When Irish statesman Edmund Burke espoused that “bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny” back in the eighteenth century he possibly wasn’t thinking about a Chuck Berry concert in Finland, but a recent ruling by the Finnish Consumer Disputes Board that a gig-goer can receive a 50% refund if a live music performance “disappoints” certainly seems applicable to that maxim.
The Finnish legal system is not one this writer has much awareness of, in fact the Finnish nation is not one this writer has much awareness of; I remember doing a project about Lapland (the northernmost snowy bit) in geography class at high school and thinking it all seemed pretty barren, and aside from that my only real point of reference is this Michael Palin-penned ditty from the glory days of Monty Python;
Yet even though we’re all aware that different cultures have different legal structures and most people couldn’t pinpoint Finland on a globe, their decision to legally allow financial remuneration for sub-standard concert experiences is still somewhat perplexing. It all stems back to a decision arising from a complaint by an attendee of a Chuck Berry concert in Helsinki in 2013 who argued that the singer “seemed quite fatigued” (it was later confirmed that the legendary singer was unwell and apologised during the performance). The Consumer Disputes Board ruled last week that ticket-holders can request refunds if a show is "well below reasonably expected standards". Whilst obviously well-intentioned, this is an unwieldy and potentially unenforceable decision, and would never work in Australia for a variety of reasons;
Music is subjective
One of the main beauties of music — and art — is that we all have different tastes, otherwise it would be pretty bloody boring. So how does somebody adjudicate whether a given performance is “disappointing”? The Board’s Chairman Pauli Stahlberg was quoted as saying, “When considering the issue of quality, it’s not so much a matter of whether or not a concert or circus show is good or bad by some objective measure. The key is whether or not the performance meets the consumer’s expectations”. But what constitutes a reasonable expectation is almost impossible to argue without years of case law — for instance, if Axl Rose turns up five hours late at a Guns N’ Roses concert and then proceeds to act like a douche, is it reasonable to expect otherwise given that’s what’s happened at pretty much every concert for decades? What about The Replacements (keeping it in the Stinson family) — in their heyday they were notorious for putting in performances that were either (a) an artistic triumph showcasing the purity of rock’n’roll, or (b) a drunken shambles highlighting the boundaries of human depravity. You didn’t know which show you were going to get on any given night, so how does a person form any kind of accurate expectation, reasonable or otherwise?
"If Axl Rose turns up five hours late at a Guns N’ Roses concert and then proceeds to act like a douche, is it reasonable to expect otherwise?"
It’s impossible to enforce
Don't miss a beat with our FREE daily newsletter
What constitutes meeting the consumer’s expectations when one fan’s trash is another fan’s treasure? Chuck Berry is nearly 90 years old — of course he seemed fucking fatigued, it’s incredible that he survived the trip to Finland let alone got alone got onstage at all. What did they expect, two hours of non-stop duck walks? I’d be stoked just to see him alive and breathing at this late point in the game. Go and watch Radiohead (if you must) — after the same show one casual fan might be furious because they didn’t play that old one about Thom being a creepy bastard, whilst the trainspotter five rows ahead of him would be spewing because that’s the 93rd time he’s seen them and they still haven’t played that rare instrumental off the 2007 Finland bootleg. We can assume that Thom and the gang weren’t drunk or high or tired, but have they let both or either of these punters down? Because it’s Radiohead we’ll say ‘yes’, but it’s certainly not cut and dry.
Musicians are often hedonists
According to Stahlberg — who holds a doctorate in jurisprudence (ie law) — “lack of sobriety” by a performer could be a valid cause for a refund. So any time a musician is slightly drunk or high the crowd can potentially get half their money back? Talk about opening Pandora’s Box! Have you ever been involved with a touring band and heard them bitch about the size/quality/temperature of their rider or how hard it is to find a decent stash of their drug of choice in a given city? Can you imagine managers suddenly requiring all live bands to be completely sober to ensure that their share of the cut isn’t endangered? You can pretty much guarantee half of your favourite bands will instantly sell the van and become studio projects. Bill Hicks possibly summed up the relationship between art and stupefaction the best;
Music fans are often hedonists
In explaining the Board’s ruling Stahlberg also seemed to insinuate that the ruling requires consensus, stating, “Anyone seeking a ruling like these is always spurred by a subjective opinion, but that’s not enough to get a refund. What is significant is a generally agreed view that the concert was a failure”. So how do we ascertain what’s a “generally agreed view”? Show of hands at the end? Straw poll at the exit? Post-gig email follow up? Is there a time limitation? If everyone is required to have a legally actionable opinion on a given performance then the audience wouldn’t be able to get drunk or high either, because that would mean that their judgment was impinged and their views on the gig’s inherent radness (or otherwise) therefore legally unenforceable. Concerts are starting to look a lot less fun.
"If everyone is required to have a legally actionable opinion on a given performance then the audience wouldn’t be able to get drunk or high either."
Who adjudicates the ruling?
Assuming we appoint some team of incredible cultural Ombudsmen with pristine music taste and unflinching ingrained objectivity how do they actually adjudicate on a given gig? Will venues have to supply them like they do bouncers so there’s one at every show? Otherwise do they accept anecdotal evidence, or will they be required to pore over the iPhone footage of every gig ever that one assumes is uploaded to the web after shows? Aussies are notorious scammers, how are they supposed to know whether the show was actually “unreasonable” or punters are just trying it on for a quick buck?
How do you enforce a ruling?
Have you ever tried to get money from a band for anything? Imagine you go to see Brisbane rockers HITS at a trusted local music establishment, but lo and behold frontman Evil Dick is slurring his words and saying some strange stuff (just a hypothetical) so you take them to court (or wherever) and get the ruling to get your $8 (half the door) refunded — good luck getting that money! It’s already been spent on caviar and camembert in the first class lounge at the local bus terminal as they wheel their way to the next destination — you ain’t getting that coin. Or is the venue liable? That seems pretty tough to put an onus on the party who has no control over how the gig plays out. Either way it’s not gonna work.
So relax, the Finnish music fans are in a world of hurt but — unlike how we all hope that Aussie legislators take a leaf out of their American counterparts’ books and decriminalise the weed — it ain’t going to translate down here. Don’t forget that all people in Finland must pay a TV tax whether or not they own a TV. And given that the best ten bands to ever come out of Finland might just be;
HIM
Amorphis
Children Of Bodom
Stratovarius
Impaled Nazarene
Lordi
Finntroll
Nightwish
Apocalyptica
Hanoi Rocks
we probably shouldn’t be looking to that country for musical guidance anyway. So embrace caveat emptor and get rocking!
