• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Dealing with sound person conflicts

As long as your setup is mixed right, then it's no problem. Might come across a sound guy who wants to mix it differently. Hoping you have the option available?
On my Presonus rack mixer I can send L/R outputs, or each channel on a separate cable. I prefer to send all channels to FOH.
One should be setup to do both.. send an L/R feed where that's what they want or all they can handle, and also be able to send each channel to FOH (and also to your mixer) so you can run monitor mixes, IEM's, etc.
Let FOH do FOH.
I always prefer to mix when a band is running their own monitors.
Doesn't happen most of the time, but lets me focus on one thing, not changing monitor mixes (via signal) when the band starts playing while also trying to get their FOH mix down.
This applies more to the multi-band Festival scene than opener/headliner or solo band at a venue.
 
With this, I disagree (I've run FOH gobs of times). Getting levels on stage in the right range, where musicians are loud enough that can hear themselves, but soft enough that the audience isn't hearing all stage wash is absolutely the right way to approach things. That person knows what works in that place, you don't. If you want to sound good, comply.

When you're dealing with a sound person, or others in the place, keep in mind a couple of things:

1) The sound person is ultimately the person that's controlling how you sound to the audience, and knows the place and how he or she gets good sound better than you. Whatever you can do to work with them will get better results than starting from an adversarial position or questioning their methods or competence.

2) The sound person is someone that the owner or manager of the place knows, and likely trusts. Saying anything negative about that person to the owner or manager is a one way ticket to never playing that place again.

A true professional musician is one who can do their craft well even in difficult circumstances - having worked with a lot of them as a FOH person, I see this in spades - they might ask about something, and if I can comply with a request, I do. If it won't work, I'll say why, they say thanks and we move on. The best ones don't complain when it gets tough, they learn how to work with what they've got, rather than complain about what isn't ideal. The exact same thing can be said about sound folks.

Wherever you go, you're in the same boat with the other people you're working with. Don't piss in the boat.


I am not sure what you are disagreeing with? IMHO if an amp is too loud, it should be based upon an assessment of acoustic volume in the context of the environment, rather looking at the meters on the mixing console.
 
Typical real life example: a singer who has developed her voice and vocal technique for decades, having worked on her craft just like any other musician in the big band she was fronting, was handed a busted SM58 by the sound team after they had set up all the horns and drums with studio condensers (Neumann TLM 103 etc).

When she provided them with with her own Neumann KMS105 (a proper stage mic, mind you) they gave her lip about it on the grounds that "everybody uses a SM58".

You have every right to sing through your own mic, especially if they cant provide you with what works for YOUR voice. And it may bring you trouble unfortunately if you insist, as this kind of singer discrimination is pretty rampant.

IMHO the KMS105 is a wonderful mic, but it's horrible on small stages as it picks up everything. Also not great if your vocalist does not have a powerful voice. When I deployed to the dessert, I was thrilled to have KMS105s in the mic box. We rehearsed with them for a few days and the results were mediocre. The sound was boxey and prone to feedback despite heavy eq.

We also had some nice Audix mics; OM5, 6 or 7. The vocalists of course really wanted to use the diva mics, but I asked them to let me retune the system and give the Audix a chance. They agreed because I told them it would be their choice. The Audix mics stayed in my mic kit and the Nuemanns went in the drawer, and the choice was not close.
 
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with? IMHO if an amp is too loud, it should be based upon an assessment of acoustic volume in the context of the environment, rather looking at the meters on the mixing console.
I'd say in this situation, the sound person didn't have a clue that they could adjust the gain coming into the channel. My amp wasn't that loud and she told me that it had to come down because it was "pegging the meter". Eventually we lowered the volume and moved the mic to the side.

As I run a stereo guitar rig, my other amp has DI output on the back... Fishman Loudbox Performer. They couldn't figure out how to work with the DI signal so eventually had to mic that amp as well because we were running out of time. Said it was "real noisy", which isn't what I'd expect from a DI signal unless it was running into a mic-level input, or their cable was bad.

