIA and Saddam, rather than another costly foothold in the American empire.  Additionally, Aghanistan was more of the soon-to-be-defunct USSR’s problem than America’s (and it wasn’t producing as much dope).  Most importantly, the year 1990 was a time of trust.

Back then, bands and venues, however small, allowed fans to push themselves right up to the stage and be in the thick of the performers’ action.  This contributed to the stage diving meme of the early and mid-1990s, but it had a certain egalitarianism to it, as if the fans and talent were on the same level despite what was likely a yawning gap in talent – after all, this was before ProTools, too.

Nothing too bad came of this.  During aggressive shows, patrons right up against the stage might have gone home with odd lateral bruises across their chests, but it wasn’t a big deal.  But a few lawsuits and screaming parents instigated changes.

Today, even the crappiest of venues have barriers like those seen above, normally with bouncers standing between them and the stage.  This prevents stage diving and wacko fans from getting a little too close to the bands they adore, but is a costly solution to a relatively minor problem.  In addition, it spurred new problems of its own.  First, crowd surfing – picking up and carrying a random crowd member – was encouraged because audience members could no longer dive off the stage, be caught, and placed on the ground.  Second, this added a new hazard to mosh pits, an artifact of the 1980s hardcore punk scene that bubbled up into mainstream culture.  While always aggressive and a little dangerous, they were now bounded by metal barriers instead of people.

As seen in this video, yet another remedy was adopted – dividing the crowd.  Normally this is a deep ravine running up the middle of the floor from the stage to the sound booth, often used at large outdoor festivals.  While it does not stop crowd surfing or mosh pits, it theoretically contains such activities and makes their consequences less significant.  On the other side of this argument, it would be easier to taser troublemakers located in one mosh pit rather than hunting them down across several locations, though this assumes that only one pit would form without those barriers – admittedly, a potentially faulty assumption.

The effects of these actions don’t seem to have made crowds safer in any meaningful way.  They haven’t made performers any safer, either.  As the 2004 death of Dimebag Darrel and four others shows, a lunatic with a gun is not going to be affected by such restraints, whether his targets are on stage or in the crowd.

Just as regulations put forth by the TSA don’t materially affect traveler safety, neither do any of these gradual restrictions on crowd movement.  A motivated terrorist is not going to be deterred by a liquids ban, and nor will an assailant hoping to do harm to concertgoers be stopped by dissuaded from his attack by a barrier running from the stage to a sound booth; in fact, this could create a choke point for someone armed with an automatic weapon to inflict substantially more casualties than would otherwise be possible.  In light of this, the safety gains from these restrictions seem minor at best, arguably destroy the concert experience – or at least degrade it from what it was 20 years ago – and may increase the injury that others are capable of inflicting.

By favoring smaller venues and smaller crowds, the need for these excessive restraints can be reduced, and a more organic experience is available.  But one shouldn’t be relegated to the underground, or dingy corners in an industrial-zoned part of town, just to indulge in nostalgia and see a concert where the bouncer:attendee ratio isn’t approaching 1.  Instead, these kinds of measures should be discontinued because they aren’t serving anyone, yet destroying the live music experience.

6 Responses to Another example of the whiny nanny-state in action

  1. PraetoR says:

    About the crowd divider in the center – I don’t know how about US, but here it is common thing that the band encourages the people to divide and then to start the pit by simply running into each other. I’ve been in such “run ins” of at least 2×100 people http://brutalassault.cz/en/ a few times. There are always bad injuries at this festival, though mostly from drunks trying to climb the fortress’ walls (check google images for “pevnost josefov”) and from Polish fans, who are used to carry knives around. However if anything would come out of mosh pit provoked in this fasion, I can hardly imagine that the organizers could not be liable, especially if the injured would claim he didn’t want to participate, but there was no way to escape from the crowd. I personally love mosh pits, but my friend who comes with me tries to avoid them, no always successfully.

    Anyway come to the Czech Republic, we have the best beer and mosh pits in the fashion you were used to have them a couple of decades ago ;)

  2. Dan Someone says:

    What does this have to do with the so-called “nanny state”? Are these crowd control measures being mandated by law?

    • J DeVoy says:

      I don’t have time to pull municipal ordinances on this, but venues, especially ones with resources, are trying to avoid tort liability, though it doesn’t seem to work as they hoped.

      http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435375319

      http://www.newyorkinjurycasesblog.com/2009/12/articles/assumption-of-the-risk-1/dance-club-injuries-in-new-york-appellate-courts-dismiss-one-case-but-allow-other-case-to-proceed/

      The easy answer is to just stay out or get out if things are violent. If you can’t do that, stay out of the crowd or stay home. I think that’s a more common solution than 1) making everyone else suffer and 2) adding new obstacles that make the same behavior more damaging and unpredictable.

      • Dan Someone says:

        So is it the “nanny state” or a litigious society that’s the problem? And if someone is injured or killed because a venue owner chose not to use effective crowd control measures, shouldn’t the venue owner take responsibility for that choice? (And if the band encourages the crowd to get violent, shouldn’t the band bear some of the responsibility?)

        It seems to me the real source of the problem is violent and/or out-of-control concert-goers. Aren’t they the ones really “making everyone else suffer”?

        And won’t the market take care of this problem? If crowd control measures are sufficiently fun-killing, the crowds will stop coming and the bands won’t play those venues. On the other hand, the venues are there to serve the entire ticket-buying crowd, not just the few who can’t or won’t or don’t want to control their behavior. So the venues have to decide what is the right balance of managing the crowd versus pandering to the denizens of the mosh pit. Crowd control measures to avoid potential litigation are a part of that calculus.

  3. Check out the Guns ‘n Roses show in St. Louis around 1990. There were serious injuries which led to changes in barricades. Whether it works is another argument, but you need to be careful when you claim that nothing bad came from crowd infringement.

  4. TomMil says:

    Dimebag Darrell RIP