Posted by Ross A. Schott on November 24, 1999

In an ideal world, this would certainly be a practical scenario. We would also all have a base hearing profile on file at our audiologist's office.:) This just won't stop someone from filing suit.

Big brother has already determined what is good for our hearing via its' OSHA tentacle. If you look closely at the regulation, you'll notice that it doesn't mention freq.,distance, or musicality. It measures steady exposure of a given dB level over a fixed period of time. It also makes the EMPLOYER responsible for providing hearing protection AND makes the employer responsible for enforcing the use of that protection.

Obviously, in our situation, this would put it on the promoter’s shoulders for the audience, our shoulders for our employees, and the union’s shoulders for the stagehands. Apparently this is not a perfect world after all.

At this point in time it would be in our best interest to take a lesson from the plastics industry.

For a long time, plastics have been targeted by environmentalists as a dreaded man-made cancer that was all-too-rapidly killing the planet. The plastics industry saw the writing on the wall. They immediately put together a brilliant PR campaign to inform the general populace of all of the benefits plastics have brought to our lives; moon mission components, milk bottles that don't break and slice junior to ribbons, kidney dialysis filters, etc.,etc..

It would be right and proper for our industry organizations and their affiliates to embark on a campaign to do the same. To rally those of us who can effectively persuade and inform to make our case to those in positions of regulatory authority, OSHA, the various state level "OSHA's", park rangers, etc.

We are the ones who more deeply understand the physics and effects of sound levels in any given environment, and it becomes incumbent upon us to take this understanding, in a usable and practical form, to those who are technically ignorant and cause them to understand before they, through their ignorance and judicial pressure, pass laws and regulations, and make policy that will severly bind our industry

“I feel the whole thing about level has to be controlled or some one will do it for us.”

How right you are! Contracts will not save us as we drive our rigs. Putting the responsibility of hearing protection on the audience will not save us. Performers, as they demand more db's, will not save us. Only we can do it.

To a certain degree, we still hold our "fate" in our hands. Only by pre-emptive action on our parts, will we be able to keep things in a rational balance. If we don't,as an industry, take the initiative in effectively dealing with this problem NOW, then some goose-stepping moron will gladly do it for us. And, unfortunately, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Ross


Posted by Dave Lowum on November 24, 1999

How right you are! This is also another reason that virtually EVERYBODY in this industry, at least on the bottom-feeder to regional level, operates as a sub-contractor. As for myself, and the two main "go to" people that my company uses, we all have plugs and baselines, paid for out of the (meager) profits of the company.

On another note, OSHA does recognize that music has a lower overall energy content than an impulsive or steady-state noise source, like a press or milling machine. Go to OSHA's website and browse around... interesting article on use of "walkman" type earphones, and also a study about the use of music to mask machinery noise when used with shooter's-muff-style hearing protectors. You can bet that the big boys have their attorneys studying up on that....

A simple exhibition of a cost/benefit analysis. Nothing comes to mind right away, but a local (Chicago) news station ran an "exposé" on hearing loss in today's youth. The trailer was simple, with a kid doing homework while wearing blasting walkman headphones. The screen also included the subtitling (for the hearing impaired), which became more and more effective as the audio volume was slowly faded out... Kinda hard to argue with that.

I think the hardest part about the campaign that you are envisioning is simply the sheer cost of it. We, as an industry, can't afford a lobbying group or PAC, nor can we afford the air time required to put our message out there. Finally, it would be difficult to argue that there is ANY tangible benefit derived from our industry, from the viewpoint of the general public.

In reality, the SPL problem really only occours with CERTAIN formats of music, notably Rock, Rap, and Country, along with their various offshoots. It's very rare to get the "jet engine effect" out of a small jazz combo.... Couple that with the public's perception of the "artist" profile (If you don't OD, or kill somebody while drinking, you won't be on "Behind The Music"), and there will be a rather cool reception to any efforts to justify the current excessive levels that we are generating. "But Senator, we HAVE to play our tracks back at 130dB, it's the only way that our ART will have the impact that it needs!"

“It would be right and proper for our industry organizations and their affiliates to embark on a campaign to do the same. To rally those of us who can effectively persuade and inform to make our case to those in positions of regulatory authority, OSHA, the various state level "osha's", park rangers, etc.”

This is really the crux of the problem. Most of us have had the pleasure of educating the local electrical inspector on NEC codes ("No! This is a temporary power system, and used for entertainment, therefore if falls under NEC760.....") but the sad truth of the matter is that there is NOT a current permissible level established anywhere by law. I got a citation (noise pollution) a few years back, while doing sound in a venue that was having problems with the neighbors. The cop's interpretation of the law was that "if somebody complains, it's too loud." What is ironic, is that my dB meter (Rat Shack) was reading in the low 70's, outdoors, but the TRUCK TRAFFIC was hitting 80.... No tickets for them!!