I'd say it seems highly likely to me that this particular sound person wasn't qualified to set-up the system. They were there to move the siders only after someone else had gain staged everything. Tough to be told by that person that the feedback problems were "probably because of your microphone". Rather than being kind of sheepish like you'd expect someone to be in that situation, they gave off a completely aloof attitude like they were too busy to deal with this. Forgetting to un-mute the kick drum mic was the cherry on top.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: s0c9 and Wasnex
I'd say in this situation, the sound person didn't have a clue that they could adjust the gain coming into the channel. My amp wasn't that loud and she told me that it had to come down because it was "pegging the meter". Eventually we lowered the volume and moved the mic to the side.

As I run a stereo guitar rig, my other amp has DI output on the back... Fishman Loudbox Performer. She couldn't figure out how to work with the DI signal so eventually had to mic that amp as well.

I'd say it seems highly likely to me that this particular sound person wasn't qualified to set-up the system. They were there to move the siders only.

Like I said in my original response this thread, it sounds like you were dealing with a hack. Too make matters worse, it sounds like you were dealing with a hack that didn't even care enough to try. Either that or they were upset and acted unprofessionally.

It's really hard to come up with a way to put a positive spin on this. So although it's cool to play for a big crowd, maybe you are better off avoiding this facility since they don't pay well or behave in a professional manner.
 
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with? IMHO if an amp is too loud, it should be based upon an assessment of acoustic volume in the context of the environment, rather looking at the meters on the mixing console.

If they use the same mic and the console comes up with the same gain structure (a digital console with a default scene), then using the same level at the board would be equivalent to the same stage level, but that's not what I was really saying - I was saying that setting stage levels to something reasonable is what you want to do to get good results on stage and in the audience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wasnex
IMHO the KMS105 is a wonderful mic, but it's horrible on small stages as it picks up everything. Also not great if your vocalist does not have a powerful voice. When I deployed to the dessert, I was thrilled to have KMS105s in the mic box. We rehearsed with them for a few days and the results were mediocre. The sound was boxey and prone to feedback despite heavy eq.

We also had some nice Audix mics; OM5, 6 or 7. The vocalists of course really wanted to use the diva mics, but I asked them to let me retune the system and give the Audix a chance. They agreed because I told them it would be their choice. The Audix mics stayed in my mic kit and the Nuemanns went in the drawer, and the choice was not close.

I'm glad you found the Audix to work for better than the KMS both for you, and for the performers you were working with in your specific musical situation. And you worked it out with the singers in a respectful way to everybody's satisfaction. I agree 100% that the KMS is not necessarily the best mike for every musical scenario; often a sm58 is the best solution, depending on the technique of the vocalist, the room and the musical style and dynamics (most often, lack thereof) in the music. But not. Jazz, or always. Classical (even chamber) music or jazz with very wide dynamic ranges requires mixes too.

In the case I described it was a concert hall (stage big enough for, and occasionally used by a 50-60 person size symphony-style orchestra) occupied by ~12 jazz instrumentalists (horns, grand piano, double bass and drums) and this 1 vocalist. The vocalist is well-trained with proper breath support and she can and will sound HUGE, but that doesn't mean she sings loud all the time; she uses a lot of wide dynamics both in her voice itself and through mike technique. Moving the mike from close to the mouth to several inches away, is for example also a way to manipulate and use sibilance where she wants it, in other words she uses the mic like a proper musical instrument. For this kind of dynamic approach the KMS is great because it allows for all those subtleties and dynamics to come through; it is one core reason why she brings her own, because any house mic will react differently. For FOH to tell the vocalist she just needs to use their sm58 "because everybody does" was just rude and lazy; I don't think too many people on this forum would tolerate being handed a cheesy pbass copy by FOH upon entering the stage on the grounds that "everybody plays a Pbass".
 
