Personal observations over several decades of live work

[Tim Bowen]

The single bullet theory.

I'm just a fan of roots music and all music that sounds good to me, and I'm a fan of making music that I love as a means of paying my bills in the process. I just want to find a way to sound decent and project my music, in a way that doesn't logistically and practically bamboozle me. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

I had some downtime after the line check for my job on Saturday, so I wandered down the street and heard the sound check for a local act. This was an act that had established itself several years back as a bluegrass outfit, but was going in a somewhat different direction as to instrumentation - Martin acousic guitar, vocal, small trap set, doghouse upright bass. These guys brought a single SM57 mic to their gig, and that's it. Sound check was awful... too many frequencies to deal with in the "purist" respect of a single mic. These guys are accomplished musicians, but with all due respect, are sonically clueless. I remember thinking, "Man, if I could afford a Martin that sounded THAT good, I'd certainly want someone to actually hear it". I asked some folks (laymen) that came to my show after hanging at the other venue, how the sound was - "hideous, nothing but bass" was the consensus.

I also recently spoke with a full time working musician and owner of a live sound reinforcement company that has survived as such for nearly three decades, and he's provided sound for virtually every type of musical genre under the sun during this period. The guy's a perfectionist, and his gear reflects as much. I asked him what his biggest challenge as a sound tech has been over the course of his career. His answer: "Bluegrass musicians. They show up with virtually nothing and expect you to make them sound like Jesus."

I've split bills with a ridiculously talented solo autoharp stylist at festivals for the last 6-7 years. The guy owns dozens of autoharps, and his arrangements are mesmerizing. Nonetheless, he gripes about the live sound after every set I've heard him do. He uses a single low output lapel mic, and that's it. He's in his 60's, has been performing for 40+ years. This is all he does, he tours around and plays autoharp and sings for a living. Awesome! Except that he's never happy with his sound. I'm thinking, "ever heard of a preamp?".

I hear folks gripe about not having a handle on output and EQ in the live setting, wigging on the quirks of their clip-on tuners, you name it. If you're Del McCoury, Steve Earle, Gillian Welch, or Jerry Douglas, chances are pretty good that excellent sound reinforcement will be provided for you, as you've earned it. However, chances are equally good that if you're one of these guys, you've learned the ins and outs of what works and what doesn't through the school of hard knocks.

Being a working player means understanding what works and what doesn't. If you're working pubs, festivals, clubs, bars, live venues of any sort - it's entirely irresponsible and cartoonishly naive' to expect anyone other than yourself to provide the tools of the trade. I could not imagine showing up for a paying job sans quality powered mixer, speakers, mic's of choice, high headroom preamp and booster, ambient effectors of choice, in-line tuner, extra cables, extra batteries, etc., etc. If I don't need them, cool, they can stay in the vehicle. When I do need them, they're there.


Peace, love, and understanding. Happy New Year!

TB

[Fretbear]

Good post; I was watching something on TV where Bruce Springsteen was playing for some Obama event, and I was dismayed to hear his old Gibson flattop sound like it was strung with angry rubber bands, which is what those c##p guitar piezo's sound like to me.
Makes you wonder what the poor, unsuccessful people have to work with.

[Geiss]

I think it's all about balance.
Some people regard it as a badge of honor that they don't have or need extra sound gear or techie toys. Others seem more enamored with the technology than the musicianship and buy more than necessary or update more frequently than reasonable.

I agree that ultimately the musicians needs to take responsibility for having at least some baseline proficiency in setting up sound or troubleshooting when things don't sound right.

I have a friend who plays out and changes his guitar strings like every 6 months and regards spending any money on a qualified luthier (except on an emergency basis) as a waste of money. His electronics are way out of date (which in an of itself is OK) but sound mediocre at best. The guitar plays OK but with effort beyond what most good players would expect nowadays.

Yet, he enjoys the gigs and somehow it all gets done.
Not my way of approaching things but it's all a matter of style.....

Dave

[Jim]

Alot of players don't get the concept of maintaining a particular distance from a microphone. You'll sound check them and they're about a foot from the mic and then on the show they move away from it or can't hear themselves when everyone is playing and get righton top of the mic. You can fix the latter riding the fader but no way you'll hear them if the walk away from the mic. For all the piezo p/u are not many peoples favorite sound at least the poor sound man has a signal to work with in a noisy environment.

[jim_n_virginia]

The air must be awful thin way up there on that high horse! :))

Way down here where us "poor unsuccessful" musicians are we just use what we have and whatever sound experience we have (which is not much) to get by.

The outcome is still the same... we still get to make some music and we can always find someone who'll want to listen! :mandosmiley:

[UnityGain]

Ever seen Railroad Earth live? Those guys know what it takes to get a really, really great live sound setup. Each member has their own rack, with preamps, eqs, effects, etc... They have it down for sure.

Check out the pic below, you can see that the mandolin player, banjo player and fiddler each have their own racks, and I think the bass player does too, but you cant see it. Avalon preamps and pendulums and whatnot. Boys know thier electronics.

Edit: Oh yeah, whats up with singers who dont own their own microphone??? Come on! You dont even play an instruemnt, you dont have to buy ANYTHING! Why dont you have a decent vocal mic of your own???

[Mike Snyder]

Years ago I booked bands, MCd, and rounded up my own band for a VERY small, one day free Bgrass festival at a State Park here in Kansas. The first thing I did when I took this responsibility, was to hire out the sound to a fellow who had a neo gospel group. He had good equipment, and busted his butt to provide good sound. This was outside on a wonky little stage, and all was good. He even made cassettes of each act for a very nominal fee. One year, when I went to the folks who footed the bill, they were very proud to tell me that they had aquired a sound system, and that we no longer would have to hire out the sound. It was all mismatched junk that was used and abused. That was the end of good sound at the event, and I lost the interest of some performers. (Who were basically performing for free) The folks who volunteered to run the sound tried real hard.
It was heartbreking, but, as a free festival, there was nothing I could do. I went back to college shortly after, and the event fizzled out. Good sound is SO important to a musical event.

[John Flynn]

I have suffered through versions of all the tribulations described above when playing big gigs, but I can't help thinking how ironic it is that people have to use so much expensive and complicated electronic technology to "get a good acoustic sound." What a contradiction! As a non-professional, I have the great luxury of just generally refusing to play any place I have to plug in or be close-miked. If I absolutely have to have personal sound reinforcement, I see it as a necessary evil and either 1) Make it the venue's problem, and/or 2) Just go with a pizeo and preamp/DI and use as little reinforcement gain as I can get away with to be heard well. The more I perform, the more I am getting to be "puristic" that acoustic music should be heard acoustically.

[allenhopkins]

I tread (gingerly) both sides of this line. I have no sound tech training, but have acquired several sound systems of different sizes, and generally provide sound reinforcement for the different groups in which i play. I'm sure the result is "decent if not brilliant," especially since I'm setting up the equipment and trying to ride herd on it while playing and singing as well.

One thing that has occurred to me, is that people unfamiliar with a musical style, often set up and balance the sound badly for that style. I recall acting as a "volunteer adviser" to the sound tech at a performance by Walt Michael's band, where I persuaded him not to have the guitar and bass overpower the hammered dulcimer and fiddle.

My overall "take" is, if your band is bringing its own sound, make sure it's adequate and designed for your particular needs. Part-time bands that play a few times a year usually can't afford "state of the art," but there are quite a few not-too-pricey systems that can provide decent amplification. In my experience, good microphones are the component most often neglected.

If you're using "house sound," spend a bit of quality time with the sound tech and get some feel for his approach and the system's characteristics. When I opened for Bromberg (name dropper!) a couple years ago, as a solo, I was lucky to get a five-minute sound check, but it was enough to give me some idea of what I needed to do to sound acceptable.

