Riders... Whats going on there?

[Mark Payne]

To be honest I'd much rather a spec says "must be able to produce x dB y weighted from frequency a to frequency b" [snip]

Amen Brother!

 

Mark

[Vince]

Hi All,

 

I do not work at the same exalted heights as most participants in this thread I suspect, but from my naive standpoint, it does strike me that there is a danger of the tail wagging the dog here.

 

Firstly, to position myself - I do sound & lights for bands as a hobby that has got dangerously out of control and not as a "day job". The size of the PA I use is typically limited by how much kit I can pack in my People Carrier, rather than any specific performer requirements. That said, I do know my limitations and would not take on something I did not feel I could do properly.

 

That perhaps, is the important point here. I would say a technical rider serves two purposes: one is to stipulate particular artist requirements to provide them with the performance environment they need to do their job, and second to provide guidelines about the nature of the system needed to convey the musical content to the audience in the way the artist would like. This is the "touchy-feely" part that I would argue is difficult to accurately describe in a rider without resorting to a highly specific technical specification, that then becomes almost unmaintainable in the long term.

 

I also worry that the more specific a rider becomes, the more it could be considered contractual rather than a set of guidelines to be negotiated. I know it depends on the auditorium - it is rather more important to get it dead right for the NEC than it is for the Cat & Whistle in East Barnet - but is there a danger that venues will simply adhere religiously to the rider to avoid any conflict, even if it ends up costing far more than it could do? If so, it will just take money out of the process that would otherwise keep ticket prices down and/or crew fees up!

 

As I have no real experience in the Entertainment Industry per se, I hope you will regard my comments as those from an interested, but relatively naive party.

 

Cheers, Vince

 

To be honest I'd much rather a spec says "must be able to produce x dB y weighted from frequency a to frequency b" [snip]

Amen Brother!

 

Mark

[jim b]

That said, I do know my limitations and would not take on something I did not feel I could do properly.

 

I like you already.

 

I would say a technical rider serves two purposes: one is to stipulate particular artist requirements to provide them with the performance environment they need to do their job

 

Yep that's a big part of it-most bands are quite straightforward with minor "quirks" which make the day more interesting.

 

and second to provide guidelines about the nature of the system needed to convey the musical content to the audience in the way the artist would like. This is the "touchy-feely" part that I would argue is difficult to accurately describe in a rider without resorting to a highly specific technical specification, that then becomes almost unmaintainable in the long term.

 

Erm I wouldn't agree 100% with you there. Most riders specify a range of equipment for each part of the PA for instance the engineer may ask for a desk which performs a certain set of functions (i.e. four band all swept eq per channel, 8 VCAs, 8 subgroups etc in the case of a desk). These requirements can be very specific and pretty much detail what functionality the desk (for the sake of argument-but any other piece of the system could fit in here) needs to have (or ensure that a certain quality of desk is provided). The other way around the problem is to specify a few different models of desk in order of preference all of which are known entities.

 

The best way to repeatably produce a good show is to be specific about your requirements, if you're not lucky enough to carry your own production then you want to be able to rely on the rigs you turn up to: it's your reputation on the line night after night. I agree that some riders are overly specific and there are a few engineers who will refuse to substitute certain items of gear for sometimes spurious reasons. These do occur but are thankfully fairly rare.

 

I would argue that an engineer needs to be an engineer when specifying, setting up and troubleshooting a system, and then have an artistic edge when mixing FOH or a psychological edge when mixing monitors B-) When science, good design and mixing ability meet then you're in for a good show (provided the band can live up to the rig!).

 

I also worry that the more specific a rider becomes, the more it could be considered contractual rather than a set of guidelines to be negotiated.

 

Normally the rider forms a part of a contract, the contract normally stating that changes must be agreed in writing-in practice engineers will generally give verbal go ahead for changes they're happy with, though having it in writing from the provider's point of view can be a help (i.e. you agreed you didn't need x piece of gear in this email). Some engineers/acts won't budge over anything, generally they are the ones who promoters can afford to accomodate or the promoter baulks at the extra cost and applies some pressure.

