 sj |
||
|
||
music vs volume
|
|
|
Subject: music vs volume From: Mo the caller Date: 14 Sep 06 - 04:22 AM There has been discussion on the Shrewsbury ff thread about bands that are too loud. I'd like to pay tribute to 2 bands I heard at Whitby (422) and Bromyard (Kerfuffle) that are a pleasure to listen to; not too loud, nice arrangements, very musical. The folk tradition will be in good hands in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Hand-Pulled Boy Date: 14 Sep 06 - 05:10 AM Depends where the band is playing and to how many people. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Sep 06 - 07:00 AM 100% Volume = 0% Music. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: fogie Date: 14 Sep 06 - 09:50 AM I think amplification should be for balancing relative volumes of instruments, hiking up the loss of volume in crowded dances, and to enable the caller to be heard above the hubbub. I know some think that the louder the music the more people shout at one another, and if volume is relatively low audiences are quieter, but that might not work when alcohol is part of the equation- especially gigs for weddings. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Big Mick Date: 14 Sep 06 - 10:01 AM Amplification has one job. To bring the music to all segments of your audience, with the proper mix to bring out the balance of the instruments. Volume being one aspect of mix, it is fair to say that if it is too loud or not loud enough, it takes away from the music. And it is always about the music. This is why my band considers the soundman a full partner, and pays him a full share. His responsibilities in the band are just as critical to the success of our sound as the singing or musicianship. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Leadfingers Date: 14 Sep 06 - 10:10 AM When I was 'doing' pubs solo on a regular basis , I knew I had the volume right if , after about twenty minutes , some one would come up and say " We cant quite hear you at the back " . |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST Date: 14 Sep 06 - 11:24 AM Recently saw a duo in Southsea, electric standup bass, guitar/banjo. The sound was so bad, so loud, that I couldn't stay in the room and eavesdropped from outside. Heard enough to buy two cds which I am really enjoying. Why they had to be so loud in so small a room with an audience of about 50 is beyond me. Seems like an epidemic of deaf soundmen. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Mo the caller Date: 14 Sep 06 - 04:00 PM I used to dance to a local band which played loud. A local flute player sometimes sat in, unamplified, on the edge of the stage. If you stood behind the speakers it sounded really good. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 14 Sep 06 - 04:09 PM Everything is too loud these days! Folk band are much louder than The Beatles C1963!! I don't visit record shops any more because of the ridulous high volume of the music they play. And, it's not an age thing! It's a permanent damage to your ears thing!! |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Doug Chadwick Date: 15 Sep 06 - 02:55 AM And, it's not an age thing! Oh yes it is. Parents were saying much the same in 1963 and today's kids will say much the same in 30 years time. All the comments about excess volume being unnecessary are correct, and you are most certainly right about the potential damaged to hearing. However, you are only trying to fool yourself if you think that speaking sense, wearing sensible clothes and expecting others to behave sensibly, aren't signs of getting old. DC (a crumbly who has just started playing amplified music) :-) |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 15 Sep 06 - 03:17 AM Oh, dear. The point is that music - everywhere - IS a lot louder today: In concerts, clubs, pubs, record shops - and cars! And that increased loudness is damaging to the ears. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 06 - 05:07 AM Invest in hearing aid companies, they're in for a bonanza in a few years time! |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 15 Sep 06 - 05:30 AM I once read a study of some American servicemen on a base somewhere in the US. They all had sound systems in their living quarters and, apparently, all played them at full volume (I thank God, every day, that I was not a serviceman on that base!!). The author of the paper conducted a series of in-depth interviews to find out why. He concluded that it was so that they didn't have to speak to each other - music as a mechanism for avoiding social interaction. I was not surprised when I read this as I have long suspected that there is something profoundly dysfunctional about Western society's relationship to music. The other thing that I've noticed is that young people tend to shout at each other in public places such as pubs and restaurants, even when the ambient noise is relatively low. Is this partly because they have become habituated to shouting at each over loud music and partly because their hearing has been damaged by such music? |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: kendall Date: 15 Sep 06 - 07:52 AM Loud can offset the lack of talent. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Old Grizzly Date: 15 Sep 06 - 07:56 AM I wholeheartedly agree with the general 'run of opinion' in this thread. Amplification should be only be used to balance the sound levels of the instruments thus achieving the required 'sound picture' and to enable delivery of this 'sound' at only such levels as are necessary for it to be clearly heard by all (...save the deaf :o) at all points round the dance floor/concert hall. In smaller venues, provided the instrument balance is right, there is very often no need for amplification at all, save perhaps with a larger band there may be a need for low level amplification for the caller. Ceilidhs, Barn Dances and the like, are (or should be) great social occasions where people not only dance, but also engage in conversation. Sound levels should be set so as to afford the opportunity to be heard without having to shout. If the music is too loud this will significantly reduce the overall enjoyment of the evening for many and may well persuade some not to come again. If you allow the initial levels to be set too high, background noise from 'conversation', (by now most likely shouting), also means that the caller feels he cannot be heard and will either turn up his mike or end up shouting into it .... or in the worst case, doing both! As any good teacher knows, if