Small venue philsophy

[alcohol]

Craig,

 

I'm responding, in kind, to this:

 

 

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ Suggestion to alcohol: But most importantly, bring your objectivity. Somehow, I think that part will get conveniently left at home.

 

[agedhorse]

I work with close to 100 acts a year, most are well versed in compromise, most are also professional. I repeat again that those who are unwilling to compromise are either perpetuating an image and can do so because they are big enough and sell enough tickets to an audience that expects this, or are unprofessional and are thrashing about imitating what they think is desireable behavour. The difference between the two classes of acts is many thousands of ticket sales per gig. So, it's important to identify correctly which class you are in.

 

I did a large gospel extravaganza last night, 3 lead vocals, 6 backup vocals, 2 additional filler backup vocals, 4 keyboards, 2 guitars, bass, key bass and drums. The band was all ears as to how to make this work, one guitar player's rig was beaming really bad so we dropped his volume and spread it around the stage wedges so everyone could hear as necessary and no bitching. In fact, after sound check they remarked that they hadn't played with that low of a stage volume while sounding that fat on stage before and were digging the feel and the interaction with each other. It also made mixing in the vocals an easier and more productive excercise. This was a 1000 seat venue, but still what I would consider small from an acoustic standpoint. Point is, try it, you might just like it.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Craig, I'm responding, in kind, to this: Quote: Originally Posted by Gary in NJ Suggestion to alcohol: But most importantly, bring your objectivity. Originally Posted by tlbonehead Somehow, I think that part will get conveniently left at home.

 

 

So your post was a reply to tlbonehead's comment? He didn't post anything else in this thread but that opinion, yet somehow you've divined that he:

 

1. Only wants to hear the sound of his voice.

 

2. Didn't read what you've written.

 

3. Speculated upon situations that don't match your own or what you've indicated.

 

4. In order to justify his positions he placed you in the little boxes of his own limited experience.

 

5. Shouldn't talk to you about objectivity.

[tlbonehead]

 

Craig, I'm responding, in kind, to this:

 

If you want to yell at me personally, you can e-mail me. tlbonehead@yahoo.com I do like your posts though. In this one, you talk about how you are old-school. In your "anti-feedback machine" posts you ridicule everyone who stick with things that have worked great over the years and are tried and true. No big deal. Its kinda funny. But you tend to always end up lashing out at everyone who doesn't share your views on things. I sit on both sides of the fence. I've been a guitarist/singer since the early 70's and I also do sound occasionally. And I've always been very conscious about the overall picture either way. As a singer, I like to be able to hear the vocal monitors. As a guitarist, I like to get my amp up in volume enough so that it sounds alive, but w/o making a mess of the stage volume or making my volume in the room sporadically overly loud or non-existent, depending on where the listeners are standing. So I use a lower powered head and turn my cab in almost as a sidefill. I'm sure you won't like this approach, however.

[alcohol]

Craig,

 

so maybe I over reacted to tlbonehead, but why not criticize him for not being specific while demeaning my objectivity.

 

I've personally played in countless gigs. Probably more two thousand over the past 40 years of gigging. My son has played scores of gigs in the last 4 years and I've been to hundreds of other concerts. Lastly, I've done scores of gigs where I was the soundman and have frequently been complemented by patrons and club owners on the sound I've delivered, in small clubs.

 

This talk of people unwilling to compromise is interesting, I hope it isn't an insinuation that I'm unwilling to compromise. I'm talking about my experiences and observations and that I disagree that with the idea that a band necessarily must subject itself to the whims of a sound man and that such subjegation is necessarily superior.

 

Personally, I think in a small venue, and I know this, because I've done this thousands of times and witnessed others do such, that players can modulate their own volume with suggestions from someone that advises them from in front of the stage. It's also my opinion that it sounds better than all the sound coming principally out of PA speakers.

 

And I'm familiar with beaming guitar amps, having played with a guitarist that had that very problem, principally because he placed his amp behind his knees and couldn't hear himself properly. We solved that problem by having him put his guitar on a stand and face his side while we miced his amp. Just because he had that situation doesn't mean all guitar players must necessarily find the same solution. If players can find sufficient distance from their amps and place them appropriately, they shouldn't have that problem and can monitor and set their sound properly with some suggestions from someone in front. Also, I have observed that some amps beam more than others.

