Why I stopped going to rock concerts

[analoge4ever]

Thanks for the ear plug links, this is what is great about AK.

I have asked some lesser know performers why they play so loud and pointed out they they would sound much better if they didn't drive their 1,500 watt amplifiers into hard clipping. The answer was always something similar to, "This is what the audience wants and expects."
Oddly I even know a group that have lost a member because the resulting hearing damage caused him excruciating pain when exposed to high SPL, but despite the obvious, the band has actually increased the volume recently and now they sound really bad too!


I guess if the band can't hear any more maybe they don't realize what they are doing. I don't know...

 

[dcmfan]

My 20 year old daughter is going to see The Dead and Company tonight.

It's times like this that make you realize how what a good parenting job you have done.

LOL, you are gonna spend $200 to listen to live music and then you are gonna muffle it? I know some people do this and that is fine, it just makes no sense to me as I go for the music not the party atmosphere. No matter why someone goes it's all good, just sayin earplugs don't work for me.

I won't be looking into them my well meaning friend.

Let me ask you a question, why are you against responsible sound at rock concerts?

What is the downside?

Curious - what advice did you give to your child? Earplugs or sue the band for hearing damages?

 

[KDAC]

Thanks for the ear plug links, this is what is great about AK.

I have asked some lesser know performers why they play so loud and pointed out they they would sound much better if they didn't drive their 1,500 watt amplifiers into hard clipping. The answer was always something similar to, "This is what the audience wants and expects."
Oddly I even know a group that have lost a member because the resulting hearing damage caused him excruciating pain when exposed to high SPL, but despite the obvious, the band has actually increased the volume recently and now they sound really bad too!


I guess if the band can't hear any more maybe they don't realize what they are doing. I don't know...

"This is what the audience wants and expects." - Until they potentially go deaf as well. This thread has continued for 10 pages and it seems like the "pro go" attendees choose to ignore or pretend the elephant in the middle of the room doesn't exist: Even if it is legal, fun, cool, whatever... the volume does not have to be an average of 110+ db in volume to play live music before a crowd. Audiologists, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have known for decades that continuous exposure to sound at or above 85 db causes potentially permanent hearing damage - if not immediately, definitely over time. All of the verbiage in the world cannot escape this fact. Yes, we all have some degree of free will, and can pretty much do whatever we would like within the bounds of the law, but when you are offering a consumer product, in this case access to a venue and a performance that may take place within it, even if you are not legally liable to exercise concern in regard to your customer's health, it would be in your situational best interest to do so. The customer's free will to attend or simply not attend has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a venue and band(s) are intentionally exposing their customers' hearing to gradationally irreversible loss. Do they have an obligation to "care?" No. Something tells me they will when they find themselves being subjected to individual or potential class action lawsuits with increasing frequency.

www.atu2.com/news/judge-awards-u2-fan-34000-over-hearing-loss.html
ultimateclassicrock.com/black-crowes-sued-hearing-loss/
articles.latimes.com/1987-07-03/local/me-1089_1_hearing-loss
www.ew.com/article/2012/07/13/justin-bieber-lawsuit-too-loud-concert
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/whitesnake_lose_hearing_law_suit.html
http://www.mtv.com/news/1424718/aerosmith-sued-by-concert-goer-for-hearing-loss/
http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/19...-barry-manilow-concert-wasn-t-easy-listening/
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1307425.html

Outside example: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5baf...hters-sue-siren-maker-over-their-hearing-loss

I could go on, but I'm sure others can use Google or some other such tool to make a point. Lack of legal liability does not allow one to gregrariosly forgo responsiblity. In other words, just because "The Law" doesn't (at present) penalize said venues, bands, entertainment companies et al., they do not have the right to aurally assault their customers without repercussion. The simplistic argument of "simply don't go" doesn't hold much water in light of the fact that said entities are in the business of getting customers "to go" and would dry up overnight with when a certain threshold of hearing-damaged or potentially hearing-damaged customers choose non-attendance over a substantial health risk.

 

[PAGS]

I'm reading this while listening to a Haydn symphony at I'm guessing no louder than 70 bB. My ears
are really ringing tonight from the tinitis. Too many loud concerts in my younger days.

Oh well. Caveat emptor. I guess.

 

[ducati_EL34]

The simplistic argument of "simply don't go" doesn't hold much water in light of the fact that said entities are in the business of getting customers "to go" and would dry up overnight with when a certain threshold hearing-damaged or potentially hearing-damaged customers choose non-attendance over a substantial health risk.

For that reason it holds water. If people do not go, their business will fail, but continue to go, wi th the knowledge it can be harmful.

 

[loopstick]

I go to shows all the time and have been to over 1000 in my lifetime.

You're in good company.

.

 

[eljr]

Curious - what advice did you give to your child? Earplugs or sue the band for hearing damages?

It's amazing how challenging tradition brings such disdain in every avenue of life.
It's an interesting study in human behavior.
People feel safe and comforted in familiarity and any change, even just suggested, is generally opposed without thought.

This reflect response was essential in survival however it also precludes healthy adaptation which may be of benefit. Luckily, natural selection has allowed for some of a species to be innovators and risk takers. People who are comfortable stepping outside of traditional pathways. We need both kinds for the species optimal growth.

Oh, yes, my daughter, I told her I'd pay for the ticket, be sure the driver was not on the ganja and to keep her water bottle closed and on her at all times.

 

[Permanent Waves]

It's amazing how challenging tradition brings such disdain in every avenue of life.
It's an interesting study in human behavior.
People feel safe and comforted in familiarity and any change, even just suggested, is generally opposed without thought.

