Hearing Loss Claim at Royal Opera House

[Just Some Bloke]

Just to point out that playing quieter as a solo musician is hard enough, as a trumpet stab at ff sounds amazing, but a trumpet stab at mf really is NOT the same but at a quieter level. Equally try asking a singer to 'belt' quieter - it ain't going to happen!

 

 

Reducing the volume as one player out of 40 is much harder, though. If you are playing the solo line and the accompanying instruments are playing too loud, then your choice is a) play quieter and not be heard properly, ruining the music or b) play at the right balance relative to everyone else without achieving the aim of less volume. Which one should you choose as a professional musician?

 

Even when the musicians understand why you're asking them to play quieter, they still may not do so in order to protect the integrity of the music itself.

[GridGirl]

Just to point out that playing quieter as a solo musician is hard enough, as a trumpet stab at ff sounds amazing, but a trumpet stab at mf really is NOT the same but at a quieter level. Equally try asking a singer to 'belt' quieter - it ain't going to happen!

 

 

Reducing the volume as one player out of 40 is much harder, though. If you are playing the solo line and the accompanying instruments are playing too loud, then your choice is a) play quieter and not be heard properly, ruining the music or b) play at the right balance relative to everyone else without achieving the aim of less volume. Which one should you choose as a professional musician?

 

Even when the musicians understand why you're asking them to play quieter, they still may not do so in order to protect the integrity of the music itself.

 

I think it depends on the players. We mark parts down, so the dynamics they see are the reduced version. Our brass players are exceptionally good at lowering sound output but maintaining the intent of the music, and if they're playing quieter, everyone else does too. It really is a team effort - every single player has to be conscious of it and aware of it, and then the balance sorts itself out. Yes, it's sometimes impossible to play a high trumpet note at a quieter dynamic - just not physically possible. But if you play down on the bits that you can, leaving only the bits that you can't play down at full volume, it still goes a long way to reducing overall sound exposure. And if the conductor is across what has to be done, that helps too, because they can sort out the balance if it's wrong (ie tell the required people to shut up).

[paulears]

Playing Devil's advocate here, but doesn't this compromise at least the authenticity of the music, and therefore it's historic impact. Isn't some of the really loud stuff only really good because it's really powerful? Clearly musicians of calibre are capable of playing however directed within reason, but the protections now coming in force in more and more places as a result are lopsided. Protect the musicians, but ignore their audiences. We do have events where they extend over longer periods with some people attending every performance. Nobody is looking at their exposure (yet). We're also leaving some musicians totally behind. The bigger production get protection, but we pay no attention to the smaller pubs and clubs where sound levels can be really high.

 

I saw one of the best holiday resort shows I've ever seen this week - huge drops of line arrays and a cast and band of around 30 - ALL on in ears, and the sound level in the auditorium really nice and untiring. Quite nice to be able to hear a quality PA for once not much above tickover. The local pub last week was by contrast unpleasant to be in. The band that were playing do 4 nights a week based on the dates on their web site. Who looks after them?

[Jivemaster]

The remedy seems to include the impossible, reducing a musicians employed exposure hours without considering the remainder of their time which may well include teaching and dep-ing in other bands and orchestras. My bass tutor used to play bass in a theatre pit band and also play sax in a keys, sax and drums dance band, who would/should/could have calculated his noise dose on any basis. He definitely had two formal employers plus other work providers.

 

I fear that there will be wars when trying to regulate what noise dose musos accumulate in their off shift days. You could well find musos dep-ing a night of The Ring in their "noise dose reduction" calculated days off. Could anyone anywhere impose exclusive contracts? Even if it was to allow scheduling their noise dose and dose rate.

[Andrew C]

Protect the musicians, but ignore their audiences.

Other industries have managed it. House builders are MUCH better protected against injury, and building costs have risen. The "audience" continues to pay.

 

 

The remedy seems to include the impossible, reducing a musicians employed exposure hours without considering the remainder of their time which may well include teaching and dep-ing

The employer has do do what they can. If a builder (to continue the analogy) invests in telehandlers and hoists, and the employee goes power lifting and trashes his back, the employer has a defence.

[ImagineerTom]

It’s a simple fact that anyone who says “this is too difficult” or “this is too expensive” or “this can’t be done” is just plane wrong and will loose any court case. Other industries have found solutions to these problems, Gridgirl has proven that actual orchestras CAN do lots to reduce noise exposure without compromising the art.

 

My main takeaway from reading the judgement is that it’s precisely because the Roh shrugged their shoulders and didn’t even try despite knowing the problems that they got kicked.

