NOTE: to those who're reading the comments here instead of RTFA [because you're like I am...], you should RTFA.
I first heard this story about 3 months ago and was blown away [because everyone knew that Van Halen were prima donas, right?!]. That Van Halen plays IROC-Z rock doesn't mean they aren't big time business people. There are certainly outliers, but big time business people are big time business people without regard to the business and that's a lesson most of us need.
EDIT: I attended an alternative educational conference where the theme was "Taking Yourself Seriously". Naturally, I sat thinking "I write computer programs! I'm a serious man!". Learning about Van Halen's idiotic-but-wait-oh-my-god-that's-super-insightful contract drives home the point that I might not be taking myself seriously enough... There's always room to improve.
EDIT: to those who're pointing out that this is a re-hash, this is an important re-hash. Yes, it was discussed two years ago, but it bears repeating. Even an atheist, such as myself, appreciates hearing the 10 Commandments reasonably frequently.
Reminds me of the Alice Cooper scene from Wayne's World.
I was raised to believe that these hedonistic punks knew only sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Learning that they were in fact professionals who intimately knew their craft (and, yeah, also liked to have fun) is a blessing of age.
I've similarly been fascinated by business professionals whom I thought intimately knew their craft, only to discover they were hedonistic punks who knew only sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
Iggy Pop's concert rider appeared on the Smoking Gun several years ago, and it's a very amusing read -- they were clearly sick of venues screwing things up as well by not reading carefully. It's only 18 pages:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/lust-laughs
Makes me think of the trick we used a large website I used to work for: we'd have everybody and their mother copy our T&S because that was easier that writing it themselves. So we added a 2 very uncommon spelling mistakes into it on purpose. After that just a simple google Alert on those keywords would tell us immediately when someone copied our T&S.
Adding something weird/uncommon can make something easily measurable (as showcased in both my example as the article).
In its early days, Apple embedded a couple of no-op string variables, including the name of one of its programmers, in the code in the Apple II's ROM. Franklin Computing produced a clone. Apple didn't have to look hard to find its programmer's name in the cloned code. Apple successfully sued for copyright infringement. [1]
Nowadays, something like this can also be seen as somewhat insulting to a venue. We spend hours pouring over contract riders to make sure we meet the specifications, and many more hours pricing out the materials and labor necessary for an event. If the lead singer of the band is putting M&M clauses into riders, instead of the touring production manager dealing with the venue TD directly, there's already something wrong with the negotiations.
You're objecting to the idea of a litmus test. Forgive me, but that's really just pride giving you inflated confidence in your abilities. We all need checks and balances, and sometimes those checks and balances seem rather ridiculous (especially when imposed on us by those not directly associated with us).
I can't really comment on the legitimacy of the M&Ms thing, but multi-million dollar international operations aren't sustained by sticking to practices that don't work. That at least gives us a hint as to its effectiveness as a means of safeguarding the performers and audience.
It might be insulting to your venue, but other venues aren't as detailed as yours. And this process (or variation of) could still today provide an initial indicator that the venue is cutting corners and not following the details.
At the same time, you know that someone (the venue, the promoter, our the tour manager) is cutting corners when actual insightful communication isn't happening between all parties. Just as the tour will send a contract to the venue, the venue sends it's contract and technical specifications to the tour. The tone and types of communication with a venue or tour before they even get two cities away is just as good an indicator towards the likelihood of problems.
Nothing, not even brown M&Ms can make it so all of a sudden we don't need to communicate through the proper channels and follow procedures.
I get it, you're a professional. 30 years ago, you know when the IBM PC was introduced, the variation of quality of venues was likely higher. Big name, technical shows simply did not go to smaller venues, because they would fuck up.
It's not intended to be an attack on you. It's not an attack on your profession. It highlights how a professional organization can raise the quality of everyone they interact with. Like it or not, wal-mart makes its suppliers better. Maybe it takes talking, cajoling or even dirty tricks, but the key idea is you can make your suppliers better. Don't be afraid to be very sneaky in your thinking to get what you need from your suppliers.
You're absolutely the exception. It's still the case that many venues have lethal safety problems, often that go unfixed for years. I used to be a sound tech; Everyone I worked with knew somebody who had died on the job. Stages collapse, trap doors are left open, gantries fail, people get electrocuted.
It could be seen as an insult that all sensible musicians keep a socket tester and a RCD(GFCI) in their bag. Venues shouldn't have sockets(outlets) with reversed L/N or floating earth(ground), but they do. People die because of sloppy techs, cheapskate owners and lazy managers. If something gives a touring crew a bit of security, that's absolutely their right.
