Do you take good gear to rough venues?

[Number6]

I am interested that some players are able to pick and choose which venue they play at. Does this mean you've progressed in your level of professionalism or just that maturity means you shy away?

Personally i like a venue with a bit of a rugged edge. Most of my equipment is cheapish (£100-500) apart from a recently aquired Ric Laredo.....even so i aim to use it and not be too precious about it. It's only a bit of wood, plastic and metal.

I respect that some musicians play very very expensive instruments and indeed use them. I do however take a view that a piece of wood and bits and bobs can only be worth a finite amount of money to me.

I also wonder how many of us have played in old punk and metal venues where although the atmosphere is raw and ready we have managed to survive along with our gear.

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504090874' post='3362576']
Eloquently exposed, and doubtless pretty accurate, but I'm afraid I don't subscribe. I agree with the premise that he, her or those responsible for damage, loss or injury should take that responsibility on their shoulders (mine, if I was that person...). Where I do not agree is that someone who has committed no fault should pay, either directly nor indirectly. In your fictitious example, the hapless bass player, tucked up in bed when his luckless (or clumsy...) bandmate caused grave injury looses his home. This may be the law, but I'm not concerned so much by the law as by justice. Is it just that he be penalised for the actions of others..? I say 'No', and refuse to walk that path. I'll take full responsibility for my own actions; I'll not shoulder the burden of someone else's negligence. Solidarity, in the sense of paying NH insurance for the cover of all the population against misfortune is fine by me; 'betting' that I don't fall foul of an incident in which I have no part is not fair, and I won't (and don't...) do it. If I was the bass player in your story, I'd do my very best to not be implicated; if I was the perpetrator of the incident, I'd face the consequences, whatever they may be. I realise that Life (Reality, Pragmatics; call it what you will...) are against me in this stance, but I can be very stubborn when principles such as Justice (as seen through my eyes...) are at stake. It's only that folks go down the 'safe' route that these ambulance-chasers get a foot in the door, and the insurance industry relies on the law, rather than Justice, to even exist, in my view. I hold them in very dim esteem, as can be guessed from the above.
[/quote]

"I'll not shoulder the burden of someone else's negligence" - the point is, it IS your negligence if the negligence was the fault of the partners of the band. Partners are all in it together so you did have a part in it. Just like when a delivery driver driving a company vehicle crashes into to another vehicle, it is the company insurance that pays out - effectively the the owner of the company is paying out for the actions of his employees.

And the reason for that joint liability (and vicarious liability in regard to employers and employees) is that far too many people attempted to avoid their obligations in the past.

Whenever I see an "ambulance chasing" type argument I am always appalled yet not surprised at the complete disregard for the person who has been hurt.


EDIT - another way to look at PL cover is that it protects you, the individual, from the actions of your partners in the band.

Edited August 30, 2017 by fretmeister

[Dad3353]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1504091980' post='3362592']
"I'll not shoulder the burden of someone else's negligence" - the point is, it IS your negligence...
[/quote]

No, that's my point and position. That's the Law, not Justice. If I did no wrong, then I refuse to be held responsible.
As to the 'ambulance chasers', of course the victim(s) of another person's fault should be compensated. Why is that even in doubt..? The daft part is when folks put in spurious claims, not because they're just, but because the Law allows it.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dad3353

[fretmeister]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504092265' post='3362594']
No, that's my point and position. That's the Law, not Justice. If I did no wrong, then I refuse to be held responsible.
As to the 'ambulance chasers', of course the victim(s) of another person's fault should be compensated. Why is that even in doubt..? The daft part is when folks put in spurious claims, not because they're just, but because the Law allows it.
[/quote]


Myth buster alert.

Spurious claims hardly ever happen. In fact the reason why they hardly ever happen is because the lawyers won't get paid.Those claims do however appear in the press every time one does happen because the insurance industry use it as an excuse to increase premiums with someone to blame.Those claims make up less than 6% of all claims made and yet they get 100% of the press coverage.

In fact there is even a thing called "Fundamental Dishonesty"

Example.
You have a car accident. You break a leg and need 6 months off work. You have physiotherapy and other stuff.
Within the small bits you claim for taxi rides to your physiotherapy treatment. You can't climb on a bus with the cast on and you can't drive. so you use a taxi.

nothing wrong with that.

Except you claim for 20 taxi rides round trips and your physiotherapist confirms you only had 10 appointments. This was easy for you to check. You might not have all the receipts, and some cabbies won't give receipts. But you remember always using a taxi for physio visits.

