terrible live sound
Posted by: Stephen Bennett on 24 October 2001
While attempting to listen to Elbow last night at the waterfront, here in Norwich, it struck me just how little the quality of live sound of bands has improved over the years, if at all. The band performed wonderfully, yet you couldnt hear the vocals, guitars were a distortion, keyboards inaudible, bass boomy and drums indistinct. I know the waterfront is probably the worst room on earth, but this scenerio is so common in my experience. Most sound live is built up from the bass drum first, with vocals coming on last, whereas a friend always does it the otherway round - this definitly improves intelligability.
But generally, Pink Floyd in 1972 sounded better than Elbow in 2001. The PA should be better. All those racks of compressors & gates, 48 channel desk, microphones - yet the sound was crap. Seemed a waste of time & effort really.
Comments? Is it the equipment? Or the mixers knowing the band too well? I once saw a band whose vocals I couldn't hear, but I could hear the engineer singing the words along with the apparantly miming singer.
Anyhow, makes a mockery of the idea of people wanting a hi-fi to 'sound like a live gig'.
That'd be bloody awful. However this is how to do it.
Burn 50 packs of fags.
Turn down the lights
Put the CD on full blast on a cheap hifi
Block up all ventilation
Turn on Coronation street
Add a girl with irritating voice shouting without pause at a man for 40 minutes.
Instant 'at a gig' feel
Stephen
Posted on: 24 October 2001 by Tony L
quote:
While attempting to listen to Elbow last night at the waterfront, here in Norwich, it struck me just how little the quality of live sound of bands has improved over the years, if at all. The band performed wonderfully, yet you couldnt hear the vocals, guitars were a distortion, keyboards inaudible, bass boomy and drums indistinct.
My guess is that most of the blame should be firmly pointed at the sound engineer. I live in Liverpool, and over the past 10 years or so the standard of live sound has improved beyond all recognition. The reason? My guess is that its LIPA (Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts) churning out competent sound engineers into the local community so the local venues finally have plenty of choice of people who can actually do the job.
Years back when I was actually doing this kind of thing (I played bass / keyboards in a band) the standard of live sound one could expect was absolute crap, I often demanded to set the basic sound up myself as the house engineer in smaller venues often did not appear to understand his own equipment or have a basic grasp of mic technique. Another failing of many engineers is to run stuff far to loud, that really winds me up.
Thankfully, at least in this neck of the woods the quality has improved massively, though when I lived down in London a few years ago I was appalled by how poor the sound was at some venues such as the ICA. I often stood right at the front there to avoid the PA and just hear the backline.
Tony.
Posted on: 24 October 2001 by Stephen Bennett
..it must have improved since I left then
It's true - I do suspect the engineers - the waterfront house engineer is affectionately known as 'deaf' Jeff
Stephen
Posted on: 24 October 2001 by von zipper
I've been fortunate enough to have just seen The Pretty Things & The Soft Boys together at the Royal Festival Hall and the sound quality was superb-you could identify each individual instrument & where they were on stage from the sound alone.It's all dependent on the venue-although the RFH was sonically superb, The Soft Boys set was overwhelmed by the size of the venue-If they had played somewhere smaller(The Garage perhaps)it would have been a far better gig.It's always a trade off-sometimes a better sound doesn't always guarantee a better 'live' performance - it's variable depending on the music AND the venue.I recently saw Brubeck at the Barbican and sonically it was marvellous, but I would rather have suffered a poorer quality sound in a more intimate venue.It's always a variable.
Posted on: 24 October 2001 by Pete
One reason I tend to go to classical and jazz far more than rock gigs these days is the quality of sound. Classical you tend not to have PA, but jazz gigs often do, and it's often done much, much better than at rock setups. The only reason I can really pin it down to is the engineers for jazz gigs tend to take far more care and realise there are volumes for PAs possible other than "maximum". This includes gigs using lots of electronics in accoustic sinkholes (like Nils Petter Molvaer at Glasgow Fruitmarket).
There are other reasons, like I won't get my face smoked into, beer spilled all over me and tossers shouting out the names of songs all through the show. "Well, our playlist and rehearsals suggest we were going to do XYZ next, but since someone at the back just shouted out the name of a song we haven't played for 5 years and probably can't even remember the chords to it right now, we'll do that instead!" Odd that that doesn't happen more often really (not).
Pete.
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by von zipper
quote:
Originally posted by Declan:
I have always found rock gigs to be disappointing because the PA is no good. Very often I suspect it is deliberately distorted to disguise the bands lack of skill and musicianship. Also the constant whooping and whistling is a real pain.
Declan, I can't help but think that if the constant whooping & whistling is a real pain for you, then maybe you shouldn't be at a rock gig anyway - it's all part of the atmosphere of a live performance.
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by richard goldsmith
I went to see Steve Earle at a large indoor venue, and the sound was without doubt the worst I have ever heard in my life. I've heard much better results from the same venue, so can't blame the room. I was at the back of the gig. The bass was resonating like 5000 subwoofers in some clown's car, and the balance was just pure crap. Top end was harsh, sibilant and JUST ORFULL. I went down to the mixing desk, assuming that I would find a "sweet spot". No luck, just the same sound and the inane expression of a troglodyte "engineer". Obviously his brains and ears had blown out from years on the road. By way of contrast, Emmylou Harris and Buddy Miller at the Byron Bay festival was sound to die for (ie good, sublime).
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
The band performed wonderfully - How could you tell?
Good question. Years of being on the other side of the fence I guess!
Stephen
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by von zipper:
Declan, I can't help but think that if the constant whooping & whistling is a real pain for you, then maybe you shouldn't be at a rock gig anyway - it's all part of the atmosphere of a live performance.
Well, there's calling out that's appropriate and calling out that's pointless. Reading Pat Mastelotto's road diaries he related an incident where a "fan" spent an entire show shouting out "What about John Wetton?" (bassist who hadn't played with Crimson for over 20 years). As Pat wondered, "Well, what about him?". This is the sort of "atmosphere" most of us can do without.
Sometimes the most electric atmospheres are created where you can hear a pin drop: if the band want to get something subtle over, possibly including silence, why feel it has to be added to by shouting out inanities?
Jazz audiences are more than happy to whoop and cheer at individual solos within a piece, yet they're usually far more respectful of the band than a typical rock audience. That doesn't detract from the atmosphere though, and often adds to the intimacy of a performance.
Pete.
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by von zipper
What ROCK gig was that?
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by von zipper
Pete-Not sure I'm in total agreement about the crowds at Jazz gigs - more than once I've had to tell a neighbouring table/group to shut up because they are trying to drown out the music with their incessant chatter- which I consider even more disturbing and ignorant than whistling etc.
I do agree that some people can be truly annoying at gigs though-there is a difference between applauding a song's start or finish and just being plain disruptive for no reason.I have a classic recording of Eric Burdon & the Animals live in Sydney where, during a particularily slow and emotional blues number, one particular female fan was shreiking 'EEEERRRRIIIICCC' constantly until Burdon snapped and screamed 'Lady,Will you shut the F**k up!' thus gagging her.Timeless!
Posted on: 25 October 2001 by Top Cat
Anyone seeking to recreate the 'live experience' should look at Cerwin Vega rather than decent speakers, etc. Bose might do. Crapper the better. Turn it up loud, until it distorts and sounds like it's about to self-destruct.
Me? Well, I've never heard an amplified gig even come remotely close to the quality of sound I can get with my hifi. It eclipses them all. Live acoustic is another matter, e.g. symphony, concerto, acoustic jazz, but amplified always sucks...
John
Posted on: 26 October 2001 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by von zipper:
Pete-Not sure I'm in total agreement about the crowds at Jazz gigs - more than once I've had to tell a neighbouring table/group to shut up because they are trying to drown out the music with their incessant chatter-
Ah, note I did say "usually". In the Chet Baker biog movie "Let's Get Lost" there's a sequence where he moans about the disrespect increasingly found in audiences.
On which subject, at a recent California Guitar Trio gig CGTer Paul Richards reported in his online diary: 'One of the only drawbacks during the evening was a woman bartender chatting on the phone during most of the show. Bruce told me that he overheard her saying: "I can't really tell what kind of music they are playing and they don't even have a singer!"'. If it's a nicer experience for the artist, you'll probably get a better gig. Plenty of times where sheer energy output from the audience is good, but others where it isn't.
And with the Burdon tale you've answered your question about subtlety at a rock gig...
Pete.
Posted on: 26 October 2001 by Pete
quote:
Originally posted by John Clark:
Me? Well, I've never heard an amplified gig even come remotely close to the quality of sound I can get with my hifi. It eclipses them all. Live acoustic is another matter, e.g. symphony, concerto, acoustic jazz, but amplified always sucks...
Since you're in Embra, next time Mr. McFall's Chamber are playing the Queen's Hall go along and listen in. I think you'll be wanting to reassess your feelings.
McFall's web page
Pete.
Posted on: 26 October 2001 by John C
I quite like live records with crowd noise on them though. A great example is Miles Davis Plugged Nickel where the crowd noise really adds to the sense of being there. One particularly boorish patron heeps haranging the bass player.
Ronnie Scotts is a disaster for crowd noise. Whats Henry's in Edinburgh like? One of the problems with the Southbank venues is their lack of atmosphere and the engineers never seem to get the sound right.Maybe they are so used to classical music there? They are also so sterile that they don't really suit rock or jazz in my opinion. The real problem is that we are so short of venues these days.
Johne
Posted on: 26 October 2001 by von zipper
You got me there Pete...
Posted on: 26 October 2001 by bob atherton
It could easily be the venue acoustics that are the main problem. About 6 weeks ago I saw a band at the Bristol Blues Club.
They really were fantastic. Good band, set choice & sound. About 4 weeks later I noticed the same band were playing at The Old Duke. Same band, set, PA but the sound was atrocious so we left after
the set break.
Had anyone caught them at the 2nd gig you would have had a pint, listened & probably walked away. At the first gig they were spellbinding.
Bob.