[TomTyrrell]

I'm always amazed at how many bands don't have an answer to "What do you need for sound?" If the band doesn't know who does?

[Pen]

LOL - good points from the OP. By far, it's the most overlooked thing thing by small time groups. It does cost money to get the equipment needed to sound good. Yet another contributer to musicians not making any money. :)

After 4 years of performing with my group, 2008 is the first where we've made more than we've spent on the band. Well, technically, my money earned went into a new Martin guitar - so, I guess I'm still in the Red!

But yeah, learning sound is hard. What you hear on stage is not what the audiance hears. We are constantly improving our setup and sound.

My advice to someone trying to work out their sound. Find a good sound man to sit through a gig - even if they don't run your sound. Then, take their advice. It will save you $$ and time getting it right.

[Jim Nollman]

interesting thread. In theory, I do believe that 4 or 5 people standing around a single mike can work. You can hear some of the great success stories of this difficult method if you listen to old jazz. But those players in the 1920s also had an arranger as a member of the group, and I have heard stories that the best arrangers not only focused on creating complicated parts, but also rehearsed the band members about when to step back from the mike, how far to step back, and when to step forward.

Your usual semi-pro bluegrass band does much the same thing, but without the field officer who keeps them marching in step with the microphone. And because bluegrass music quickly turns into an exercise of furious fingers, it is much too easy to forget that, to the audience, each musicians spacial relationship to the microphone is as important as how fast the notes fly by. Stand too far away and they don't fly by at all.

I have solved this problem in my own case, by adding a little acoustic amp with a built-in tweeter, a schertler, and most important, a volume pedal. If it sounds like a lot, I don't agree, because i can't play if i can't hear myself. Once i established that setup in one of my bands, the rest of the people in the band including an acoustic purist who wasn't being heard at any distance, soon got themselves a similar setup. Now our performances are totally about whether we play the right notes in tune. That's another issue.

There's also the bar band version of sound reinforcement. Over the course of an evening, (usually) the guitar player starts turning up his volume as the audience starts shouting to be heard over the band. It all goes up from there. By the second intermission, whatever suitable sound check they had figured out before the crowd arrived, has fled along with all the people who truly do value their hearing.

As i say, I have started using a volume pedal. But for that work, you also need a savvy audience member, or a sound person who really understands the mix. Perhaps ironically, I usually trust an audience member standing at the back of the hall, more than i do a sound person who may not have a clue about the music we're playing.

One thing i would question is the statement that the big names don't have to contend with this problem. I have attended the last 2 winters of Wintergrass, which is as big as gets for bluegrass in my part of the country. They have these wonderful concerts in an old church, which has great acoustics but takes some real finesse to optimize. Both times, I wanted to go ask the sound person to step aside, because he was ruining the mix of the biggest names by boosting the star's volume, and decreasing the rest of the band too a distant piddle.

[Steve Ostrander]

We play small venues. If you have 50 people in a small room, they don't even have to be talking loud before they will overpower a trio playing acoustic unplugged. So we have to schlepp our PA so we can be heard, and hear ourselves.

The best way to mic a mando, IMHO. is with a good mic. But that requires that I position myself correctly. Then I can't get into the grrove, wander about stage, or go make a minor adjustment on the PA. So I sacrifice and use a piezo to gain the mobility.

[mandolirius]

I've been a player, a booker, a soundperson and everything else down to the guy who sweeps up the place after the gig is over, so I've seen a lot. There were a lot of points in the OP that rang true for me. But one that didn't was this:

<I could not imagine showing up for a paying job sans quality powered mixer, speakers, mic's of choice, high headroom preamp and booster, ambient effectors of choice, in-line tuner, extra cables, extra batteries, etc., etc.>

It's been my observation that, for venues that regularly feature music, most places have a sound system. Granted, it may be c##p but musicians these days usually use the house gear. Obviously it makes things easier for the players and the venues prefer it too, as it's less disruptive to have a permanently installed system than having stuff schlepped in and out all the time. Of course there is still amps, drum sets and so on that have to be brought in but usually not an entire sound system. I'm talking about Canada, where there seems to be fewer casual sorts of gigs than in the U.S. where there are more of those Shakey's Pizza type of places that you can play at for maybe tips, a meal and possibly a bit of cash but don't expect there to be any sound gear. I once played a gig another band member had booked in Washington state. He'd checked that there was sound but the system turned out to be the ###### old mic and two channel mixer they used to announce what food order was ready. I also cringed a bit at:

<If I don't need them, cool, they can stay in the vehicle. When I do need them, they're there.>

Isn't that how a lot of stuff gets ripped off?

[Santiago]

I've edited several sound reinforcement magazines in my day, and there is a long-raging battle over close miking or group miking. All too often the deciding factor is a combination of ignorance and lack of funds. Among people who truly know what they're doing sonically, there are the classical purists who want the live acoustic sound in a quiet room and recognize that each microphone added doubles the noise floor. On the other side are rock musicians who must try to get instrument separation in a cavernous often highly reflective concrete arena filled with screaming fans. They need to closely mike their instruments to obtain any sembalance of a mix. Live Bluegrass musicians are caught in the middle playing acoustic instruments often in a loud bar setting. Here purist vs. populist values come directly into conflict. Mandolinists in particular, trying to be heard against drums and b*njo, must get above the din... and din speaks directly to the lack of separation.

[mandocaster]

IMO,you should know how to get your instrument to sound good in a variety of situations. If you only ever play with the same group of people in the same kind of venue playing the same kind of music and you are satisfied with the sound, then great...
...on the other hand if you have been frustrated because your lousy amplified sound is detracting from both your performance and the audiences perception of it, you need to put on your big boy (or girl) pants and figure out how to make it work. I got a schertler dyn-m a few years ago. It is not as pristine as a good mic on a quiet stage. I get to play with drummers if I want to, though. Or sit in with country bands. Or play jazz along with an electric key board and a saxaphone player. I'm not saying I am particularly good at any of those things, but it sure is fun to try.

[Tim Bowen]

Great points all around, and thanks for taking my comments in the sincere spirit in which they were offered.


I've heard acts gather around a single mic, lean in and out, and sound like a million bucks on many occasions. In each case, several points were true:

* The guys knew what they were doing.

* Somebody (or somebodies) understood mics and instrument frequency ranges.

* Invariably, the setting was that of a dedicated listening environment; most often fairly intimate, but sometimes larger scale.


I've heard acts use the single mic approach at large outdoor festivals. It *can* work, and it has, many times - with a good system, and good live techs that are familiar with the approach and the musical genres that embrace it, and that are sympathetic to the cause. However, it's totally a crapshoot to expect all these variables to be in a positive place as they coincide with one's musical world. More often than not, what I've heard in this regard has been less than what the act had intended to project.

It's nuts to take this approach into a crowded and/or noisy bar, pub, or nightclub - typically, this is not a "listening environment"; it can be, but it's not going to be by default. The band that I mentioned in my initial post - they're great guys and they know how to play, and I dig their material. I'd truly like to support them on nights I'm not working, but sonically, they just plain sound bad. They don't go to the effort of understanding the rooms that they play, nor how gear interacts with such, and subsequently, all that talent misses the intended target (an audience), which breaks my heart.

For the record, I love bluegrass music, traditional and otherwise. I don't play lots of tunes from the standard repetoire, but I certainly dig them. When I played the old chestnut "Shady Grove" on mandolin at gigs over the weekend, my signal was routed through a Radial active DI and an Xotic effects RC booster (among other things), to a Mackie powered mixer - simply because I know that I can make this gear translate my efforts across a variety of venues.

