• 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.

You think the audience doesn't notice? Think again!

Status
Not open for further replies.
My initial assertion was the audiences are smarter than musicians like to give credit, and you rejected that based on insufficient evidence. And judging by how much you've browbeaten me with the same tired old "science" argument over and over, then you are either desperate to keep my attention or you believe that audiences aren't smarter than musicians like to give credit and offended that I would say something to the contrary. Despite the empirical evidence that would allow me to conclude scientifically that you are attention-starved, I am going to take the high road and you can tell me why you insist on beating me about the face and head with this point you've made a million times over. I already agreed that I wasn't presenting science here. So what the hell is your continued beef with me?
I know right? Science. Pfft. I have no beef. And I'll ignore any more quotes from you as you repeatedly reply to things I haven't said and it's very confusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mobdirt
The burden of proof sir. Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I rejected your initial assertion based on insufficient evidence. It's not up to me to prove the antithesis of your point. Your irritation is your problem. I can't help you.

The fact that one person commented is sufficient to disprove any assertion that audiences don't care. No matter how statistically insignificant the result, 1 is always greater than 0.
 
I'd argue that scientifically is the only way to be right. But others disagree. And that makes me sad.
The burden of proof sir. Prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I rejected your initial assertion based on insufficient evidence. It's not up to me to prove the antithesis of your point. Your irritation is your problem. I can't help you.
I know right? Science. Pfft. I have no beef. And I'll ignore any more quotes from you as you repeatedly reply to things I haven't said and it's very confusing.
I knew it was never about science. There's nothing scientific about any of this, there's no way to make it scientific without causing a mass audience exit, you and I both know it fully well. So what's the real motive here? To take down that pompous know-it-all JimmyM down a peg or two because he thinks he knows everything, right? Can't argue that the info's not solid but he said "stupid" and that's offensive, so you'll attack from a science angle. I've seen it before. You're not the first, you won't be the last. I don't worry about pleasing everybody because I know it's an impossible task no matter what I do, so I'm not bothered by it when I don't. I know I don't know everything, trust me. But there's a hell of a lot of stuff I do know, and that's just the way it is. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. So if that rubs you the wrong way, sorry. Just be honest about the reason.
 
Just for fun, here's another weird singular data point from this week's NYE gig—sound company supplied IEMs, and acoustic drums but otherwise everyone is DI-only w/ no stage amps or wedges.

The keyboard player is very experienced, but he's only on his second gig with this band. Normally, no problem at all, but in the first set we're all earning our pay—and keys most of all—with the just workable IEM mix. To launch the second set, the guitarist kicks into "Pride and Joy," and the keyboard player now can't hear *anything* in his IEMs. No biggie, thinks keys: he eases out one earpiece and has enough of the acoustic drums on stage to hear where the "one" is. But one chord in and now he's second guessing himself about whether we're playing the song in "Eb" (as recorded) or "E," and he's getting some of the FOH spill—but the stage sound is mostly sub and drum spill where keys are set up.

Keys thinks we're playing in "E" from the guitarist's hands. Hmm, that doesn't sound right. He shifts to "Eb." Still nope. I'm on the other side of the stage, wondering what's going on in the instrument bed under my IEM mix of very loud vocals and drums. Singer has a lot of keys in her mix; and while trying to stay smiling and not get pulled off pitch, she (bless her heart!) quickly mouths to keys, "F." He tries that. Still nope. Guitarist, when he can finally hear enough in his own IEM mix to figure out where the weirdness is coming from, lets keys know we're playing the song in "A" (b/c Etta James style female singer). Now keys has it; but we're well into the first chorus at this point.

Here's the thing: all through this trainwrecked first minute of the song, the crowd in the sold out ballroom is streaming onto the dance floor and they're looking euphoric. At the next set break, we're all just floored at how enthusiastic the room was about that song that we dished out in four different keys.

I'm not saying that crowds are stupid, or that they don't hear anything. But inexpert attention is weirdly limited, and in the right circumstances it tends to engage with what it *expects* to hear as the key foreground feature rather than attend to elements in the background or at the margins. (That's one of the basic lessons of the "invisible gorilla" selective-attention experiment.)

Got a guitar tune with happening vocals and guitar? Who knows what the crowd is able to *not* hear, especially around the edges and at least for a few moments?
 
Just for fun, here's another weird singular data point from this week's NYE gig—sound company supplied IEMs, and acoustic drums but otherwise everyone is DI-only w/ no stage amps or wedges.

The keyboard player is very experienced, but he's only on his second gig with this band. Normally, no problem at all, but in the first set we're all earning our pay—and keys most of all—with the just workable IEM mix. To launch the second set, the guitarist kicks into "Pride and Joy," and the keyboard player now can't hear *anything* in his IEMs. No biggie, thinks keys: he eases out one earpiece and has enough of the acoustic drums on stage to hear where the "one" is. But one chord in and now he's second guessing himself about whether we're playing the song in "Eb" (as recorded) or "E," and he's getting some of the FOH spill—but the stage sound is mostly sub and drum spill where keys are set up.

