Originally posted by aeolium
View Post
-
If it's a known problem, then I would expect that defence to be worthless, given that there are now known measures to mitigate against this kind of problem. Thirty years or more ago that might not have been the case, with lower awareness, and perhaps more acceptance of poor working conditions. It should be possible to have good (nay, majestic) "art" and also a reasonably safe working environment. -
Hearing loss and acoustic shock are not the same thing and do not necessarily occur together. A close family member of mine has this and hearing test results are normal. What isn't normal is the sudden violent physical reaction to certain sound frequencies - nausea/vomiting, crying, acute panic - which are debilitating to say the least. Time, a great deal of hard work, and greater understanding of the triggers have brought improvements, but instrument teaching has been ruled out, and most playing. Crowds, trying to make out speech in noisy surroundings, etc are not only difficult or uncomfortable but also very tiring.
As to why the player in question has suffered but not presumably those around him, that is as much as anything a reflection of the fact that as humans we are all different, and react physically in different ways to given circumstances, but also perhaps a particular conjunction of orientation of his ear at a given moment when a particular sound was made and possibly a pre-existing problem with the ear( eg an infection) which made it more susceptible.Comment
-
oddoneoutOriginally posted by oddoneout View Post
Your post seems to put this very sad story into perspective; it sounds very likely that the viola player suffered an acoustic shock, as he is blaming one particular rehearsal. If this is the case, will he be able to prove it? And what can he legally accuse the ROH for? It all looks to me a very unfortunate accident. I assume he is freelance which makes things more difficult for him.Comment
-
I gather that many session musicians use ear protection these days. I am told that one can get specially fitted and designed ear-plugs that reduce (attenuate?) the volume of sound. One is still able to hear clearly enough for matters of pitch and ensemble to be preserved. I've not come across any orchestral players that use them, and I guess it would be a sad day were it to become the norm.Comment
-
An update on this matter forwarded to me by the family member affected by acoustic shock(but from different circumstances)
It is to be hoped that something positive can come from this, not least the recognition that there is a difference between the gradual hearing impairment from loud working environments, and the sudden trauma of exposure to a single loud noise causing acoustic shock. Wagner's operas are not quiet - but he was not writing for the industrial strength brass now operating, and that needs to be taken into account.
Those whose work involves telephones are similarly at risk from single excessive incidents such as the irate person who decides to blow a whistle down the line.Comment
-
I didn't know that brass instruments had got much louder in recent years, is it different designs or greater lung power on the part of players or what?Comment
-
Trombones in particular have larger bores, allowing much greater volume over the 'pea-shooter' trombones in use before (say) 1940-1950. Just compare pictures.Originally posted by gradus View PostComment
-
Given most of the loudest rock concerts are in the range of 110-120db (The Who got themselves into the Guinness Book of Records for 126db although the likes of Kiss and Dinosaur Jr have since registered 136db) the level of 130db in this case is fortunate, perhaps coincidentally, in not affecting that lucrative branch of the music industry. Still, the verdict may well lead to a sharp tailing off in the appointment by bands of session musicians who could potentially sue. To a lesser extent, one might well expect a similar pattern to emerge in classical music. Presumably as this case is based in employment law it has no direct read-across at present to impacts on audiences. However, that may well change. For example, the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 requires that everyone wears protection before entering a hearing protection zone (eg the stage pit areas at pop concerts), no matter how long they intend to stay there. But the regulations only apply to workers on the grounds that the public are at reduced risk from exposure to noise as they attend concerts relatively infrequently.Comment
-
This case will mean risk assessments will be required and if that requires brass instruments returning to lower decibel levels I cannot see how that will be a bad thing.Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post
The ROH appears to have added a defence that Mr Goldscheider is suffering from Ménière's disease that entirely coincidentally came on at the same time as that blast from the brass - unsurprisingly the judge was unimpressed.Comment
-
Elaborate workplace noise assessment and management procedures have long been in place for all major UK orchestras - a necessity to comply with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations from 2008 on.
The practical effects of this have been routinely evident to the observant at performances for years. Stage layout (as large a void as possible in front of the heavy brass who are also raised as much as possible), use of screens, use of ear defenders (players can routinely be observed deploying and removing earplugs or putting hands over ears at certain moments), rotation of players in the firing line etc.
The particulars of this case are very specific. The claimant was wearing hearing protection - to reach damaging levels given this would require enormous incident Sound Pressure Levels. The cited SPLs are indeed pretty staggering - 140dBC
. That's "first trumpet's bell on your shoulder while playing ffff" kind of SPLs. Layout matters a lot, so pits are a particular challenge.