[Tim Bowen]

I've been a player, a booker, a soundperson and everything else down to the guy who sweeps up the place after the gig is over, so I've seen a lot. There were a lot of points in the OP that rang true for me. But one that didn't was this:

<I could not imagine showing up for a paying job sans quality powered mixer, speakers, mic's of choice, high headroom preamp and booster, ambient effectors of choice, in-line tuner, extra cables, extra batteries, etc., etc.>

It's been my observation that, for venues that regularly feature music, most places have a sound system. Granted, it may be c##p but musicians these days usually use the house gear. Obviously it makes things easier for the players and the venues prefer it too, as it's less disruptive to have a permanently installed system than having stuff schlepped in and out all the time. Of course there is still amps, drum sets and so on that have to be brought in but usually not an entire sound system. I'm talking about Canada, where there seems to be fewer casual sorts of gigs than in the U.S. where there are more of those Shakey's Pizza type of places that you can play at for maybe tips, a meal and possibly a bit of cash but don't expect there to be any sound gear. I once played a gig another band member had booked in Washington state. He'd checked that there was sound but the system turned out to be the ###### old mic and two channel mixer they used to announce what food order was ready. I also cringed a bit at:

<If I don't need them, cool, they can stay in the vehicle. When I do need them, they're there.>

Isn't that how a lot of stuff gets ripped off?


Like yourself and many others here, I've been at this for quite some time, and have seen most every imaginable scenario. I'd say that demographics are definitely a factor, as is to what degree playing music figures into your income.

Music is all I do for a living, and it's taken me decades to strike a balance between playing music that I actually want to play, and finding a way to do so in a way that allows me to support my wife and I, pay the house and car notes, keep the lights on, and keep food in the fridge and pantry. Hence, I've noted scenarios that work for me and those that don't.

While I enjoy the occasional and inevitable diversion, here's what works for me:

* If I supply sound reinforcement, 'between-sets' music, and am the only working act on the bill, I can control the situation, make good money, have a blast, and deal with less peripheral BS.

* I have a bottom line dollar figure in mind that comes into play before I'll leave the house with my gear, and all math (time, travel, expenses) figure in here. This is not an elitist point of view, this is simply business.

* There are venues that I enjoy working, and those that I don't. Some types of venues, such as dedicated sports bars, I've sworn off. Over the course of 3-4 shows at a venue, I can determine whether or not it's a good fit for me financially and musically.


I've worked loads of rooms that have "in-house" PA. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it sucks. As for making a living playing music, my experience has been that working dedicated high profile acoustic listening rooms in the southeastern United States has basically paid me in the form of several peanuts. I've enjoyed playing those rooms, but these pursuits don't necessarily figure into my personal fiscal plan.

Sonically, I hate second-guessing systems and techs, but as a chameleon, it certainly becomes necessary to do so at times. If I arrive at a venue and see frayed wires, questionable cables and routing, my response is "Do you mind if I bring in my system? It's small, portable, won't take much time." And I've dealt with more than plenty of "techs" that show up fifteen minutes before downbeat, all bohemian, nappy-headed, and hungover, not to mention the guy that blasts hiphop drum n' bass dance sets in between the live sets... oh yeah, that guy is totally going to get what I'm attempting to project, he's looking out after the best interests of the musicians, I think I'll trust his experience and expertise.

Good points on the 'theft' thing. As much as I need to lug gear around, I try to call it as to the situation at hand. The only gear that I've had stolen from me over the last thirty plus years has been from nightclubs and apartments. If I'm playing a venue with multiple acts, I'm going to make it my mission statement to watch my goodies like the proverbial hawk. *Knocks on wooden head* - to date, I've never had anything stolen from a vehicle. Obviously, I'm not going to leave gleaming goodies in the vehicle as parked in a questionable area, metropolitan or otherwise.

[mandolirius]

<Like yourself and many others here, I've been at this for quite some time, and have seen most every imaginable scenario. I'd say that demographics are definitely a factor, as is to what degree playing music figures into your income.

Music is all I do for a living, and it's taken me decades to strike a balance between playing music that I actually want to play, and finding a way to do so in a way that allows me to support my wife and I, pay the house and car notes, keep the lights on, and keep food in the fridge and pantry. Hence, I've noted scenarios that work for me and those that don't.>

Tim, sounds like one thing you don't believe in is making excuses and there I'm in complete agreement.

[earthsave]

A single SM57 isnt really supposed to work for a group.

When I first saw the Dickel Brothers about 10 years ago now I guess, they used a single mic but I couldnt tell you what type. They play sorta old timey gang band style. Fiddle lead the melody and guitar, mandolin, banjo, bass, washboard all mixed in well. It was a small room. Having balanced instruments (equal in volume) helps with a single mic.

We always carry our AT/4033 and get some strange looks and harumphs from sound techs. Not sure if it is because it's hard to get the volume of single mics with it or they dont get to work as many slides/knobs to balance the sound?

For bars, parties, and outdoor events where we are either on our own, we always bring our system.

[Ted Eschliman]

I've had the good fortune of having a few custom built instruments made for me. Since most of my performing is plugged-in, I've thought it important to build an instrument around the pick-up, rather than think of of a pick-up as a simple after-market product. This might involve some acoustic compromises in construction, but these decisions made early in the building process pay back in spades in peace of mind and no-fuss plug-and-play set-ups.

Can't speak for the rest of the ensemble, but at least I feel like I have some degree of control over the output of my instrument, and can concentrate more on playing than being a sound tech. "Amplified acoustic purity" can be a bit oxymoronical, but you can still hedge your bet with a healthy dose of premeditation and compromise.

[JeffD]

I sometimes think there should be a section on the forum entitled something like "working musicians" or "professional performance" or something. A repository for threads like this.

Here's the thing - in a professional situation a sound tech needs to be on the team. Somebody, if not the musician or a band member, somebody needs to know this stuff.

Tim, I 100% agree that, were I to play professionally, it would be my responsibility to either become an expert (not likely), or to hire one, or acquire one in some way, because that is what a professional does. The pro is responsable for all aspects of the performance - sound especially, (but also including promotion, copyright and branding laws, glad handing promotors, dealing with agents, arguing with venues and studeos, contracts and contract law, hiring and firing, and the business of business).

Thing is.... I find microphones and amplifiers and sound technology to be gigantically boring to learn, and a hindrance to the enjoyment of playing. It pulls me away from everything the music means to me, the back porch pickin', the interaction with other musicians, the deep roots, the way a tune hinges on a note or chord or phrase, the way a good tune seems to go with corn bread and chili, the way eight strings and some hunks of wood can evokes a mood or a feeling or a memory, and the way I am participating in an endeavor as old and traditional as the blue hills in the distance, and as deeply human as language itself.

Everything that awes me about participatory music is 180 degrees out of phase with wires and microphones, digital signal processing, knob tweeking, pre-amps, pre-volts, and pre-ohms.

And that is why I would not want to be a professional musician. (OK, that and because I have found other ways of make my living that are, in other ways, fullfilling.)

So Tim, we agree, but it saddens me.

[Andy Miller]

Over the years I have played a thousand or two gigs, mostly with an electric band, in all manner of venues from the "Shakey's Pizza" mentioned above to large festival stages with excellent pro sound crews. I stopped doing the electric thing a few years back and didn't play out for a long while. Then I started putting together what's become my little acoustic trio with my wife, and really liked the idea of using a small but mighty PA with a single condenser mic. Heh. As described in several posts above - that works when it works. I love it when I can use those LD condensers, but I usually use two up front instead of one, I guess I'm just not that good a choreographer. I have also broken down and bought all the dynamic mics, pickups, DI's, preamps I need to do it that way 'round when that's the way it needs to be done. So much for simplicity - I'm doomed to taking a carload of gear if I want to be assured of a chance at good sound. But it's worth it when things sound good, I'm comfortable hearing myself and the others, and the audience's response indicates that they can hear what we're up to.

[mandopete]

Tim - thanks for these thoughtful posts, great reading!

