No brown M&M's clause
A clause the rock band Van Halen included in its tour contracts in the 1980s, stating that no brown M&M's were to be placed in the dressing room. It was reported as the height of self-indulgence, but the singer David Lee Roth explained in later years that it was a device for judging at a glance whether the contract had been read. One meaningless instruction, whose observance can be checked instantly by eye, is buried in a thick technical specification; if it has been broken, the whole specification is suspect. As a method for detecting "they say they read it but in fact did not", the story came to be cited outside the music industry as well.
The wording and where it sat
The version most often quoted runs to the effect that "there will be no brown M&M's in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation", and is said to be Article 126 of the contract※1. In the rider from the 1982 world tour that Snopes consulted, it appears not in the technical specification but in the "Munchies" section, as part of a list of items to be provided: "M&M's (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)".
Van Halen's tours were large even by the standards of the time, and conditions such as the weight of the equipment brought in, the power required, the load-bearing capacity of the floor and the dimensions of the loading door were specified across dozens of pages. Many venues had never hosted a show on this scale, and if they reached the day having skimmed the specification, the result led directly to accidents: the rig could not be assembled, the floor gave way, someone was electrocuted. That the clause sat in the munchies section rather than in the middle of the technical specification is a point slightly at odds with the shape of the story.
Roth's explanation
In his autobiography *Crazy from the Heat*, Roth says that whenever he found brown M&M's he always went into a full inspection of the technical side. The color of the candy itself did not matter; the fact that it remained served as a proxy indicator that the contract had not been read closely. Conversely, if it had been observed, one could infer a venue with at least the organization to go through the details. The aim of sampling inspection is to estimate overall quality without increasing the number of items inspected.
As an example of a venue where he found brown M&M's and trouble actually occurred, Roth cites a show in Colorado. It is usually told with the plot that the floor of the venue could not bear the weight of the equipment and sank※2.
How much of it is true
The existence of the clause itself is backed by a primary source. On the other hand, Snopes points out that reports of the band wrecking dressing rooms on the pretext of a violation were exaggerated and inaccurate. The promoter Barry Fey writes in his memoir that the band, having found brown M&M's, tore up a college's dressing room, so some damage seems to have occurred, but the amount and the circumstances remain at the level of hearsay.
There is also skepticism about the safety rationale itself. The point raised is that what this device can detect is only "not having read", and that it is not an inspection for "meeting all the terms". There is also the view that, as the rumor spread, the band built the story up in more outlandish directions, so the account of it as a rational operational technique includes parts tidied up after the fact.
Use as a metaphor
The story came to be cited in the context of quality control and operational design as an example of a "low-cost proxy indicator". In English there is a usage calling a question or condition planted to judge whether instructions have really been read a "Van Halen test". Having applicants include an unrelated word in their documents, or mixing a visually checkable trivial condition into a specification, all have the same structure.
The limits of such transfer are shown by the original story too. What can be detected is only one form of inattention, and once the planted item is known, an evasion of "observing that one point alone" becomes possible. It works only while the indicator is not recognized as planted, and while the distribution of inattention overlaps with what one actually wants to check.
To verify
- The source of the article number "126". Several secondary sources give it consistently, but the relevant page of the rider itself could not be confirmed
- Whether the text of the "Munchies" section in the 1982 rider consulted by Snopes and the wording of "Article 126" quoted by secondary sources are different parts of the same document, or riders from different years
- The date of the incident in Colorado. There are accounts giving 30 March 1980 at the University of Southern Colorado and accounts placing it during the 1982 tour, and they do not agree. The figure of 3,500 dollars in damage also rests on hearsay alone
References
- Brown Out? | Snopes
- Van Halen's "no brown M&Ms" rider explained in promoter's memoir | Tone Deaf
- Myth-busting the Van Halen brown M&M Story | MetalTalk
- The truth about Van Halen's M&M rider – just good operations | Business of Software
- No Brown M&M's | Matt Rickard
- Notorious Van Halen Rider Revealed | Exclaim!
- In Search of Van Halen's Brown M&Ms | Snack Stack
- Mentioned in
- none
- Similar