OT sort of ...Pay a critic

[BluesKeys]

How many people would like their band to sound the best it can? I am talking about from sonically (overall mix) to song selection to vocalist singing (who should/shouldn't sing a particular song).

 

I was thinking about this after watching bands this weekend and knowing how my band botched a fat gig.

 

I heard bands with out front sound guys and with the mixing done from stage. I found that there were problems with just about every band I came across.

 

List of Problems

1. Keys mostly none existent in the mix.

2. Vocals not balanced with each other or the music

3. EQ not good... IE no crispness to the sound

4. EQ ... muddy in the middle

5. EQ ... to heavy in bass

6. Not a good mix on drums

7. Horns not mixed properly (to loud mostly/ some band too soft)

9. Song selection weak (people not dancing)

10. Too fast on tempos

11. No Groove (tempo problems usually)

12. Usually there is someone in the band that SHOULD NOT sing and does sing.

 

 

I just can't beleive the bands with sound guys out front who have some of these problems. If I had that mess I would fire the soundman on the spot. Then you start critiquing the musicianship it's a whole nother ball of wax.

 

How many would pay a fee to have someone (professional) do a one job critique of your band?

 

I think it would be money invested well myself.

[MikeT156]

Actually, thats a great idea. You would need to find another musician to do it. Finding a good soundman is like trying to find a drummer that doesn't hit on your girl friend. Most sound guys are not musicians and never had any kind of training or know how it should sound. The ultimate would be a 5 man band that one of the players could go out front an listen, then the KB player could go out and listen next. We're not all in the position to have that situation.

 

As a OMB, I do all the roadie work and run my sound from where I sit. I keep my speakers about 6 to 8 feet from me, so I get a decent fix on the total sound. I let my ears be the judge and most of the time, it sounds right. But being in a band complicates things. All the above problems you mentioned should/could be eliminated with a good soundman that is also a musician.

 

Mike T.

[ProfD]

A good soundman is akin to the "5th Beatle".

 

While many of us are jack-of-all-trades when it comes to music stuff, there is a benefit to having an equally talented individual handling another aspect of the process.

 

IMO, the best "critic" is a non-musician. Find a genuine music lover. Ask him or her to provide feedback from a listener perspective.

 

Musicians obsess over technical details on a different level often minimizing their objectivity.

[MikeT156]

ProfD:

 

The only trouble with using a "genuine music lover" instead of a musician is they don't know how its suppose to sound. How can they tell if the vocal mix is correct? How could they tell if one voice is louder than the other or "suppose" to be that way? I don't know if I would be overly technical when checking sound, but I know I should be able to hear all the instruments, and the vocals should "blend", and the band shouldn't be too loud for the room. That's not overly technical, but I think it requires something other than a novice to understand how it should sound.

 

 

Mike T.

[kanker.]

How many would pay a fee to have someone (professional) do a one job critique of your band?

 

I think it would be money invested well myself.

You could be on to something here, a good way to make a little extra flow on those pesky nights off.

[Gismo Recording]

ProfD:

 

The only trouble with using a "genuine music lover" instead of a musician is they don't know how its suppose to sound. How can they tell if the vocal mix is correct? How could they tell if one voice is louder than the other or "suppose" to be that way? I don't know if I would be overly technical when checking sound, but I know I should be able to hear all the instruments, and the vocals should "blend", and the band shouldn't be too loud for the room. That's not overly technical, but I think it requires something other than a novice to understand how it should sound.

 

 

Mike T.

No one suggested a novice. There are plenty of genuine music lovers who don't know how to play an instrument but know very well how it's supposed to sound.

[MikeT156]

Quote by 149Keys:

 

"No one suggested a novice. There are plenty of genuine music lovers who don't know how to play an instrument but know very well how it's supposed to sound."

 

Not in my experience. In most "Clubs" 1/3 of the audience is there to pick someone up, no, check that, 2/3's of the audience is there to pick someone up, the other 1/3 is there to drink, cause trouble, be a PINTA to someone, or just doesn't give a damn who's playing.

 

In all seriousness, The average music lover couldn't distinguish good sound from great sound, a good mix, or even if the instruments are tuned properly. I've often heard non musicians say "I don't know music, but I know what I like", then proceed to ask me if I know any Guns and Roses. Right.