[Capt. E]

When I saw the Punch Brothers back in October, they all had a wireless mike setup that enabled them to wander around etc and the sound was consistent, balanced and of excellent quality. Not sure who did their sound (The Cactus Cafe at the University of Texas). I have to add that the Cactus is a small venue, perfect for acoustic acts. Anyone know how the Punch Bros do their sound?

[Chip Booth]

Capt. E, the Punch Brothers all use ATM35 small diaphragm clip-on condenser mics on their instruments. They have 2 large diaphragm condensers for vocals. Even with this setup they manage to use stage monitors, which is very difficult to pull off. Their soundman is a fairly well known guy who travels with them (I forget his name but there is another thread where this question was asked and answered well). He is practically a member of the band in the way he controls the dynamics and focus of the music.

As for the original post, I generally agree. I have far too often worked with people who don't take the time and effort to get their stage sound together, and I always end up being the one who handles it for them. As far as I am concerned, anyone who gets paid to play music is a "professional" and should act as such. I live in an area inundated by beginner bands just trying to play their instruments, and what passes for sound reinforcement is laughable. These folks get gigs from their friends or co-workers, and take away jobs from otherwise seasoned, talented players who really put effort into making sure their music and sound equipment is top notch. A band I work with recently lost a well paying, high scale job to a solo guy who literally stops in the middle of songs, and says "I blew that, I'm gonna try again from the chorus". He is friends with the director of the foundation, and charged them next to nothing.

Now, I'm not saying these people shouldn't play music, they should, everyone should. But it's a fine line between the desire to get out there and perform, starting the process toward being a "professional" musician, and realizing that you are not yet ready to go out there and provide a competent product.

Chip

[Stephen Lind]

music is about sound
there's more to it to be sure
but the way listeners hear your music is, by far, the most important aspect of an actual musical performance

i can not understand how anyone really who cares about their music
can not doing everything they possible to bring the best sound to their audience where ever they choose to perform

[mandowilli]

Good thread.

Went to see a young Celtic group Saturday night and it was a technical train wreck. Within 5 minutes of arriving my ears where exhausted, not from the music but from the sound. They set the PA up like they where plugging in a video game. Make some connections and just start playing.

Granted, not everyone is a technical wizard, but taking the time to learn the fundamentals of live sound is just common sense. Practice the music all you want but there is often a point at which the music will no longer matter.

I would much rather hear a group with a small PA that knows how to balance input levels at sound check than one that has a large rig and everyone just plugs in and lets it rip.

If you have to amplify learn the basics. For everyones sake.

[Arve Hermundstad]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who gets paid to play music is a "professional" and should act as such.
Chip, I completely agree. It's not just about playing your best, but also delivering the best sound you can manage. Granted, acoustic music sounds best played completely acoustic, but who is fortunate enough to play in an environment where everybody shuts up and listens to every little detail you play? Amplification is (unfortunately) a tool of the trade, and it is disrespectful to the audience not to use your tools to the best of your ability!

[EdSherry]

Over the years, I've known many individuals and bands who will work like the dickens to rehearse their music so they sound great -- in their living room. But they don't rehearse with mics, or a PA, or monitors, or even standing in the lineup that they intend to use on stage.

IMHO, if you intend to play in an amplified context -- and that's pretty much necessary in anything larger than a living room -- I think it's worth spending time at least familiarizing yourself with how to work a mic and a PA -- and, ideally, owning (or renting) what you need to make yourself sound good to the audience (which often requires not only good main PA gear but also good monitor gear so that the band members can hear each other).

I sympathize with Chip's suggestion that "anyone who gets paid to play music is a 'professional' and should act as such," but IMHO there's a world of difference between the situation facing a full-time professional and that facing "occasional" musicians who make music for fun and (occasional) $$. I can't really fault those who only play out occasionally for not owning a lot of gear (though over the years I've acquired a lot of good PA gear and have learned to use it).

Simply put, a full-time professional can justify the cost of owning the necessary gear because he/she can amortize the fixed cost of a PA over a large number of gigs. An "occasional" band often cannot. And the cost of renting a good PA, or hiring a sound company to run sound, can significantly exceed what the entire band is being paid for the gig.

And, unfortunately, relying on the venue to have the gear necessary to make you (or your group) sound good is a cr*p shoot (as others have already noted). Clubs and (especially) festivals SHOULD have what they need to make the music sound good (including competent sound technicians familiar with the musical genre being played, and paying attention to what's happening on stage). All too often, they don't.

[Tim Bowen]

I sometimes think there should be a section on the forum entitled something like "working musicians" or "professional performance" or something. A repository for threads like this.

Here's the thing - in a professional situation a sound tech needs to be on the team. Somebody, if not the musician or a band member, somebody needs to know this stuff.

Tim, I 100% agree that, were I to play professionally, it would be my responsibility to either become an expert (not likely), or to hire one, or acquire one in some way, because that is what a professional does. The pro is responsable for all aspects of the performance - sound especially, (but also including promotion, copyright and branding laws, glad handing promotors, dealing with agents, arguing with venues and studeos, contracts and contract law, hiring and firing, and the business of business).

Thing is.... I find microphones and amplifiers and sound technology to be gigantically boring to learn, and a hindrance to the enjoyment of playing. It pulls me away from everything the music means to me, the back porch pickin', the interaction with other musicians, the deep roots, the way a tune hinges on a note or chord or phrase, the way a good tune seems to go with corn bread and chili, the way eight strings and some hunks of wood can evokes a mood or a feeling or a memory, and the way I am participating in an endeavor as old and traditional as the blue hills in the distance, and as deeply human as language itself.

Everything that awes me about participatory music is 180 degrees out of phase with wires and microphones, digital signal processing, knob tweeking, pre-amps, pre-volts, and pre-ohms.

And that is why I would not want to be a professional musician. (OK, that and because I have found other ways of make my living that are, in other ways, fullfilling.)

So Tim, we agree, but it saddens me.

Nothing to be sad about that I can see, brother. Thanks for your thoughts, they're certainly not lost on me.

I dig where you're coming from. Anymore, I'm an acoustic musician at heart. When I'm working arrangements or lesson plans here at the house, my instinct and first call is to grab an acoustic guitar, mandolin, or banjo. If I need to work electric bass, baritone guitar, or lap steel, it means that I've gotta crawl off of the sofa, fire up the Deluxe Reverb or whatever amp is living in the room at the time and wait for the tubes to warm up...! I'm sure that this comment could easily be misconstrued as being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek, but I assure you that I'm entirely serious and sincere in this respect. Most of my associate guitar teachers favor electric guitars for their sessions, but unless the material calls for vast amounts of string bending and electric guitar-specific applications, I work with an acoustic guitar. Or banjo or mandolin.

What some of the folks here are saying is that if you want to (or if it is your responsibility to) bring your music to listeners, a certain understanding of the sonic nuts and bolts becomes intrinsically necessary. What I want for my shows is as intimate, as "living room", an evironment as possible; however, every situation and every venue is different, and sometimes vastly different, hence the need for, and the need for understanding of, various sonic tools.

One of the reasons that working musicians spend considerable amounts of time dinking around with various gear is that they want to spend less time dinking around with gear; that is, the experimentation is all about rounding up tools that are easy, predictable, and user-friendly to operate in the heat of battle (the show, the gig, the job). Nobody wants to be confounded by their tools at work.

I've spent countless thousands of hours bench testing various gear and nitpicking the nuances of such to death, and there are several reasons for this: One is that I've been sonically curious since I was a kid (everybody need a hobby); secondly, I've been asked to beta test prototype circuits by several builders and designers and either forward my comments directly to them, or state them publicly, as based upon their choice (perks are free goodies and other considerations); but mostly, because understanding gear and sonic character and quirks is a defining aspect of my job description. Projecting a live set that feels good to both the act and the room is an ongoing commitment, it's just an integral part of the job.

