Replies

Prudhomme was surprised. "This was just nonstop sparkler," he said. "I'm saying, my God, these sparks are going all over their instruments. Must be nice to get stuff for free, and not care about burn marks."

This idiotic statement makes me take this guy's words with a grain of salt. The nature of the pyro has been well discussed in these threads abd it doesn't burn skin or instruments. Highly flammable substances are a different matter.

As for the comments about the pyro being set up "right before the band went on" - well, duh! That's when they had to be set up. That means nothing as far as "permission" or anything else goes.

It seems now, everyone is trying to take advantage of this tragedy and get their name in the press.

A few comments about your post -

The "nature of the pyro" discussed here may be one thing (although I will address some fallacious assumptions of yours about that in a second), the man's observations are another. He might not understand how safe or unsafe the pyrtotechnics are in the given situation (and probably didn't) but there is no reason to take "with a grain of salt" that he saw pyro like he'd never seen before in that context, and that he thought to himself that the sparks all over the instruments could damage their instruments.

He's only characterizing what he observed and what he thought. Whether he misunderstood the risks to the instruments has nothing to do with that.

Now, about that pyro - The fire marshall has said those devices burn at 2000 degrees. If and when the devices ignite something depends upon proximity and duration of exposure and the intrinsic flammability of the items exposed to the devices.

The hand is rather fire resistant compared to many other types of objects. It will eventually burn but waving your hand over it won't ingnite your hand. Sparks CAN damage instruments, but won't depending on what they are made of and how close they are and how long they are exposed to the devices.

Finally, it does mean something "as far as permission" that the pyrotechnics were set up just prior to the time they were ignited.

You are correct that it does not necessarily mean that the
band didn't ask to use the pyrotechnics.

However, that doesn't mean it is meaningless. It means that it is more *plausible* the club didn't know ahead of time that pyro was going to be used. IT would be far less plausible that neither the clubs owners nor its agents had been put on notice if the set up had been put in place and sitting around in plain sight for several hours, as some have suggested must have been the case.

If that had been the case, you could even make an argument that the club did or SHOULD have known that the band intended to use pyro, even if they had never been told about it or been asked for permission to use it.