From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2018090723331123074-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > On mixing live bands, mostly from a church perspective.  Good stuff.   
   > Learning about roll off switches, eq, compressors.  All things I already   
   > know, but it's fun to see these explained in new and novel ways.   
      
   Yep, it takes as much Skill, Innovation, and Creativity to do sound as it   
   does to play and sing!   
      
   > What comes out of all this is . .... live sound isn't ever gonna be   
   > perfect.   The rooms aren't perfect.   
      
   But the same principles apply and a Skillful sound person will apply those   
   principles, adjusting as necessary.   
      
   > The performers do odd things, lean into mics, stomp their feet, sing too   
   > loud, or too quiet, on and on.   
      
   That's crazy, and poor technique, something that Definitely can, and Needs   
   to be corrected!   
   Working the mic is critical...for everything from sounding great, to keeping   
   one's voice healthy!   
      
   > So here's my thought.  Back when we were young, none of this was an issue.   
   > We plugged in our guitars, screamed in the one or two mics, and everyone   
   > loved it. Ok, we loved it ... maybe not everyone :-)   
      
   For me it  was always an issue...right from my first band. I never loved it,   
   because it sounded like Crap!   
      
   > But for sure we didn't spend the next week whinning that the bass might   
   > have been a little too quiet. Or that the mic didn't seem " bright enough   
   > ".   
      
   That's among other things, because there wasn't enough, if even any,   
   attention to details!   
   Just plug in and make noise! That's how it sounded to me.   
      
   > We just played the jobs. We thought about song choice, lyrics, chords ...   
   > and babes.   A lot of thought about the girls :-)  So where did this   
   > intense scrutiny of our sound creep it ?   The girls comment is part of   
   > it. None of us are chasing the opposite sex now, so that leaves a lot of   
   > time to obcess over the drum sounds.   
      
   When there's less distraction, it becomes easier to focus on things ;)   
      
   > That wasn't my original reason tho. At first I thought, you know, back   
   > then I had a tele, or a gibson, and some fender amp, and I played it.  No   
   > one back in the day was daft enough to come up and say " hey man, the tone   
   > of your amp is off. That amp doesn't sound like a fender ".  Because if   
   > anyone did, I'd just look at them like they were idiots ... then point at   
   > the name plate on the amps and say something like " It's a twin reverb.   
   > See, read the label.   
      
   Hey, how about that! And it still holds true today, including,   
   unfortunately, the Idiots ;)   
      
   > What do you think it should sound like ? What else could it sound like ?   
   > ".  My point being, we had name brand stuff. If you don't like it, then   
   > get the hell away from me. It is what it is, and it sounds just like it is   
   > supposed to.  Simple.   
      
   The psychology of sensation can also be combined with Stupidity...but that's   
   their problem!   
      
   > Now, with synths and modelers and people comparing us to their memory of   
   > some recording ... nothing we do matches up to the standards they imagine   
   > in their heads.   
      
   That's because there's probably not much, if anything, in their heads in the   
   first place ;)   
      
   > The only way my guitar can sound " right " on   
   > some old rock tune would be if I somehow borrowed the very same old   
   > Rickenbacker that Tom Petty played on the original recording.  Anythine   
   > else would somehow not measure up.   
      
   And even that wouldn't do it, not exactly anyway.   
      
   > People have lost their minds.   
      
   Yep, and for a long time now.   
      
   > Or, simply put, they trust what they see   
   > over what they hear.   
      
   Might as well, because if they're mostly deaf, they won't hear anything   
   anyway ;)   
      
   > See anything other than the original artist using   
   > the original gear from the record, and well, it's close but just not   
   > exactly right.   
      
   Those artists have lots of gear so there are plenty of variables. What they   
   really *should* want is a specific recording, just like is done with   
   classical material, a specific orchestra with a specific conductor on a   
   specific recording from a specific date...but to expect that in a live   
   performance is simply Insane!   
      
   > Was there ever a time when, if you went to a concert of the original   
   > artist and it didn't sound exactly like you remember the recording,   
   > that you realized it doesn't because IT ISN'T THE RECORDING ?   
      
   It's sick all right, but that's only been helped along by synching the   
   appearance of the  band with their studio recordings. The Beatles did it   
   quite a bit, and so did many others. To those who actually Listen, it's   
   obvious that the sound is from the studio recording, and that would always   
   creep and gross me out...even back in the '60s.   
      
   > I believe a lot of people have lost that realization.   
      
   Part of the  Dumbing-Down Agenda, which includes being unobservant, or just   
   plain Numb, to go with Dumb!   
      
   > There seems an   
   > expectation now that a live band will sound EXACTLY like the video of   
   > the original artist, EXACTLY, even in a live setting with crap gear and   
   > lots of crowd noise.   
      
   Some of the blame for that should probably go to the various 'tribute'   
   bands, which knock themselves out meticulously copying every nuance of a   
   recording and then performing it live...something not even the original   
   bands ever did.   
      
   > We never cared about that when we were young.   
      
   Actually, I *want* and expect a live performance to sound different and   
   always have.   
      
   > We played our gigs, got   
   > paid, enjoyed the ladies.  None of these unrealistic expectations of   
   > audio perfection.   
      
   Nowadays, over complication of everything appears to be the current crackpot   
   'fashion'.   
      
   > Cause it ain't doable.  Never was.  Isn't now.   
      
   And the Idiots 'feel' important in demanding that it be done anyway.   
      
   > A fender twin sounded like it sounded. It was a twin.   
      
   Of course, it couldn't sound like anything else...and I'd recently learned   
   that the Twins were much preferred for use with the Rhodes electric pianos   
   too.   
      
   > If you didn't think so, you were nuts, read the nameplate.   
      
   Even a Zombie should be able to do that, I hope ;)   
      
   > And, for what it's worth,   
   > I've owned about 6 twins, used more than that, and not one of them   
   > sounded like any of the others.  But at least no one came up and told   
   > me it didn't really sound like a twin.   
      
   Those things are expensive...and you've had 6 of them!   
   But I'm sure the best sounding ones had Oxford 12T6-16 speakers in them ;)   
      
   I once considered a Twin for keys, but  at only 85 Watts, and weighing 64   
   lbs!!!, and costing 1,450 bucks - NO WAY!!!   
      
   A Behringer solid state power amp and a set of speakers will cost a fraction   
   of that, weigh a fraction of that, and have many times the power, with nice   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)