 

If the guitar player uses acoustic feedback, ala Jimi Hendrix, for his sound, then shouldn't the sound man be sufficiently cooperative to help said guitar player? And I hope no one is comparing a power rock trio to a gospel band because it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

[HairyScaryMark]

I would say that 200-300 people making a lot of noise is usually too many to not use a full PA system.

 

There is a number of reasons why loud stage sound is generally a bad idea

 

This usually starts with a loud drummer, guitarists turns up amps to compensate. This means that nobody can hear the vocalist on stage so stage monitors are turned up to an extent where they are noticably loud, out front. As stage monitors point away from audience and towards the band, this causes the sound from them to be muffled when it reaches the audience.

 

Other instruments get added through monitors at loud volume levels and has the same problem as the vocals.

 

This causes the soundman to turn up the PA system, in an attempt to get a better sound and sometimes even compete with stage monitors. The first thing to suffer with this is vocal clarity for a number of reasons. The first being, loud stage sound is being picked up in the mic. The second is the stage monitors are being projected out front, even though they are pointing away. The muffled sound from them makes the vocalist sound worse out front.

 

Loud stage sound sometimes makes drum overhead mics practically unusualble. Luckily these are often not required in small venues as the high cymbal frequencies are not as heavily eaten by the human bodies in the audience and are picked up in vocal mics etc.

 

The best approach is to keep the sound no louder than necessary on stage and the soundman should be able to work with as near ideal cicrumstances as possible through the front of house PA system.

[stvcmty]

 

Shouldn't the soundman accommodate the act instead of vis versa?

 

 

Who pays the sound man?

 

If I am being paid by the band, I will do what they want as long as it doesn't cause problems with the people in charge of where the band is playing.

 

If I am being paid by the place where the band is playing, I will do what the person paying me thinks is best.

 

If I am not being paid, I will do what is best in my judgment to make the most people happy. Typically that means the audience.

 

---

 

How is this thread any different than the ported drum thread? Both seem to have the same theme. Person A wants it done their way, Person B wants it done their way. Person A is on the audience side. Person B is on the band side. If person B is performing for the audience, then Person B needs to listen to, or at least compromise with Person A.

 

stv

[tlbonehead]

Craig, so maybe I over reacted to tlbonehead, but why not criticize him for not being specific while demeaning my objectivity. I've personally played in countless gigs. Probably more two thousand over the past 40 years of gigging. My son has played scores of gigs in the last 4 years and I've been to hundreds of other concerts. Lastly, I've done scores of gigs where I was the soundman and have frequently been complemented by patrons and club owners on the sound I've delivered, in small clubs. This talk of people unwilling to compromise is interesting, I hope it isn't an insinuation that I'm unwilling to compromise. I'm talking about my experiences and observations and that I disagree that with the idea that a band necessarily must subject itself to the whims of a sound man and that such subjegation is necessarily superior. Personally, I think in a small venue, and I know this, because I've done this thousands of times and witnessed others do such, that players can modulate their own volume with suggestions from someone that advises them from in front of the stage. It's also my opinion that it sounds better than all the sound coming principally out of PA speakers. And I'm familiar with beaming guitar amps, having played with a guitarist that had that very problem, principally because he placed his amp behind his knees and couldn't hear himself properly. We solved that problem by having him put his guitar on a stand and face his side while we miced his amp. Just because he had that situation doesn't mean all guitar players must necessarily find the same solution. If players can find sufficient distance from their amps and place them appropriately, they shouldn't have that problem and can monitor and set their sound properly with some suggestions from someone in front. Also, I have observed that some amps beam more than others. If the guitar player uses acoustic feedback, ala Jimi Hendrix, for his sound, then shouldn't the sound man be sufficiently cooperative to help said guitar player? And I hope no one is comparing a power rock trio to a gospel band because it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

I don't think anyone is going to undress you on main street at sundown for having your own uniques ideas about what seems to work for you. I think the issue is that you get a little too wound up when no one else wants to jump on your bandwagon. That's all. BTW, I'm not that loud on stage and I can easily get my guitar to "take off" when I want it to. You don't have to be that loud. Oh ya, I've seen wanted guitar feedback activate a feedback eliminator on occasion.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Craig, so maybe I over reacted to tlbonehead, but why not criticize him for not being specific while demeaning my objectivity.

 

 

You've got to be kidding. *Maybe* you over-reacted?????

 

Regarding your objectivity; I can easily see how both Gary in NJ and tlb get the impression that you aren't willing to consider other opinions. Although the idea of putting the majority of sound through the PA is practiced routinely if not universally by professional production companies around the world, you seem fixed on the idea that this results in inferior sound.

