buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
Unless you are paying them to do your show, their only job is to get as good a total sound as they can. Their client is the venue owner, not the band.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Who does the sound tech serve?
- Thread starter darwin-bass
- Start date
The sound tech is most definitely NOT there to decide if anything the band does is a poor musical choice.
In whose opinion is something the band plays “a poor musical choice”?
I can understand if a venue is known for Texas swing and two-step music, and the band decides to do a medley of Slipknot songs, there should probably lay be some action taken, and probably before the end of the medley. Otherwise, the person who hired the band should have already done the research to make sure, within reason, the band fits the venue or at least fits with a specific music genre played on certain nights of the week.
The sound tech is called the “sound tech” for a reason. The person is not the “genre tech” or the “style tech” or the “poor choice police”.
If I ran a venue, had a “sound tech” on staff, and I caught that person “mis-adjusting” or muting some part of the band because the sound tech thought what the band was playing was a “poor choice”, the sound tech and I would have a very serious discussion.
I've been part of the sound booth muting someone. At the megachurch I mentioned upthread we had a situation. There was a "guitar player" and "singer" that was part of the worship band because he was the BIL of the music director. He couldn't carry a tiny tune in a huge bucket either playing or singing. We muted him in everything but his monitor. We did so at the request of church leadership. But we might have anyway. He really was horrible.
It's basically crap in, crap out and the sound guy has to do the best he can.
I am however tired of sound guys who feel the need to mix everything like it's a dub step rave.
I am however tired of sound guys who feel the need to mix everything like it's a dub step rave.
Being a sound guy is like being in a band with all the fun parts taken away.
Your sentiment is understandable, but the truth is that ALL of these decisions are "musical" choices. The parts played, the tones used, the sound reinforcement, the mix, the room–these things are inextricably linked. I'm confident enough in my musical experience to feel like I have a pretty good grasp of musical intent. And when someone comes to me with a sound or a part which is clearly trying to be something, but isn't quite getting there, I will employ the tools my disposal to help them achieve what they're trying to achieve. This isn't because of ego or because I've got something to prove. It's just an earnest desire to make something as good as I can possibly make it.
In the context of mixing a live performance at the local level, sound people are frequently having to make the best of signals which just don't sound good at the source. In fact, most musicians who spend the majority of their time practicing alone don't really understand what sounds work best in the context of an ensemble. So the sound person is dealing with drummers who hit cymbals really loudly, with singers who sing softly, and guitarists whose tone is drowning in hall reverb... And now we have bassists adding high-pass filters and multiband compression to their pedalboards. Local sound guys have my empathy, and I'm thankful I don't have to deal with that stuff.
So what's the solution? Find people who are good at their job. This is easier to do if YOU are good at your job. Then work together to define the vision, and put in the reps to refine the results. Oh, and pay people, that way they're obligated to follow your lead.
That is not a “poor musical choice” as stated by the OP. Even the example given by the OP (overplaying) would be the opinion of the sound tech. The band might have asked their bandmate to play exactly what the sound tech *thinks* is overplaying when the person playing is executing exactly what the band wants.
What you are talking about is “poor musical ability”, and how you describe it might still be opinion, but likely to be the same opinion by near 100% of listeners. In that case, the “sound tech” should act as the “producer”, go to the Music Director and tell him to get his BIL “singer-guitarist” off the stage. If the MD disagrees, put the guitarist-singer in the mix at the same level he would be if he were a virtuoso on guitar and and a perfect pitch vocalist and let the congregation tell the MD to get him off the stage….
Last edited:
Good chance they did not really understand what you showed them with that demo on the stage volume.
Reminds me of decades ago when I saw Humble Pie open for another band (don't recall whom) at the local enormodome. After the third blast of feedback, Steve Marriott (LS/BL) screamed curses and threats at the sound tech. Couldn't blame him, the feedback was inexcusable.