This reflect response was essential in survival however it also precludes healthy adaptation which may be of benefit. Luckily, natural selection has allowed for some of a species to be innovators and risk takers. People who are comfortable stepping outside of traditional pathways. We need both kinds for the species optimal growth.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- oft attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer, though I never came across it in any of the writings of his I have read (though he did express a "3 stages of truth" view at least once in WaWaR ((World as Will and Representation)) iirc), and I've read all the main works.

I'm not necessarily endorsing any views itt (I haven't read through it for one thing) and I'll say no more for fear of offense.

 

[KrisM]

Double post.

 

[KrisM]

It's amazing how challenging tradition brings such disdain in every avenue of life.
It's an interesting study in human behavior.
People feel safe and comforted in familiarity and any change, even just suggested, is generally opposed without thought.

This reflect response was essential in survival however it also precludes healthy adaptation which may be of benefit. Luckily, natural selection has allowed for some of a species to be innovators and risk takers. People who are comfortable stepping outside of traditional pathways. We need both kinds for the species optimal growth.

Oh, yes, my daughter, I told her I'd pay for the ticket, be sure the driver was not on the ganja and to keep her water bottle closed and on her at all times.

No mention about protecting her hearing?

 

[eljr]

No mention about protecting her hearing?

nope, not a word, thought that was implied

 

[whoaru99]

... The simplistic argument of "simply don't go" doesn't hold much water in light of the fact that said entities are in the business of getting customers "to go" and would dry up overnight with when a certain threshold of hearing-damaged or potentially hearing-damaged customers choose non-attendance over a substantial health risk.

Actually it does hold water; lots of water.

If they were faced with losing audience because people were voicing concern it's too loud and not going, the SPL would come down for exactly the reason you mention. They're in business to pack the house and if lowering the SPL is what it would take to fill the seats, that's what would happen.

 

[KrisM]

nope, not a word, thought that was implied

To her, or those reading this thread?

 

[KDAC]

Actually it does hold water; lots of water.

If they were faced with losing audience because people were voicing concern it's too loud and not going, the SPL would come down for exactly the reason you mention. They're in business to pack the house and if lowering the SPL is what it would take to fill the seats, that's what would happen.

Both you and ducati_EL34 are correct in relation to a company's rational response to a downturn in business. I "should've" been more concise with my last paragraph. It was aimed at posters in the thread whose replies basically amounted to "like it or lump it" in relation to exposure to excessive SPLs at live shows. It comes across as an attitudinal cop-out which implies that just because enough concert goers are willing to risk hearing damage/potential deafness, the companies pumping out dangerous levels of sound can continue to do so unabated in light of the fact that only a small number of concert goers who've been injured as a result of exposure are willing to file lawsuits or "push back" in some manner. Telling a presumably small contingency "fine, don't go" still doesn't detract from the fact that it's not beneficial to expose the hearing of the majority of of "compliant" attendees to such levels of destructive sound. I know my stance is a bit idealistic, but I still see no need to deafen generations of fans/listeners in the name of "fun." I bet dollars to doughnuts that there's a helluva lot of Baby Boomers and successive cohorts who wish they could go back in time and tell Jimmi, The Who, Peter Frampton, and Phil "Wall of Sound" Spector to turn it down. Even if said behavior is a "fun," culturally sanctioned past-time, it's still not "right."

 

[dcmfan]

nope, not a word, thought that was implied

Or ignored...

 

[nailer]

I stopped going to rock concerts decades ago. Arena rock took over and it's a great party but it's hardly a place to enjoy music and for me it was always about the music.

Then too, responsibility made it more difficult to get out. Not only that, it just stopped being fun as work and family made sleep the most precious part of life. I was just too exhausted to go out, anywhere.

but honest, the shows were just too loud. So loud they made me uncomfortable and sometimes caused pain. WTF is that about anyway?

I am thinking, it's about time shows rolled back the volume.
When you leave a concert, your ears are ringing. That is not healthy.

Anyone else swear off live rock shows? How long ago if you did and why?

Should rock acts have to pay lawsuits from fans claiming damaged hearing? I think so.

I stopped going in the late 70s for my ears' sake.

I think the concept of contributory negligence would impede the success of such law suits.

 

[exhippy]

Hey, isn't this what a pack of cigarettes now costs?

I believe so, The last pack of smokes I bought cost .49 cents. I was 15 years old. I quit the day I turned 16. I thought it better to save my money and spend it on a six-pack for Friday night. Smart move on my part. In the past few years I've helped carry two caskets, buddy's of mine from my teen years that didn't quit. One put a gun to his head. He gave-up, chemotherapy sucks, BAD!

 

[damacman]

So, the OP is obviously an intellectual and has missed no opportunity within this thread to express that. Furthermore, upon being called out on his desire to protect those from themselves, his strategy in getting you to come around to his way of thinking has been a little more subtle - albeit far more effective.

So ... I find myself in a quandary. Should I lobby the mods in an effort to discourage such behavior as it obviously differs from my point of view and I find it offensive? Or, am I to blame by continuing to read this thread and in particular his posts?

In review, his first post clearly outlined the risk involved in reading further and I willingly chose to do that. Alas, I must accept blame for my own personal negligence here and admit freely that eljr didn't force me to attend this thread - his thread. I did so on my own volition.

Hmmmm ...

Oh, and I was absolutely on topic here.

 

[tubed]

"If it feels good do it"

and other things.

 

[whoaru99]

Alas, I must accept blame for my own personal negligence here ...

Despite having the choice not to participate you did. But, that's not your fault. It was he that facilitated your exposure to this loud concert of opinion.