 

Why have "someone" out in the audience make suggestions, when there's a guy paid to do this job, who has the ability to actually make the changes? And what about solos? The soundman, when included as an integral part of the production can adjust levels efficiently...certainly better than the soloist ever could from stage.

 

The point is that any band or soundman can suck. But given talented individuals, a good band with a good sound person running a good system can always outperform a good band working sound from the stage. I've seen it done over and over, both ways, over a lot of years. I'm also not saying a good band can't do well...I'm saying they can do *better* with the help of a good sound person and some cooperation all around.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

If the guitar player uses acoustic feedback, ala Jimi Hendrix, for his sound, then shouldn't the sound man be sufficiently cooperative to help said guitar player? And I hope no one is comparing a power rock trio to a gospel band because it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

Yup, he should. That would mean raising the speaker cabs to the guitar's level, and working amp and FOH levels to allow the relatively short amount of time the guitar is in feedback to occur without hosing the rest of the mix. It doesn't require gobs of stage volume with most guitars, but that does depend on the individual guitar, amp and player.

 

At any rate, this should not become the primary focus of the production unless for whatever reason it's the primary focus of the entire band and the show.

[alcohol]

Just because the majority of people do something a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way.

 

I do think that sound coming directly from the stage sounds better. I think it has more depth, hearing sound come directly from different locations from the stage is a better sound for me than being reproduced from microphones and then through PA speakers. I don't have an investment in believing otherwise. It's my observation for getting the best sound possible.

 

Solos? We've tackled this problem. The amplifier we use has a pedal that switches preamps to a preamp set louder for solos. During sound check we make sure these levels are ok, and if not, because the venue is small, I can communicate to the performers what to change. This is a commonplace tactic for most musicans playing live that don't use a sound man, someone goes out and checks the sound while they are playing or has a wireless guitar.

 

Also, I think most sound men have damaged ears. Usually, most venues where the band is offensively loud and the higher frequencies are cutting through the eardrums like knives, are places where there is the "professional" soundman.

 

And I agree, that using acoustic feedback doesn't require gobs of sound from the stage. What I have a conflict with is a soundman that insists that he must necessarily dictate what the level of the instruments should be to the detriment of the guitar players tone.

[tlbonehead]

Just because the majority of people do something a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way. I do think that sound coming directly from the stage sounds better. I think it has more depth, hearing sound come directly from different locations from the stage is a better sound for me than being reproduced from microphones and then through PA speakers. I don't have an investment in believing otherwise. It's my observation for getting the best sound possible. Solos? We've tackled this problem. The amplifier we use has a pedal that switches preamps to a preamp set louder for solos. During sound check we make sure these levels are ok, and if not, because the venue is small, I can communicate to the performers what to change. This is a commonplace tactic for most musicans playing live that don't use a sound man, someone goes out and checks the sound while they are playing or has a wireless guitar. Also, I think most sound men have damaged ears. Usually, most venues where the band is offensively loud and the higher frequencies are cutting through the eardrums like knives, are places where there is the "professional" soundman. And I agree, that using acoustic feedback doesn't require gobs of sound from the stage. What I have a conflict with is a soundman that insists that he must necessarily dictate what the level of the instruments should be to the detriment of the guitar players tone.

So, what's the prroblem? You think that's the best way to do things and I assume you'll keep doing them that way. That's your right. Just don't feel bad when others keep doing things in a manner that works best for them.

[agedhorse]

What I have a conflict with is a soundman that insists that he must necessarily dictate what the level of the instruments should be to the detriment of the guitar players tone.

 

Again, IMO you are missing the big picture. The world doesn't revolve around the guitar player (with a few notable exceptions way above your band's level of course) but around the band as a whole. The guitar player's personal "tone" is virtually a trivial part of the entire band's concept. If his "tone" and volume cause folks to cringe, not be able to hear the vocals or cringe even more when the vocals do actually get over the guitar, if it gets in the way of the bass or the drums, it's no longer a band but rather a guitar player playing with a couple of dudes making noise in the background.

 

If you are happy with what you are doing, keep on doing it. Ignore the rest of the pro world because obviously they haven't made it to your level yet.

[rhat]

And the issue isn't about {censored} bands. It's about potentially good bands that sound like ass because one or more members are selfish.