[GridGirl]

Playing Devil's advocate here, but doesn't this compromise at least the authenticity of the music, and therefore it's historic impact. Isn't some of the really loud stuff only really good because it's really powerful? <snip>

 

Modern brass instruments are capable of far, far greater volume than their period predecessors. Tchaikovsky would be astonished if he heard a modern brass section playing Swan Lake and I think Beethoven would be able to hear his Ninth Symphony despite being deaf. Large-bore brass is a comparatively modern invention, and as these instruments have been developed and come into orchestras and bands, volume levels have risen (everyone else comes up to balance). So by bringing the levels down, it's probably more authentic. When you start getting into 20th century stuff, probably to a degree the authenticity is impacted, yes. Seventeen brass players starting into Ride of the Valkyries made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and the sheer impact of the sound had a part to play in that. But earlier works (Romantic, Classical and definitely Baroque), it's arguable.

 

The remedy seems to include the impossible, reducing a musicians employed exposure hours without considering the remainder of their time which may well include teaching and dep-ing in other bands and orchestras. My bass tutor used to play bass in a theatre pit band and also play sax in a keys, sax and drums dance band, who would/should/could have calculated his noise dose on any basis. He definitely had two formal employers plus other work providers.

 

I fear that there will be wars when trying to regulate what noise dose musos accumulate in their off shift days. You could well find musos dep-ing a night of The Ring in their "noise dose reduction" calculated days off. Could anyone anywhere impose exclusive contracts? Even if it was to allow scheduling their noise dose and dose rate.

 

It's a huge conversation which each orchestra is going to have to negotiate. As I said up-thread, we tried asking our players just to tell us what else they were doing and it ended badly (although I think we're about to broach it again). Very, very tricky, and I think players would be asking for significantly higher wages if contracts were exclusive. I agree that at the moment, it seems to be impossible.

[Jivemaster]

If players do not want to disclose their cumulative noise dose then it will have to become a contract term in employment terms. Shift systems will likely result in orchestras that have never played together before or an awful number of unknown deps being needed sometimes -of unknown noise dose and hearing health.

[richardash1981]

Playing Devil's advocate here, but doesn't this compromise at least the authenticity of the music, and therefore it's historic impact. Isn't some of the really loud stuff only really good because it's really powerful? <snip>

 

Modern brass instruments are capable of far, far greater volume than their period predecessors. Tchaikovsky would be astonished if he heard a modern brass section playing Swan Lake and I think Beethoven would be able to hear his Ninth Symphony despite being deaf. Large-bore brass is a comparatively modern invention, and as these instruments have been developed and come into orchestras and bands, volume levels have risen (everyone else comes up to balance). So by bringing the levels down, it's probably more authentic. When you start getting into 20th century stuff, probably to a degree the authenticity is impacted, yes. Seventeen brass players starting into Ride of the Valkyries made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and the sheer impact of the sound had a part to play in that. But earlier works (Romantic, Classical and definitely Baroque), it's arguable.

 

And the move to ever more powerful instruments (not just Brass, but maybe most pronounced there) is both very recent, and ongoing. Unlike string players (who keep instruments as long as they can, albeit tweaking them), brass players are quite happy to buy the latest new model. Often, that means a louder one, if only because designers try to make playing loud less hard work, then players use that to play louder!

Even Wagner, writing before 1876, was expecting much smaller bored instruments (especially at the bottom end) than are now normal (certainly in the Brass Band lineup). So I would suggest the authenticity question really comes in from after the first world war, and later in many cases. This also affects balance - Holst's Moorside Suite is very bottom heavy (to the point of sounding dull) played by modern bands on modern instruments. I suspect it was quite different when he wrote it for the Crystal Palace in 1928!

 

A couple of examples of brass groups using period instrumentation:* http://www.thewallacecollection.org/collaboration/cyfarthfa-repertoire-project/

* http://oronocornetband.com/

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by richardash1981

[kerry davies]

I do not agree that RoH shrugged it off, as soon as they learned about an issue they took measures, they just weren't informed. The claimant had pre-existing hearing damage, refused to wear the supplied custom plugs, refused to share his medical auditory history and did not avail himself of the long-standing "just walk out" policy. Be that as it may, after 2 days, one of which they did Die Valkurie, he finally used his custom plugs and then his foam ones and then said it was still too loud. RoH immediately made individual doseimeter measurements and changed layout. That isn't just shrugging it off.

 

Every single witness, including the claimant, said that wearing hearing protection at all times was not "reasonably practicable" yet that is what the judge ruled RoH should have enforced. The irony being that the judge also accepted that mandatory hearing protection, signage and a hearing zone would not have prevented this problem. She then ruled that acoustic shock was a genuine problem which could occur at as little as 82dB, an incredibly low new legal threshold way below any set by NAWR.

 

What really worries me is the statement "...that it was not foreseen by anyone, and perhaps was not reasonably foreseeable, that exposure to noise ...would cause sudden injury. But in our view this is irrelevant in law." If that is so then the ruling in Birmingham Waterworks v Blyth may no longer apply because they found that "the reasonable man" could not have forecast damage done by a rare but not unprecedented frost while this ruling states that "the reasonable man" is now negligent if he fails to foresee the unforeseeable and unprecedented.