Jerry Douglas is probably the world's best known dobro stylist, and for good reasons - he's amazing, and he elevates every tune that he plays on. I don't yet play dobro, but I've worked with enough folks that do to understand that it can be a very difficult instrument to sonically reproduce in the live environment; without some care and knowledge, it's prone to feed back and howl like a banshee. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that Mr. Douglas logged in some hours with dinking around, and that he endured some trial and error.

There's never ever a guarantee that folks will sonically be on the same page, even if they are knowledgeable and experienced. The average working player in the trenches that works a variety of situations can not afford to hire a personal sound tech, and most likely, they'll be working with various "house" techs over the course of various settings. Sometimes musicians are jaded and cynical toward techs, and sometimes techs are jaded and cynical toward musicians. The best way to achieve a symbiotic relationship is to check the ego at the door and listen to what the other guy or gal has to say.

Here's an analogy. My dad was an incredibly gifted mechanic. He lived to tinker, and he was even a jet engine mechanic for the USAF during a period of his varied career. He tried his best to pass this interest on to me, but I couldn't be bothered, I was way too much into art and music. I'm not entirely mechanically inept, but the process of tinkering didn't, and doesn't, blow my skirt up in the same way that it does for some folks. It takes me a week to remember where within the house I last left my soldering gun, and when I find it, it's gonna take me twice as long to get from point A to point B as the guy that truly has a jones for it. Unlike dinking around with music and sonic quirks, nothing about the process of mechanical tinkering is appealing to me personally - I only dig the results. So what I do is pay a pro to do my work. If I truly wanted to be the well rounded musician that I aspire to be, I'd do all my tinkering as well, but there's only so many hours in the day. I cut corners wherever I can to allow more time to work with what I'm truly interested in. That said, if I or somebody else didn't maintain my gear and do fret crowns and electronic repairs and such, the "living room" environment that I so sincerely would like to create and be a part of with a listening audience would be severely diminished. If I have to trouble shoot gear on the fly at gigs (and despite my best efforts, I still have to, and always will have to), it's time and effort diverted from the music at hand, but that's the breaks, that's work.

My point would be that work requires an understanding of the tools of the trade - the hammers and the screwdrivers -, and that the tools change on a continual basis.

[Dave Wendler]

Fortunately, sound gear improves every season; it's markedly easier to deal with, smaller, lighter, louder and more accurate than it was when I started out performing in the sixties. I've always paid close attention to the developments....From the tuck and rolled Kustom columns...through huge Altec VoT systems, a tri-amped JBL rig...to first class EAW "studio monitor" quality....The best advice I can give to acoustic musicians and groups....GET YOUR OWN MONITORING SYSTEM AND STAGE MICS. Learn to work that system, and if there is ANY DOUBT about the "quality" of either the soundman or the venue....use your monitor system, and let the house be responsible for their venue.

I'd personally be looking at in-ear monitoring, and good LD mics( a pair out front for a bluegrass ensemble), along with a dedicated lo-freq mic for the string bass. The in ear monitors/FM systems ARE expensive...figure about 500 clams/player...but man, you can get your "stage sound" like you want, and by reducing the amount of ambient sound on stage, pump the hell out of the mains. The trick is...if YOU'RE relaxed with YOUR SOUND, the performance will be better. Then give the soundman a mono or stereo feed, that he can eq to fit the house.

BTW, the new Bose line arrays and the new Fishman "Soloamp" are extremely impressive and accurate to acoustic instruments. All the rest of the premade "acoustic amps" are pale in comparison. The industry is finally seeing the light. Just from looking at what's availible over the last couple of years....a pair of those Bose columns and bass bins, with outboard mixing and in-ear monitoring should cover 500 people in a theater/church setting, perhaps 200 in a club setting. Expensive, but if you've spent thousands on your instruments, plan on matching that cost with your PA system, and keeping it as simple as possible.

[bobby bill]

Okay. I'm in the techno-neanderthal camp. When I hear a string of letters and numbers (SM57, AT/4033) my eyes glaze over. I must be missing a male gene. I have been using the same mic for ten years and I cannot tell you what kind it is.

That said, I am absolutely on board that it would be good to be less ignorant about equipment matters. Are there some constructive suggestions (i.e., find out what mic you have been using for the last ten years) on how to learn more about this stuff? Most of the material on equipment seems to be written for folks that already know about equipment. Is there a good "Sonics for Dummies" out there that could at least teach the language of the technology?

[foldedpath]

When I saw the Punch Brothers back in October, they all had a wireless mike setup that enabled them to wander around etc and the sound was consistent, balanced and of excellent quality. Not sure who did their sound (The Cactus Cafe at the University of Texas). I have to add that the Cactus is a small venue, perfect for acoustic acts. Anyone know how the Punch Bros do their sound?

Just a side note on wireless... as if it wasn't already difficult to get good sound reinforcement, the whole wireless thing is undergoing major changes due to recent FCC rulings. Long story short, you might want to wait until it's clear how things shake out before buying any wireless gear in the near future:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Shure-Raises-Concerns-Over-FCC/story.aspx?guid={7C9A8D31-AF7C-4FCF-87FE-0CFD962522E3}

[Capt. E]

I was impressed by the quality of the Punch Bros sound. Makes sense they have their own sound man. Thanks for the details about their set-up.
How many times have you gone to see a group live and come away disappointed? Too many bands gain a reputation from recordings, but eventually fail because the live version doesn't measure up. Of course, the opposite happens as well. The Punch Bros. succeed on both counts.

[Jim Nollman]

To paraphrase what someone here has said: if you are willing to spend a certain amount of money on an instrument with subtle tone, then why not spend some commensurate amount (but never as much) to put together a sound system to reproduce those subtle tones so your audience can hear it. Otherwise, you're just playing a nice-looking mandolin with a sound that bears some vague resemblance to a nice-looking mandolin.

As this thread suggests, the learning process about how to sound good on stage is well begun by educating yourself, to some degree, about one microphone versus several, when to use each mic type, and from there, how to arrange your band to stand around the mics, for different song arrangements.

[Paul Kotapish]

Tim,

While I am in general agreement with your argument in favor of musicians taking responsibility for their own sound, I have come to some slightly different conclusions about how to achieve that.

For bands--or soloists--playing venues where they need to provide their own sound, then they absolutely should decide the best approach for their needs and invest the time and money to buy the appropriate gear and learn how to use it, rehearse with it, and generally become experts in their own sound-reinforcement needs.

I would argue that there are many different ways to approach the solution. For some groups, wireless connections with onboard mics or pickups, individual in-ear monitors, and a generally high-tech approach (Punch Brothers) might be the way to go, for others, a single condensor mic and no monitors (Del and the Boys) might be a better solution. The main thing is to have a plan that you know works, and stick with it.

Unfortunately, unless the band also controls the front of house and monitor gear--speakers, desk, amps, and (most critically) the EQ rack, even the best stage plot and front end can get mangled in translation.

I play a few gigs where we have to supply our own gear, and those generally work out just fine. But most of the time, we're playing bigger venues where the sound system is supplied by others. Most of the time the basic gear is excellent, and the crucial variable is the sound tech. When we can, we choose someone we know will work well, but in many cases, the choice of sound person is out of our control. And that--in my experience--makes far more difference than the specifics of the gear itself.

Off the top of my head I can think of a half-dozen Bay Area venues where I played many times with the same ensemble using identical gear, identical setup, placement, mics, monitors, speakers, etc.--where the sound quality and experience ranged from brilliantly great to absolutley abyssmal depending on who was running the desk.

The Freight & Salvage, the Little Fox Theater, Don Quixote's, Sweetwater, Great American Music Hall, and Slim's are all places that have sound systems that have to potential to provide superior sound for an acoustic ensemble, and when the right person is on the desk, the sound is sublime. But put another set of ears and knob-twiddling fingers at the desk, and no matter what level of expertise, stage savvy, and quality gear is onstage, the sound will be horrible.