 

I agree with what you say ,, but in reality it is about {censored} bands. If bands dont know how to plug their instruments into their amps and come up with a decent blend of those instruments and get the vocals on top of the mix so you can hear them,, you are dealing with a {censored} band. This is basic stuff that should be learned before a band ever leaves the basement. You can have a 20 thousand dollar PA ,, and if the guys dont have the basic skills on how to just play it raw.... a soundman and big board isnt going to solve their problem. I think way too many people think that mixer board and PA set up is some kind of magic bullet. If a band cant sound good on their own,,,, using their own abilities ......a big PA and mics isnt going to fix the problem. Every one these days thinks they are a rock star and playing some big stadium gig, when in reality they are playing some bar room. Monitors are great to help hear the vocals ,, thats a big improvment over the old days.... the mics and stuff ,,, unless its a big outdoor show or a huge room, I question if you even need to mic the amps even with smaller equipment for a club gig. rat

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Just because the majority of people do something a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way.

 

 

And you wonder why people question your objectivity.

 

 

 

There's nothing in the rest of your post that can't be handled better, faster, and easier with a good sound man. Sorry, but by the time you tell the guitarist his solo wasn't loud enough, the solo and the song are over. Well, better luck next song. Unfortunately, for pros this doesn't cut it. And as Andy wrote, it doesn't account for volume creep, which will gurantee you're always telling the guy to adjust....one song too late.

 

Your generalization about most sound people having damaged ears is baseless. Or have you conducted hearing tests on your sound men?

[congaron]

My son played recently at a coffee house. His "rig" was a john lennon epiphone guitar, a vocal mic, a small mixer and a keyboard amp. He had my friend Lee play a second acoustic and sing some background vocals...so 2 mics, two guitars, and one keyboard amp. The mixer was simply because the amp only had one mic input. His sound was amplified enough to cleanly fill the room, while sounding like two guys playing acoustic guitars and singing....nothing else. Not very loud, not highly processed, just good music....and very simply done sound reinforcement. This is what we're after as a band as well, and our recurring stage volume discussion does result in changes...it's just pretty hard when mixing from the stage. That's why we use an audience member with a spl meter and a firm idea of our sound (bass player's wife...who will even ask for less bass when required). She will even poll some of the adult working audience members on vocal clarity to make sure the words are understandable to someone who doesn't know the words.

 

From my experience mixing us on the stage, I want a sound guy or gal as soon as possible. It's very, very difficult and distracting for me to keep the mix right while playing in the band. During guitar solos (both guys take thier turn, as does the bass player), or the drummer singing lead vocal on one song, or even during a percussion heavy breakdown I rely heavily on Tia for input from the audience, since I have no idea what it sounds like after the sound check as bodies fill the place and people start dancing around....even singing. We are getting the return engagements, but are already working toward having Tia take over FOH sound duty when she's ready.

A little humble pie goes great with a good concert.

 

God bless!

 

-Ron

[agedhorse]

When she is ready is a good approach, no need to throw her to the alligators before she's ready.

[jbutler1982]

I agree with conragon here. I mix from the stage and I dont like it. I dont like to charge for playing (

 

The guitarist in our band is fantastic; the guy used to regularly sit in with the Meters, and has played with a few known entities. Now, hes kinda more relaxed but a more perfection-oriented guitarist you will not find. And he plays with his Fender Twin in between 1 and 2 (it carries the stage barely, he goes on the right and we need a little juice in the left stage monitors) and owns his own guitar amp mic (Sennhieser 609 i think) that he sets up himself, and he manages his own mixer strip. Maybe if the guitarists in your band became a bit more PA savvy, they could do this? (i.e. if those guitarists realized what a PA does and what it is made for, and took an interest in how it works, they could get their sound via the PA... and the soundman would just work on volume?) Could this work? Also, if they have any aspirations of playing bigger and better places, what are they going to do? By the time they're playing 1000 person outdoor festivals (not even that big a gig!) they'll be using 4 or 5 Marshall cabs! How is that going to work?

 

I also dont understand the amp-guitar interaction sound not working with the PA thing. Not trying to be argumentative, I just dont get it. The sound comes out the amplifier speaker or cab. You put a SM57 in front of the cab. How does the SM57 not pick up what the guitarist is doing? How is the guitarist making noise that the SM57 is missing?