I'm glad you found the Audix to work for better than the KMS both for you, and for the performers you were working with in your specific musical situation. And you worked it out with the singers in a respectful way to everybody's satisfaction. I agree 100% that the KMS is not necessarily the best mike for every musical scenario; often a sm58 is the best solution, depending on the technique of the vocalist, the room and the musical style and dynamics (most often, lack thereof) in the music. But not. Jazz, or always. Classical (even chamber) music or jazz with very wide dynamic ranges requires mixes too.

In the case I described it was a concert hall (stage big enough for, and occasionally used by a 50-60 person size symphony-style orchestra) occupied by ~12 jazz instrumentalists (horns, grand piano, double bass and drums) and this 1 vocalist. The vocalist is well-trained with proper breath support and she can and will sound HUGE, but that doesn't mean she sings loud all the time; she uses a lot of wide dynamics both in her voice itself and through mike technique. Moving the mike from close to the mouth to several inches away, is for example also a way to manipulate and use sibilance where she wants it, in other words she uses the mic like a proper musical instrument. For this kind of dynamic approach the KMS is great because it allows for all those subtleties and dynamics to come through; it is one core reason why she brings her own, because any house mic will react differently. For FOH to tell the vocalist she just needs to use their sm58 "because everybody does" was just rude and lazy; I don't think too many people on this forum would tolerate being handed a cheesy pbass copy by FOH upon entering the stage on the grounds that "everybody plays a Pbass".

Bases on the setting and talent, a KMS105 sounds like a great choice :thumbsup:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fishdreams
NO. My post was not a "joke, right?"

Maybe you, have more than 45 years playing professionally, as I do, with everything from garage bands to rock legends, and almost every kind of music there is- in every kind of venue there is. Maybe you took it as a joke, but it was meant to be helpful, to the O.P. . Unless, maybe my small joke about Yoko offended you.
 
After years of having issues with and being frustrated at the actions of sound people, I decided to do several things. I simply ask for some bass in my monitor, and no kick. And the rest of the mix, accordingly. If it sucks, I literally use my foot to spin the monitor so that it fires mostly away from me directly. The worst thing to me- is the disrespect. And I've felt like it is too often shown to players. See below for the caveat. I've politely asked sound people to please keep the kick down in the stage area subs. What usually happens? Pretty good at soundcheck, and overearing, bass burying subs on the gig. Why? It's like they're WANTING a fight! What I do now? I say zero. Nothing. Because sound people, as professional and cool as many are- are in some kind of dictator mode when the curtain goes up- it's their house, their mix, and your requests will be overridden. Unless YOU are a huge star, or you're paying them. And I know why this is.
Many of them are musicians that aren't playing much. They become weary of petty, ego-driven up-and-comers and wannabees..who believe they're the next big thing. I've seen it in some of the bands I work with.
My suggestion to the O.P., bring YOUR OWN personal monitor, and a small mixer. Mix yourself, hear yourself- and just send the sound person a DI. Done. Bypass the drama. Some may give you grief, but really, if your personal monitor system is small and unobtrusive, it shouldn't interfere with their stage mix. You could do your own in-ears, and eliminate having another speaker onstage.
Bottom line- the sound person isn't really going to do what you want. Be your own sound engineer. What I do now, is show up- plug my rig in, whatever it is, and play. If is sounds bad, it's not my problem. I do the gig, don't complain, and finish, get paid, go home..and I don't lay in bed at night dreaming of tying up the offending sound person in a soundproof cubicle, and playing Yoko Ono's greatest hit at 125Db.

Your attitude is exemplary. It's just a crying shame this is what its come to.

Things weren't like that in the San Francisco Bay Area, but that was decades ago by now. If a band had their own sound mixer who knew the material, knew the mixing ques, etc., any of the clubs back then would be happy to have that guy mix the set. Why wouldn't they?