 

I would leave sound to the professionals, semi professionals, and musicians. You can do as you like.

 

Mike T.

[ProfD]

MikeT, I was not suggesting a novice as Ken alluded nor someone handpicked from the crowd who doesn't know a piezo from a tweeter.

 

Find a musician preferably outside the band who appreciates the sound of music. That person should be able to sit out in the audience and provide useful feedback objectively.

 

Kanker is right. It would be an excellent way for musicians to pick up a few extra coins on an off night.

 

No, the folks who are there to pick up someone else and/or get drunk just want it cranked up so they can proceed to ignore the band.

[BluesKeys]

How many would pay a fee to have someone (professional) do a one job critique of your band?

 

I think it would be money invested well myself.

You could be on to something here, a good way to make a little extra flow on those pesky nights off.

 

Kanker SHUT UP will ya... you are on to my idea here. I think there is a place for this and I could be of some use to bands to sound better.

 

My thought is if we can increase the level of good bands we will get more people to come out and support them. More support (people) means more clubs/better pay(hopefully)/more jobs.

 

You are only going to get a percentage of bands who want to improve or will even pay someone to help them improve. Then after they have used my services will they implement my suggestions or argue about whether they are valid suggestions. Who knows....

[ProfD]

Yep, when you show up a gig and fellow musos ask the proverbial, are you hitting tonight?

 

Nah dude, I'm getting paid to Ebert.

 

 

[kanker.]

Kanker SHUT UP will ya... you are on to my idea here.

Aw, it's all good Jim. We live in different markets.

[SilverDragonSoun]

Through my business. I have consulted with a few bands on their sound and gave my critism. To be honest, both sides of the argument of musician vs non musician to listen and critique are both valid. I think the person themselves rather than the musician versus the non musician is the real argument. The girl I dated previously was a music lover and she caught a few subtle things that I didn't.

[BluesKeys]

Kanker, I should have added

 

We're cool ... I really do think there is a market for this service. Now does anyone want to help with criteria?

[MikeT156]

quote by ProfD:

 

"Find a musician preferably outside the band who appreciates the sound of music. That person should be able to sit out in the audience and provide useful feedback objectively".

 

That's what I'm getting at...a MUSICIAN. I would also add to that other "qualified" people, studio engineers and producers(even small studios) mix sound, understand dynamics, etc. I'm sure others can add to the list of what they would consider qualified people to critic a band's mix.

 

Thing is, I never met someone not plugged into the MI one way or the other that could critic a mix and know what he was listening too on a professional level. I think that a critic should have a knowledge of the material being played (or at least some of it), the appropriate harmonies, how the voices blend (is the baritone voice overpowering the higher parts?), and the mix of the instruments. Dynamics is important too, once the mix sounds right. I just don't see the average person with no connection to music, even in a semi professional way, able to do that. Take it for what its worth, one man's opinion. MINE!

 

 

Mike T.

[ProfD]

Now does anyone want to help with criteria?

 

Hmmm....the professional association hasn't gotten off the ground yet. Well, at least I don't have the coveted badge.

 

1) Lead vocal mic should always be slightly hotter than the rest (background vox) unless the singer is not very good.

 

2) Bad singer--Blend in with guitars. See #4.

 

3) Bass drum should be nice and tight with the right amount of thump to make it present without making the audience deaf.

 

4) Guitars should not be in the house. Amps are plenty enough. OK, put them through during rhythm parts. Solos can be turned down a little bit.

 

5) Bass guitar should blend with the bass drum to create a solid pocket.

 

6) Keys--should be omnipresent in the mix. What else would you expect?

 

All of this works for any style or genre of music.

 

Folks should not be subject to 130 db SPLs unless they are standing directly in front of the speakers. If such is the case, they got their money's worth.

 

Feel free to add, change or delete as necessary. This just gets the ball rolling.

[ProfD]

I just don't see the average person with no connection to music, even in a semi professional way, able to do that. Take it for what its worth, one man's opinion. MINE! Mike T.

 

The average person spends money to hear live music. You'd probably need a musician and a party-goer sitting down together. That way you have the best of both worlds.