[guerrilla]

In case anyone else forgot what that means.

> The "brown M&M clause" was a specific contract requirement by Van Halen that demanded all brown M&Ms be removed from a bowl of M&Ms provided backstage before their performances. This clause was not a frivolous demand but a way to test if the concert promoters had read the entire contract carefully. If brown M&Ms were found, it indicated that other important technical details might have been overlooked, which could pose safety risks for the band and the audience.

[theshrike79]

And an additional note: The Van Halen show wasn't a few dudes with guitars and a set of drums going around in a van.

It was a massive display of pyrotechnics and staging - the requirements in the rider weren't there for fun, it was for actual safety.

[red_admiral]

Didn't they also specify something like a 20 ampere widget plugged into a 10 ampere cable or something? If no-one questioned that, they'd hire or bring their own electrician to check absolutely everything with a cable near it. (That might have been another band, it was a long time ago I read this.)

[guerrilla]

Are you young? I would think that is common knowledge. No offense, genuinely curious. Sounds like I must be getting old.

[gcanyon]

There's a further aspect (supposedly): the brown M&Ms was listed in the pre-check conditions, and the contract stated that if any of them were found to not be in compliance then the Van Halen team had the right to force checks on any/all of them for compliance. So if they found the brown M&Ms it gave them the contractual right to demand that other, more impactful, requirements be (re)checked for compliance.

[CPLX]

You know I’ve seen this explanation a million times for decades and it’s always just a tiny bit wrong.

It’s a small distinction, but actually if the band showed up and found all the brown M&Ms still there the plan would have already been a failure.

The reason it was in the contract was to make sure the promoter had read the contract before signing it and understood what they were getting into.

Band riders are almost invariably redlined. Bands ask for all sorts of crazy shit and you cross out stuff you can’t provide or give a substitute brand name (like if the venue has an exclusive vendor relationship with Coke instead of Pepsi stuff like that) and then you work out any kinks and finalize it.

The reason to put the M&M clause in there is to get the promoter to strike the clause during the contracting process because any competent promoter will read every line carefully and strike something like that.

So when they do you know they read it and know what they are doing are comfortable signing a deal with them.

You would never want to be arriving at the venue with the clause still in force, that’s a sign you have a larger problem.

Source: I was a concert promoter in the 90’s

[lmm]

Roth's own statements in his autobiography ( as quoted on https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/ ) contradict that; they were playing in universities and the like that weren't used to hosting big technical band shows and probably didn't have dedicated band promoters in that era.

[frederikvs]

Removing the brown ones from a bowl of M&Ms is a 5 minute job that can be handled by anyone. I would expect a lot of people would go "well that's a bit eccentric, but if it makes the band happy, why not".

I doubt the band would say "you didn't redline this weird but inconsequential request, we can't work together.

If they wanted to be sure the redlining process worked, they should have put in something like "remove all fire extinguishers from backstage".

[IAmBroom]

It's both. Compliance statements don't prove that something will be complied with; they prove intent to do so. On-site test proves it was complied with.

Source: I am a systems engineer.

[red_admiral]

It's rarely a brand issue with M&Ms though? I'd expect a competent promoter would read it and charge a reasonable amount for that line item. Band asks for crazy shit, you quote an almost-crazy price for it.