Keys thinks we're playing in "E" from the guitarist's hands. Hmm, that doesn't sound right. He shifts to "Eb." Still nope. I'm on the other side of the stage, wondering what's going on in the instrument bed under my IEM mix of very loud vocals and drums. Singer has a lot of keys in her mix; and while trying to stay smiling and not get pulled off pitch, she (bless her heart!) quickly mouths to keys, "F." He tries that. Still nope. Guitarist, when he can finally hear enough in his own IEM mix to figure out where the weirdness is coming from, lets keys know we're playing the song in "A" (b/c Etta James style female singer). Now keys has it; but we're well into the first chorus at this point.

Here's the thing: all through this trainwrecked first minute of the song, the crowd in the sold out ballroom is streaming onto the dance floor and they're looking euphoric. At the next set break, we're all just floored at how enthusiastic the room was about that song that we dished out in four different keys.

I'm not saying that crowds are stupid, or that they don't hear anything. But inexpert attention is weirdly limited, and in the right circumstances it tends to engage with what it *expects* to hear as the key foreground feature rather than attend to elements in the background or at the margins. (That's one of the basic lessons of the "invisible gorilla" selective-attention experiment.)

Got a guitar tune with happening vocals and guitar? Who knows what the crowd is able to *not* hear, especially around the edges and at least for a few moments?
The thing that I like most about this, is that you guys just kept on playing and keeping time until it got figured out. That's the most important thing: KEEP THAT DANCE FLOOR GROOVING....:thumbsup:
 
But these things merely refer to your stated reasons for not caring whether your own audience likes what you sound like. Therefore these things really don't matter. Because once you announce that self-righteous self-indulgence is your standard, it just doesn't matter why.

Well, it seems self-righteous self-indulgence its the most common thing. I dont know any musician that have tweaked his sound based on some guy in the audience opinion.
And don't say AGAIN "its not about changing the sound". Because if you dont tweak anything you dont care too..
 
If tone was actually subjective within audiences, there wouldn't be long-established industry standards. The rock-n-roll rebels and the punks and the alt-nicks would have completely done away with all standards long ago.

Edgy, warm, smooth, agressive, bassy, brighter, every bass player in the world choose the tone that works better for him/her..
If bass tone is not subjetive NOTHING is subjetive...
 
Well, it seems self-righteous self-indulgence its the most common thing. I dont know any musician that have tweaked his sound based on some guy in the audience opinion.
And don't say AGAIN "its not about changing the sound". Because if you dont tweak anything you dont care too..

No.... Just don't agree with the concept "if you decide the tone you want, you are unrespecting the audience".
Laser focus on the unimportant. Good job. Keep it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spidey2112
So many folks I don’t want to party with after the show in this thread

Ever get a life long friend because you played like your life depended on it for 5 people?

Ever get offered a better gig or a big tour because you care so much about your performance and playing?

Ever made out with a girl after the show because you showed her a great time and introduced her to new music?

Just so you know, it’s pretty awesome and rewarding. Sorry I forgot my charts and graphs to back that up
 
"The lesson I learned is I need to change my strings more often"

You are talking about THE CHANGE in you setting since the first post, jimmy...
so is that the unimportant thing?

Respect the others who choose to use the setting they want instead of pleasing a guy in the audince,
is that hard?
Yeah, silly me, I should have known you can't make a joke on this website without someone taking it deadly serious. Seriously, what is with you?
 
I knew it was never about science. There's nothing scientific about any of this, there's no way to make it scientific without causing a mass audience exit, you and I both know it fully well. So what's the real motive here? To take down that pompous know-it-all JimmyM down a peg or two because he thinks he knows everything, right? Can't argue that the info's not solid but he said "stupid" and that's offensive, so you'll attack from a science angle. I've seen it before. You're not the first, you won't be the last. I don't worry about pleasing everybody because I know it's an impossible task no matter what I do, so I'm not bothered by it when I don't. I know I don't know everything, trust me. But there's a hell of a lot of stuff I do know, and that's just the way it is. You don't have to agree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. So if that rubs you the wrong way, sorry. Just be honest about the reason.

If someone didn't take that pompous know-it-all JimmyM down a peg or two, I was going to get really really ANGRY. And you don't want to see me really really ANGRY. I will repeat words.
 
I know right? Science. Pfft. I have no beef. And I'll ignore any more quotes from you as you repeatedly reply to things I haven't said and it's very confusing.
Ummm, you are asserting "scientifically" that he's wrong. But, he has a (very) small sample, you have NO sample so his evidence is much more scientifically valid. Also, "scientifically" you cannot prove a negative, which is what you're trying to do.
But hey, science is best, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.