you have to shout, you have lost the battle and the only way the general noise level goes, is up. Noise induced hearing loss is far more common than many might suppose particularly amongst musicians, older folks with a history noisy jobs and, sadly, far too many youngsters. This degenerative condition also has a fairly common, but there is a less well known, side effect called Hyperacusis. This is a lowered tolerance to loud sounds which causes a jangling effect in the ears, much like a split in a speaker cone, while higher levels of sound cause real physical discomfort, a distinct loss of enjoyment of the music and for musicians a lowering of concentration levels. In bad cases you can almost lose the will to live. If you are in the audience and the band is too loud, at least you can 'vote with your feet' but if you are in the band you are stuck with it. To be fair, I must declare an interest here as I left half my hearing down coal mines, and suffer from significant intolerance of loud sounds.... my own concertina, strangely, seems to be exempt btw :o) This same 'noise snowball' effect also occurs in totally unamplified sessions. For some strange reason, many folks seem hell-bent on thrashing the guts out of their instrument to gain the maximum possible volume (and speed... but that is another story...) Session etiquette is a whole separate issue, but six melodeons, a similar number each of concertinas and fiddles an accordion and a whole assortment of other instruments all in full flight in a low ceilinged bar you could not swing a cat in, would give your average local environmental health noise monitoring technicians a dicky-fit. I would make a plea for folks to concentrate more on the content of the music and to play quieter, in many cases slower, and also consider that they are not duty bound to play, or attempt to play, every single tune throughout the session. So speaks the reactionary (and deaf) 'old fart'. Seriously though, I hope I am not considered too much of a kill-joy. Quite the reverse I hope. I firmly believe that cutting back a bit on the volume will increase the everyone's enjoyment of such occasions rather than take away from it Regards Dave |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Leadfingers Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:02 AM When Bill Hailey and The Comets first toured UK in the late Fifties , a lot of people said they were TOO LOUD - and they had THREE AC3o's on stage for a five piece band !! What were Pink Floyd using for 'sound' on their last tour ?? |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Old Grizzly Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:08 AM Probably Sixteen thermonuclear XXX9a rafterblasters ?? Guaranteed to liquidize all soft tissues in a five mile radius D |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Mr Red Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:40 AM Loud can offset the lack of talent. Huh? NO IT CAN'T It does demonstrate a certain insecurity in the talent they do have. And how little effort they have put in to cultivating it. Loud invokes adrenaline and that is exciting - to some. Singing in public invokes adrenaline - but you can't do that instantly at the flick of a switch. Society today demands instant, it can't do patience. But like, global warming, it will take intrusive to motivate people. FWIW the polution in the Thames had to get so bad that even the politicians in parliament (right alongside the huge river) noticed before action was instigated. Makes yer think, dunnit? |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST,Bee Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:40 AM Count me in on the 'crank it down!' side. If I have to shout to be heard by the person next to me, it is too damn loud. Caveat: anecdote does not equal data. I can't agree on the age thing, though - most of my friends, musicians and listeners, fall in the 40 to 60 age group, and it is the men who play all their music at excruciatingly loud volume, with the exception of the one who wears hearing aids in both ears. I'm of the opinion that the rest of them are more than half deaf and just don't realize it. It does have the effect of shutting up the women, though, as most of us can't yell loud enough to be heard at those noise levels. Hmm... maybe I'm onto them! >;} |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Grab Date: 15 Sep 06 - 08:42 AM No Shimrod, it's because they're drunk. :-) Incidentally, I'd also mention research that says louder music triggers "pleasure" centres in the brain, which is why rock is the volume it is. Up to a point, obviously - there's a point where your ears saturate, and beyond that you can't hear anything properly. But up to that point, louder *is* often good. Of course, if it's a "listening" kind of gig rather than a "dancing" kind of gig, then your priorities are rather different. A problem with live acoustic stuff is that it's the high frequencies in your ears that distort first. And guess what frequencies you get from whistles, mandolins and fiddles...? It's also those high frequencies in your ears that get damaged first, which I think is why some soundmen seem to get the mix wrong on acoustic stuff. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 06 - 09:01 AM What !!??? I cann't hear you !!! |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Big Mick Date: 15 Sep 06 - 09:17 AM I think you are right, Graham. Those are the instruments that are hardest to get right in the mix. Throw in a set of Uilleann Pipes and you really have problems. Seems to me that loud is the easiest problem to solve, and that people sometimes get "loud" mixed up with "poor balance". Seems like some sound folks hide behind the volume to avoid having to get the balance of the mix right. In acoustic bands, such as mine, the distinctive voices of the instruments have to add up to get the optimal sound. I think that is why I am so sold on bands having their own sound person that really understands the music and interpretation you are after. They can literally "play" that board. Loud is simply a matter of turning the master up or down. It's the mix that makes the difference. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: oggie Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:12 AM A number of points - If the band's no good then the volumne level is irrelevant. The mix is crucial as is the quality of the sound, I walked out of a Fairport concert whwn all I could hear was Bass and Drums. Likewise Carthy once gave me earache when the sound mixer at the Uni FC made his guitar 'sound like an orange box'. Amplification is cheaper than ever today in pounds per 100 watts BUT a lot of it is not very good quality , hiss etc. In the early seventies quite large bands (rock) would tour large venues with 500 to 1000 watts but they were superb quality and probably punched above their weight. I know the covers band I played in would play a 300 seater pub/club with backline and 100 watts for the vocals. The bands that play the pub next door regularly bring 2000+ and which they can't use and merely deafen everyone. (Largest rig I ever saw was Cliff Richard at Wembley, reputedly 250,000 watts, not too loud, and crystal clear sound in every seat!) Have we all got lazy? Do we not naturally play/sing as loud as we used to and so use amplification too much? If the amp ain't there it can't be too loud! Conversly have audiences got louder or less well behaved (all ages not just kids) so again we start using amps. Enough of this - I'm starting to sound like a grumpy old man! All the best Oggie |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Big Mick Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:28 AM Oggie, this is one singer who won't play a room that doesn't have some sort of amplification, unless it is a concert setting and a small, quiet room. After years of doing this, I am concerned with the condition of my vocal chords. I know that the number of years one can sing is finite. When I try and sing unamplified over conversation, I usually have a sore throat for several days. I am not willing to do that. I would rather have a good quality sound reinforcement system, set at levels appropriate to the room, and sing at a level which is comfortable. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Leadfingers Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:41 AM With you all the way Mick !! But Sound Reinforcement is what I call MY P A set up ! I dont mind a small club with a 'listening' audience for an acoustic set , but in a pub , I want an amp and GOOD mic and speakers ! |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: oggie Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:46 AM Mick In part you make a point I was trying to make, but probably badly. You refer to singing 'over conversation', call me old-fashioned but if people want to talk and don't want to listen then I won't try to drown them out. In a concert setting there shouldn't be background (I fondly remember a clubroom with a bar where drinks were only served between songs)but I must confess that it's getting rarer. As far as informal sessions/singarounds go I wouldn't try to fill a room. At one of the best sessions I've been to, in a busy Social Club), the musicians and singers took over a corner and those who wanted to listen gravitated towards them. I suspect that often the only effect of a louder sound system is to increase the volumne of the talkers. I do however share concern about vocal chords, in my case it's cigarette smoke which kills them for days. All the best Oggie |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Big Mick Date: 15 Sep 06 - 11:54 AM Agreed, Oggie. I look at it as my job to entertain. Folks that want to talk will talk, and I let the room take care of that. If talkers are interfering with the folks that want to listen, then they will do what they must. But when a room has talkers, or when it is a bit too large, there is a tendency to sing louder so folks that want to hear can. It is often unconscious with me. I am at the point that I simply won't sing in anything larger than a good size house concert without some sort of a sound system. Cigarettes .... hate them and try not to sing in places where I have to deal with them. That is a little tough being an Irish ballad singer. LOL. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: LesB Date: 15 Sep 06 - 12:10 PM A lot of the time I find that the insrumentation is too loud and drowns out the vocals. The sound that Phil(sound) & the John Dipper Band got in the Metropole in Whitby was excellent. The band played to 'accompany' the songs. All too often the instruments are amped up & you are straining to hear the vocals. A good example of that was the Elton John concert on BBC last night. I never understood one word of the first 3 songs. Cheers Les |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: kendall Date: 15 Sep 06 - 01:04 PM Mr. Red,I was being facetious |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Grab Date: 18 Sep 06 - 08:23 AM Too right Mick. I wish we had someone to run the sound for us, but we only know one person who might be interested and I wouldn't trust him to get it right. Besides, we're loud and electric anyway... ;-) Re wattage, that is *not* the be-all and end-all. You want clear sound throughout the auditorium, the important part is speaker placement. The more speakers, the more power you'll need to drive them, but if you're playing a hall (or worse, a tent or outside) then two speakers at the front cranked up to 11 are not going to give you as good a result as four or more speakers positioned to cover the area evenly and turned up to a more moderate level. For myself, I don't much mind if the people at the back can't hear me - if they want to talk, that's their choice. But if I can't hear myself, I can't sing. Like Mick says, I push too hard, hurt my throat and my singing tone (what little there is to start with) goes right down the crapper. So sod the audience - nice loud foldback for me please, and if there's any power left over for the audience then they're welcome to it... ;-) Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: GUEST,DrWord Date: 18 Sep 06 - 10:06 AM this is the spelling police: vocal cords dennis |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Snuffy Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM Both spellings are permitted, but if you look up cord it tells you "see chord". Cord is normal for string/rope but for any other meaning chord is at least as (if not more) usual. And there's only one N in Denis |
|
Subject: RE: music vs volume From: Big Mick Date: 18 Sep 06 - 07:37 PM Apparently, in reference to the vocal, cord is the correct usage. I googled "medical dictionary" and then searched for "vocal cord" and got the appropriate reference, but when I searched on "vocal chord" there was no return. I then searched on "chord" and found a number of references, but none of them related to the vocal cord. I stand corrected.......and boy does that piss me off. LOL. Mick |
| Share Thread: |