 

Just a clarification so it doesnt sound like "MY BAND IS THE BEST"; he plays with us because we're all friends outside of music, none of the rest of us are nearly as good! But yeah, he takes over his own PA stuff and plays with his amp really quiet on stage and he sounds absolutely fantastic ('72 telecaster into a fender twin) and is obsessed with his "tone" and he never plays loud out of his amp at all.

[rhat]

 

I agree with conragon here. I mix from the stage and I dont like it. I dont like to charge for playing ( The guitarist in our band is fantastic; the guy used to regularly sit in with the Meters, and has played with a few known entities. Now, hes kinda more relaxed but a more perfection-oriented guitarist you will not find. And he plays with his Fender Twin in between 1 and 2 (it carries the stage barely, he goes on the right and we need a little juice in the left stage monitors) and owns his own guitar amp mic (Sennhieser 609 i think) that he sets up himself, and he manages his own mixer strip. Maybe if the guitarists in your band became a bit more PA savvy, they could do this? (i.e. if those guitarists realized what a PA does and what it is made for, and took an interest in how it works, they could get their sound via the PA... and the soundman would just work on volume?) Could this work? Also, if they have any aspirations of playing bigger and better places, what are they going to do? By the time they're playing 1000 person outdoor festivals (not even that big a gig!) they'll be using 4 or 5 Marshall cabs! How is that going to work? I also dont understand the amp-guitar interaction sound not working with the PA thing. Not trying to be argumentative, I just dont get it. The sound comes out the amplifier speaker or cab. You put a SM57 in front of the cab. How does the SM57 not pick up what the guitarist is doing? How is the guitarist making noise that the SM57 is missing? Just a clarification so it doesnt sound like "MY BAND IS THE BEST"; he plays with us because we're all friends outside of music, none of the rest of us are nearly as good! But yeah, he takes over his own PA stuff and plays with his amp really quiet on stage and he sounds absolutely fantastic ('72 telecaster into a fender twin) and is obsessed with his "tone" and he never plays loud out of his amp at all.

 

 

 

I would guess he could also just take that twin without the SM57 and sound great too and sit perfect in the mix at a bar gig. The guy knows what he is doing and i am sure knows more than one way to get the job done. There is nothing wrong with all the great tools ,, but you have to learn to use the basic ones before you can expect to use the exotic ones and be effective. rat

[tlbonehead]

I would guess he could also just take that twin without the SM57 and sound great too and sit perfect in the mix at a bar gig. The guy knows what he is doing and i am sure knows more than one way to get the job done. There is nothing wrong with all the great tools ,, but you have to learn to use the basic ones before you can expect to use the exotic ones and be effective. rat

Well, an open-back combo like a Twin does disperse sound all over the place, including where you might not want it. And in order to cary the room with the proper mix of guitar tones, you are still going to have to be louder than piss onstage. That's one of the things we are trying to avoid, I believe.

[agedhorse]

 

Well, an open-back combo like a Twin does disperse sound all over the place, including where you might not want it. And in order to cary the room with the proper mix of guitar tones, you are still going to have to be louder than piss onstage. That's one of the things we are trying to avoid, I believe.

 

 

Depends on how loud is loud enough.

[rhat]

 

Well, an open-back combo like a Twin does disperse sound all over the place, including where you might not want it. And in order to cary the room with the proper mix of guitar tones, you are still going to have to be louder than piss onstage. That's one of the things we are trying to avoid, I believe.

 

 

Hmm I question that....I have seen guitar players play some pretty big rooms caveman style with just a super reverb or a twin or a bassman. The guitar doesnt have to carry the whole room ,, the band does. The majority of bands that i hear that suck ,, either are making mush through the miced amps or are just too freeking loud for the people who are in the venue. You dont have to dime a twin to play a bar.....caveman style. Good bands can sound good at a reasonable volume.....you dont need major league PA support to get the job done in a bar gig....can you use PA support and sound good ,, sure ,, but chances are those same guys would sound as good without it..... rat

[DaBender]

There seems to be an assumption here that if you're not micing the amps, the stage volume must be really loud in order to "carry the room". That's not true for my style of music - electric blues, and the size of the rooms we play - 100 people or less. I often do the gig with my 15 watt Fender Pro Junior - unmiced!

[HairyScaryMark]

 

the size of the rooms we play - 100 people or less.

 

 

And that's how you manage.

[DaBender]

Re-reading the original post, he's talking about rooms up to 300 people, that's pretty large. I agree with the majority, I'd be micing the amps for that. 100 people rooms are another story.