And I'm not talking about headliners. I'm talking about opening acts. Some of those opening acts such as Eddy Money and the Rockets, several pre-Doobie Brothers groups, Juice Newton, Lacy J. Dalton, etc., etc., (the list goes on and on) went on to become nationally recognized recording artists. But when they started out, they were opening acts or just another local act, same as everybody else. At least they could go on stage knowing that their mix would be correct. I cringe when I read these accounts of what's apparently going on now. Good grief.

<Because sound people, as professional and cool as many are- are in some kind of dictator mode when the curtain goes up- it's their house, their mix, and your requests will be overridden. Unless YOU are a huge star, or you're paying them.>

The problem is it may be their house, but its not their music. Something went haywire somewhere. That's for sure.

I will say that $50 or $100 goes a long way towards having a cooperative sound guy. Being a sound guy at a club is at best a dreary, thankless job that gets old real fast. That may not be an excuse for their bad behavior, but often these people are getting ripped off salary wise by the venues they work for, and many of them even choose to free lance (don't ask me what that means) to make up the difference due to such poor wages. That's how it used to be, anyway. I don't know what the answer is. Lubricating the gears makes them not squeak and grind so much, I guess. Obviously, a group has to be making enough $$$ to be able to do that. And one must always be wary of the occupational hazards.
 
That's what I'd think too... less work for them. I offered to provide that exact setup for this gig but it was a completely foreign concept to the sound person. They only seemed comfortable with using their exact setup as-is... they didn't even seem to know how to adjust the gain stage on an individual channel strip.

In hindsight, there's a lot that I did wrong here. Shoulda just used their gear. Shoulda just smiled through the bad sound/no monitors/no kick mic, Shouldn't have said anything to the booking guy. It's definitely a strange position to be in, to be at the mercy of a third-party and having to suck-it-up if they're not good at their job, but that's the deal sometimes.

It makes it easier to understand what happened now that we know what your act is all about. In this case, it looks like most of what I came up with in response to your original post is not actually applicable. Not the first time that's ever happened.

For you, one thing you may find helpful is to work these things out before you show up at the club to perform. In the construction / contracting industry this is called pre-fielding the job. With an act like yours which is highly specialized, I would make it clear to the venue that you must use your rack for the performance to work. In the event this is somehow not acceptable, then its time to pass on the gig. You have a lot to offer, you've put a lot of time, money and effort into making what you're doing work which is very unique, and it does you no good at all for there to be a train wreck. Any time you perform without the setup you have designed specifically for your show, its predictably going to be a nightmare. Other than possibly giving FOH a vocal feed, I wouldn't do that.

It's not uncommon for bands to send a venue / sound company a stage plot prior to performing. In this case you could print up something on one page blocking out your setup and highlighting the stereo feed your going to give FOH. Be sure to stipulate whether your feed is going to be mic or line level. I would suggest a balanced mic level feed via 2 labeled chassis mounted male XLR connectors. You don't have to go into much detail regarding your rack since that doesn't concern FOH, really. Just block out how much space everything takes up on stage, where everything goes, your AC requirements, indicate down stage / up stage, etc. Have the name of your act in large, bold letters on top of the page and provide dotted lines labeled (in smaller print) to include the name of the venue, the date and time of the performance, your contact information, etc. On the bottom of the page include a stipulation that: "My performance with no exceptions is contingent upon the setup described above, which I will provide." Leave out any references to your performance fee on your stage plot.

Upon closing a deal for you to perform, give two copies of the stage plot to the talent buyer, have them sign both copies, and (at the time) retain one copy for yourself to bring with you to the gig. Hopefully the other stage plot or a photocopy will wind up in the hands of whomever is supposed to be responsible for sound. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. In the event the talent buyer isn't there when you show up and someone objects to your setup, show them the stage plot with the signature, advise them that the talent buyer retains a copy, and tell them take it or leave it. You don't need another situation to occur like what you described.

