(Log in to disable ads.)

a band called One Crown played at a church around my area tonight and while their music was totally awesome, they had some problems with their sound system, namely, there was a hum, like really deep hum, then there was some heavy feedback now and then, and finally alot of the time i couldnt hear the lead singer very clearly...

So, im not complaining, i had a great time, i just want to find out from you guys,

How does a band find that place where they sound great live as well as in the studio, i mean, things can always go wrong in a live setting, but how and what technology do we have at our disposal that could possibly overcome these sorta sound glitches?

hope you understood that if you got this far :-[
    The most important bit of "tech" is a good sound guy. ? A good guy who can get the most out of a system is invaluable. Someone who knows which ground lift switches to hit and how to EQ to get more gain before feedback.

    Otherwise, there are lots of "tools" available to tackle any problem (at least for those who know how to use them): gates, compressors, EQs, power conditioners, feedback eliminators, etc..
      ah, you know, now that you say that, it seemed like the bassist was doing the sound, he kept fiddling with the sound system which was right next to him, some other guy walked on stage and did something to the system too...i think youre right though, a good sound guy is key
        I hate doing sound from onstage - you don't have any idea of what it really sounds like FOH. Also, both playing and doing the sound require the use of your hands.
          You can't DO the sound and MAKE the sound at the same time, not live...not in a Rock band anyway....
            yeah, i do sound at our church, our sound desk is right at the back, and when i occasionally play up the stage, it sounds completely different to what it does at the back...
            so i have no idea why they had the sound on stage...logically it doesnt make any sense, if you plan on pleasing the audience that is
              mity88 wrote: yeah, i do sound at our church, our sound desk is right at the back, and when i occasionally play up the stage, it sounds completely different to what it does at the back...
              so i have no idea why they had the sound on stage...logically it doesnt make any sense, if you plan on pleasing the audience that is
              And at the end of the day pleasing the audience is, quite frankly, all that matters...live anyway...
                Hammeron wrote: And at the end of the day pleasing the audience is, quite frankly, all that matters...live anyway...
                +1
                  5 days later
                  I'm yet to find a venue with sound that impressed me, but as Alan said, 'good sound guy'. Besides theater performances, the best sound I've heard personally was Gavin Eckhart mixing a now defunct prog band called 'Albino Beach' at the Bohemian about 2 years ago. And please note, a guy who owns a PA is not a sound engineer.
                    Averatu wrote: And please note, a guy who owns a PA is not a sound engineer.
                    Well said
                      Averatu wrote: I'm yet to find a venue with sound that impressed me, but as Alan said, 'good sound guy'. Besides theater performances, the best sound I've heard personally was Gavin Eckhart mixing a now defunct prog band called 'Albino Beach' at the Bohemian about 2 years ago. And please note, a guy who owns a PA is not a sound engineer.
                      A guy, or gal for that matter, who owns a PA is not necessarily a sound engineer.
                        Hammeron wrote:
                        mity88 wrote: yeah, i do sound at our church, our sound desk is right at the back, and when i occasionally play up the stage, it sounds completely different to what it does at the back...
                        so i have no idea why they had the sound on stage...logically it doesnt make any sense, if you plan on pleasing the audience that is
                        And at the end of the day pleasing the audience is, quite frankly, all that matters...live anyway...
                        Well I'd hope that the artist would leave some room for pleasing themselves, with being satisfied that they did a good job, that they were staying true to their vision, that they made a maximum effort, that they were pleased with their playing and so on.

                        The two aren't the same, as the Beatles realised in the early 60s. They could play really badly and the crowd would scream and holler and faint etc etc anyway.
                          X-rated Bob wrote:
                          Well I'd hope that the artist would leave some room for pleasing themselves, with being satisfied that they did a good job, that they were staying true to their vision, that they made a maximum effort, that they were pleased with their playing and so on.

                          The two aren't the same, as the Beatles realised in the early 60s. They could play really badly and the crowd would scream and holler and faint etc etc anyway.
                          the artists can please themselves in the privacy of the practise venue ?? surely when playing live its about pleasing the audience ?/ or, as a band you will rapidly run out of venues to play at?