 

I may well be missing something crucial and putting my own spin on things (I'm old you know) but I do think we haven't seen the last of this. HSE is and has been ominously silent on this matter. I suspect they hope it goes away before they are forced into taking criminal proceedings against anyone.

[Stuart91]

What really worries me is the statement "...that it was not foreseen by anyone, and perhaps was not reasonably foreseeable, that exposure to noise ...would cause sudden injury. But in our view this is irrelevant in law." If that is so then the ruling in Birmingham Waterworks v Blyth may no longer apply because they found that "the reasonable man" could not have forecast damage done by a rare but not unprecedented frost while this ruling states that "the reasonable man" is now negligent if he fails to foresee the unforeseeable and unprecedented.

 

Going forward from here, acoustic shock could potentially be classified as "foreseeable" because it has been established as such by this case.

 

She then ruled that acoustic shock was a genuine problem which could occur at as little as 82dB, an incredibly low new legal threshold way below any set by NAWR.

 

If it really can occur as low as 82dB, then all sorts of sectors are going to have problems, not just music/entertainment. For example, good luck re-engineering the London Underground so that trains keep below that level as they enter stations...

[alistermorton]

Supermarket shelf-stacker's cage-trollies probably exceed that level as they crash and vibrate across the shop floor. Must whip my level meter out next time I hear one coming during the evening shop.

[andy_s]

I do not agree that RoH shrugged it off, as soon as they learned about an issue they took measures, they just weren't informed. The claimant had pre-existing hearing damage, refused to wear the supplied custom plugs, refused to share his medical auditory history and did not avail himself of the long-standing "just walk out" policy. Be that as it may, after 2 days, one of which they did Die Valkurie, he finally used his custom plugs and then his foam ones and then said it was still too loud. RoH immediately made individual doseimeter measurements and changed layout. That isn't just shrugging it off.

 

Every single witness, including the claimant, said that wearing hearing protection at all times was not "reasonably practicable" yet that is what the judge ruled RoH should have enforced. The irony being that the judge also accepted that mandatory hearing protection, signage and a hearing zone would not have prevented this problem. She then ruled that acoustic shock was a genuine problem which could occur at as little as 82dB, an incredibly low new legal threshold way below any set by NAWR.

 

What really worries me is the statement "...that it was not foreseen by anyone, and perhaps was not reasonably foreseeable, that exposure to noise ...would cause sudden injury. But in our view this is irrelevant in law." If that is so then the ruling in Birmingham Waterworks v Blyth may no longer apply because they found that "the reasonable man" could not have forecast damage done by a rare but not unprecedented frost while this ruling states that "the reasonable man" is now negligent if he fails to foresee the unforeseeable and unprecedented.

 

I may well be missing something crucial and putting my own spin on things (I'm old you know) but I do think we haven't seen the last of this. HSE is and has been ominously silent on this matter. I suspect they hope it goes away before they are forced into taking criminal proceedings against anyone.

 

I think the Appeal Judge accepted / agreed that wearing hearing protection at all times was not practical, but upheld the original judgement against the ROH on other, narrower grounds. I saw an article that explained this, but I can't just now put my hands on it.... I'll keep looking.

[TeeJay]

I may well be missing something crucial and putting my own spin on things (I'm old you know) but I do think we haven't seen the last of this. HSE is and has been ominously silent on this matter. I suspect they hope it goes away before they are forced into taking criminal proceedings against anyone.

 

I think HSE have been quiet so far as it's an active court case and their general policy is not to comment - sub judice in effect. The Sound Advice guidance is mentioned in the appeals decision (as is the ROH having been an advisory to that guidance) and I speculate that there have probably been some quiet conversations been had.

 

Yes definitely more will follow from this ...

[ImagineerTom]

I do not agree that RoH shrugged it off, as soon as they learned about an issue they took measures, they just weren't informed.

I'm going to disagree here - they took "sticking plaster" actions after the problem. Throwing around some custom earplugs every 5 years and putting up a few signs is doing NOTHING to prevent the risk ocurring in the first place and in any safety situation your first steps have to be taking reasonable steps to prevent the bad thing from ever happening. I'd bet if they had a monitoring program in place, could show that discussions about the artistic program had been held to ensure muso's were exposed to a range of sounds, had taken some steps to actively rotate performers, had re-arranged the orchestra and looked at sound deflectors and tried some different options to see how practical they were (even if they were tried and discarded because they weren't practical) then the judgement would have been very different.

As I read it what they did was the equivalent of giving all lighting technicians (badly fitting) rubber boots to wear, rather than making sure the electrics were in good condition and earths / breakers were installed and considering that an acceptable, safe solution to people getting electrocuted daily.

 

I think it's also worth stressing that the RoH aren't working in an ancient building with an old fashioned pit that forces them to work in a specific way. As part of their big refurbishment 20 years ago they completely rebuilt the entire stage, substage and pit so they have no defence that the building forces their layout, that building works are too expensive or that they don't know how to change working practices.

Edited May 14, 2019 by ImagineerTom