Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not no evidence except the word of the person denying a story which paints them in a bad light.
If true, it is very surprising. Surely in most venues the people responsible for back stage hospitality are not the same people responsible for lighting, electrics, sound installation and stage safety? Isn't it quite likely that one of those teams would have met the requirements perfectly, and the other would have cut corners? How about the situation where extremely professional and scrupulous venues do all the important things right but resent having to sort M&Ms for overpaid stars? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Van Halen to have their own electrical inspectors who would check safety and reliability of the installation? How do other touring rock groups make sure everything is set up correctly? How did Van Halen come up with this particular canary test among all others?
Is it really that conspiratorial that an extremely famous 20 year old acted like a dick, and that at age thirty he made up a story to cover up his youthful dickishness?
Your assertion that they were dicks is funny. Even if they just didn't like brown M&Ms if they were paying for the venue then surely it was no different than expecting their personal luggage to be carried to the dressing room, or having banners hung. Why is this request so egregious that it's dickish but having the right brand of sparkling water is not?
> Surely in most venues the people responsible for back stage hospitality are not the same people
They all get paid from the same pool. It's the boss they're testing, not the stage hand.
Does the boss treat every requirement like a requirement and have it done seriously or do they pick and choose based on what they think is important and surprise the artist?
The original story has been told for around 50 years with the widely noted implication "this was dickish behavior - they didn't have any particular preference for non-brown M&Ms but just wanted to mess with the people waiting on them". Even the 'debunkings' invariably recognize this interpretation of the original story.
Obviously part of the reason this story gets told a lot is because a lot of people, many of them management consultants who charge by the day for nuggets of catchy wisdom like this one, love the idea that organizations have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety. Actually, this is complete fantasy. It's perfectly believable to think that the same boss makes sure the artists have everything in their dressing room they want, no matter how demanding, but thinks that they won't check the bigger, critical but more expensive stuff.
> The original story has been told for around 50 years with the widely noted implication "this was dickish behavior
I didn't ask when people started making up the claim, I asked how the claim was reasonable. The person sorting M&Ms would have been paid just the same. How does a reasonable request become dickish?
> they didn't have any particular preference for non-brown M&Ms but just wanted to mess with the people waiting on them"
Mess with? There's that unsupported judgement again. Am I messing with the cook if I ask for less salt, or no onions on my burger? Or are those valid things for a customer to want? Do I have to prove a medical reason for not wanting onions? Or brown M&Ms?
> management consultants [...] love the idea that organizations have a homogenous culture and the same ones that skimp on the buffet preparation also skimp on the rigging safety.
That's generally true but it doesn't need to be. If it saved them one bad show ever it's worth it. Even if it didn't, if they thought it would it was still probably a safe investment.
I'd be happy if a performer went out of their way to make sure that a live event that I paid for and travelled to attend went off without a hitch. To do otherwise would be dickish.