For years, the Music Hall had a wonderful engineer who totally knew how to mic and mix acoustic instruments. I met musicians all over the world who would wax rhapsodic about Lee's engineering there. When he stopped doing sound there, the quality of sound for acoustic music plummeted. The Sweetwater is another place where a particular sound guy could ruin the night, and players from everywhere would grimace when they found out that "Crazy ______" was on the board.

Over the course of many years and many hundred of gigs I schlepped around a custom stereo rig for both mandolin and guitar, with hand-made Mills condenser mics, custom Baggs or custom Fishman pickups, top-quality preamps, blenders, and EQ rack, etc. A lot of engineers told me it was the best-sounding rig they had worked with. But I still found the sound would be horrible if the wrong guy or gal was mixing. And if the right person was on the desk, I could use a tin can and a string and it would sound great.

When I came to that realization, I stripped all of the on-board electronics off of my instruments and now work with a mic on a stand. I typically carry a couple of extra mic stands and a small case with a choice of dynamic and condenser mics with me, but I rarely pull them out. For certain gigs I carry a Fishman magetic pickup/condenser mic combo for the guitar, but almost never use it. For some really big festival gigs, a pickup can be one's only salvation on a guitar, but most of the time a decent mandolin will do fine with even a lowly SM-57 on it.

Instead, I make sure that the sound person has a preprinted stage plot with all the details set out and spend time explaining our philosophy and approach and preferred volume level. I make it clear that we all know how to work our mics, and that if someone has backed off, it is intentional, and that the lead instrument will shift around faster than he can mix it, and that once levels are set, he/she should leave them alone.

With a good, acoustic-savvy engineer, this always works. With someone who things he knows better than we do, it rarely does.

I'm lucky enough to have great-sounding instruments that mic well and are pretty loud acoustically, and I am--in general--much happier with the sound I get these days without all the paraphenalia.

Of course, YMMV.

[AlanN]

The top-tier band 3TO travels with their own sound man and has done so for years, always introducing him when they do the band member introduction thing (and has now come to singing the bass part with them on-stage on select numbers, now that Ray is gone). The proverbial 'sixth man'.

Paul - was that Lee Brinkman?

[PhilGE]

What Paul said.

By the way, having had the opportunity to work with Paul once many years ago, I can say he's a musician who earns the respect of fellow musicians and sound techs alike.

-Phil

[Paul Kotapish]

The top-tier band 3TO travels with their own sound man and has done so for years, always introducing him when they do the band member introduction thing (and has now come to singing the bass part with them on-stage on select numbers, now that Ray is gone). The proverbial 'sixth man'.

Paul - was that Lee Brinkman?

Yep, it was Mr. Brinkman.

Being able to travel with a dedicated sound person is the dream, and most bands--and top-level soloists--make that investment. I've only had that luxury on a few European tours, and it sure made a difference. I won't say that the sound was perfect every night--too many variables in terms of the gear at the venues--but it was always pretty good and way better than it would have been if we'd been left to our own devices or those of a different tech every night.

[Fretbear]

Good post from Paul and heartening to me on this subject. There almost seems to be this idea that once you get good enough to play for large enough groups of people that serious sound reinforcent becomes necessary, that you are supposed to accept your hard won acoustic tone turning to c##p in exchange. I feel the opposite would be the case. I am not against drilling a hole in my end block for a 1/4" jack on principle. I am against drilling a hole in my end block for a 1/4" jack so that I can sound worse than I would playing into a microphone. Here is a video of Punch Brothers playing "Green Light on the Southern" at the Birchmere. Whatever the guitar player is using is excellent, it sounds beautiful and loud and he doesn't seem to be using the microphone. Thile's second solo cannot be heard, while his first one sounds great. If he is using the ATM35 that Chip mentioned above, it still needed some tweaking here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BErwfOTKIXY

[mandowilli]

[QUOTE=Tim Bowen;612962]The single bullet theory.

I also recently spoke with a full time working musician and owner of a live sound reinforcement company that has survived as such for nearly three decades, and he's provided sound for virtually every type of musical genre under the sun during this period. The guy's a perfectionist, and his gear reflects as much. I asked him what his biggest challenge as a sound tech has been over the course of his career. His answer: "Bluegrass musicians. They show up with virtually nothing and expect you to make them sound like Jesus."

Back to the original post, I have been playing amplified acoustic music for a long time, and frankly find that the larger sound professionals quite often have little or no experience dealing with the likes of us.

Granted, we can all agree that it is a difficult and thankless job, and that Bluegrass musicians can be demanding, but to be a perfectionist?

[Tim Bowen]

Tim,

While I am in general agreement with your argument in favor of musicians taking responsibility for their own sound, I have come to some slightly different conclusions about how to achieve that.

For bands--or soloists--playing venues where they need to provide their own sound, then they absolutely should decide the best approach for their needs and invest the time and money to buy the appropriate gear and learn how to use it, rehearse with it, and generally become experts in their own sound-reinforcement needs.

I would argue that there are many different ways to approach the solution. For some groups, wireless connections with onboard mics or pickups, individual in-ear monitors, and a generally high-tech approach (Punch Brothers) might be the way to go, for others, a single condensor mic and no monitors (Del and the Boys) might be a better solution. The main thing is to have a plan that you know works, and stick with it.

Unfortunately, unless the band also controls the front of house and monitor gear--speakers, desk, amps, and (most critically) the EQ rack, even the best stage plot and front end can get mangled in translation.

I play a few gigs where we have to supply our own gear, and those generally work out just fine. But most of the time, we're playing bigger venues where the sound system is supplied by others. Most of the time the basic gear is excellent, and the crucial variable is the sound tech. When we can, we choose someone we know will work well, but in many cases, the choice of sound person is out of our control. And that--in my experience--makes far more difference than the specifics of the gear itself.

Off the top of my head I can think of a half-dozen Bay Area venues where I played many times with the same ensemble using identical gear, identical setup, placement, mics, monitors, speakers, etc.--where the sound quality and experience ranged from brilliantly great to absolutley abyssmal depending on who was running the desk.

The Freight & Salvage, the Little Fox Theater, Don Quixote's, Sweetwater, Great American Music Hall, and Slim's are all places that have sound systems that have to potential to provide superior sound for an acoustic ensemble, and when the right person is on the desk, the sound is sublime. But put another set of ears and knob-twiddling fingers at the desk, and no matter what level of expertise, stage savvy, and quality gear is onstage, the sound will be horrible.

For years, the Music Hall had a wonderful engineer who totally knew how to mic and mix acoustic instruments. I met musicians all over the world who would wax rhapsodic about Lee's engineering there. When he stopped doing sound there, the quality of sound for acoustic music plummeted. The Sweetwater is another place where a particular sound guy could ruin the night, and players from everywhere would grimace when they found out that "Crazy ______" was on the board.

Over the course of many years and many hundred of gigs I schlepped around a custom stereo rig for both mandolin and guitar, with hand-made Mills condenser mics, custom Baggs or custom Fishman pickups, top-quality preamps, blenders, and EQ rack, etc. A lot of engineers told me it was the best-sounding rig they had worked with. But I still found the sound would be horrible if the wrong guy or gal was mixing. And if the right person was on the desk, I could use a tin can and a string and it would sound great.

When I came to that realization, I stripped all of the on-board electronics off of my instruments and now work with a mic on a stand. I typically carry a couple of extra mic stands and a small case with a choice of dynamic and condenser mics with me, but I rarely pull them out. For certain gigs I carry a Fishman magetic pickup/condenser mic combo for the guitar, but almost never use it. For some really big festival gigs, a pickup can be one's only salvation on a guitar, but most of the time a decent mandolin will do fine with even a lowly SM-57 on it.

