anything about music, stagecraft, sound engineering and general related gubbins?
This is a discussion I had last night, concerning a review where the reviewer blamed the band for 'over loud bass' or something to that effect.
It chimed with me cos I was at said gig, and the sound man was having a nightmare trying to get his woefully underpowered desk cope with the acoustics.
I remember reading the negative review and thinking that's crap though, the band couldn't have done anything about that.
they probably should
but I'm guessing a lot of them don't and it doesn't really bother the people that employ them, unless they work for serious serious music mags, like The Wire or hip hop mags or some specialised genre mag
I suppose it's kinda dull
everyone is entitled to opinions and all, but if the criticism or praise is unwarranted through ignorance it just annoys me.
yeahhh
I guess, but over-analytical reviews can be boring for the majority of people that aren't technically minded or like you say, equally ignorant of the complexities of the music
and really, with a gig, there are too many other factors - venue, audience, performance- that make it hard to give a completely fair review
hmm
but you are reviewing the overall performance, and that is detrimental to it. as much as you would like to you cant just think "oh, it would be better if the sound levels" and mark them up for it, because then you could just say "oh it would be better if the singer was in tune" or "it would be better if they kept in time" and just ignore any negativities.
those are my two cents
music reviewers
don't need to be experts on sound levels and stuff but they should go to LOADS of gigs. An understanding of what comes from the band and what comes from the engineer is just kinda absorbed from seeing lots of live music.
i reckon anyhow.
No they don't.
It's irrelavent what made the show sound shit. If it sounded shit or was shit through no direct fault of the band, it was still shit.
That's like suggesting that they need to know about recording and how a studio works if they are to review a record. If the drums and guitars sound shit on a record, and it ruins the record... you're allowed to say it's a shit record, rather than blame the engineer and say it's a great record.
^ this
if the experience of the night and the performance of the band were inhibited by bad sound then the reviewer should write that the gig sounded bad.
it doesn't matter whether this was a PA that wasn't powerful enough, or an amp catching fire or the guitarist being completely ham-fisted.
of course, if you were at the gig and enjoyed it then why the need for vindication by someone you don't know to justify the feeling that you had a good time?
^ no way
Bad sound is not a bands fault, and as such should not be part of a bad review of said band.
it might not be their fault
but if it spoils the experience for the audience watching them then it's perfectly legitimate for a reviewer to write that the night was ruined by bad sound during the bands set.
Not really
no. The way I see it is that a review is meant to be from the viewpoint of and for the average consumer, and without meaning to sound detrimental the average buyer of music whether that be in the form of recorded output or live performance will have little to no knowledge of the technical side of things. However, that doesn't mean to say if the sound doesn't seem quite right they shouldn't question or challenge it.
Agree.
The fact is, if it sounds shit, it sound shit. You don't have to blame the band for it, but it certainly is to the detriment of the overall live performance.
Which is basically what most people have said here...
.
wrong
Think about the function of a gig review, though;
it's both a statement about the show itself (in which case, fair enough; if it sounded shit it sounded shit) but it's also an attempt to judge the band's potential. And should readers make an effort to see them in future?
Reviewers should try to review the gig on it's own terms, but the band on their independent merit.
In my opinion,
all that a reviewer needs to know is if its good or sh*te!
You can't judge a band for a soundman
reviews hold a lot of swaying power, and if the sound man is shite, and the reviewer blames the band, people will be less inclined to check them out. If the reviewer doesn't understand the basics of sound i.e what the band does and what the sound man does, they shouldn't be reviewing in the first place.
...
In the cases of larger bands, it's completely their own fault if they sound shit seeing as the soundman is an employee of theirs and essentially a member of the bands live set up. It's not like if you saw the Rolling Stones and the bass was played terribly, you say the gig was great and not shit because it's okay, the bassist isn't reeeallly in the band cos he's session.
The sound guys really
aren't in the band though; and even in cases where they are affiliated with the band in some way (and a band has to be doing pretty well to have the kind of pull for that) they're not likely to have the ability handpick them, surely? It'll be the management's decision.
