bad moments onstage

[Simon]

I wonder if this would have happened in the days before in-ear monitors - and the band heard almost exactly what the audience was hearing instead of their own individually tailored feeds.

Not necessarily, more often than not the main PA was in front of the stage anyway and the performers had seperate "wedges" to hear what they were playing, so it still could have happened.

The vocalist would undoubtedly have wanted to hear his voice though - thats what singers do - want to hear their own voices :-) So he/she would have a good idea if the mix was wrong.

[Simon]

The opening 2 songs at Newcastle in 2008. The sound engineer had got it badly wrong and the vocals couldn't be heard properly above the 'wail' of sound. I was getting seriously upset as I thought the whole gig would be like that. Fortunately it was sorted by the 3rd song.

Things like that should never happen, not ever. The amount of time and resources that are put into getting things just right and the fine detail that goes into the whole production are suddenly forgotten about when something really simple is goes wrong.

I wonder if this would have happened in the days before in-ear monitors - and the band heard almost exactly what the audience was hearing instead of their own individually tailored feeds.

As Dusty points out, a band doesn't hear what the audience hear. No difference between in-ear monitors or other monitors.

About the sound in the hall: The caracteristics of the hall normally change drastically when it's filled with people, so it's almost impossible to avoid sound problems during the first songs.   

I think there is a difference between IEMs and normal stage monitors. Firstly no one can hear what you are listening to in your IEMs so you can have any mix you choose. You can't have 6 or 7 stage monitors playing  a different mix through each - that would sound awful to those performing and there would possibly be phase issues. That's why I said the band almost heard what the audience heard.

[Simon]

The opening 2 songs at Newcastle in 2008. The sound engineer had got it badly wrong and the vocals couldn't be heard properly above the 'wail' of sound. I was getting seriously upset as I thought the whole gig would be like that. Fortunately it was sorted by the 3rd song.

Things like that should never happen, not ever. The amount of time and resources that are put into getting things just right and the fine detail that goes into the whole production are suddenly forgotten about when something really simple is goes wrong.

I wonder if this would have happened in the days before in-ear monitors - and the band heard almost exactly what the audience was hearing instead of their own individually tailored feeds.

As Dusty points out, a band doesn't hear what the audience hear. No difference between in-ear monitors or other monitors.

About the sound in the hall: The caracteristics of the hall normally change drastically when it's filled with people, so it's almost impossible to avoid sound problems during the first songs.   

I am sure even a half good sound engineer can cope with the difference between a full hall and an empty hall though. And if that were the case it would happen at every concert everywhere. i know, why don't they invite us all to the sound check - how cool would that be? :-) You may have a point there for a bit of leverage to getting in on the afternoon!

[dmg]

I am sure even a half good sound engineer can cope with the difference between a full hall and an empty hall though. And if that were the case it would happen at every concert everywhere. i know, why don't they invite us all to the sound check - how cool would that be? :-) You may have a point there for a bit of leverage to getting in on the afternoon!
[/quote]

But Guy keeps telling us they're so, so good that now they don't even need to do soundchecks and that's why the sound is so great!

[ds1984]

I am sure even a half good sound engineer can cope with the difference between a full hall and an empty hall though. And if that were the case it would happen at every concert everywhere. i know, why don't they invite us all to the sound check - how cool would that be? :-) You may have a point there for a bit of leverage to getting in on the afternoon!

But Guy keeps telling us they're so, so good that now they don't even need to do soundchecks and that's why the sound is so great!
[/quote]


Soundwise, the RAH is a nightmare.
To get a real good sound there it is lot of work as the hall is not designed for amplified music.
Beside it can be excellent to one area and very bad a few meters away. There are some box that I won't definitively go back in again.

I had the opportunity to chat with a singer that performed on that stage. She explained that the echo from the back is 2-4 second delayed so it is very difficult for vocal performer to properly work in such condition. Myself in 2001 seated on the 2nd tiers box I saw MK drummer hit his tom and but the sound was coming late.

Using IEM for musician is a huge improvement because they cut from the disturbing accoustic artefac of the venue.

[dustyvalentino]

The vocalist would undoubtedly have wanted to hear his voice though - thats what singers do - want to hear their own voices :-) So he/she would have a good idea if the mix was wrong.

Yup, but still only the monitor mix, which will be different to the front of house mix. Monitor mix could have vocals in it with no vocals going to the front of house mix, regardless of whether it was IEM or wedges.

[Mossguitar]

The opening 2 songs at Newcastle in 2008. The sound engineer had got it badly wrong and the vocals couldn't be heard properly above the 'wail' of sound. I was getting seriously upset as I thought the whole gig would be like that. Fortunately it was sorted by the 3rd song.

Things like that should never happen, not ever. The amount of time and resources that are put into getting things just right and the fine detail that goes into the whole production are suddenly forgotten about when something really simple is goes wrong.

I wonder if this would have happened in the days before in-ear monitors - and the band heard almost exactly what the audience was hearing instead of their own individually tailored feeds.

As Dusty points out, a band doesn't hear what the audience hear. No difference between in-ear monitors or other monitors.

About the sound in the hall: The caracteristics of the hall normally change drastically when it's filled with people, so it's almost impossible to avoid sound problems during the first songs.   

I think there is a difference between IEMs and normal stage monitors. Firstly no one can hear what you are listening to in your IEMs so you can have any mix you choose. You can't have 6 or 7 stage monitors playing  a different mix through each - that would sound awful to those performing and there would possibly be phase issues. That's why I said the band almost heard what the audience heard.

No difference between IEMs and normal stage monitors when it comes to allowing different mix through each speakers. You usually have your own personal mix in your own stage monitor. The singer normally has much louder vocals in his/her monitor than in the FOH mix or in my monitor. And I have a lot of my guitars in mine, especially acoustic guitars. (It depends on the stage size. If it's small, I normally use my guitar amp as a monitor for electric guitars.) This makes it interesting to move around the stage during the a concert (as I tend to do a lot if the stage size allows me), because suddenly you stand before another band members monitor, and the sound is all different (and where did the sound of my guitar go?! ) The last gig I played, the drummer wanted loud piano in his monitor, because he coudn't see the pianist. He didn't need much electric guitar, because my amp was standing right beside him. I could see the pianist and heard a lot of sound directly from the grand piano, so I didn't need much piano in my monitor. And so on and so forth... (as mk puts it )