                          maybe throw in one or 2 in the middle of their set for the bands 'favouites" but when u got 'customers'out in front, you better give them what they want. or you not invited back and lose further earning potential.


                          Edit: just thought, i guess they can be mutually exclusive.. what a band likes to play and what an audience wants to hear.
                            StephenG wrote: Edit: just thought, i guess they can be mutually exclusive.. what a band likes to play and what an audience wants to hear.
                            Indeed. A classic example is Louis Armstrong. His manager walks into Satchmo's dressing room one day as Satchmo is warming up.
                            Manager: What the heck is THAT?
                            Satchmo: That's Debussy.
                            Manager: If you want to be an artist then play Debussy. If you want to make lots of money then sing "Hello Dolly".

                            Many an artist has felt the tension between what the audience wants to hear and what they want to do.

                            I always liked the way that David Bowie never allowed himself to be tied down, even if, on occasion, it provoked grumblings from the audience.
                              There's a certain point where, if you're not into what you're playing, it's not worth it. There are easier ways to earn money. It's important that the audience has a good time. But I'd rather have 5 people digging me playing something that I love playing than 500 people loving something I'm playing that bores me to tears.
                                singemonkey wrote: There's a certain point where, if you're not into what you're playing, it's not worth it. There are easier ways to earn money. It's important that the audience has a good time. But I'd rather have 5 people digging me playing something that I love playing than 500 people loving something I'm playing that bores me to tears.
                                so u would rather have 5 people digging what you play - for free?? than 500 paying you to play what they dig, for money??

                                dont give up your day job. ?
                                  X-rated Bob wrote:
                                  Hammeron wrote:
                                  mity88 wrote: yeah, i do sound at our church, our sound desk is right at the back, and when i occasionally play up the stage, it sounds completely different to what it does at the back...
                                  so i have no idea why they had the sound on stage...logically it doesnt make any sense, if you plan on pleasing the audience that is
                                  And at the end of the day pleasing the audience is, quite frankly, all that matters...live anyway...
                                  Well I'd hope that the artist would leave some room for pleasing themselves, with being satisfied that they did a good job, that they were staying true to their vision, that they made a maximum effort, that they were pleased with their playing and so on.

                                  The two aren't the same, as the Beatles realised in the early 60s. They could play really badly and the crowd would scream and holler and faint etc etc anyway.
                                  Of course, everyone must be happy.
                                  And if you are a good band playing to the right audience on top form with good sound and good lighting everyone will be happy.
                                  I am sure that Deep Purple, after 45 years of touring are not overly ecstatic to do Smoke on the water for the 999th time, but they get over it, enjoy it, and freak the audience out.
                                    singemonkey wrote: There's a certain point where, if you're not into what you're playing, it's not worth it. There are easier ways to earn money. It's important that the audience has a good time. But I'd rather have 5 people digging me playing something that I love playing than 500 people loving something I'm playing that bores me to tears.
                                    +1

                                    I think one can reach a compromise...there are plenty songs, those time-less ones, which I as a player and Joe Soap enjoy. Eg. at a re-union gig of the The Day Trippers at the gate to the Addo National Park (celebrating a birthday and the coming down of the fence which once divided the park into two) we did a few oldies which we enjoyed.... and the crowd, young and old, also seemed to like a lot.
                                    We did our version of Weeping done in 3-4 part harmony, using a harmonica for the Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika part.....they loved this one ; an original (written for the ocassion by our bassist), The Fence is Down (which people there could identify with), Dancing in the Street (an old R&B fav), a few oldies by the Beatles , Stones, etc.......and at the end of the night I was satisified that we did a good job and the crowd was happy too..... a Win -win.... ?
                                      I suppose the dynamic is quite different between a cover band and a band that only plays its own stuff.
                                        Tamla Kahn 'Hammeron' McMahon wrote: I suppose the dynamic is quite different between a cover band and a band that only plays its own stuff.
                                        Not necessarily so....
                                        The point is that whatever you do....covers,originals or stand-up comedy, you as a muso (or entertainer) AND your audience, must enjoy. And it's easy to establish whether your audience connects with you....you can see it in the faces. If you have people in the audience/crowd carrying on doing their own thing rest assured you're not connecting.