You could have called the physio to ask how many visits you had, and then claim for the same number of taxi round trips.

But you don't. You don't even try. You claim for 20 because you want to.


In the old days when the claim reached court, or the other side discovered only 10 physio appointments you would lose the extra 10 taxi fares and not recover them.

Now - it is deemed to be "Fundamental Dishonesty" and it causes your claim to fail. Not just £100 for the taxi rides you didn;t have - but for the whole lot. Even the stuff that can't be argued about. your loss of earnings and the fact that your leg was broken. Doesn;t matter. You get nothing.

you took the piss so you get nothing, and you pay the costs of the other side insurance company for trying to take the piss.


Admiral Insurance broke ranks a year or 2 ago and really pissed off their fellow insurers. They admitted that over 50% of their turnover was NOT generated by the sales in of insurance products, but was generated by selling claims referrals. Referral Fees are now banned. Admiral admitted that insurance policy costs would have to increase because they can no longer sell the information.

So when you see an insurer complaining about ambulance chasers, it was them that set up the first Claims Management Companies, and it was them who argued against Claims Management Companies being regulated. They are now, and they get shut down fast for breaking the law. Don't confuse the Claims Management Companies with those who actually represent the parties (either side) - they are not the same thing.

The "arguments" trotted out in the press are not new. They are the same as they have been since 2000. Point is - the entirely valid concerns at the time were addressed in 2003 with fixed fees for many low value claims. Then again by increasing the max claim size that would have limited fees. And then again. And then the type of low value claim was expanded to include public liability, employers liability, occupiers etc etc. And yet the same arguments from 2000 are still used.

The insurers have no choice of course - they exist for the benefit of their shareholders and must find new ways to both increase prices and profit margin by lowering payouts. But they don't need new arguments because the old ones still work.

Recently a thing called the "Discount Rate" was adjusted. It was in the paper.

Basically if you have a catastrophic injury and get all of your future earnings as a lump sum, that sum is subjected to a discount because you got it all at once and you are supposed to invest it to make it last.The amount of discount is set by law - worked out to move with inflation and investment strengths and that sort of thing.

The government, with lobbying by the insurance industry, decided not to adjust the Discount Rate for about 10 years, even though the discount should have been lowered (injured person gets a bit more money). Despite that being the Law, the govt(both sides of the house) "never got round to it."

Recently they did. The rate is linked in law to various financial factors. It's an easy calculation. Investment is currently negative so the "discount" is actually negative. So If you were going to get £1000, now you get £1100. This recognises the sh*te economy.

The rate should have been adjusted 10 years ago. But it was in favour of the insurers so they kept very quiet. Now it has been adjusted accurately they are complaining about it hurting their profit levels.

They haven't once mentioned that for 10 years every person who had a catastrophic injury (doesn't affect small claims) has been Under Compensated - quite possibly by millions for birth brain damage cases. Not a single mention of that.

[Ghost_Bass]

I alway take my best gear with me to a bad venue as we only play them once (after finding out it's bad we don't want to be rebooked) but i have taken the backup gear to open air gigs without a cover above stage due to the moisture that forms during the night.
Main gear: Yamaha TRB5PII - GB Shuttle 9.2 - Barefaced S12T - Pitchblack/MXR M288/3Leaf GR/DG B3K/EBS MC
Backup gear: Yamaha TRB5P - Promethean P5110 - Zoom B3
Main gear isn't vintage or boutique but the backup gear isn't cheap also, mind.

[gapiro]

Conversely I've found that the rougher areas (well, rough for cambridgeshire) and their pubs tend to look after the band better - if anyone even dared going onto stage in some of them they would get beaten by the locals, whereas in a "posh" venue, where the clientele think nothing of dropping another £600 on an item of gear, they don't respect you or your talents and are more likely ot break it.

[fretmeister]

Wedding gigs can be like that.

Especially the posh ones.

[FinnDave]

We've played a few lively places and in most of the ones where there is potential for trouble, there have been security staff to prevent it. The security at a gig we played last week insisted on surrounding us with tables, which seemed ludicrous as we set up to a near-empty pub, but once we started, the place was full and tables were a very effective barrier between our gear and those punters who were the worse for drink (after midnight on a friday night in a west country pub, who'd have thought it!!).

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='FinnDave' timestamp='1504096559' post='3362642']
after midnight on a friday night in a west country pub, who'd have thought it!!
[/quote]

Everyone who lives in the west country!

[FinnDave]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1504097743' post='3362658']
Everyone who lives in the west country!
[/quote]
Exactly! All our best gigs are in lively old pubs west of Swindon, the further west we go, the livelier they get!

