Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Buddy Brock]

This venue is not far from me. It is an Indian-operated casino that is located in a rural location. The amphitheater area stage is brought in from somewhere else. I was not there for this show but had a friend there. I do know that we had record-level rain in our area on that day. It lingered off and on just about to their show time. My friend said the show was called later in the evening which shows every effort was made (as stated above) to get this show rolling. Kudos to the rigger for having the guts to stand his ground because I have my doubts that anyone at the venue would have cared. My opinion.

[Keith Broughton]

When the head rigger on a tour I am on says something isn't safe and needs to be changed, I back them up all the way.
The safety of cast, crew and audience is paramount and the opinion of the head rigger should be respected and actions taken to resolve safety issues.
They hire me for good sound.
 I have a head rigger for good safety!

[Doug Hammel]

Does anyone know the specifics of why the rigger called it. I read where it was an unsake roof/grid, but why was it unsafe? Hopefully the staging company is taking care of the problems but it helps to know more about the specifics if possible.

Everyone stay safe out there 

http://music.yahoo.com/news/zz-top-cuts-alabama-show-over-safety-concerns-163552452.html

[Randy Frierson]

Does anyone know the specifics of why the rigger called it. I read where it was an unsake roof/grid, but why was it unsafe? Hopefully the staging company is taking care of the problems but it helps to know more about the specifics if possible.

Everyone stay safe out there

NO ONE IS TALKING....CAN'T EVEN VERIFY THE NAME OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY, CAN'T WARN OTHERS.....

[Matt Vivlamore]

NO ONE IS TALKING....CAN'T EVEN VERIFY THE NAME OF THE PRODUCTION COMPANY, CAN'T WARN OTHERS.....

Hopefully the staging company learned something.  And they’ll go back into the shop and re-evaluate this and make necessary changes and/or repair & retrain their employees.

There is no need to throw the company under the bus (unless they don't learn from their mistakes).

[Charlie Zureki]

Hopefully the staging company learned something.  And they’ll go back into the shop and re-evaluate this and make necessary changes and/or repair & retrain their employees.

There is no need to throw the company under the bus (unless they don't learn from their mistakes).

  Hello,

    We are all glad that no one got hurt, and that there was no incident with this stage/roof. (I had some friends working this show too... from both Acts)  But, I disagree regarding not naming names. I have tracked Stage "incidents" for over 10 years, and, while believing that Stages/Roof Systems would get more safe, because of the publicity, I have found no evidence to support this logical progression.

   Many of these Stage incident investigations and subsequent Lawsuits, had, as a condition of the out-come, sealed the information to the general public.  These court-house agreements don't serve the public, nor do they serve the industry.

  From Sandy Espinoza:  " the Stage was supplied by Sound Associates".  I have not confirmed this, but...

  Hammer


  It is now confirmed that the Stage owner was Sound Associates.

[James A. Griffin]

     Many of these Stage incident investigations and subsequent Lawsuits, had, as a condition of the out-come, sealed the information to the general public.  These court-house agreements don't serve the public, nor do they serve the industry.

The settlement agreements serve only the parties.   The plaintiff benefits because the dollars agreed upon is a sure thing, not contingent upon whims of jury.    Same to the defendants, who are able to get off with a known sum, rather than an unknown.

That parties can work out these deals is generally a good thing, saving time and costs to an over-taxed jury system.    But the kicker is that these settlements usually come in to play only after the discovery phase of a lawsuit, when all of the parties have concluded their investigations, depositions, and opinions of expert.    Once those facts are known by the parties, those who have an incentive to  settle the case do so.   And all the knowledge that has been gained is sealed forever.

I wonder what the world would be like if all the documents created in every product liability lawsuit in the past 50 years was suddenly put on the internet? 

[Charlie Zureki]

The settlement agreements serve only the parties.   The plaintiff benefits because the dollars agreed upon is a sure thing, not contingent upon whims of jury.    Same to the defendants, who are able to get off with a known sum, rather than an unknown.

That parties can work out these deals is generally a good thing, saving time and costs to an over-taxed jury system.    But the kicker is that these settlements usually come in to play only after the discovery phase of a lawsuit, when all of the parties have concluded their investigations, depositions, and opinions of expert.    Once those facts are known by the parties, those who have an incentive to  settle the case do so.   And all the knowledge that has been gained is sealed forever.

I wonder what the world would be like if all the documents created in every product liability lawsuit in the past 50 years was suddenly put on the internet?

 +1

  Hammer

[Charlie Zureki]

  Hello,

  Read the letter written by Jeff Chase, a crew member, in response to a newspaper article concerning the cancellation of the Show, both are at:

  www.splnetwork.com

  Hammer

[Jay Barracato]

  Hello,

  Read the letter written by Jeff Chase, a crew member, in response to a newspaper article concerning the cancellation of the Show, both are at:

  www.splnetwork.com

  Hammer

The thing that sticks out to me is the casino invoking the

"We have always done it that way"

clause.

To me that is a fast track to the loss of credibility.

If I understand tort law, there are basically two ways to prove a case:
1. Prove that professional standards were not met.
2. Prove that the standards are not adequate and need to be changed.

I don't think "We have always done it that way" is going to help the defense in either case.

[ProSoundWeb Community]