Axel does something I respect...

[acroyear]

Guns N Roses cancels show over booze law - Yahoo! News:

LEWISTON, Maine - Guns N' Roses canceled a performance in Portland, Maine this week after being told by state officials that the band could not drink on stage.

Inspectors from the state fire marshal's office gave the band the no-drinking order when they came to look over the pyrotechnics planned for Monday's scheduled concert at the Cumberland County Civic Center, said Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Public Safety Department.

McCausland said the band had wanted to drink beer, wine and Jagermeister while performing. A couple of hours after being told that would violate state law, Guns N' Roses canceled its concert, he said.

After the cancellation, a band spokesperson blamed fire marshals for "making it impossible for the band to perform their show to the usual high standards that their fans deserve.

Good for them. Now, granted, drinking doesn't necessarily guarantee that "high standards" are "usual", but on the other hand, it really is nobody's business if they drink on stage, something done in most other states with no problems at all, provided band management have a little insurance.  Regardless, the government shouldn't have any right to interfere with personal behaviour on such a scale.

Plus, there's the ridiculous "public safety" hypocrisy inherent in a state complaining about a performer drinking on stage when Maine is one of the last states without a motorcycle helmet law...

Comments

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

provided band management have a little insurance.

As a former band manager, this leaped right out at me -- you are so right. As I did not have insurance that would cover the bands, they were all asked to not drink on-stage, and to keep it to a minimum during breaks. Obviously, my bands were not on the same audience scale as GNR, and I'm sure their people do have insurance.

My *personal* opinion is that the performer has an obligation to the audience to put on the best show possible. I have been to entirely too many performances that were ruined by inebriated performers whom I had paid to see. I did not want anyone to ever say that about one of my acts.

Plus, there's the ridiculous "public safety" hypocrisy inherent in a state complaining about a performer drinking on stage when Maine is one of the last states without a motorcycle helmet law...

I admit that this is an ironic juxtaposition.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

My *personal* opinion is that the performer has an obligation to the audience to put on the best show possible. I have been to entirely too many performances that were ruined by inebriated performers whom I had paid to see. I did not want anyone to ever say that about one of my acts.

Yes, but that is AND SHOULD BE between you and the act, or you the audient and the act. Personal responsibility and personal choice. It is in no way something the government should ever have gotten involved in.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Booze and pyrotechnics? In the name of everyone who's ever died in a fire, I'm damn glad the government stepped in and said that was the stupidest idea ever.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

I disagree with that "protectionist" attitude.

Pyrotechnics, when configured safely (in a large, outdoor stadium or indoor arena), are FAR away from the band and spotlight-men and are triggered by stage crew (usually in the front-of-house booth where the mix and the lighting are controlled) that you damn well better believe are sober.

The band are in no way in control of them, regardless of if they are drinking on stage. If a band member is too close to one (and as stated, they shouldn't be that close), then the crewmember who triggers them will be watching and not launch it.

nobody has ever died in a fire at a concert caused by drunks getting involved with pyrotechnics. the fire in Rhode Island was caused by the pyros hitting the not fire-proof soundproofing insulation, with the worst deaths being caused by the back doors being locked (illegally) because the club owner wouldn't pay for enough security personnel to watch them. All other major nightclub fire disasters were unrelated to pyrotechnics.

G'N'R, btw, have had pyrotechnics at their shows since their founding, and have drunk their "usual" at every show, without there ever being a problem. That's 20 YEARS of no problems. the only problem anybody's ever had at a GnR show is when they bag it early 'cause Axel's a stupid shithead, such as the GnR/Metallica concert riots in 1989.

Nobody said it "was the stupidest idea ever".

The law had nothing to do with pyrotechnics. It has everything to do with being a "blue-law" much like the one in North Carolina, meant to curb drinking in factory workers but having the side effect of being too generally applied where it doesn't belong, like bars and restaurants. Every Irish bar in Raleigh, for example, is across the street from another one so the employees of one can get a drink at the other after work because they can't drink at their own place even off work-hours. it's stupid and it's an unnecessary remnant of prohibition and I will speak out against it and support any other who does.

Not everything Axl does is smart, but I'm with him on this. These draconian restrictions on personal freedom and choice have to go.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

correction: the GnR/Metallica show was in 1992, and Hatfield did get burned by getting to close (the trigger-man screwed up and admitted it later, though the pyro-packer screwed up to by over-filling that particular cartridge).

personally, i wouldn't mind if pyros disappeared from concerts permanently unless it's an outdoor venue and they're FAR away from the band-inhabited sections of the stage. aside from Pink Floyd, I've never seen one at a show that was really necessary to the concept.

but banning alcohol on stage is wrong, period, no matter what. if the band fucks up, let them suffer for it economically.