At the other end of the scale, you could have a gig ruined by a talky crowd. The band could have given the performance of their lives, but by this token they'd get not a word of credit because the experience of the night wasn't there. You pull apart the merit and the experience.
mate,
get a clue before you post on a public forum.
Negative
I have put on shit loads of shows and so many small bands tour with a soundman.
What do you mean they're not likely to have the ability to choose them? If it sounds shit, then they should say something.
Poor sound of larger bands = bands fault if they're employing someone who is not doing their job.
It's like suggesting that shit artwork is nothing to do with the band if a design company did it. They paid for it and can or should have input into it, therefore it's their fault if they choose to go with shit artwork.
I'm
Not suggesting that poor sound = poor performance but it certainly is a huge factor in people's enjoyment of a show and cannot be ignored. It's not entirely the fault of the band if it's a small show but for example... all the bands on your list of bands you like... will tour with soundmen... if they employ someone who can't do their job and expect you to pay 10 quid to go see them... then that's bullshit and the band's fault.
My Bloody Valentine have a whole thread criticizing their sound. They will not only be touring with a soundman, they'll be touring with a PA if they're doing places like the Roundhouse... if they have got a shit soundman or an underpowered PA... it's their own fault they sound shit and if 3000 people are paying 20 quid to see them... it should be duly noted in the review that they're not doing what they're supposed to.
except
mbv sound fucking awesome.
thought i'd better add that.
Yes.
But it depends how bad the sound is. If it's so muddy and undefined that everything is lost in the mire then it's hard to give much of a decent review. If it's minor things and it doesn't detract too much then you can give a fairer assessment.
.
i saw the deftones on their last tour. now i know they are a good band, i have all their albums, but the sound at the front of the hall was unbearably loud and towards the middle and back a swampy mire where all melody and instruments were lost.
therefore, even if it was the hardest playing and most heartfelt intensity the band had ever put into a show, i consider this a pretty poor gig.
people saying that bad sound isn't a band's fault
it sort of is tho isn't it? the band didn't employ a decent sound man. thus there's every possibility that future gigs will also sound shit.
obviously with smaller bands its more to do with the promoter than the band, but i think readers are smart enough to take teh salient points from reviews
^^^
Exactly this.
If it's a big band... you got ripped off because they're getting money and not spending it on making you have a good time.
Most bands who can shift 200 tickets will be touring with a soundman and pretty much every band on a major label will be touring with their own soundman from the label's tour support.
you know what the best thing is about being a reviewer?
spelling someone's name wrong, then it going all over the internet. And before you know it everyone is spelling the person's name like you misspelt it. For some reason this made me laugh for half an hour last night.
I kind of don't want to rectify my mistake. It's far too funny.
Does this make me a bad person?! xo
They...
don't know nothing half the time. Mostly they choose who to review, and/or they're already good mates with the band. There should be a magazine thats out there for everything behind the works. Interviews with drivers, tour managers, stage crew, promoters...im fed up of reading reviews or interviews with boring bands, with stupid fashion, stupid names and butt ugly faces.
Anybody want to make this happen? let me know!
no
that would be boring as fuck.
"hi im a roadie, im 45 and im fat. i used to be in a band but now im 45 and im fat. im divorced and im 45 and im fat"
"So there I am, in Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, at about 3 o'clock in the morning
looking for one thousand brown M&Ms to fill a brandy glass, or Ozzy wouldn't go on stage that night. So, Jeff Beck pops his head 'round the door, and mentions there's a little sweets shop on the edge of town. So - we go. And - it's closed. So there's me, and Keith Moon, and David Crosby, breaking into that little sweets shop, eh. Well, instead of a guard dog, they've got this bloody great big Bengal tiger. I managed to take out the tiger with a can of mace, but the shopowner and his son... that's a different story altogether. I had to beat them to death with their own shoes. Nasty business, really. But, sure enough, I got the M&Ms, and Ozzy went on stage and did a great show."
^ Wayne's World 2 quote?
you dont have to pinpoint precisely what made the gig bad do you?
if you thought it sounded too loud you can say that, and use the resources avaialable to you to expand upon that.
If you say the gig didnt sound good, you arent saying the bad are bad, just that the gig wasnt good.