Smoke on the Water
Probably anyone who’s watched TV in the last 30 years knows the opening riff for the song “Smoke on the Water”. It’s been used to sell everything from cars to cough syrup. But, after an informal survey among my friends and acquaintances, most people don’t know the lyrics. And among the people who know at least some of the lyrics, no one knows what the song is really about.
“Smoke on the Water” was written about a fire in 1971 in the Montreux Casino on Lake Geneva. The usual story says the fire was caused by an idiot with a flare gun. Gee, someone used pyrotechnics of a sort inside a building caused a major fire.
That should have been a lesson to people that pyrotechnics should not be used inside buildings. But did we learn? Apparently not.
Fast forward to 2003. 100 people were killed in a nightclub fire in Rhode Island because the band was using pyrotechnics inside a building. But did we learn then? Apparently not.
Fast forward again to January, 2013. At least 233 people killed inside a Brazilian nightclub because the band felt they needed to use pyrotechnics inside a building to keep the audience entertained. Will we learn from this that pyrotechnics should not be used inside a buildig? Probably not.
Three thoughts occur to me. One, if the band needs pyrotechnics to keep the audience entertain, they’re probably not very good to start with and should go into another line of business.
Secondly, if they really feel that they need some sort of visual display, they should use a laser light show. I’ve seen some really awesome light shows and, as far as I know, barring electrical shorts, laser light shows don’t cause fires.
The third thought I’ve had is that, although these bands are usually made up of relatively young people — teens to twenties — who usually have more creativity than good sense, the nightclub owners, who are usually older, should have the good sense to nix the indoor fireworks.
My husband came up with a fourth idea. If the band members and/or nightclub owners survive the fire, they should be charged with manslaughter.
We need some sort of international law making indoor fireworks illegal. However, I have no idea how to get an international law enacted. If anyone else knows how, please let me know. Maybe we can get something done before another group of idiots cremates an audience.
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoSo because a second incident happened 30 years after the first one, nobody learned from that incident? Really?
Do you have any knowledge as to how often indoor fireworks are used? How many times indoor fireworks, including at arenas, have been used over this time period safely and properly with no incident? 10’s of thousands of times? Hundreds?
Did you know the flair gun incident was caused by a FAN at a Frank Zappa concert and that there were no “indoor fireworks” at the show? Would an “international” law have made any difference to that guy? “I was gonna bring a flair gun and set it off if Zap sang the Muffin Man song, but I won’t because it turns out it’s against international law.” Yeah. Right. Was it illegal to fire off a flare inside in Switzerland in 1971? I’m betting it was….
The night club owners at the Great White concert were indicted with over 200 manslaughter charges. One spent several years in jail, the other a suspended sentence on a 10 year conviction. The band manager was sentenced to jail for several years. Something tells me there were some laws broken. It’s almost as if sometimes people ignore the law and the sense God gave them and do stupid things, despite the law. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
And of course who knows about the laws and enforcement in Brazil, but my guess is they are not nonexistent in this area. But does anyone think an “international law” (again, whatever that means) would have made a difference or were these folks likely already breaking the law?
And because of these incidents, with more than 30 years from the first to the second and a full decade from the second to the third, on three continents on a planet with 7 billion people, you are calling for an INTERNATIONAL ban on indoor fireworks, without any knowledge as to whether these fireworks were banned at the time and in the location in which they led to these three horribly destructive but amazingly rare incidents?
Why is it that every time something bad happens to anybody for any reason that some folks just go rushing to make a new law, whether the old ones were followed, whether the old ones were enforced, whether the new ones are overkill based on the severe rarity of the event, or whether the new ones will do any good at all?
Your heart’s in the right place. But I thought for a minute I was reading a piece in the Onion….
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 2 weeks agoMatt, Yes, I know it was an idiot fan with a flare gun. That’s why I called it “pyrotechnics of a sort”.
And, good news, after the fire at The Station in Rhode Island, that state did enact very strict laws banning pyrotechnics in buildings under a certain size.
Bad news. After the RI fire, there were similar fires in Russia, Thailand and Argentina. Those all happened within the same decade.
So, I guess the answer to my questin of “Will we learn from this that pyrotechnics should not be used inside a buildig?” is still probably not.
As a PS, sort of, the Brazilian government is looking into filing charges of manslaughter on the band/club owner.
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoWell then why are you using that Switzerland incident as a basis for your column when it really had nothing to do with “interior pyrotechnics” but just some dude shooting off a flare gun? He wasn’t a band member who made it part of his show. It really has absolutely nothing to do with what you want to ban, but it makes for great visuals I guess.
Does “will we ever learn” mean that we have to get to a point where it is an impossibility that it will ever happen again, anywhere, in any obscure corner of the globe? Does the fact that something like the Great White incident hasn’t happened on 10,000 nights in any of the 10’s of thousands of nightclubs in this country in over a decade mean we haven’t learned a thing?
So what you are saying is that there were laws that were broken in Brazil, as there were in NJ, for which those responsible will have to pay the piper?
And lastly, can you provide any sense as to why you think some “international law” against interior pyrotechnics (again, whatever that means; enforceable by whom, The Hague?)would keep some dumb schlub in a metal band in backwater Thailand from shooting off a roman candle during a set? C’mon. Let’s enter the real world here.
This suggestion is the perfect example of of “progressive” elitism run amuk. A law that won’t solve anything but it sure makes us feel better about ourselves.
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 2 weeks agoMatt, I guess that’s the difference between us “proressive elites” and you. We know that any law is not going to be perfect or even easy. But you’ve gotta start somewhere.
Slavery is now internationally disapproved of, yet there are still some backwater areas where it’s practiced. But even getting slavery abolished in the US and England required not just Lincoln deciding, “Gee, this may be a good time for a proclamation.” Abolitionists had been working for decades to get slavery made illegal. And it’s just recently that it has been made an international issue.
Women didn’t have a fairy godmother come down and give us the right to vote. It took more than a century of work for it to get done.
So, as a progressive, I go under the assumption that,for progress to happen, we gotta start somewhere. Which beats the heck out of sitting on our butts saying “real world” not gonna happen.
Matt Henry
3 months, 2 weeks agoSo now we comparing the scourge of inside pyrotechnics to that of slavery and women’s rights? We should walk hand in hand making sure no mosque in central Afghanistan uses sparklers in their services while we advocate for the end of forced female servitude?
You don’t have to “start somewhere” when that somewhere cannot be defended in any real form or that thing cannot be defined as a real international problem that demands attention.. For example, how about an actual discussion on whether or not an “international law” (which you still haven’t defined) would have any kind of real effect. This is the fantasyland of progressivism, doing something for nothing so that we can say we did.
God bless your heart, you really jumped the shark on this one. Admit it and move on.
Suzanne Conaway
3 months, 2 weeks agoRobert Browning said, “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”I like that theory. I’d rather start at the top and work down than start at the bottom and settle for the first minor success.
And yes, there are more pressing problems, but does that mean we should ignore the smaller ones?
International law may even be something through the U.N., I don’t know. I’m trying to find out. But should I settle for nothing when I might achieve something? I think not.