What are some ways to improve the "value" of your band?

[IsildursBane]

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

But they're designed to do that. My new keyboard amplification set up is a direct line into an EV bi-amped 15"/horn active speaker.

They may be designed to do that, but offloading the LF to the subs opens up a considerable amount of headroom for the mains speakers to reproduce everything else.

-Dan.

[SeniorBlues]

Originally Posted by IsildursBane

They may be designed to do that, but offloading the LF to the subs opens up a considerable amount of headroom for the mains speakers to reproduce everything else.

-Dan.

If by "everything else" you mean other DI instruments, then yes, I can see the benefits if those instruments produce low frequencies. If it's just vocals, then the frequencies that are getting amplified fall into a pretty narrow range - certainly well above what the crossover would be.

I get the feeling that some of you can't imagine ANYONE listening to ANY band playing ANY style of music in ANY room and enjoying the experience.

[SpaceNorman]

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

If by "everything else" you mean other DI instruments, then yes, I can see the benefits if those instruments produce low frequencies. If it's just vocals, then the frequencies that are getting amplified fall into a pretty narrow range - certainly well above what the crossover would be.

As this Frequency Chart shows - there are quite a few sound sources on the typical bar band stage that produce sound in the frequency range handled by the subs (assuming a crossover point of 100 Hz.)

Just an observation, but I'm stuggling to understand why anybody would try to make a case against using subs from purely a sound quality perspective. A properly tuned system that includes quality subs and mains is a far more capable sound and flexible sound reinforcement solution than a system that simply uses "full range cabinets".

I can understand the argument about subs being "overkill" in small rooms (i.e., we can get by without 'em). I can understand debating whether the improvement in sound is worth the cost to purchase them and the effort to deploy them. However, trying to argue that subs don't bring benefit to the typical bar band's sound seems pretty osterrich-like to me.

Subs may not be the best use of time and resources in terms of addressing the OP's issues - however, trying to argue that subs won't improve the capabilities of their PA simply doesn't hold water.

[modulusman]

 

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

I'm thirteen years older than you. I played full time when I was young. I played a different style of music, both then and now. Most importantly, we're playing in different circuits. Whether or not you have other interests that you've pursued during your adult life does not change those relevant facts.

 

The relevant facts are that almost everyone in this thread disagrees with you.

[SeniorBlues]

Originally Posted by SpaceNorman

I can understand the argument about subs being "overkill" in small rooms (i.e., we can get by without 'em). I can understand debating whether the improvement in sound is worth the cost to purchase them and the effort to deploy them. However, trying to argue that subs don't bring benefit to the typical bar band's sound seems pretty osterrich-like to me.

My arguments have focused on your first two points. Your third point is really just a variation on the second, and I addressed it in the post you quoted. I never claimed that subs have no benefit to a band running everything through a PA.

Done . . . .

[SeniorBlues]

Originally Posted by SpaceNorman

I can understand the argument about subs being "overkill" in small rooms (i.e., we can get by without 'em). I can understand debating whether the improvement in sound is worth the cost to purchase them and the effort to deploy them. However, trying to argue that subs don't bring benefit to the typical bar band's sound seems pretty osterrich-like to me.

My arguments have focused on your first two points. Your third point is really just a variation on the second, and I addressed it in the post you quoted. I never claimed that subs have no benefit to a band running everything through a PA.

Done . . . .

[Lee Knight]

Awesome thread!

[Lee Knight]

Awesome thread!

[StratGuy22]

Love the subs.

Makes for a fuller sound, no matter what size the room

My mixer does have a main volume, it doesn't have to be nutted. Better to have more than I need, than having less than I want.

[StratGuy22]

Love the subs.

Makes for a fuller sound, no matter what size the room

My mixer does have a main volume, it doesn't have to be nutted. Better to have more than I need, than having less than I want.

[Lee Knight]

Q: What are some ways to improve the "value" of your band?

A: Subs

[Lee Knight]

Q: What are some ways to improve the "value" of your band?

A: Subs

[nchangin]

Originally Posted by Lee Knight

Q: What are some ways to improve the "value" of your band?

A: Subs

Glad we got that straight!

[nchangin]

Originally Posted by Lee Knight

Q: What are some ways to improve the "value" of your band?

A: Subs

Glad we got that straight!

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

Talking level?! Please. Are you really too young to remember when kick ass bands used PAs for vocals only? A lot of them still do.