Instead, I make sure that the sound person has a preprinted stage plot with all the details set out and spend time explaining our philosophy and approach and preferred volume level. I make it clear that we all know how to work our mics, and that if someone has backed off, it is intentional, and that the lead instrument will shift around faster than he can mix it, and that once levels are set, he/she should leave them alone.

With a good, acoustic-savvy engineer, this always works. With someone who things he knows better than we do, it rarely does.

I'm lucky enough to have great-sounding instruments that mic well and are pretty loud acoustically, and I am--in general--much happier with the sound I get these days without all the paraphenalia.

Of course, YMMV.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your informed and thoughtful post. I think we might being saying the same thing here in different ways - that is, getting from point A to point B is the goal; the parameters of such can be wildly different depending on situation, room, material, approach, et al; and that any such "arrival" at said point is usually only accomplished via the school of hard knocks, experimentation, trial and error.

Since last summer, I've been working exclusively with a duo, and other than for festival jobs and such, we do provide our own sound. However, I've been gigging since the mid 70's, so the good, the bad, and the ugly have presented themselves along the way. Prior to last summer, I was additionally working with a six piece Americana band. We'd play a bar or restaurant for fifty people one night and a concert venue or festival for 12,000 the next. Constantly different sound reinforcement and techs, several times per week. Great, good, okay, awful, horrendous - all shades of grey applied to circumstances and conditions. Something that sound techs that don't also perform may not realize is the difference between the two jobs - a tech's job is about sonic management, and a musician's job is about performance, and chemistry and interplay with other musicians that they happen to be working with at the time. Obviously, there's loads of overlap. From the bandstand, it really doesn't matter to musicians if the FOH sounds are awesome (at least at the time), in the same way that the tech doesn't really live in the world of how it actually sounds and feels in the line of fire on the stage. Regardless of how incredible and controlled the FOH sound is, the musician is charged with the responsibility of delivering performance, the tech is not. If a musician is given an anemic onstage output level to work with (I'm not talking a guy that's used to blaring Marshall and Hiwatt stacks, I'm talking reasonable middle of the road), it stands to reason that the musician would want to boost his or her signal with whatever means available. If it feels lame on the bandstand, the performance is likely to reflect as much.

Way before that - after the first couple dozen times of being burned by trying to second guess venue, system quality, monitor mix, tech or tech crew motives and integrity - I began to realize that the only guy ultimately responsible for my sound is me, and that I had to take steps to assume responsibility for such, and in effect, the way this translated for me personally was to have more than enough sonic control than I needed from the stage or bandstand. I also learned early on to utilize the age old musician's trick of only offering about 60-70% of available volume to a tech during sound and line checks, and keeping the extra volume in reserve, only for if it is actually needed (some techs call this "sandbagging"). For what it's worth, I've also worked with sound and light crews a bit, so I've sat on both sides of the fence. Sound techs and performing musicians often find themselves at odds with each other, but it's always best one understands the other.

At this point, I'm reasonably certain that my approach, material, instrumentation, and tastes will never call for mic'ing, unless I hit paydirt and can afford the luxury of honing in on and nitpicking esoteric details. That said, I doubt my rig would work for your purposes. In fact, I've my doubts as to whether my rig would work for anyone other than myself. I've no beef with mic'ing in controlled environments, and I'm a huge fan of bluegrass ond ole timey and acts of any sort that know what they're doing with it. Unlike in the case of a seasoned veteran such as yourself, I suspect that there's a contingent of folks out there that aspire to "minimalist", "retro", and "authentic" because it's cool. Well, it is cool - if it's cool for the situation. Don't choose it because it's cool, choose it because you've done the time to determine the best fit. Just know your room, your gear, your audience, your approach, and know how to get from point A to point B. That's all.

[Dagger Gordon]

For playing for dances I definitely like a pick-up. We always provide our own sound for those.

Concerts I like a mic in there somewhere. Ideally I use a combination of mic and pick-up for a concert, and I find sound guys quite like that as it gives them more to work with.

One trick I use on my tenor banjo (which is open-backed) is to tie a Shure 58 under the skin with elastic bands, so the head of the mic is directly under the bridge. Works great. All the presence of a pick-up but the sound of a mic.

I would say nearly all folky musicians in Scotland like to use some form of pick-up on stage, but at heart they're into acoustic sessions in pubs - I guess the Celtic equivalent of front porch pickin'.

They are definitely acoustic people but see no purist contradiction in using pick-ups.

[Paul Kotapish]

Tim,

Thanks for the continuing exchange of well-considered ideas.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the observation that any given setup (instrument, pickup, mic, cabling, wireless connections, interface, outboard gear, pedals, rack, etc.) will only work for the musician who has actually spent the time and energy proving that it will actually work. Whichever camp one falls into, I think the gist of Tim's original post is right on the money. Take the time to understand what you are going for, to learn your specific needs, understand the advantages and limitations of each option, and work as hard as you need to in order to realize the best sound possible for your music.

Just a couple of addenda to my earlier comments.

I have heard a number of folks plug in and sound fabulous. And I am completely in agreement that getting free of the mic stand offers a lot of advantages. When I do plug in, I absolutely love the freedom to ramble about the stage at will. And I much prefer an uncluttered stage. If you can lose the mic stands and monitors--all the better for everyone, on stage and in the audience.

One thing worth noting is that one's options regarding mics and pickups are governed largely by how one plays in terms of right-hand technique. During my years at String Letter Publishing as an editor at Acoustic Guitar and String, we did a lot of pickup and mic tests.

What became absolutely clear is that for players with a relatively delicate and consistent touch and comparatively narrow dynamic range, the sky was the limit in terms of what could be made to sound good. Saddle pickups, contact pickups, tape transducers, magnetic pickups, and all the other variations could be made to sound reasonably acoustic and woody with the right touch. The fingerstyle guitarists, for example, tended to sound great, while the bluegrassers tended to sound horrible.

For ham-fisted players like me, if I got the sound right for soft passages, it would be a disaster when I started chopping--and vice versa. And believe me, I tried virtually every attenuation option I could think of--every variety of volume pedal, stomp-box gain control, compressor, limiter, etc. ad nauseum.

Finally, I think a huge part of the problem with live sound in the last couple of decades has been the astounding escalation of the volume level that is perceived to be appropriate for acoustic music. I like loud(ish) rock music, and when I was an electric guitarist, I certainly played my share of load guitar. But bluegrass, old-time, and other acoustic genres are not rock music and do not need to be cranked to the rafters in order to be effective.

One of the biggest challenges I face at every sound check is to convince the sound person that we are not going for maximum in-your-face volume. What we want is for every person in the room to feel like they are in the living room with us, and that our instruments are meant to be conversational--not confrontational.

Best,
PK

[Dagger Gordon]

Paul always has good posts.

He makes a good point regarding the escalation of volume for acoustic music.

Some of this is connected with a change in listening habits and types of venue. When I started going to folk clubs in Scotland often there was no PA at all, or if there was it was no more than an amp and two speakers (usually HH). There was an atmosphere of careful listening.

There are far fewer of those types of venues still going, although perhaps the house concert circuit will take their place. Increasingly trad musicians find gigs in Irish bars and the like where there is often a huge amount of crowd noise. There is a place called Hootananny in Inverness, Scotland where it is packed most nights and at the weekend is heaving. They book a lot of trad acts there. People do listen and react to the music but it tends to be turned up loud and the material is usually far more up-tempo than you might have found in a folk club. An unaccompanied ballad would be unusual.
On the other hand, it is bringing trad music into the mainstream. Bands like Shooglenifty revel in this loud, groove-based atmosphere where the audience is not expected to sit down. Neither are they doing Scots dances. It is really a new approach to Scottish music where people engage with the music in ways which probably owe as much to house music etc (not that I'm an authority) and is at least partly a function of the volume.