The M&M thing doesn't really seem much worse than current riders that include a bunch of food related items, like specifying what bottles of alcohol should be provided.
The counter-argument is, of course, that someone who knows they can't fulfill all contractual clauses will try to check off the easy ones only - including the risible demand that M&Ms be sorted. The argument in the article is simply invalid, because it can be used to justify everything - the more unreasonable, the better!
Instead of such a ridiculous demand, they could have just picked a couple of random, but useful clauses from the contract (like the number of sockets) and checked those instead. Yes, it would have taken a couple of extra minutes, but certainly a huge concert is worth that.
Even if you are right (that they might just implement the easy ones), you don't actually lose anything by adding the clause. At worse case, you're as bad off as if you didn't have it. Not exactly a "counter-argument" since you don't actually lose anything.
As for why not just pick something else...It's hard to tell without the full list...how do you test that something can hold 600lbs? Even if there is something relatively easy, say, that sockets are X feet apart from each other...again, what's the harm in 1 additional quick check? (and if you say their reputation, I'd argue it might have helped their reputation as oppose to harm it)
Also, the other checks, like sockets support X amperes, are much more likely to be satisfied accidentally even though they didn't read the contract carefully.
Having worked at venues I can tell you that the person that did this job was likely "local crew" and someone who was probably thrilled to be doing ANYTHING for the band, MM's related or not.
Always assumed they were just a bunch of divas for doing this, but now it makes sense :)
When I was in charge of leading meetings as chairman of a study association, I used to do something similar. Every once in a while, the secretary and I would conspire to put some easter eggs in the list of decisions or action items, such as "Person X will bring a fresh, home-baked cake to the meeting on Y". If that person did not object during the meeting the minutes were accepted, it was a playful reminder to prepare for meetings, with a perk of free cake :D
So I have a question about these riders: some of them specify a lot of specific equipment like amps and mixers... does the venue really provide that? Do they rent it, or is the listing just like a minimum spec and the artist and venue negotiate to use what is already on site at the venue?
The longer answer is it really depends on the band and the venue. (IMHO) Smaller independent bands especially like to put big speaker sets and amps on their riders, even ridiculous things like 2 line arrays for a 200-person concert in a small inclosed space. These days, once you get up to the Van Halen-sized concerts, you'll find a lot of professionalism. For smaller concerts (< 600 guests), you make it work with what's the venue can get and do the best you can, really. If it's a for-profit show, and the venue knows what they're doing, they'll rent some gear (especially amps). Usually the mixer and speakers in the venue are considered 'good enough' for budget reasons.
Also, note that they brought 9 tractor-trailers... that would be a low number today, try doubling that for big tours these days.
Power requirements back in the early days of mega-tours were a big deal. Some arenas did not have power capacity much in excess of what was necessary for the house lights and PA. An acquaintance in the mobile generating business used to tell stories about when an act like Van Halen came to town they would need to set up several semi-trailers worth of portable diesel generators at the back of the venue to be able to power their light show and amplifiers.
I've often wondered before about this. How do you plug in a big generator set without disturbing the power company? I imagine they would get pissed if all of a sudden they are getting weird frequency or voltage perturbations down the line.
Accorting to TFA, the rider includes things such as the load-bearing capacity of the area where the stage will be set up. I imagine such requirements are rather non-negotiable.
This really made me want to put aside some time to read the David Lee Roth autobiography. I love learning little bits like this about people who are generally recognized as idiots in the public eye. Fantastic.
It's not this specific stipulation that matters, but the arbitrary specificity of the particular requirement that clues you into whether or not they read the contract. You can change it from Brown M&Ms to something like 'a blue fur coat' or 'two pairs of wooden clogs' and it would have the same effect.
I first heard this story about 3 months ago and was blown away [because everyone knew that Van Halen were prima donas, right?!]. That Van Halen plays IROC-Z rock doesn't mean they aren't big time business people. There are certainly outliers, but big time business people are big time business people without regard to the business and that's a lesson most of us need.
EDIT: I attended an alternative educational conference where the theme was "Taking Yourself Seriously". Naturally, I sat thinking "I write computer programs! I'm a serious man!". Learning about Van Halen's idiotic-but-wait-oh-my-god-that's-super-insightful contract drives home the point that I might not be taking myself seriously enough... There's always room to improve.
EDIT: to those who're pointing out that this is a re-hash, this is an important re-hash. Yes, it was discussed two years ago, but it bears repeating. Even an atheist, such as myself, appreciates hearing the 10 Commandments reasonably frequently.