There's already been significant ill-informed comment in some places by those without a grasp of acoustic physics or the particulars of this case. It is best understood by reading the judgement - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...-judgmentL.pdf.
Re audicences - there is precisely zero chance of an audience member being subjected to these kinds of SPLs from an orchestra. Simple laws of physics will see to that - unless the audience are sitting onstage literally a few feet from the bells of the brass, or one of a few percussion instruments that can produce such SPLs at problem frequencies.Comment
-
Yes I am aware of the Regulations - industrial deafness claims have been around a very long time too- but what I meant is that new risk assessments will be required if the current assessments do not take account of the risks of acoustic shock as distinct from other forms of hearing impairment .Originally posted by Simon B View PostElaborate workplace noise assessment and management procedures have long been in place for all major UK orchestras - a necessity to comply with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations from 2008 on.
The practical effects of this have been routinely evident to the observant at performances for years. Stage layout (as large a void as possible in front of the heavy brass who are also raised as much as possible), use of screens, use of ear defenders (players can routinely be observed deploying and removing earplugs or putting hands over ears at certain moments), rotation of players in the firing line etc.
The particulars of this case are very specific. The claimant was wearing hearing protection - to reach damaging levels given this would require enormous incident Sound Pressure Levels. The cited SPLs are indeed pretty staggering - 140dBC. That's "first trumpet's bell on your shoulder while playing ffff" kind of SPLs. Layout matters a lot, so pits are a particular challenge.
There's already been significant ill-informed comment in some places by those without a grasp of acoustic physics or the particulars of this case. It is best understood by reading the judgement - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...-judgmentL.pdf.
Re audicences - there is precisely zero chance of an audience member being subjected to these kinds of SPLs from an orchestra. Simple laws of physics will see to that - unless the audience are sitting onstage literally a few feet from the bells of the brass, or one of a few percussion instruments that can produce such SPLs at problem frequencies.Comment
-
Oops - mine wasn't intended as a reply to any post in particular here. IIRC you're a legal professional and so probably familiar with the background and where to find a judgement - a skill some commenters in other places on t'internet would do well to develop so as to let facts and evidence get in the way of an argument...Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostComment
-
It is a very thorough judgment. It will make uncomfortable reading for Tony Pappano I imagine.Originally posted by Simon B View PostComment
-
I accept these points.Originally posted by Simon B View PostElaborate workplace noise assessment and management procedures have long been in place for all major UK orchestras - a necessity to comply with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations from 2008 on.
The practical effects of this have been routinely evident to the observant at performances for years. Stage layout (as large a void as possible in front of the heavy brass who are also raised as much as possible), use of screens, use of ear defenders (players can routinely be observed deploying and removing earplugs or putting hands over ears at certain moments), rotation of players in the firing line etc.
The particulars of this case are very specific. The claimant was wearing hearing protection - to reach damaging levels given this would require enormous incident Sound Pressure Levels. The cited SPLs are indeed pretty staggering - 140dBC. That's "first trumpet's bell on your shoulder while playing ffff" kind of SPLs. Layout matters a lot, so pits are a particular challenge.
There's already been significant ill-informed comment in some places by those without a grasp of acoustic physics or the particulars of this case. It is best understood by reading the judgement - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...-judgmentL.pdf.
Re audicences - there is precisely zero chance of an audience member being subjected to these kinds of SPLs from an orchestra. Simple laws of physics will see to that - unless the audience are sitting onstage literally a few feet from the bells of the brass, or one of a few percussion instruments that can produce such SPLs at problem frequencies.
However, the reason why I wondered whether there might ultimately be a read-across to audiences in the field of amplified sound is two-fold. First, on layout, I was in what effectively was the same area of seating in a theatre on two consecutive years in the 1970s. That is, first as a part of a performance that was ostensibly of classical music although steel drums were also involved and secondly as part of an audience for a pop music gig just behind the stage that had been rearranged to be partially like a theatre in the round. Consequently, the notion of a significant separation between performers and audiences doesn't always apply.
Additionally, it does seem that this case brings out the impact of an isolated moment or moments of sound in employment of this kind whereas the approach in non-employment law towards audiences seems to focus mainly on the sporadic nature of audience exposure to sound for periods of, say, 1-4 hours. Arguably, every time I stood with others in the 1980s and the 1990s almost next to the left speaker at London venues while sometimes leaning onto the stage, there could have been a sudden momentary exposure to a much higher level of sound via an accident or an unexpected event on the stage, eg the throwing of a drum kit.
It may well be that these sorts of issues are already addressed somewhere in law. But if they are not, this case may well prompt changes.Comment
Comment