Even a band like Flook (two flutes, acoustic guitar and bodhran) seem to manage to thrive in this sort of atmosphere.

[Mark Normand]

Excellent thread gang, myself and one other formed a duo recently and should be playing out shortly. Everything here absorbed and much appreciated, pls keep it up.

This discussion reminded me I know an excellent sound engineer/ex-neighbor. I'm going to contact him and ask that he hear, test, & evaluate our plans, and hopefully an early venue attempt.

[Rick Crenshaw]

I don't post too often, but had to log in to let you guys know this is one of the best threads I've ever run across here. My band struggles a bit with this issue. Oh, we've got two systems ready and take charge of our own sound (a Bose PAS system, and a more traditional powered amp/mixer set up. Both have been used with either dynamics or LD condensers, depending on the venue).

What we need to do, and it is difficult, is to practice routinely using the systems. Most don't do well in our living rooms. Anyone found a solution for that?

Again, GREAT thread!

[Rick Crenshaw]

Oh, forgot to mention, that we bought EIM (Shure 200 systems) and found them invaluable when using condenser mics. One of the best purchases we've ever made!

[Troy Mayfield]

Sorta tangentedly related question...Our band normally plays close mic. Today we have a little gig where we will be all acoustic - instruments and vocals. I noticed last night that my Dunlop Gatorgrip 1.5mm pics simply weren't helping me with volume. So I grabbed a 1mm Big Stubby. Volume and clarity improved while in the band situation. Its pretty hard to compete with a banjo and booming 6 string. Anybody else experience anything like this:confused: or is it simply a case of me needing to improve my right hand;)

[Coffeecup]

Finally, I think a huge part of the problem with live sound in the last couple of decades has been the astounding escalation of the volume level that is perceived to be appropriate for acoustic music.

Best,
PK

Oh yes! Too often at festivals now I find that I sit outside the venue to listen because it is physically painful inside. But you've only got to hear the thump from vehicles travelling down the road to get an idea of what some people think is a "normal" volume. I wish you luck in your endevour to keep volumes reasonable - I think I'd like to come to one of your shows. ;)

[Jim]

Ran sound at a club for Harvey Reid a few years back and got better than average results. Mr Reid had an acoustic amp setup the way he liked it to sound we sent that signal to the board and out to the house. It was Great and simple. Now this was a one man act and that shouldn't be hard anyway but never in my experiance has good sound been easier.

I also learned early on to utilize the age old musician's trick of only offering about 60-70% of available volume to a tech during sound and line checks, and keeping the extra volume in reserve, only for if it is actually needed (some techs call this "sandbagging").
I've been a lead player in a band , I'm ashamed to say I've done this too, but don't, It's being part of the problem not the solution.

[JeffD]

All of this, for the professional musican, or even the non-pro for whom performance is the main interest, this stuff is essential. For the rest it seems like a separate hobby, another avocation to be absorbed by. And if you are absorbed by it, great.

The few times I do perform, I would like an "add water and stir" approach. Better yet, I would like to point to someone and say "make it so". I just wish there wasn't so much "art" to it - that someone couldn't say "here, just do this, it will sound great".

[Patrick Sylvest]

Every venue is different, and requires attention to details to get the sound right.

The band/musicians are responsible for being heard and mixed optimally. Sometimes this is provided for by the promoters of festivals....but when you're booked, do you ask? Is sound provided or do we provide our own? When it's provided, do you communicate with the sound man with regard to what's requried?

If you are unprepared to provide for your own sound, or at the very least give input with regard to your sound reinforcement/amplification needs, you aren't ready to be paid to play, regardless of your proficiency or talent.

[Jim Nollman]

Jim, your experience with Harvey Reid pretty much parallels my own recent experience doing sound for Tom Rush. He showed up with 2 acoustic guitars, his own mic, his own 30 pound acoustic amp. It took all of 5 minutes for me to set basic sound levels and EQ for the hall. Then he told me I wouldn't have to do anything else during the show, because he liked to control levels and EQ from his own amp. The only other thing he requested, was for me to tell him if, for some reason, he forgot to turn on the amp's mute switch while tuning, or, subsequently, if he forgot to turn the mute switch off again once he'd finished tuning. Simplest gig i ever did sound for. And one of the best sounding.

[Tim Bowen]

I also learned early on to utilize the age old musician's trick of only offering about 60-70% of available volume to a tech during sound and line checks, and keeping the extra volume in reserve, only for if it is actually needed (some techs call this "sandbagging").


I've been a lead player in a band , I'm ashamed to say I've done this too, but don't, It's being part of the problem not the solution.

Just because one loves the taste of potato chips doesn't mean one is required to snarf down the whole bag in one sitting. Just because one is in possession of a seven billion word vocabulary doesn't mean one needs to call on each of those words within a simple transaction of communication.

Keeping volume in reserve is only a problem for over zealous, inexperienced musicians that don't understand the principals of restraint. Understanding when such is necessary is part of the potential game plan, and if it's not necessary, great, as I'd prefer not to default to this approach. Stage and FOH sounds are a delicate balance at best, an indelicate balance at worst. In a perfect world, all involved understand the fine lines between volume, headroom, compression, and ambience. However, it's rarely a perfect world, and there are times when one is charged with the responsibility of looking after themself. The responsibility and subsequent decisions are likely best met and addressed after considerable experience has been gathered over a variety of situations over time.

This is a mandolin message board. If you play mandolin in full band situations with loud rhythm sections, the scenario is likely to be different than playing mandolin in a duo, trio, or any ensemble sans loud rhythm section. Same with playing banjo for that matter, which is why some folks choose to play electric banjos. If you play venues on Broadway in Nashville such as Tootsie's Wild Orchid Lounge or Fuel, with loads of fast food turnovers between acts, it's a good idea to pay attention during line checks, and it's a good idea to listen to what's being projected out front in that room with that tech and that instrumentation. If you're an electric guitarist and the tech insists that your prized Fender Telecaster and tube amp will sound "just fine" as DI'ed to the PA with the amp's volume on 'two', it's a good idea to maybe start thinking about how to best compensate for this less-than-optimum situation with the rig at hand, and certainly toward any future engagements within the venue. If the tech spends 90% of his or her time dialing in a "killer" bass and drums sound during check, and then during the performances, you can't hear or feel acoustic guitar, mandolin, violin, or banjo - and you play one or more of those instruments - then it might be a good idea to keep in mind that old reserve volume thing that was mentioned, for your set.

In playing dedicated "acoustic" rooms in the area, such as The Atlanta Room at Smith's Olde Bar and Eddie's Attic, as well as Bluebird Cafe in Tennessee, among others, I've come to know the sound of those rooms, the preferences and quirks of the engineers, and a little bit about what typical clientele (actually, specific demographic can be a player here) expects, or will warm up to. I don't want to "sandbag" those guys, I want a symbiotic relationship. I want to help them help me help them. Hopefully, all parties seek a good performance, vibe, and sound. That said, I'll say again that only the performer is responsible for performance. Techs are charged with the responsibility of reproducing or facilitating a performance, which is certainly no small feat.

The only thing I can think of that is worse than having too much and not needing it is having too little and not having it.

[Jim Nollman]

And on the other side of the same coin, last night I played my Eastman 515 at a contra dance along with a caller, two fiddles, guitar, bass and piano. In a 50 foot by 50 foot room with a rather low ceiling. Full of sweaty dancers although, perhaps sadly, none of them were under 40. None of the musicians used electricity. The caller stood in the middle of the dancers while the players were spread out along one wall. Everybody heard everybody else just fine. The most satisfying part of it was playing the occasional waltz, with increased improvisational flair, as the dancers swirled.

The way it was done everywhere a hundred years ago.