[TimR]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1504093975' post='3362617']
...
[/quote]

So when the drummer punches someone, you're all responsible?

Where is the line?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504098832' post='3362670']
So when the drummer punches someone...
[/quote]

'When'..?

...

Edited August 30, 2017 by Dad3353

[FinnDave]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504098961' post='3362673']
'When'..?

...


[/quote]


Some things are inevitable!

[Dad3353]

[discreet]

[quote name='bassbiscuits' timestamp='1504012506' post='3362100']
...a flying stool place...
[/quote]

Now that's got to be a [i]really [/i]sh*t gig.

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504098832' post='3362670']
So when the drummer punches someone, you're all responsible?

Where is the line?
[/quote]

Nope.

That's not negligent.

It's criminal, but not negligent.

[Number6]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1504101123' post='3362690']


Nope.

That's not negligent.

It's criminal, but not negligent.
[/quote]

"Group Enterprise" Lol

[TimR]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1504101123' post='3362690']


Nope.

That's not negligent.

It's criminal, but not negligent.
[/quote]

I'd still be interested to know if the band can be legally considered a partnership if they're not in it to make a profit.

[ambient]

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1504093975' post='3362617']



Myth buster alert.

Spurious claims hardly ever happen. In fact the reason why they hardly ever happen is because the lawyers won't get paid.Those claims do however appear in the press every time one does happen because the insurance industry use it as an excuse to increase premiums with someone to blame.Those claims make up less than 6% of all claims made and yet they get 100% of the press coverage.

In fact there is even a thing called "Fundamental Dishonesty"

Example.
You have a car accident. You break a leg and need 6 months off work. You have physiotherapy and other stuff.
Within the small bits you claim for taxi rides to your physiotherapy treatment. You can't climb on a bus with the cast on and you can't drive. so you use a taxi.

nothing wrong with that.

Except you claim for 20 taxi rides round trips and your physiotherapist confirms you only had 10 appointments. This was easy for you to check. You might not have all the receipts, and some cabbies won't give receipts. But you remember always using a taxi for physio visits.

You could have called the physio to ask how many visits you had, and then claim for the same number of taxi round trips.

But you don't. You don't even try. You claim for 20 because you want to.


In the old days when the claim reached court, or the other side discovered only 10 physio appointments you would lose the extra 10 taxi fares and not recover them.

Now - it is deemed to be "Fundamental Dishonesty" and it causes your claim to fail. Not just £100 for the taxi rides you didn;t have - but for the whole lot. Even the stuff that can't be argued about. your loss of earnings and the fact that your leg was broken. Doesn;t matter. You get nothing.

you took the piss so you get nothing, and you pay the costs of the other side insurance company for trying to take the piss.


Admiral Insurance broke ranks a year or 2 ago and really pissed off their fellow insurers. They admitted that over 50% of their turnover was NOT generated by the sales in of insurance products, but was generated by selling claims referrals. Referral Fees are now banned. Admiral admitted that insurance policy costs would have to increase because they can no longer sell the information.

So when you see an insurer complaining about ambulance chasers, it was them that set up the first Claims Management Companies, and it was them who argued against Claims Management Companies being regulated. They are now, and they get shut down fast for breaking the law. Don't confuse the Claims Management Companies with those who actually represent the parties (either side) - they are not the same thing.

The "arguments" trotted out in the press are not new. They are the same as they have been since 2000. Point is - the entirely valid concerns at the time were addressed in 2003 with fixed fees for many low value claims. Then again by increasing the max claim size that would have limited fees. And then again. And then the type of low value claim was expanded to include public liability, employers liability, occupiers etc etc. And yet the same arguments from 2000 are still used.

The insurers have no choice of course - they exist for the benefit of their shareholders and must find new ways to both increase prices and profit margin by lowering payouts. But they don't need new arguments because the old ones still work.

Recently a thing called the "Discount Rate" was adjusted. It was in the paper.

Basically if you have a catastrophic injury and get all of your future earnings as a lump sum, that sum is subjected to a discount because you got it all at once and you are supposed to invest it to make it last.The amount of discount is set by law - worked out to move with inflation and investment strengths and that sort of thing.

The government, with lobbying by the insurance industry, decided not to adjust the Discount Rate for about 10 years, even though the discount should have been lowered (injured person gets a bit more money). Despite that being the Law, the govt(both sides of the house) "never got round to it."

Recently they did. The rate is linked in law to various financial factors. It's an easy calculation. Investment is currently negative so the "discount" is actually negative. So If you were going to get £1000, now you get £1100. This recognises the sh*te economy.