 

I do. And most of their kick drums sounded like Ringo's on the early Beatles albums. i.e. virtually non-existant. It doesn't take much in the way of bass guitar volume to drown out an un-mic'd kick. Even at the most low-level gigs I've played the kick drum ALWAYS got mic'd, even if nothing else but vocals went through the PA. And once you're putting the kick through, it's gonna sound better through a PA with speakers best designed to handle those ~80-120 hz frequencies that the kick drum lives at.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by SeniorBlues

Talking level?! Please. Are you really too young to remember when kick ass bands used PAs for vocals only? A lot of them still do.

 

I do. And most of their kick drums sounded like Ringo's on the early Beatles albums. i.e. virtually non-existant. It doesn't take much in the way of bass guitar volume to drown out an un-mic'd kick. Even at the most low-level gigs I've played the kick drum ALWAYS got mic'd, even if nothing else but vocals went through the PA. And once you're putting the kick through, it's gonna sound better through a PA with speakers best designed to handle those ~80-120 hz frequencies that the kick drum lives at.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

its all of it.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

its all of it.

 

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

the best way to increase the value of a band is by really working on multiple part harmony vocals. It will do more for the bottom line than any gear purchase.

Nailed it.

It was an issue with the first country band I joined in Seattle about a decade ago. Then, when I put together a "modern pop" band with two of my daughters the background vocals were our most important asset. Playing with an all amateur band in our very first gig at Big Daddy's in Woodinville (I was the only member that had ever gigged before with the exception of one of the girls doing a couple of gigs as a backup singer), the leader of another band gave me a business card and said they would love to be our opening act at any future gigs.

And I've carried it forward to my band in the Louisville area that I joined a few months ago. And not only does the band sound MUCH better than they did, they are having a lot more fun.

But here is why so few bands bother to do it right: It's really, REALLY hard to do it well. It takes a lot of work and "fun jam practices" are not how you do it. But it's all about managing expectations.

If an existing band spent not one dime for additional equipment but worked HARD to get the background vocals down, they would be shocked at the crowd reaction. Frankly, there are not really very many vocally good bands out there. Peopl really enjoy "skilled" musicianship. And that doesn't mean "good guitar solos". Those are a dime a dozon.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

the best way to increase the value of a band is by really working on multiple part harmony vocals. It will do more for the bottom line than any gear purchase.

Nailed it.

It was an issue with the first country band I joined in Seattle about a decade ago. Then, when I put together a "modern pop" band with two of my daughters the background vocals were our most important asset. Playing with an all amateur band in our very first gig at Big Daddy's in Woodinville (I was the only member that had ever gigged before with the exception of one of the girls doing a couple of gigs as a backup singer), the leader of another band gave me a business card and said they would love to be our opening act at any future gigs.

And I've carried it forward to my band in the Louisville area that I joined a few months ago. And not only does the band sound MUCH better than they did, they are having a lot more fun.

But here is why so few bands bother to do it right: It's really, REALLY hard to do it well. It takes a lot of work and "fun jam practices" are not how you do it. But it's all about managing expectations.

If an existing band spent not one dime for additional equipment but worked HARD to get the background vocals down, they would be shocked at the crowd reaction. Frankly, there are not really very many vocally good bands out there. Peopl really enjoy "skilled" musicianship. And that doesn't mean "good guitar solos". Those are a dime a dozon.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

true in many cases, but much of the listed genre had little for extravagant harmonies. But proper singing for the genre is definitely up there.

My wife got two CD's from a band that played at our church a few months ago. The first was terrible and the second was really great.

The guys are absolutely pro on both disks and the lead singer is incredible. The only real difference between the two CD's is that the first one had absolutely NO backing vocals. Every single song was a good band backing up a solo singer. It was boring. The second had them all over the place and it was like a different - and much better - band. Heck, even the old Elvis stuff had those guys throwing in those corny two or three part backing lyrics. It just adds interest.

You aren't going to use it much on songs like Born to be Wild, but there is plenty of opportunity to do it. And it is amazing what it does for crowd response. I've witnessed it first hand. Your band goes up a few notches in everybody's heads so that even Born to be Wild, with no backing vocals, seems to sound better.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by tlbonehead

true in many cases, but much of the listed genre had little for extravagant harmonies. But proper singing for the genre is definitely up there.

