[Dixielandjazz] Marek's comments re: Acoustic vs Amplified

[Marek Boym]

You're right, of course, re. size and acoustics.  One of the best ever
shows I attended was at the "Simta Theatre"  in old Jaffa, on the roof
(open air), where mics were only used for announcements and vocals.
Recently, it was a Swing de Gitanes concert at the private living room
of a Jaffa gallery owner; sounded great, but brass probably wouldn't.
No, I do not expect unamplified music at open-air concerts with over
2000 people, and I have commented on the great sound at the Caesarea
"Jazz at the Harbour" festival (that's king Herod's harbour, albeit
not the one from the new Testament, but one of his heirs).
Cheers

On 13/05/2008, John Wilder <JohnWilder at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Marek, and thanks for the reply!
>
> A very big thanks also, by the way, to all others who replied both on and
> off list to my last post.  I appreciate your interest and encouragement.
>
> Marek, you said you prefer acoustic over amplified for reasons of reasonable
> volume.  To this, I would say two things:
>
> First, I hope you only go to very small, intimate venues with great natural
> acoustics to hear the acoustic music, because in most cases the attributes
> of the hall in which the band plays (if it's bigger than say 30-40 people)
> terribly distorts the music - a problem which can be overcome by a good
> sound system (of course, with a good sound engineer as well - a sound system
> is only as good as its' operator!).  I love acoustic music if it's played by
> a smaller combo very evenly balanced in a acoustically well-tuned hall.
> Know of one?  I don't, unless you count concert halls.  Even in concert
> halls where the symphonies play without benefit of amplification someone
> paid big bucks to have a sound engineer design the hall for optimum
> acoustics.
>
> Second, As I mentioned in my post, most bands do not use sound systems to
> best advantage.  Many, in fact, use sound systems to their detriment!  Their
> idea is frequently that the system is there to make any quiet instrument in
> the band loud enough for the venue, and many of them judge wrong on the side
> of too loud, rather than too quiet.  Certain instruments (trumpet and drums,
> for example) are sometimes deemed to already be loud enough, so they are not
> mic'ed at all.  Others, such as clarinet and vocalist are mic'ed, but with
> out benefit of compression, so when the clarinet plays low you still can't
> hear him, but when he plays loud the audience holds their ears.
>
> One big advantage that live musicians have over DJ's is that without
> exception, a live musician has dedicated months, years, or even decades to
> learning the craft and art of playing his instrument before playing the
> gigs, where a DJ could just go out and buy some DJ equipment and be in
> business playing gigs tomorrow.  However, you won't find many long time live
> band leaders who know as much about sound systems as a typical working DJ -
> especially OKOM leaders.  DJ's worry about the sound that comes out of their
> system.  Musicians frequently worry only about the sound that comes out of
> their instrument, and if they can be heard.  Often, however, when playing
> through a poorly set up sound system, the answer would be, "Yes, I can hear
> you, but you sound like nails scratching on a chalk board!"
>
> What do you produce by playing this instrument that you worked so hard to
> learn?  Sound!!!  Quality sound's the thing!  Why then do most band leaders
> work for years on improving their tone, and then go out and buy the
> cheapest, junky sound system they can find to play gigs?  Most have no
> monitor system, use cheap mic's and even cheaper speakers.  They rarely go
> into the hall to see how the sound is blending for the audience.  The sound
> of a band is (and often should be) very different when heard from the stage
> behind the main speakers than when heard out in the audience.
>
> I would say that most of these guys who have spent years learning to perfect
> their tone on the instrument have spent probably less than an hour learning
> to use their sound system.  Have they even read the manual?  No, because
> they bought the system used (and abused), and it didn't come with a manual!
>
> Many are still using old systems built back in the 60's or 70's.
>
> Several great books on setting up and mixing live sound are available from
> most any big music store for about $20.  Band leaders: Have you ever bought
> one?  Have you read it?
>
> I had a band leader ball me out once because I changed the tone settings on
> his PA.  He said it was set all wrong for his next gig and he didn't know
> how to fix it.  To me, this is somewhat akin to taking a keyboard out on a
> job and saying, "Oops, sorry, I can't play.  Someone changed the sound
> setting from piano to organ, and I don't know how to set it back."  Are
> there any guitar players out there who would send a student out to play a
> gig before the student knew how to tune the guitar or change a string?  I
> think not!  You should ALWAYS learn your equipment before you use it.  That
> goes for sound equipment as well.
>
> Also, When some instruments come through a speaker system and others are
> acoustic, the audience perceives the sound as being louder than if all
> elements of it come through the speakers.  Having to listen through the
> speakers and to several live acoustic musicians on stage requires more focus
> on the part of the audience.  This takes more of their attention, and is
> perceived by them as more overpowering without actually being louder.  This
> is why I frequently mic the drummers, even though they tell me they're
> already loud enough.  A thin, screechy tone or a dull, thuddy one also
> forces the audience to focus more to understand the music, thereby creating
> the feeling that the band is way too loud!
>
> Easy listening music is "Easy" to listen to because it's mixed, adjusted for
> tone and balanced to make all of the parts flow as one sound.  Several
> sounds coming at you - some amplified and full-bodied, some acoustically
> thin and screechy, some booming and obnoxious - does not make for an "Easy"
> listen.
>
> When I set up my system, the sound I'm looking for is for the audience to
> feel like we are playing extremely quietly just for them, and they're
> sitting right next to all of us, hearing full rich and lush tones from all
> of the instruments surrounding them.  I want them to hear every nuance in
> perfect balance.  I'd almost bet that if you heard my band (even in a larger
> hall) through my state-of-the-art sound system you wouldn't say it was too
> loud.  I would hope you'd say that we sound glorious, just like we're
> playing acoustically in a grand concert hall!
>
>
> John Wilder
> JohnWilder at Comcast.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marek Boym [mailto:marekboym at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:45 PM
> To: JohnWilder at comcast.net; Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
> Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Some Thoughts on Adding More Recent Music to
> OKOM Bands - was Igor's Question
>
> In general, I agree.
> I come from the other side - the listener.  I like to hear things I do
> NOT recognize, which means - songs of today.  The only Beatles song I
> know from the Beatles is "Yellow Submarine" - I took my son to see the
> film.  All the other Beatles songs I know I've heard played by jazz
> bands - Kenny Ball, Basie, etc.
> There is one point on which I beg to disagree - amplification.  I do
> not remember the pre-amplification days - in the mid-fifties
> everything woa amplified (but not overly so) .  Still, the shows I
> remember as best were acoustic; I much prefer it that way, not for
> nostalgia reason, but for reasons of reasonable volume.
> Cheers
>
>
>