 

I know it depends on the auditorium - it is rather more important to get it dead right for the NEC than it is for the Cat & Whistle in East Barnet - but is there a danger that venues will simply adhere religiously to the rider to avoid any conflict, even if it ends up costing far more than it could do? If so, it will just take money out of the process that would otherwise keep ticket prices down and/or crew fees up!

 

I think a better way of saying this may be "it is more economically viable to be dead right at [large venue] than at [local pub]". This is partly due to how far you can split the costs down and partly how much whoever's behind the event is willing to lose. In my experience promoters who survive for longer than their first few gigs book acts into venues which can sustain them and cover costs. TBH at the lower end of the scale (~2-3k capacity venues) the price of a "big name" headliner is at least 4-5 times the cost of the PA cost for that show depending on the band's bartering power. Sheer economics normally limit an engineer's demands to reasonable levels, promoters don't like giving money away.

[mackerr]

I also worry that the more specific a rider becomes, the more it could be considered contractual rather than a set of guidelines to be negotiated.

It has been mentioned already, but I think the point needs to be stressed. A rider is part of a contract. It is called a "rider" because that is a term from contract law to denote an addendum to a contract. It is the same usage with an insurance "rider" that adds coverage for a specific event. It is common in the industry to negotiate what is actually provided, usually with the band's production manager, or mixer, but often with the promoter who is paying for it. Any concessions you get to provide different gear than is on the rider should be in writing, because if the contract wasn't changed before the promoter signed it, it stands as written, and you are going to need proof of who approved the changes.

 

Mac

[pisquee]

Yes, the rider is an additional part of the contract. Although, in reality, it is used as an ideal world example of the perfect scenario for the concert. It is not always possible to adhere to every point in the rider (you can't rebuild your venue) or is it always necessary to (not every venue needs a fork lift for the in/out.)

Every venue is different, and if the show's rider is written for an arena, and your venue is a concert hall, then there will be a few things that don't/can't match between the rider and what the venue is/can provide.

The important thing is communication. Let the produciton manager know where there may be issues in what they request, and what you are able to provide. Advance the show properly. Discuss things. Get contact details for the sound engineer, and find out whether that wierd piece of outboard is actually needed for the show to happen. Some things requested on riders are not easy to hire in, if you don't have it in-house. Also many riders supplied are out of date, and stage plans/channel lists can change the day before the gig. Communication is the key to resolve possible disputes.

[basilbrush1982]

Forget the ridiculous technical riders you see. I once saw a rider that demanded 6 pairs of childrens socks and a Star Wars lego kit!

[dbuckley]

Not quite a rider, but got an odd play contract the other day in lieu of the normal performance licence thing; four seats per night for the playwright (we can sell them if his party fails to turn up), we can video the thing (though not sell copies) and if we do video it the playwright may want a copy. This is all a bit odd, and it's not like it's a micky mouse playwright...

[paulears]

Sounds like common sense at last - many of the problematic contract and rider content is nothing at all to do with the artistes, but the management companies standard terms, that sometimes the rns aren't even aware of! I always call the contact number number on riders from strangers, on a pretext, just to find out what they really want - few ever want what has been asked for - the mots annoying one being multi lengths - I call to say they'll need 45m - and they say, oh that's ok, we have plenty, despite the rider saying 30m max!

[MarkPAman]

.............the most annoying one being multi lengths - I call to say they'll need 45m - and they say, oh that's ok, we have plenty, despite the rider saying 30m max!

 

Or they want 100m supplying, although I know that 50m will easily run form the desk to any position on stage.

[chris4monitors]

One thing we do put into our rider which a lot of promoters ask us about is to have a small cactus in the dressing room. Reason quite simple when the promoter calls you to discuss your requirements and asks about the cactus you know he or she has bothered to read it !!!!

[mac.calder]

Very reminiscent of the good old Brown M&M's story. In fact extreamly (google brown m&m's).