Furthur Show at Shelburne Museum Abruptly Canceled

1. “The fact remains that the adequacy of said plans had not been disproved when Shelburne Museum pulled the plug.”You know this how, exactly? You saw the plans? You were in on the discussions? Of course not. You’re speculating and/or relying on Crothers’ word, which means you have no idea what happened. Give it up.

2. Jimmy,If I were an attorney, or a 6th-grade dropout assuming one’s persona, I might be prone to conflating “contractual rights” with moral correctness. Kohlberg would be amused.You correctly identify what we both do not know about the security provisions, but you miss the mark completely when you attempt to name my bias. I have no vested interest in holding Shelburne Museum accountable. As I stated previously, I have enjoyed several visits to the museum. It is no more pleasant to see the museum holding the blame than it would be to see that blame lie with Higher Ground, Furthur, the town, or the state authorities. Anyway you cut it, the blame rests upon an entity that I have liked and respected for years. Realistically, I am going to return to Shelburne Museum before too long, and I probably will recommend it to friends and family even sooner. I do not dispute that the state and local authorities raised misgivings about the security plans at the last minute. The fact remains that the adequacy of said plans had not been disproved when Shelburne Museum pulled the plug. That fact is why the burden of proof rests with the alternative hypotheses. Finally, mea culpa re: the quoted article’s so-called bias. The text was so similar to another article that I had assumed it was the one that Mr. Bolles had linked. Here is the cartoonish hack job that raised my hackles: http://www.thepinetree.net/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=17763(Once the term “narcotics” gets applied to drugs which pharmacologically are not, all credibility is dismissed.)

3. I am offended that Shelburne Museum would consider Vermont fans to be the equal of the those in the California arrests. There are many deadheads here, and since the band kind of ended in 1995 with the death of Jerry, there are not many new fans coming on board. Just those of us left, growing older and showing a touch of grey. Yes, a ticketless horde of 35 to 75 year olds would create alot of problems for the shelburne museum, they probably would have had too much money to count that day. My respect for them has dropped alot. They probably will have to sell another peice of art to deal with the lawsuits. Boo to you shelburne museum, why didn’t you let them play the fairgrounds? The Dead played there, and the prior furthur festival with no problems at all. Shame on you! And to those of you who don’t have a clue, get off our bus!

4. Vermont just out-Vermonted itself.

5. I’m sure that’s true, Carl. This seems an odd time to bring it up, though – a thread in which I’m the only one who isn’t pretending to know more than they do.

6. Jeezum! I wish I knew 1/2 as much as Jimmy thinks he does.

7. Wow, BTA, you’ve got the persona of “sixth grade dropout trying to sound like a lawyer” down pat.A news article focusing on 63 arrests at a concert is not “inherently biased,” it’s reporting the news. “Most people were super mellow” is not news. “95% of attendees were high as hell all weekend” is also not news. They are topics for blog posts at dead.net.”There are multiple competing interests which might lead HG to forego seeking legal redress”Yeah, like the fact that the Museum were within their contractual rights to withdraw and HG have no case. This would be a no-brainer lawsuit if they weren’t.Both parties state that HG’s security was deemed inadequate. HG disagrees, without providing any details. You and I have no idea what was proposed, what was counter-proposed, or what the police or other third party input was. Your “null hypothesis” is that SM is at fault because that’s what you want to believe, but logically speaking it’s an asinine thing to say. An equally supportable hypothesis is that HG is at fault. There’s no way to prove either one, despite the kangaroo court playing out in your head. Now go buy a ticket for Lowell and ask your mom if you can borrow the car that day.

8. The article sensationalizes a statistically small number of incidents and says nothing else of substance about the event. Thus, the focus of the article is inherently biased. The assertions about police being over-extended require explicit numbers in order to have the opportunity to be taken seriously. The author ignores the possibility that overzealous police behaviors may have instigated / escalated at least some of the violent events cited. (To dismiss this possibility is to announce one’s categorical ignorance about such matters. Neither party is blameless in many cases.) The assumption is made that Furthur fans were responsible for the problems, when several other bands were on the bill. While there likely is some accuracy to that assumption, it is important to recognize that the multi-day, multi-band festivals are not accurately equated with a one-band, one-night concert at a small venue sans overnight camping.The facts are these: The concert is cancelled, and Shelburne Museum has announced in an official statment that they made the decision to cancel. The logical conclusion therefore is as follows: The null hypothesis is that Shelburne Museum is at fault. Unless the museum can provide convincing evidence to the contrary (i.e. specific, concrete data to support their assertions about insufficient security), then alternative hypotheses remain speculative at best.The requirement for a successful lawsuit by HG against SM is not a valid one. There are multiple competing interests which might lead HG to forego seeking legal redress, and also which might impair the court’s capacity to render an impartial decision.

9. BTA, I just quoted the two articles linked in this thread. If you have evidence that either of them – or the Sheriff’s Department – are not objective for some reason, please enlighten us.More importantly, you and a couple of other idiots on this thread are encouraging people to stay away from Shelburne Museum, when in fact you have no idea what actually led to their pulling the plug. Personally, I don’t think a lot of “furthur” fans ever went there in the first place, and those that did are probably intelligent enough to realize that they don’t have the whole story. SM surely lost a lot of money on the deal too, I’m sure it wasn’t a decision they made lightly.As I’ve said, if HG sues SM and wins, then you’ll know the Museum administration were in the wrong. If they don’t – and I don’t think they will – that should be a pretty strong clue that the blame does not rest solely – or even partially – on the Museum’s shoulders.

10. Jimmy, There were other articles about the Memorial Day concerts in question. Unlike the one you quote, these articles feature a journalistic quality known as objectivity. Your math does not account for certain critical variables, and you misinterpret the additional variables which you do attempt to introduce. Multi-day weekend events are much more prone to wanton intoxication than one-day concerts on weekdays. They are also more enticing for bigger fish in the drug dealing pond. If that article was the extent of the museum’s “homework”, then said homework would be returned with an F. The teacher has spoken. Lynda Sutton’s perspective is an accurate one, like it or not. The news articles without an agenda confirm her perspective. The drugged-out wookie element was a scant minority, and that element is likely to be even less prevalent at a one-day concert held at a venue with no real place for a centralized “lot scene”. Unless one has experience with working and/or attending a variety of concerts and festivals within the “jam band” genre, it is impossible to make valid speculations about the matter. Period.

Comments are closed.