The rate should have been adjusted 10 years ago. But it was in favour of the insurers so they kept very quiet. Now it has been adjusted accurately they are complaining about it hurting their profit levels.

They haven't once mentioned that for 10 years every person who had a catastrophic injury (doesn't affect small claims) has been Under Compensated - quite possibly by millions for birth brain damage cases. Not a single mention of that.
[/quote]

I believe it's also the law now that all pubs, clubs etc have cctv, might be wrong with that?

My mom's friend owns a pub in Malvern. He hires out the function room for weddings and parties etc. I remember him telling my mom not so long ago, about some of the bogus claims that he has to put up with. People claiming they've tripped, been electrocuted, etc. All of which when confronted by the cctv footage, or lack of, are hastily withdrawn.

I don't see the problem for such a small amount of money, in taking out insurance just in case a genuine accident occurs. You're not just covering yourself, there's also the person affected.

[TimR]

In a 4 piece band you're looking at another £120 a year. Not a great deal I suppose.

The thing is, it does make you easier to sue and it give some the venue an opportunity to side step its responsibilities. No doubt the request that you have insurance is from the venues insurer who realise that a bunch of penniless musicians is going to be impossible to recover money from or even if they have money but no insurance will end up in a protracted legal battle where they can only recover £200k at most.

[fretmeister]

That's the way I look at it.

It's also what I don't understand sometimes with attitudes to policies. None of us like buying insurance and we all bitch about the cost.

But we can easily be on the other end of it - and the economic reality is a choice: do I want an insurance policy that is £10 cheaper? Or do I want policies that would properly compensate me if I happened to be the injured person?

[Telebass]

Like most of us, I suspect, I don't have the luxury of that much choice!

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504104478' post='3362713']
In a 4 piece band you're looking at another £120 a year. Not a great deal I suppose.

The thing is, it does make you easier to sue and it give some the venue an opportunity to side step its responsibilities. No doubt the request that you have insurance is from the venues insurer who realise that a bunch of penniless musicians is going to be impossible to recover money from or even if they have money but no insurance will end up in a protracted legal battle where they can only recover £200k at most.
[/quote]

It does not make it easier to sue in the slightest. It might make recovery after suing easier but it does not make it easier to win the claim in the first place.

When I see (sorry but I must) bollocks like that the person saying it has never heard of QOCS either.

Qualified
One Way
Costs
Shifting.

In the good old days if you successfully DEFENDED a claim for injury then the claimant would be ordered to pay your costs back. They lost, they pay the costs. Sounds quite fair.

For injury work that does not exist anymore

So someone comes after you. You defend the claim. You don't have insurance so you get a local solicitor involved. He does a good job and you win. Since 2013 your opponent DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS BACK.
So you've spent 3 years defending it and probably paid £20,000 in fees WINNING the action. Tough. you don't get it back. And there's no legal aid for injury work anymore. You've won and still £20,000 out of pocket.

If you've got PL then they will pay the costs of defending it. Win or lose.

[TimR]

If you're the insurance company and you win the claim, what's the point if the defendant has no insurance. You still have to pay the person you insured and you won't get your £1m back.

[fretmeister]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504105867' post='3362726']
If you're the insurance company and you win the claim, what's the point if the defendant has no insurance. You still have to pay the person you insured and you won't get your £1m back.
[/quote]

The insurance company does not make the claim. They defend claims from others.

The claimant makes the claim. The defendant defends the claim. If there is an insurance company for the defendant then they will pay out on the claim. Or they will successfully defend it at their cost. The lay defendant (the poor bass player) doesn't have to dip into his pocket for anything more than an excess.

Sometimes claims are made against defendants who don't have insurance because it is still worth it. Perhaps they have a house. Or a nice car. An asset search will be done to see if there is anything worth going for..

Sometimes even a heavily mortgaged house means it is still worth making a claim - because mortgage payments will still be made, the debt can be attached to the property.

So when there is enough equity in the house, then the sale of the house can be forced. Mortgage company gets their bit first to pay that off. Then the attached debts get paid off. The balance goes to the house owner. Or sometimes there is nothing left for the house owner.


Or maybe it is someone who rents but has a good job. Then you get a garnishee order and a payment plan. The damages will be deducted at source - it won't go to the defendant to then send a bit per month onwards - the employer will be ordered to remove the amount set by the court before the defendant ever gets it.

Assets will be assessed next to the likely spend to win the action. If that looks do-able then the claim will continue.