My wife got two CD's from a band that played at our church a few months ago. The first was terrible and the second was really great.

The guys are absolutely pro on both disks and the lead singer is incredible. The only real difference between the two CD's is that the first one had absolutely NO backing vocals. Every single song was a good band backing up a solo singer. It was boring. The second had them all over the place and it was like a different - and much better - band. Heck, even the old Elvis stuff had those guys throwing in those corny two or three part backing lyrics. It just adds interest.

You aren't going to use it much on songs like Born to be Wild, but there is plenty of opportunity to do it. And it is amazing what it does for crowd response. I've witnessed it first hand. Your band goes up a few notches in everybody's heads so that even Born to be Wild, with no backing vocals, seems to sound better.

[Lee Knight]

Nothing against subs but...

Let's say I was working behind the counter of a cool guitar shop. I young player comes in and says, "I'd like to look at delay pedals." Sure. Then I grab a couple and start with a EH Memory Man. The young player plugs in and... he can't play in tune, the distortion from the amp is mismanaged by the player. His tone is whack because of zero right hand technique... and he says, "Hmmmm, let me try the Boss, I think that's the one that Jack White uses." The same god awful sound comes out of the amp. There is no discernible difference between pedals in this scenario. The young guitarist smiles and says, "Ahhhh, that's the sound. Yeah, that cool White Stripes thing. Which one do you like better for my sound?"

Ummmm. Guitar lessons? For your sound?

BTW, I'm not suggesting the OP is like this kid. His band showed a lot of promise. But, subs? Fine, get subs. Yes, it's all important. The thing is, it so easy to get distracted from what matters. Delay pedals and subs and LED lighting. They're all great. All good stuff.

[Lee Knight]

Nothing against subs but...

Let's say I was working behind the counter of a cool guitar shop. I young player comes in and says, "I'd like to look at delay pedals." Sure. Then I grab a couple and start with a EH Memory Man. The young player plugs in and... he can't play in tune, the distortion from the amp is mismanaged by the player. His tone is whack because of zero right hand technique... and he says, "Hmmmm, let me try the Boss, I think that's the one that Jack White uses." The same god awful sound comes out of the amp. There is no discernible difference between pedals in this scenario. The young guitarist smiles and says, "Ahhhh, that's the sound. Yeah, that cool White Stripes thing. Which one do you like better for my sound?"

Ummmm. Guitar lessons? For your sound?

BTW, I'm not suggesting the OP is like this kid. His band showed a lot of promise. But, subs? Fine, get subs. Yes, it's all important. The thing is, it so easy to get distracted from what matters. Delay pedals and subs and LED lighting. They're all great. All good stuff.

[tim_7string]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

My wife got two CD's from a band that played at our church a few months ago. The first was terrible and the second was really great.

The guys are absolutely pro on both disks and the lead singer is incredible. The only real difference between the two CD's is that the first one had absolutely NO backing vocals. Every single song was a good band backing up a solo singer. It was boring. The second had them all over the place and it was like a different - and much better - band. Heck, even the old Elvis stuff had those guys throwing in those corny two or three part backing lyrics. It just adds interest.

You aren't going to use it much on songs like Born to be Wild, but there is plenty of opportunity to do it. And it is amazing what it does for crowd response. I've witnessed it first hand. Your band goes up a few notches in everybody's heads so that even Born to be Wild, with no backing vocals, seems to sound better.

As a three-piece with a non-harmony singing drummer (he does a bit of minimal backing lines but not really 'harmony'), I knew it was important for us to have a bass player that could easily sing harmony. Otherwise, the alternative was for me to use a vocal harmonizer. Going without vocal harmonies for four hours with only my lead vocal? Um, no thanks. Even *I* wouldn't want to hear that all night!

A relative of one of my cousins has a band. He is the leader, but he is the lead guitarist off to the side. He does sing a majority of the songs, but his nephew is in the middle, singing and playing rhythm. Why not just go three-piece? Because the drummer doesn't sing at all and the bassist only sings lead on a couple of tunes (zero harmony). He needs the nephew to sing harmony when he is singing lead (and does likewise for the nephew on his songs).

If I absolutely could not find any bass players that could sing harmony, it would force our band to add a fourth member just for those harmony vocals. Whether they played great guitar or keys or anything would be irrelevant. It's just something I *have* to have in a band and from the reaction of audiences I have played for, they feel the same way.