I didn’t read the OPs description at all like you describe the task of a sound tech. The OP might have intended to convey that the sound tech should act as a producer to get the best sound achievable from a band that doesn’t send everything perfect to FOH, but that’s not what was said.
What the OP said was;
He didn’t say the tech has the responsibility to improve poor tone through EQ &/or effects in an attempt to improve the sound of the band.
He specifically used the phrase, “if the band makes poor musical choices” and the tech having the right to pull something back or selectively mute something.
If a player in a band is sending a signal to FOH that would generally sound awful to most anyone, that would almost certainly NOT be the choice of the player, it would more likely be equipment misuse that created something the player was totally unaware of. If the sound tech can fix that with EQ &/or effects he or she is doing their job the best they can under the given circumstance.
If a band is doing anything the sound tech considers a “poor musical choice” or in other words, they are aware of their sound and they are doing it on purpose, the sound tech doesn’t get to decide it is a poor musical choice and pull back or mute someone in the band.
Maybe you consider poor tone being sent to FOH the equivalent of a musical choice. I consider that a lack of knowledge / experience to achieve a decent tone often totally unknown by the player because it sounds good in their IEMs or out of their amp. The sound tech has the responsibility to fix that if possible.
Did you ever hear “Fooled Around & Fell In Love” by the Winery Dogs? Billy Sheehan’s bass tone is a gurgly, burpey, distorted thing that really doesn’t sound like what most bassists would do with that song, but Billy has 50 or so years experience and tons of knowledge about his gear. I read the OP as the sound tech deciding that was a poor musical choice and pulling it back or muting it in the mix. That would not be the right of a sound tech.
Ideally the sound guy has a better ear, or equal to the best ear the band has. When this is true, bands sound great. Unfortunately that's not always the case. Likewise when a certain band member thinks they know what sounds right, but really have a terrible ear for mixing, you really don't want the sound guy doing his bidding. IMO most cover bands etc the bass and kick mix make for bass "notes" devoid of tone.
In both scenarios they are doing the bands bidding because in truth running sound you do both. I have turned down an out of tune BG vocalist or a horribly out of tune or rhythmically challenged 2nd guitar. Its better for the band to go without those than have the audience and club owner looking at the stage like what the hell is that? You can't do much for a lead vocalist having a bad day or the lone guitarist who set his down tune pedal incorrectly though. When they are playing great you make them greater. When they are struggling, you do your best to save their ass. They are both part of the job. Its not an either or scenario.
OP here - Wow, great discussion. It is clear that the answer to the question depends on the situation.
A typical paid (bar, wedding, etc) gig with a well rehearsed band with good musicians and intentional arrangements is very different from a church gig with a thrown-together, poorly rehearsed band of varying skill level volunteers.
A typical paid (bar, wedding, etc) gig with a well rehearsed band with good musicians and intentional arrangements is very different from a church gig with a thrown-together, poorly rehearsed band of varying skill level volunteers.
The “best audio production for the audience” is an entirely subjective thing.
Does the SE go around before the show polling the audience for their listening criteria in order to craft “the best audio production” for them? Or do they just go with their gut and their own taste? Either way it remains entirely subjective.
I think sound engineers should NEVER be music producers unless specifically hired by the artist to do so.
Sound engineering should be almost entirely a technical endeavor, about craftsmanship and reproducing the band in the performance space with a clear mix that includes all band members. It is ok to try and make it sound nice, but some artists just don’t want that.
Lets say I am the SG. If the club pays me, I serve the club.
If the band pays me, I serve the band
If a promoter pays me, I serve the promoter
If the 4H talent coordinator pays me at a county fair......well we all know the answer
If the band pays me, I serve the band
If a promoter pays me, I serve the promoter
If the 4H talent coordinator pays me at a county fair......well we all know the answer
Whether it's the club, band, promoter or 4H talent coordinator wouldn't the point still be to serve the audience? So as to bring in and keep bigger audiences? Because that should be the desire of all the above entities.