As you become more and more well known and start to make more money from your performances, you can start asking for advances which will usually be 50% of your performance fee which is non-refundable. Sometimes, how much of the additional 50% you receive is made contingent upon attendance at the performance. In your situation I would avoid any arrangement like that unless you are a headliner. An arrangement like this with an advance will mean that problems like you described will then result in the cancellation of your performance on the date of the performance with you keeping the advance. When your starting out, you can stipulate that if something like this happens the venue may apply the advance to another date. The details of the financial arrangements which will then include your option to cancel, etc., will eventually go on a separate document (keep it one page) which is your performance agreement. So I'm suggesting that when your just starting out you may want to keep your financial arrangements based solely on a handshake, but because of the kind of show you do, do not fail to get a signed stage plot for every gig.

Originally, the way it worked was that venues / promoters would sometimes attempt to stiff an act for the other half of their performance fee. Sometimes, this was avoided with a no pay, no play policy, i.e., with the act not going on stage until they had the cash in their hands. EFT's, Electronic Fund Transfers, streamline this process and you'll receive the other half of your performance fee sometime after you have completed the performance. I'd like to see some video's of your show.

Edit: Obviously, you draw has to be sufficiently big so that talent buyers are willing and hopefully anxious to agree to a more formal booking arrangement. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
First.. I'm also a long time sound guy and also play bass and guitar.
Yeah, feedback to the house booking guy was probably not the best move - in retrospect.
I'm seeing similar scenario's in my neck of the woods where the House hires a sound guy.. really a DJ who happens to also run the FOH board.
My regular Sunday church FOH gig was displaced last year when they hired a recent community college "media" grad to do that.
Like him, they know absolutely nothing about live sound and have no experience with it - all done in school.. if that!
Your comments about turning up your amp to adjust channel gain levels and blaming the mic 'cus they don't know how to ring out monitors is classic. Ouch!
It's like watching the guy have all the fader's at 0db and mix with the trim/gain controls! :rollno:

Speaking of mixing with the gains. Back in the 80's my local band was the opening act for the Association and then Bo diddly. Now I new zip about sound back in those days and I remember looking at the board and the mixing guy said he liked using the gains instead of the channels. Your comments reminded me of that OMG
 
  • Like
Reactions: s0c9
"After limping through a 45 minute set screaming at the top of my lungs to try to hear myself I was kind of embarrassed and pissed."

I'm inclined to believe that this might have more to do why you weren't asked back. Do you normally scream all your songs? If not, what made you think that was a good idea? Also, I'm sure a lot of people noticed your attitude by the end of your set.
 
"After limping through a 45 minute set screaming at the top of my lungs to try to hear myself I was kind of embarrassed and pissed."

I'm inclined to believe that this might have more to do why you weren't asked back. Do you normally scream all your songs? If not, what made you think that was a good idea? Also, I'm sure a lot of people noticed your attitude by the end of your set.

I don't think he could hear himself :(
 
I don't think he could hear himself :(
That's a rookie move to sing a lot harder when you can't hear yourself. Actually, it's not really a rookie move as I've seen quite a few pros do it, too, but that's the worst thing you can possibly do for your voice. Just do your best not to sing louder and hope you're still in tune. Otherwise you'll be blowing a vocal cord and develop polyps.
 
That's a rookie move to sing a lot harder when you can't hear yourself. Actually, it's not really a rookie move as I've seen quite a few pros do it, too, but that's the worst thing you can possibly do for your voice. Just do your best not to sing louder and hope you're still in tune. Otherwise you'll be blowing a vocal cord and develop polyps.
It's also a common problem when inexperienced folks put compression on vocals then push it back to the monitors. The harder they sing, the more it's squashed. Vicious cycle. Outcome is blown vocals.
 
That's a rookie move to sing a lot harder when you can't hear yourself. Actually, it's not really a rookie move as I've seen quite a few pros do it, too, but that's the worst thing you can possibly do for your voice. Just do your best not to sing louder and hope you're still in tune. Otherwise you'll be blowing a vocal cord and develop polyps.

It also makes it seem like you're very angry. If you are doing a song that normally would be a bit laid back and you're screeching it out, you might seem a bit unhinged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyM